Helping behaviour is providing aid or benefit to another person. It does not matter what the motivation of the helper is, only that the recipient is assisted. This is distinguished from the more general term prosocial behavior, which can include any cooperative or friendly behavior. It is also distinguished from the more specific term altruistic behaviour, which requires that the motivation for assisting others be primarily for the well-being of the other person or even at a cost to oneself.
Factors Affecting Helping Behaviour I Physical Attractiveness: Attractiveness is defined as physical attractiveness or the attractiveness of a person’s personality or behaviour (DeVito, 1976). Researchers believe physical attractiveness can be defined for any one individual situationally (DeVito, 1976). Physically attractive people are more likely to receive help than unattractive people (Harrell,1978). The explanation lies in the fact, that as a society, we consciously or subconsciously tend to treat attractive individuals differently, expecting better lives for them (Berscheid, Walster, Bohrnstedt, 1973). Adams and Cohen (1976) feel physical attractiveness is a major factor in the development of prosocial behaviour in a child.
II. Similarity and Kinship: Finally, individuals are more likely to behave prosocially towards similar or likable others (Penner et al., 2005), and towards others considered to be close, especially kin (Graziano et al., 2007). Genetic relatedness aside, pro-social behaviour towards family members probably involves a sense of duty, reciprocity, and affective relationships. Individuals care more for victims who belong to their in-group rather than to their out-group (Dovidio et al. 1997; Flippen et al. 1996; Levine et al. 2002). Park and Schaller (2005) found that attitude similarity serves as a heuristic cue signaling kinship, which may motivate kin-recognition responses (e.g., prosocial behaviour) even to unrelated individuals.
III Religiosity: Although several studies have examined the impact of donor characteristics across various domains, the findings are not as robust as those about victim characteristics. One consistent finding is that humanitarian values and religiosity are correlated with giving (Burnett 1981; Pessemier, Bemmaor, and Hanssens 1977).
IV Victim’s Perspective: Batson and colleagues have shown consistently greater empathy and altruistic behaviour by individuals who are primed to take the victim’s perspective (Batson, Early, and Salvarani 1997; Batson et al. 2003).
V. Personal Experience: A vast literature examines the impact of personal experience on self-protective behaviour (Weinstein, 1989, for a critical review). Although the majority of studies examine effects on victims themselves, a few assess the impact of knowing a victim as a form of personal experience (Manheimer, Mellinger & Crossley 1966 and Schiff 1977). Barnett et al. (1986) found that participants who had been raped reported greater empathy when watching a video about a rape victim than did those who had never been raped. Batson et al. (1996) found that for females but not males, the expectation of oneself receiving a shock affected self-reported empathy when one observed a same-sex peer receiving a shock. Christy and Voigt (1994) found that those who reported being abused as a child indicated that they would be more likely than those who had never been abused to intervene if they saw a child being abused.
VI. Identifiable Victim Effect: Previous research has shown that people give more to identifiable victims than to unidentifiable or statistical victims (Kogut and Ritov 2005a, b; Small, Loewenstein, and Slovic 2006). This effect has even been demonstrated when no meaningful information is provided about the identified victim (Small and Loewenstein 2003). Other identifying factors, such as showing a victim’s face or being in the presence of a victim, also increase pro-social behaviour (Bohnet and Frey 1999). Charities do often describe or show images of specific victims to potential donors in their advertising campaigns, but such attempts seem designed to benefit from the identifiable victim effect (Kogut and Ritov, 2005a, b; Small et al. 2006), rather than to create “friendship” between donors and victims.
VII. Attributions Concerning Victim’s Responsibility: People also give more to victims who are perceived as “deserving,” in other words, whose needs arise from external rather than internal causes (Weiner 1980). Thus, disabled children are deemed deserving; healthy unemployed men are not (Schmidt and Weiner 1988). Finally, the effect of deservingness on prosocial behaviour is mediated by sympathy, suggesting that giving decisions are not based on cold mental calculations (Weiner, 1980). A study carried out on the New York subway showed that people were more likely to help ‘blind’ rather than ‘drunk’ confederates who had collapsed (Piliavin, 1969).
