Prosocial behaviour

• What is bystander behaviour?

  The way an individual acts when they see someone needing help.
• What is prosocial behaviour?


  Acting in a way that promotes the welfare of others.
• Bystander intervention

  When an individual goes to the aid of someone they see needing help or when they see a potentially high-risk situation.
• What are the social factors that affect bystander intervention?

  -Presence of others

  -Cost of helping
• How does the presence of others affect bystander intervention?

  Psychologists have found that the more people who are present the less likely an individual is to help. This is called diffusion of responsibility.
• Describe diffusion of responsibility.

  The more and more people who are present , the more responsibility is shared and so each person carries less individual responsibility and think that someone else will or already probably has helped. This means that we are less likely to help if there are more people present.
• If there are 4 bystanders, what % of responsibility do they each have?

  25%
• What is one weakness of the explanation regarding helping rates in the presence of others?

  Other research by Piliavin has found that helping rates are not always lower when others are present. - disproves the diffusion of responsibility concept.
• What do realistic situations suggest about helping victims?

  We are likely to help victims, even if there are lots of other people around.
• What is another weakness of the theory discussed?

  Everyday stories show us that people can be extraordinarily helpful.
• When might the presence of others not have a negative effect on helping behavior?

  When immediate action is required and the emergency is very serious.
• What is the link between the cost of helping and bystander behaviour?

  • Bystanders weigh up the costs and rewards of helping.
  • If costs outweigh rewards, they do not help.
  • If rewards outweigh costs, they do help.
• What are some costs that might prevent someone from helping?

  Costs might include putting oneself in danger, financial loss, inconvenience, embarrassment, or feeling guilty.
• What are some rewards that might encourage someone to help?

  Rewards might include praise, feeling good, or keeping others safe.
• What evidence supports the factor of weighing costs and rewards in helping behavior?

  Piliavin et al (1969) conducted a case study testing bystander behavior in situations with a victim needing assistance.
• What did Piliavin et al find regarding bystanders helping a blind confederate?

  Bystanders were more likely to help the blind confederate because the costs were low.
• Why were bystanders less likely to help the drunk confederate?

  Because the costs were high, including potential danger and embarrassment.
• How do the costs associated with helping differ between the blind and drunk confederates in Piliavin et al's study?

  The costs were low for the blind confederate and high for the drunk confederate.
• What was the aim of Piliavin et al.'s study?

  To investigate bystander behaviour in a natural setting and see if victim characteristics affect help.
• Why did Piliavin et al. choose a subway train for their study?

  To create a more natural setting for observing bystander behaviour.
• How many trials were conducted in Piliavin's Subway study?

  103 trials.
• What roles did the team members play in the study?

  One acted as the victim, two were observers, and one was a model helper.
• What were the two conditions of the victim in the study?

  Drunk condition and disabled condition.
• How did the victims behave in the study?

  They dressed and behaved identically in both conditions except for their characteristics.
• What was the difference in help received between the drunk and disabled victims?

  The disabled victim was helped in 95% of trials, while the drunk victim was helped in only 50% of trials.
• Did group size affect the likelihood of offering help in the study?

  No, people were as likely to help in larger groups as in smaller groups.
• What conclusion can be drawn about victim characteristics from the study?

  Certain characteristics, like appearing disabled, significantly affect the likelihood of receiving help.
• What are the strengths of Piliavin's Subway study?

  • Participants were unaware they were being studied, leading to natural behaviour.
• What are the weaknesses of Piliavin's Subway study?

  • The sample may not represent all people, as it was limited to urban residents.
  • Unique characteristics of the sample may affect generalisability.
• How did the urban environment influence the participants in the study?

  Participants were likely accustomed to emergency situations and the presence of beggars.
• What do dispositional factors suggest about bystander behavior?

  Dispositional factors suggest that personal characteristics explain why some bystanders are more likely to help.
• What is one dispositional factor that influences bystander behavior?

  Similarity to the victim.
• How does similarity to the victim affect bystander behaviour?

  People are more likely to be altruistic (selflessly help others) and show positive bystander behaviour (prosocial behaviour) when they are similar to the victim.
• Why might people be more likely to help a victim they are similar to?

  Because they can empathize with the victim's situation and emotions as they put/imagine themselves in that same position.
• What does empathy allow us to do in the context of bystander behavior?

  Empathy allows us to experience the emotions of another person by imagining ourselves in their position.
• How does empathy influence the desire to help a victim?

  Empathy leads us to appreciate the pain and suffering of the victim, motivating us to help.
• What is the definition of altruism in the context of bystander behavior?

  Altruism refers to selflessly helping others.
• What is the relationship between personal characteristics e.g. similarity to the victim and bystander behaviour?

  Personal characteristics can influence the likelihood of a bystander helping in an emergency situation.
• Give an example of when similarity to the victim can influence bystander intervention.


  E.g. if you see someone from a certain football team i.e. Liverpool needing help and you support a different football team i.e. Tottenham, it may mean you are less likely to intervene and help.
• What is one weakness of the theory regarding bystanders in emergency situations?

  The theory struggles to explain the relationship between bystanders and the victim as in many studies of bystander behaviour there was little similarity to the victim, but people still helped.