Prosocial Behavior (College Board AP® Psychology): Revision Note

Prosocial behavior & altruism

Prosocial behavior

• Prosocial behavior refers to voluntary behavior intended to benefit others

  • E.g. helping, sharing, cooperating, and donating

• Two key norms underpin prosocial behavior:

  • Social reciprocity norm: the expectation that people should return favors

    • E.g. returning a favor to a colleague who helped you with a project

  • Social responsibility norm: the expectation that people should help those in need, even without return

    • E.g. helping a stranger who has fallen in the street, even though you will never see them again

Altruism

• Altruism refers to helping others at a personal cost without expectation of reward

  • E.g. donating anonymously to charity

• Some researchers question whether true altruism exists:

  • Apparently selfless behavior may ultimately be motivated by social debt

    • The desire to avoid the guilt that you owe something, or to gain social approval

  • From this perspective, prosocial behavior is always partly self-serving, even when it appears purely altruistic

The bystander effect

• The bystander effect is the reduced likelihood of helping in an emergency when others are present

• The more bystanders present:

  • the less likely any single person is to help

  • the longer it takes for help to be offered

    • E.g. a person who collapses in a crowded street may receive less prompt help than a person who collapses when only one or two other people are nearby

The case of Kitty Genovese

• The bystander effect was brought to attention by the 1964 murder of Kitty Genovese in New York City

• Initial reports claimed that 38 witnesses failed to intervene, raising concerns about urban apathy

• Although these details were later disputed, the case prompted Darley & Latané to study bystander behavior systematically

Darley & Latané's research

• Darley and Latané (1968) conducted the foundational experimental study of the bystander effect

Aim

• To determine whether the presence of others reduces helping behavior in an emergency

Procedure

• Participants believed they were taking part in a discussion about personal problems via an intercom system

• They were led to believe they were speaking with either one other person, two others, or five others

• During the discussion, one participant (a confederate) appeared to have a seizure, calling for help

• The dependent variable was whether the participant left the room to seek help, and how quickly

Findings

• When participants believed they were the only one who could hear the emergency: 85% helped, with a mean response time of 52 seconds

• When participants believed one other person could also hear: 62% helped

• When participants believed five other people could also hear: only 31% helped, with a mean response time of 166 seconds

• These findings directly demonstrated that the likelihood of helping decreases as group size increases

Explanations for the bystander effect

• Darley & Latané identified two key psychological mechanisms:

• Diffusion of responsibility :

  • When multiple people are present, each individual feels less personally responsible for taking action

    • E.g. "someone else will deal with it"

  • The larger the group, the more responsibility is diffused

    • E.g. in Darley & Latané's study, participants who believed five others could help felt only a fraction of the responsibility felt by participants who believed they were the only witness

• Pluralistic ignorance:

  • In ambiguous emergencies, people look to others' reactions to determine whether the situation is genuinely an emergency

    • If others appear calm and unconcerned, each individual interprets the situation as non-urgent, even if privately uncertain

  • This creates a mismatch where everyone is privately concerned but publicly calm, reinforcing inaction

    • E.g. someone smells smoke but sees others acting normally, so no one responds

Situational and attentional variables

• Whether a person helps in an emergency depends on a series of situational and attentional decision points:

  • Noticing: is the person paying attention to the situation?

    • If distracted or busy, they may not notice the emergency at all

  • Interpreting as an emergency: does the person interpret the situation as genuinely requiring help?

    • Ambiguous situations reduce helping

  • Assuming responsibility: does the person feel personally responsible for helping?

    • Diffusion of responsibility reduces this in groups

  • Knowing how to help: does the person have the skills or knowledge to provide assistance?

    • Lack of confidence in one's own skills reduces helping

  • Deciding to act: even if all prior conditions are met, situational factors (e.g., cost, risk, embarrassment) can prevent action

• Each decision points is a potential failure point

  • The larger the group, the more likely that one or more of these points fails

Reducing the bystander effect

• The bystander effect can be reduced by:

  • Singling out individuals: directly addressing a specific person eliminates diffusion of responsibility

    • E.g. "You in the red jacket - call an ambulance!"

  • Reducing ambiguity: clearly labeling the situation as an emergency removes pluralistic ignorance

  • Education: knowing about the bystander effect reduces its power

    • People who understand the mechanism are more likely to act despite group presence

Ethical evaluation of Darley & Latané's research

Deception

• Participants were misled about the nature of the study and the identity of the other "participants" (who were confederates or pre-recorded voices)

• Meaningful informed consent was not possible given the deceptive design

Psychological distress

• Participants were placed in a genuinely distressing situation, i.e. believing another person was having a medical emergency and feeling unable or unwilling to act

• Those who did not help may have experienced guilt or anxiety as a result

Debriefing

• Participants were debriefed after the study

• The distress caused was temporary and participants were informed of the study's purpose

Scientific value

• The study produced findings of major practical importance, e.g.

  • informing emergency response training

  • public safety campaigns

  • bystander intervention programs