VII. Positive Friend Influence: Barry and Wentzel (2006) supported the notion that friends in particular can be important socialisers of prosocial behaviour. Children are similar to their friends in the degree to which they display pro-social behaviour and are motivated to behave this way (Wentzel, Barry, & Caldwell, 2004; Wentzel & Caldwell, 1997). Adolescents who have friends are more likely to be pro-social than those without friends (McGuire & Weisz, 1982).
VIII. Gender: Females engage in prosocial behaviours more frequently than males (Fabes, Carlo, Kupanoff, & Laible, 1999), which is consistent across ratings from parents, teachers, and peers (Holmgren, Eisenberg, & Fabes, 1998). Additionally, observational studies have indicated that females are more likely than males to share and cooperate when interacting (Burford, Foley, Rollins, & Rosario, 1996). Beutel and Johnson (2004) reported that in a study of 12 through 17 year-olds, females placed more importance on prosocial values than males at younger ages, and the gender gap in prosocial values was larger at older ages. Eagly and Crowley (1986) did a meta-analysis and found that men are more likely to help in chivalrous, heroic ways, and women are more likely to help in nurturant ways involving long-term commitment.
IX Age: Older adolescent males placed less importance on prosocial values than younger adolescent males (Beutel & Johnson, 2004). Further, in a study of adolescent soccer players’ behaviours, recruited from age groups of under 13, under 15, and under 17, significant differences among the age groups indicated that the oldest group displayed more frequent antisocial behaviours and less frequent prosocial behaviours compared to the younger groups (Kavussanu, Seal, & Phillips, 2006). However, there appears to be an increase in the use of some prosocial behaviours after a certain point in adolescence, as Eisenberg et al. (2005) found that prosocial moral reasoning and perspective-taking abilities showed increases with age from late adolescence to early adulthood, whereas helping and displaying sympathy did not increase with age.
Theories of Prosocial Behaviour: Prosocial behaviours are those intended to help other people. Prosocial behaviour is characterized by a concern for the rights, feelings, and welfare of other people. Behaviours that can be described as pro-social include feeling empathy and concern for others and behaving in ways to help or benefit other people.
There are a large number of theories which explain pro-social behaviour and these are described and discussed below:
I. Social Learning Theory: Social learning theory suggests that pro-social behaviour is learned (Bandura, 1977; Bandura & McDonald, 1963; Batson, 1998). Observing role models who are loved or respected, such as parents or authorities, engaged in pro-social behaviour, demonstrates how people can and should behave prosocially. Rewards reinforce helping behaviour; punishments reduce unhelpful or hurtful behaviour. Within a group context, social recognition, not just private reward, increases prosocial behaviour (Fisher & Ackerman, 1998).Observational modeling processes with reinforcement will result in learning over time (Compeau & Higgins, 1995; Lim et al., 1997).
II. Motivation Perspective: Theorists differentiate altruistic prosocial behaviour from egoistic prosocial behaviour depending upon the motivation of the helper (Batson, 1991; Nelson, 1999; Piliavin & Charng, 1990). Altruistic prosocial behaviour is motivated purely by the desire to increase another person’s welfare; egoistic prosocial behaviour is motivated by the desire to increase one’s own welfare or that of one’s group or cause through helping others (Batson, 1998; MacIntyre, 1967). Some researchers believe that pro-social behaviour does not need to be based on unobservable underlying motivations of children (Eisenberg & Mussen, 1989), but other researchers believe that another person’s well-being must be of primary concern in prosocial behaviour (Cialdini, Kenrick, & Bauman, 1976). It is generally understood that an intention of prosocial behaviours is to achieve positive consequences for others (Jackson & Tisak, 2001; Tisak & Ford, 1986), but it is possible that there are other reasons children behave prosocially as well.
Children’s expectancies may influence their likelihood of engaging in prosocial behaviours. Adolescents who expect positive adult reactions to their prosocial behaviours report engaging in more prosocial and less aggressive behaviours (Wyatt & Carlo, 2002).
