1. Social Responsibility
PAGES

2. What you will learn Social Responsibility Bystanderism
Promoting prosocial behavior

3. Prosocial behavior Behavior can be broken down into two categories:
Prosocial: any behavior that benefits others. considered supportive of social norms. (e.g. lending pen to stranger, donating blood or organ, etc).
Antisocial: represents rejection of the norms by which we have all agreed to live. Any behavior that causes (or will likely) cause harm to other (e.g. violent behavior, abusive language, graffiti, etc)
Helping behavior is any type of social assistance or interpersonal support. Prosocial is more focused, action intended to help another.
Altruism is narrowest form on helping behavior: helping another is entirely empathetic and characterized by a desire to benefit person in need; no benefit to the helper is assumed.
Prosocial behavior and altruism can be difficult to differentiate in experiment
Need to determine if helping is egoistic or altruistic. Self-reporting is subject to social desirability effects
When asked why they’re helping, a participant will likely respond altruistically rather than egoistically due to the former being socially desirable

4. Reciprocal altruism model
Robert Trivers explains altruism through evolutionary psychology with his reciprocal altruism theory
Trivers (1971) defines altruism to include prosocial behavior between genetically distant or unrelated individuals that includes detriment to helper
E.g. someone diving into rushing river to save stranger
Trivers states helping genetic relative is not altruism
Reciprocal altruism model claims helping is genetically beneficial because helping when you can, will translate into help when you need it
Helping relationship is dependent on cost-benefit ratio of altruistic act: benefit to the person in need is greater than cost to helper

5. Reciprocal altruism model
Cheating: altruistic act goes unreciprocated as people learn from others and may be notices. Altruism can become socialized to a group where altruistic acts are performed freely. Mechanism of group selection
Group selection: natural selection acts at the group level, favoring groups with norms such as reciprocal altruism because of benefits they provide
from evolutionary perspective, in ancient times individuals of ingroup would likely share significant genetic relationships, reinforcing reciprocal altruism model with kin selection theory
Axelrod and Hamilton (1981) – used “Prisoners dilemma” to describe reciprocal altruism
Two prisoners caught at crime scene. When questioned, presented with option to cooperate with each other or cheat. Individuals are rational and don’t now what the other is doing
Communal outcome: both individuals cooperate
Best individual outcome: both individuals ‘cheat’
When repeating experiment, individuals given previous outcome. Loyalty may result in continued loyalty while cheating may result in retaliation
If a single occurrence, and no future relationship assumed, likelihood of cheating is higher

6. Reciprocal altruism model

8. Kin selection theory
Another evolutionary explanation of prosocial behavior (Hamilton, 1964). Proposes that prosocial behavior can be explained through indirect fitness or inclusive fitness
The idea is that it is evolutionary beneficial to help those with similar genes to you, so helping is considered an evolutionary perspective (e.g. twin helping twin who will pass on genes)
Implies helping behavior is more likely targeted at younger, healthy kin who are more likely to have more children
Problem with theory
Limited to helping only those who share your genes, and preferentially those who share more genes than other
Helping (altruistic) behavior takes place between strangers,
Assumption that we are able to identify kin from strangers
In animal research, competition between kin counter this effect
Kinships defined by more than genetics, can occur due to proximity of environment or bonding “Nurture kinship”
Influences helping behavior and helps extend Hamilton’s theory from biological to sociocultural applications of kinship

9. Kin selection theory
Essock-Vitale and Maguire’s (1985) – study 300 Caucasian, middle-class women in Los Angeles – randomly selected through telephone dialing procedure. Participants completed social relationships questionnaire*. Results supported both kin selection theory and reciprocal altruism model
Helping friends was more likely to be reciprocal than between kin
Closer kin were more reliable sources of help than distant ones
Reproductive potential increased helping among kin
More substantial instances of helping were offered by kin
Participants reported giving more help than receiving
*Social relationship questionnaire shown to be reliable but still reliant on self-reporting and subject to bias and social desirability effect

10. Kin selection theory
Stewart-Williams (2007) – study of undergraduate students, supported Essock-Vitale and Maguire study
With higher cost of helping, kin receive more help than non-kin
In low-cost helping condition friends received more help than kin
Medium-cost helping, help for friends and kin was equal
High-cost help, preferential help to kin
Also noted high levels of reciprocal exchange between kin and non-kin
Webster (2003) – Kin selection is exaggerated when resources are limited
Favoring closer kin who were more likely to reproduce successfully.
Favoring closer vs more distant kin
Favoring younger vs older kin

