9.3.2: factors that reduce helping
TRANSCRIPT
9.3.2: Factors That Reduce Helping There are many situations in which helping others could occur-and would be very valuable-yet it does not. This raises an important question-why don't they help, especially if they have resources or ability to do so? Tl1e answer involves several fac
tors that tend to redt1ce the occurrence of prosocial behavior.
SOCIAL EXCLUSION: BEING "LEFT OUT" HURTS-AND MAY REDUCE THE
TENDENCY TO HELP OTHERS As we noted earlier, prosocial behavior is more likely
to be directed toward people we perceive as similar to ourselves rather than those we view as dissimilar. This suggests tl1at prosocial behavior rests, at least to some degree,
on a sense of community-tl1e idea tl1at we belong to,_ or fit into, a group in which the
other members are like ourselves. What happens, then, if we are excluded from t11is group-or perceive that we 110 longer belong? Social psychologists refer to such situ-
\f\/h,=1t RAsearch Tells l J~ Ahout. · · H I d W Have Been e pe
Paying It Forward: Helping Others Because e
Several vears ago, 1 was driving and came to a bridge that
charges ri $1 .00 toll . I pulled a dollar bill oul of my wallet and
was 1eady to µay the toll when-much to my surprise-the
toll collector said: "You don't have to pay-the driver ahead
of you paid your toll." I was truly surprised: Why would a total
stranger pay for me? I had never experienced anything like it
before. uut now, I realize that such actions are far from rare:
They are instances in which people do what's called pay it forward Recently, social psychologists have focused their
attention on this kind of prosocial behavior that occurs when
one person-often a total stranger-helps another, who then
instead of reciprocating to the person who helped them,
helps someone else. Social psychologists l,ave uncovered
many lnte1·esting facts about this unusual form of prosocial
bel,avior (Gray, Ward, & Norton, 2014).
A series of studies conducted by Jung, Nelson, Gneezy,
and Gneezy (2014) are especially intriguing. These research
ers studied "paying it forward" in several different contexts.
In one, they obtained the cooperation of a museum. Visitors
were then exposed to one of two conditions: a pay-what
you-wish condition (visitors could pay for their admission with
any amount they wished) or pay-it-forward condition in which
they were told that this was a pay-what-you wish day but that
someone else had already paid their admission. The visitors
in this group were also told that they could pay for someone
else's admission if they wished. The key question was, hav
ing been helped by a stranger, would they now pay more for
this person's admission? In other words, being the recipient
of prosocial behavior from a stranger, would they now pay
more for that person's admission (remember, this was a "pay
what you wish day"). Results were clear: They did; those in
the pay-what-you wish condition who had not been helped
by a stranger paid $2.19 for admission. In the pay-forward
condition where they had been helped by a stranger, they
paid $3.07. So it was clear that a pay-it-forward effect oc
curred (see Figure 9.12).
Jung and colleagues repeated this research in an en
tirely different setting-a coffee house. Here, they were told
that they could pay what they wished for their coffee, but that
someone else had already paid for theirs. Also, they were told
for someone else's coffee-p,q-rt. ould now pay
that they c aid more for the coffee when sorne')nE, forward . Again, they p
h d paid for theirs. else a h ff ts occur-why are people more 111:
Why do sue e ec ho has not helped them after beirig
. to help a stranger w . . . ing . t tranger? one poss1b1hty ,s that peo h lped by a drfferen s
e b have in a similar prosoc1al way as tn8 le feel pressure to e
P . that receiving help from a stranger lead:o, t nger Another 1s .
s ra · . t thers' generosity, and to overestimate n them to think abou o .
I tion it is clear that pay-rt-forward illus-Whatever the exp ana ' .
d·fferent factors can influence our tendency trates that many 1
. ·a1 behavior-and that some of them arE: to engage in prosoc1
very surprising .
Figure g, t2 Paying It Forward: Helping Others
Because Someone Has Helped Us
t r Provl.des unexpected help to another When a s range . person, the recipient often reciprocates such prosoc1al
behavior by helping another person-not the one who
helped them.
!di
:-: -HH l\:AI G,\Ll.ERY
ations as social exclusion, and have found that it has negative effects on the people
excluded in several ways-it undermines their self-esteem, leads them to feel isolated,
and less satisfied with their lives (see Figure 9.13). In addition, recent evidence indi
cat~s that social exclusion reduces the tendency of the excluded people to help others.