III. Social Identity Theory: Social identity theory and self-categorisation theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1986; Turner et al., 1987) are helpful in understanding why some people exhibit substantial prosocial behaviour over time. Social identity theory is based on the premise that people identify with particular groups in order to enhance their self-esteem. Identification leads to selective social comparisons that emphasise intergroup differences along dimensions. This leads to favouring the ingroup and confer positive distinctiveness on the ingroup when compared to the salient outgroup (Hogg & Abrams, 1988). Categorising the self and others in terms of groups accentuates the similarities between group members with respect to their fit with the relevant group prototype or ‘cognitive representation of features that describe and prescribe attributes of the group’ (Hogg & Terry, 2000). The prototype guides the participants’ understanding of the group and its expected behaviours and attitudes. People identified with a group will thus be more likely to exhibit behaviours that are consistent with shared group norms and will cooperate with the group and its members. Group identification is an important antecedent to cooperative behaviours related to group maintenance and survival (Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Kramer, 1993; Mael & Ashforth, 1995; Tyler, 1999).
III. Social Identity Theory: Social identity theory and self-categorisation theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1986; Turner et al., 1987) are helpful in understanding why some people exhibit substantial prosocial behaviour over time. Social identity theory is based on the premise that people identify with particular groups in order to enhance their self-esteem. Identification leads to selective social comparisons that emphasise intergroup differences along dimensions. This leads to favouring the ingroup and confer positive distinctiveness on the ingroup when compared to the salient outgroup (Hogg & Abrams, 1988). Categorising the self and others in terms of groups accentuates the similarities between group members with respect to their fit with the relevant group prototype or ‘cognitive representation of features that describe and prescribe attributes of the group’ (Hogg & Terry, 2000). The prototype guides the participants’ understanding of the group and its expected behaviours and attitudes. People identified with a group will thus be more likely to exhibit behaviours that are consistent with shared group norms and will cooperate with the group and its members. Group identification is an important antecedent to cooperative behaviours related to group maintenance and survival (Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Kramer, 1993; Mael & Ashforth, 1995; Tyler, 1999).
Helping behaviour is providing aid or benefit to another person. It does not matter what the motivation of the helper is, only that the recipient is assisted. This is distinguished from the more general term prosocial behavior, which can include any cooperative or friendly behavior. It is also distinguished from the more specific term altruistic behaviour, which requires that the motivation for assisting others be primarily for the well-being of the other person or even at a cost to oneself.
Factors Affecting Helping Behaviour
I Physical Attractiveness: Attractiveness is defined as physical attractiveness or the attractiveness of a person’s personality or behaviour (DeVito, 1976). Researchers believe physical attractiveness can be defined for any one individual situationally (DeVito, 1976). Physically attractive people are more likely to receive help than unattractive people (Harrell,1978). The explanation lies in the fact, that as a society, we consciously or subconsciously tend to treat attractive individuals differently, expecting better lives for them (Berscheid, Walster, Bohrnstedt, 1973). Adams and Cohen (1976) feel physical attractiveness is a major factor in the development of prosocial behaviour in a child.
II. Similarity and Kinship: Finally, individuals are more likely to behave prosocially towards similar or likable others (Penner et al., 2005), and towards others considered to be close, especially kin (Graziano et al., 2007). Genetic relatedness aside, pro-social behaviour towards family members probably involves a sense of duty, reciprocity, and affective relationships. Individuals care more for victims who belong to their in-group rather than to their out-group (Dovidio et al. 1997; Flippen et al. 1996; Levine et al. 2002). Park and Schaller (2005) found that attitude similarity serves as a heuristic cue signaling kinship, which may motivate kin-recognition responses (e.g., prosocial behaviour) even to unrelated individuals.
III Religiosity: Although several studies have examined the impact of donor characteristics across various domains, the findings are not as robust as those about victim characteristics. One consistent finding is that humanitarian values and religiosity are correlated with giving (Burnett 1981; Pessemier, Bemmaor, and Hanssens 1977).
IV Victim’s Perspective: Batson and colleagues have shown consistently greater empathy and altruistic behaviour by individuals who are primed to take the victim’s perspective (Batson, Early, and Salvarani 1997; Batson et al. 2003).
