PROSOCIAL BEHAVIORS Part-I

Pro social behaviors are any act that benefits others, but do not provide any direct benefit to the person who performs the act,and may even involve some degree of risk. The possible satisfaction of being able to help someone is the only reward. It can vary from something simple to very dangerous. Sometimes word altruism is another term which is used instead of pro social behavior. But its just an unselfish concern for the welfare of others. We will discuss 4 major areas in Pro-social behavior.

1.    Bystander helping and steps involved

2.    External and internal Factors affecting pro social behavior

3.    Long term pro social behaviors

4.    Explanation of  Pro-Social Behaviors.

 

1.BY STANDER HELPING AND STEPS INVOLVED-

The bystander can react to the emergency situation in either of the three ways-

Heroism- action that involves corageous risk taking to obtain a socially valued goal. Both aspects must be involved. Eg. Life saving attempts, donating kydney.

Altruistic behavior- behavior that is motivated by unselfish concern for the welfare of others

Apathy: A lack of intrest, enthusiasm or concern towards a person who seeks help

Catherine (Kitty)Genovese Case-

          Psychological interest in pro social behavior was sparked by an incident where bystanders failed to help a stranger in distress. Coming home from work as bar manager, kitty was crossing the street when a man with knife approched her. Genovese ran screaming, but was chased by the man until her was close enough to stab her.hearing her scream, lights went on in many nearby apartments but they overlooked the scene. Many residents looked out, trying to figure out whats happening. At this point, attacker started to leave, but seeing no one is coming to help her, attacker returned and finished murdering her. The 45 minute attack was witnessed by 38 residents, but none of them ventured out to help her or call police.

John Darley and Bibb Latane (1968) proposed the reason as Diffusion of responsiblity, ie, More bystanders are present, the less responsiblity any one of them feels. They designed an experiment through which concept of bystander effect was drawn.

They proposed that the likelihood of a person engaging in prosocial act is determined by a series of descisions that must be made quickly by those who witness emergency.they are:

Step 1:Noticing something unsual is happening-

 Generally we dont anticipate the emergency, and stick to our preoccupation. Hence most time fail to notice the emegency. Many in kitty case would not have even noticed something unsual is happening outside.

Darley and Batson(1973), conducted a filed study to test importance of the first step. Condected research with students in training for clergy.They were instructed to walk nearby campus to give a talk, but preoccupied with 3 different condition. Some were told they have plenty of extra time to reach building, some told they are right in schedule, adn others told they are late. Along the route to building, an emergency was staged. A stranger slumped in a doorway, coughing and groaning. Results showed- 63% of the participate who had time to spare, 45% of participants on time, and 10% of participants who were late responded to stranger.

          Person who is busy, hence might not notice the emergency .

Step 2: Correctly interpreting event as emergency-

Most often we only have a limited and incomplete information as to what exactly is happening. Hence when potential helpers are not completely sure about what is going on, they tend to hold back and wait for further information. Would have happen with kitty case, as bystanders would have thought to be drunk people having fun or husband-wife fight.

          When only ambigious information is available, most people are inclined to accept comforting interpretation that does not need to take action. Also it explains how diffusion of responsiblity works- people hold back as its embarrassing to mis interpret a situation in public.

          Also, when with fellow observers, we rely on social comparisons to test our interpretations. If other people show no alarm about the event, we believe its safe to follow their lead. The tendency bystanders in an emergency to rely on what other bystanders do and say, even though none of them is sure about what is happening is known as pluralistic ignorance.

          Latane & Darly (1968) conducted a study on students, where, the investigators placed placed students in a room alone or with two other students, and asked them to fill up questionaire. After few minutes, experimenters pumped smoke into reserch room through a vent. When alone (75%), left the room and reported the problem. When 3 people were in room, only 38% reacted to smoke.

Inhibiting effect is less if room contain freinds, as they are more likely to communicate. True with small town people Alchahol reduces the fear of doing wrong thing, hence more helpful.

Step 3: Deciding that its your responsiblity-

          If responsiblity is not clear, people assume that anyone in leadership role must take responsiblity. If one bystander, he takes charge. If its his responsiblity, then also he attends.

Step 4: Deciding that you have necessary knowledge or skills to act-

          Pro-social response cannot occur unless person knows how to be helpful. Some are simple, everyone can help, others are complesx, where only expert can help.

Step 5: Making final decision to provide help-

          Even if one has necessary skills, helping can be interffered by fear about potential negetive consequences.