11. Empathy-altruism hypothesis
Proposed by C Daniel Batson who believed that people act to help others out of empathetic feelings and genuine concern for well-being. Empathetic concern will predict helping behavior regardless of gain.
In experimentation, faced with the social desirability effect
Had to distinguish between altruistic helping and egoistic helping, but self-reporting causes action to be socially desirable (altruistic not egoistic)
Designed experimental model empathy escape paradigm to differentiate between two types of helping motivation
Rests on assumption that empathy for a sufferer can be evoked. Relies on perceived similarity between two people to evoke empathy
Additional variable being ease of escape from situation: difficult escape or easy escape.
Batson hypothesized high empathy conditions will help in both difficult and easy escapes while low empathy conditions will choose easy escape conditions
Hypothesis supported in more than 25 experiments that share empathy escape design

12. Empathy-altruism hypothesis
Strongest alternative to Batson’s hypothesis is the negative state relief model argued by Cialdini et al (1987).
Increased empathy for a victim brings increased sadness for observer. Egoistic relief of this sadness rather than altruistic motivation to relief suffering victim that motivates helping
In experiment, separated empathy and sadness
Found that sadness predicted helping behavior but empathy did not. Participants acted primarily to decrease their own sadness
In second experiment, participants led to believe their moods could not be altered, did not help despite high levels of empathy
In a great psychology battle, Batson and colleagues fired back with another study, testing Cialdini’s claims. Batson created a clever experiment and separated participants into two groups: expecting mood improvement and not expecting mood improvement. Further separated groups into high and low empathy conditions.
Found that rate of helping among high empathy participants did no change with expected mood improvement
Regardless of mood change, high empathy participants helped more than low empathy participants
Batson et al (1989) claim further supports the empathy-altruism model for these findings

13. Culture and prosocial behavior
If helping is affected by culture, significantly different findings expected in cross- cultural research
Whiting and Whiting (1975) in their book, Children of Six Cultures, suggested differences in prosocial behavior may be caused by differing socialization and child- rearing practices
Research included naturalistic observations of children between 3 and 11 years old in 6 cultures.
Children in Kenya displayed most prosocial behavior. Followed by Mexico and Philippines. Japan, India and USA showed lowest levels of prosocial behavior
Whiting and Whiting suggest traditional cultures socialize children to be more prosocial. Also suggested link between Hofstede’s concept of cultural collectivism and prosocial behavior.
Johnson et al (2001) conducted research on university students across 6 cultures to test cultural differences in giving and receiving help. Found that helping behavior as well as frequency of giving and receiving help was consistent
Due to self-reported data, researchers acknowledged findings are subject to social desirability . However because giving and receiving reports were roughly balanced, don’t expect social desirability played a significant role

14. Culture and pr0social behavior
Levine et al (2001) – ran international field experiment across 23 cities examining helping behavior across cultures. Previous research showed that helping behavior is dependent on population size and density of a city. As they increase, helping decreases
Measured 3 non-emergency helping behavior: alerting someone who dropped a pen, offering to help someone with injured leg trying to reach magazines, and helping a blind person cross the street
Helping rates across the three were stable, but varied between cultures, suggesting cultural influence
Helping behavior inversely related to economic productivity (GDP) – possibly due to more traditional value system in less developed cultures
In summary, prosocial behavior is influenced by culture, and collectivism and traditionalism play a role in promoting prosocial behavior while population density and degree of modernization limit it

15. Bystanderism
Bystander effect - phenomenon where a person’s likelihood of helping decreases when passive bystanders are present in a critical condition

16. Factors affecting bystanderism
Research conducted by Latane, Darley and Mcguire (1968) - show the following are important factors in a persons decision to act or not act
Diffusion of responsibility - perception that others are witnessing an event significantly decreases likelihood that an individual will intervene. Believe someone else will act, and more comfortable sharing blame than taking blame personally
Ambiguity of the situation - individuals unsure if there is actually an emergency. May not act for fear that they misread situation and acted in a way that breaks social norms of decorum
Group inhibition – we look to others to help interpret situation, especially in ambiguous situations. If others don’t react, we wouldn’t either. Social norm of not acting has been established, so acting would break that norm