V. Personal Experience: A vast literature examines the impact of personal experience on self-protective behaviour (Weinstein, 1989, for a critical review). Although the majority of studies examine effects on victims themselves, a few assess the impact of knowing a victim as a form of personal experience (Manheimer, Mellinger & Crossley 1966 and Schiff 1977). Barnett et al. (1986) found that participants who had been raped reported greater empathy when watching a video about a rape victim than did those who had never been raped. Batson et al. (1996) found that for females but not males, the expectation of oneself receiving a shock affected self-reported empathy when one observed a same-sex peer receiving a shock. Christy and Voigt (1994) found that those who reported being abused as a child indicated that they would be more likely than those who had never been abused to intervene if they saw a child being abused.
VI. Identifiable Victim Effect: Previous research has shown that people give more to identifiable victims than to unidentifiable or statistical victims (Kogut and Ritov 2005a, b; Small, Loewenstein, and Slovic 2006). This effect has even been demonstrated when no meaningful information is provided about the identified victim (Small and Loewenstein 2003). Other identifying factors, such as showing a victim’s face or being in the presence of a victim, also increase pro-social behaviour (Bohnet and Frey 1999). Charities do often describe or show images of specific victims to potential donors in their advertising campaigns, but such attempts seem designed to benefit from the identifiable victim effect (Kogut and Ritov, 2005a, b; Small et al. 2006), rather than to create “friendship” between donors and victims.
VII. Attributions Concerning Victim’s Responsibility: People also give more to victims who are perceived as “deserving,” in other words, whose needs arise from external rather than internal causes (Weiner 1980). Thus, disabled children are deemed deserving; healthy unemployed men are not (Schmidt and Weiner 1988). Finally, the effect of deservingness on prosocial behaviour is mediated by sympathy, suggesting that giving decisions are not based on cold mental calculations (Weiner, 1980). A study carried out on the New York subway showed that people were more likely to help ‘blind’ rather than ‘drunk’ confederates who had collapsed (Piliavin, 1969).
VII. Positive Friend Influence: Barry and Wentzel (2006) supported the notion that friends in particular can be important socialisers of prosocial behaviour. Children are similar to their friends in the degree to which they display pro-social behaviour and are motivated to behave this way (Wentzel, Barry, & Caldwell, 2004; Wentzel & Caldwell, 1997). Adolescents who have friends are more likely to be pro-social than those without friends (McGuire & Weisz, 1982).
VIII. Gender: Females engage in prosocial behaviours more frequently than males (Fabes, Carlo, Kupanoff, & Laible, 1999), which is consistent across ratings from parents, teachers, and peers (Holmgren, Eisenberg, & Fabes, 1998). Additionally, observational studies have indicated that females are more likely than males to share and cooperate when interacting (Burford, Foley, Rollins, & Rosario, 1996). Beutel and Johnson (2004) reported that in a study of 12 through 17 year-olds, females placed more importance on prosocial values than males at younger ages, and the gender gap in prosocial values was larger at older ages. Eagly and Crowley (1986) did a meta-analysis and found that men are more likely to help in chivalrous, heroic ways, and women are more likely to help in nurturant ways involving long-term commitment.
IX Age: Older adolescent males placed less importance on prosocial values than younger adolescent males (Beutel & Johnson, 2004). Further, in a study of adolescent soccer players’ behaviours, recruited from age groups of under 13, under 15, and under 17, significant differences among the age groups indicated that the oldest group displayed more frequent antisocial behaviours and less frequent prosocial behaviours compared to the younger groups (Kavussanu, Seal, & Phillips, 2006). However, there appears to be an increase in the use of some prosocial behaviours after a certain point in adolescence, as Eisenberg et al. (2005) found that prosocial moral reasoning and perspective-taking abilities showed increases with age from late adolescence to early adulthood, whereas helping and displaying sympathy did not increase with age.
Theories of Prosocial Behaviour: Prosocial behaviours are those intended to help other people. Prosocial behaviour is characterized by a concern for the rights, feelings, and welfare of other people. Behaviours that can be described as pro-social include feeling empathy and concern for others and behaving in ways to help or benefit other people.