17. Factors affecting bystanderism
Another way to explain bystanderism: conformity and social influence
Conformity is social influence defined as adherence to social norms.
Conformity can help explain bystanderism if we interpret bystanders as a social group who have agreed to a norm of non-action
Bystanderism could be viewed as type of conformity governed by informational and normative social influence
Informative social influence (social proof): in attempt to act “correctly”, acting in accordance with group behavior. Individual convinced group is acting in correct manner
E.g. believe inaction of other during emergency is correct, so don’t act
Normative social influence: acting in according with group norms to “fit in” and be a member of group
e.g. may want to help in an emergency but doesn’t because the group isn’t, and don’t want to overreact or feel embarrassed
In follow up study (Lady in Distress), Latane and Roding (1969), submitted 120 male undergraduates to one of 3 conditions: waiting alone, waiting with stranger, or waiting with a friend when woman in nearby room cries in pain
Waiting alone resulted in quickest response. Paired friends responded faster than paired with stranger. Suggesting relationship with other witnesses plays a role in reaction to emergency

18. Link to prejudice and discrimination
Social identity plays a role, suggesting ingroup members are more likely to receive help than outgroup members.
Field experiment on public transport, researchers set up 3 conditions: disabled researcher boarded a train in habit of a Christian nun (ingroup member), as a Muslim woman in a hijab, or as an atheist wearing a T-shirt with the word “God” crossed out. 90 trials run (30 for each condition).
Found that ingroup member consistently offered seat in shorter time than the two others

19. Cyberbystanderism: the bystander effect on the internet
Several studies have shown that the bystander effect transfers to the online world.
Markey (2000):
Online chat rooms were tested.
Results showed the higher the number of people in an online chat group, the longer it took for a request for help to be answered.
They also found that the bystander effect was eliminated when one bystander was requested by name.
Brody and Vangelisti (2015):
Found that a higher number of bystanders and perceived anonymity were a reinforcing component of bystanderism.

20. Arousal: cost-reward model
Cost-reward model (Piliavin et al, 1981) – another way to look at helping behavior and bystanderism.
Based on social exchange theory: the idea people engage in social interactions that maximize benefits to themselves (also known as resource theory of social exchange)
People exchange social goods such as smiles, and hello the same way they exchange commercial goods and services
Interpretation of helping as egoistic behavior
According to model, people experience an unpleasant emotional/physiological arousal when they witness others in distress
Arousal acts as motivator for action
Witnesses perform a cost-reward appraisal to determine if they should act or remain bystander.
Determine if net cost or net reward. If net reward, bystander will act

21. Promoting prosocial behavior
Desirable in a population because everyone benefits when people are concerned and act in a way that promotes well-being
However, reasonable people don’t always respond in a way that supports others in need
Are there ways to encourage individuals to overcome the bystander effect and act prosocially?

22. Legislation: A duty to rescue?
People decide not to help out of fear of legal consequences for helping
Ex. A young man came to the aid of an elderly woman and took her to the hospital. He was then accused by the woman of knocking her over and was ordered to pay the medical expenses (Ye, 2011).
Good Samaritan law – laws designed to protect blame from any person who tries to help someone in need. Protect rescuers from legal liability if they end up failing in the rescue or cause harm in the attempt.
Some laws require punishment for bystanders in both criminal and civil law if they witness an incident but don’t intervene – when no risk is posed to the helper
Australia – Any person who being able to provide rescue, callously fails to do so is guilty of crime and liable to imprisonment for 7 years
Argentina – person who endangers the life of health of another, either by putting a person in jeopardy or abandoning the possibility of help, will be imprisoned for between 2-6 years
Quebec, Canada – everyone has right to assistance. Every person must come to aide anyone else whose life may be in peril, either personally or calling for aid by providing immediate assistance unless there is a threat of danger to themselves or a third person

23. Socialization and early years education
Best way to promote prosocial behavior is to begin at an early age. If children are taught that social norms include helping, normative and informational social influence can play a larger role in promoting social behavior and weaken bystander effect
Early education important for two reasons: young children are still learning social norms and will conform more readily, and plasticity at this age leads to more effective long-term behavioral change
Mindfulness-based kindness curriculum (KC) – shows promoting prosocial disposition and self-regulation in pre-school children is effective way to build culture of caring.
Experiment conducted with 68 preschoolers. Participants assigned to KC ( 30) or wait list (38)
KC spent two lessons a week for 12 weeks. Participants assessed on relevant measures before and after trial.
Results showed KC participants showed larger gains in teacher-reported social skills and that control group acted more selfishly over time. Also found those with lowest prosocial scores before training, benefitted the most

24. Socialization and early years education
Modeling behavior can be powerful method to promote prosocial behavior.
Bandura’s social cognitive theory argues individuals learn from observing others’ behavior. Changing behavior can simply mean introducing them to the type of behavior you want them to express