There are a large number of theories which explain pro-social behaviour and these are described and discussed below:
I. Social Learning Theory: Social learning theory suggests that pro-social behaviour is learned (Bandura, 1977; Bandura & McDonald, 1963; Batson, 1998). Observing role models who are loved or respected, such as parents or authorities, engaged in pro-social behaviour, demonstrates how people can and should behave prosocially. Rewards reinforce helping behaviour; punishments reduce unhelpful or hurtful behaviour. Within a group context, social recognition, not just private reward, increases prosocial behaviour (Fisher & Ackerman, 1998).Observational modeling processes with reinforcement will result in learning over time (Compeau & Higgins, 1995; Lim et al., 1997).
II. Motivation Perspective: Theorists differentiate altruistic prosocial behaviour from egoistic prosocial behaviour depending upon the motivation of the helper (Batson, 1991; Nelson, 1999; Piliavin & Charng, 1990). Altruistic prosocial behaviour is motivated purely by the desire to increase another person’s welfare; egoistic prosocial behaviour is motivated by the desire to increase one’s own welfare or that of one’s group or cause through helping others (Batson, 1998; MacIntyre, 1967). Some researchers believe that pro-social behaviour does not need to be based on unobservable underlying motivations of children (Eisenberg & Mussen, 1989), but other researchers believe that another person’s well-being must be of primary concern in prosocial behaviour (Cialdini, Kenrick, & Bauman, 1976). It is generally understood that an intention of prosocial behaviours is to achieve positive consequences for others (Jackson & Tisak, 2001; Tisak & Ford, 1986), but it is possible that there are other reasons children behave prosocially as well.
Children’s expectancies may influence their likelihood of engaging in prosocial behaviours. Adolescents who expect positive adult reactions to their prosocial behaviours report engaging in more prosocial and less aggressive behaviours (Wyatt & Carlo, 2002).
III. Social Identity Theory: Social identity theory and self-categorisation theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1986; Turner et al., 1987) are helpful in understanding why some people exhibit substantial prosocial behaviour over time. Social identity theory is based on the premise that people identify with particular groups in order to enhance their self-esteem. Identification leads to selective social comparisons that emphasise intergroup differences along dimensions. This leads to favouring the ingroup and confer positive distinctiveness on the ingroup when compared to the salient outgroup (Hogg & Abrams, 1988). Categorising the self and others in terms of groups accentuates the similarities between group members with respect to their fit with the relevant group prototype or ‘cognitive representation of features that describe and prescribe attributes of the group’ (Hogg & Terry, 2000). The prototype guides the participants’ understanding of the group and its expected behaviours and attitudes. People identified with a group will thus be more likely to exhibit behaviours that are consistent with shared group norms and will cooperate with the group and its members. Group identification is an important antecedent to cooperative behaviours related to group maintenance and survival (Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Kramer, 1993; Mael & Ashforth, 1995; Tyler, 1999).
III. Social Identity Theory: Social identity theory and self-categorisation theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1986; Turner et al., 1987) are helpful in understanding why some people exhibit substantial prosocial behaviour over time. Social identity theory is based on the premise that people identify with particular groups in order to enhance their self-esteem. Identification leads to selective social comparisons that emphasise intergroup differences along dimensions. This leads to favouring the ingroup and confer positive distinctiveness on the ingroup when compared to the salient outgroup (Hogg & Abrams, 1988). Categorising the self and others in terms of groups accentuates the similarities between group members with respect to their fit with the relevant group prototype or ‘cognitive representation of features that describe and prescribe attributes of the group’ (Hogg & Terry, 2000). The prototype guides the participants’ understanding of the group and its expected behaviours and attitudes. People identified with a group will thus be more likely to exhibit behaviours that are consistent with shared group norms and will cooperate with the group and its members. Group identification is an important antecedent to cooperative behaviours related to group maintenance and survival (Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Kramer, 1993; Mael & Ashforth, 1995; Tyler, 1999).
From MPC-004 Advanced Social Psychology – IGNOU