This may occur for several reasons: Reduced feelings of empathy--especially toward
the pE-t'Fl£> who h a,·e rejected them, a tendency to see these people as hurtful or
3f:S~~ ·, e, seeking to harm the reople who excluded them (Schonert-Reichl, 1999),
md ~trong negan,;-e affect. Together, these perceptions and emotions may reduce the
--~ ~en,.,,· t~ 'Let-. other'-.c:. ._. '- • \. H -_r • •
To te::t :..:..s po!:'sibility, T"·enge, Baumeister, De Wall, Ciarocco, and Bartels (2007)
rnndu::ted roearch in , \·hich participants were told that on the basis of a personality
,t>st that they were likely to ha,·e many rewarding relationships with others in the
years ahead, ·while others ·were told that they would be likely to end up alone in later
life. A third, control group, was told that they were likely to have accidents in the
:,·ears ahead. All three groups were given a payment for participating in the study,
ar,d then ar, opp ortunity to donate all or part of this to a Student Emergency Fund. It
was predic.ed that those who were told that they were likely to be excluded in later
life' •ould donate less, and in fact, this is precisely what happened. In others words,
!eelmg that t.1-iev "·ouJd be rejected by other people in the future, resulted in less will
ingness to help others no,,,·-e,·en before such exclusion. The basic point, then, is that
when people feel outside a group or community, don't expect them to offer to help to
others within the group or community-they are, in a sense, disconnected from the
potentiaJ recipients of help .
DARKNESS: FEELINGS OF ANONYMITY REDUCE THE TENDENCY TO HELP
OTHERS Darkness has often been linked to disinhibited behavior- under 'cover' of
darkness, people often engage in actions they ·would be reluctant to perform in broad
-F-. - - 9 --- . It Provides-Reduce Prosocial
1gure .14 Does Darkness-and the Anonymity
Behavior-and Perhaps, Increase Aggression? . ity-including darkness-can
Research findings indicate that conditions that increase anonym h r 1·ng others Of
1 t' 9 or even a m ·
encourage harmful actions ranging from dishonesty to ~o in . rosocial behavior.
course, engaging in such behaviors would be incompatible w1th P
day light. Why? One reason is that they feel anonymous: Others can't see them or eval
uate their actions. If prosocial behavior sometimes occurs because it can be observed
by others and is believed likely to win their approval, then darkness should reduce
or eliminate this motive. In other words, people would be less likely to help others, or
engage in other forms of prosocial behavior, in the presence of darkness-or merely
when they believe that conditions provide them with anonymity.
Classic studies in social psychology on what is known as deindividuation-a
reduced state of self-awareness that encourages impulsive behavior (see Chapter 11
for discussion of this research) indicates that when people feel anonymous, they may
perform actions they would not perform under other conditions. However, it may not
be merely feelings of anonymity that are operating: When people are part of a large
crowd, they are more likely to obey the norms of that group, and do what others are
doing (Postmes & Spears, 1998), so this may be an important factor in such situations.
But does darkness itself encourage such feelings of anonymity and willingness to
ignore social norms (see Figure 9.14)? Evidence reported by Zhong, Bohns, and Gino
(2010) suggest that it can.
In an ingenious study, these researchers placed participants in a slightly darkened
room, or in a room with bright lighting, and had them perform a task involving find
ing two numbers in matrixes of numbers that added up to 10. They were told that
if they performed very well, they could receive an extra $10. Participants recorded
their own scores, but unbeknownst to them these could then be compared with their
actual scores. Zhong and colleagues predicted that participants would be more likely
to exaggerate their scores (i.e., to be dishonest) in a dark room than a bright one, and
~t thi:- is. \,· h,lt happened. Full .• 50 , t.JL . ) percent f th • .
it _1
., tht.' dark room overstated th . . 0 e parhc1pants who performed the
11-ts en performan .
• · h • t,ri•'"ht fL)t)m did. Their perf . ce, while only 24.4 percent of those
;,i t1LL _c- . • onnance itself .
· , rertl,rnll'd 111 a bnght room . . was not different from that of people
11 h, ' so it appeared th d J ,n ·\' to L)bev strono social n at arkness did in fact reduce their
rt'I1l1t '-, . o - orms against h b
•11
,tilll1t':-t N che,,ting. sue ehavior-that is, against being
,, - AlthL'u~h Zhong and colleaoues d"d
i. ·r iin,tin~s indicate that d"'rko 1
not collect data o. n prosocial behavior,
t1,t'' '- " ness mav enha h T, l,r SL).:ial norms. One such , nee t e tendency to ignore a wide
r.inct . , u norm states· "W h .
. -" 1nce. ~o. b,· e,tension d kn · es ould help others m need of
.1::,:-i::-.- . • •. , ar ess-and the . . .
l ld to s1tu,1tlons m which incti·\·i·d 1
f 1
. anonymity 1t produces-might
t',-ua s ee httl f ·
II tht'\ c,m't be identified as th e mo ivahon to help others-after
.1 . • e source of prosoci l b h . s· . f' .
. , , 0 t,tc1ined "·hen room liol t· a e av10r. 1milar mdmgs
,,tfc b 1 mg \•Vas not\' . d b
; 111t)t ,re1r dark sunolas 1 . ane ' ut participants either wore
l,r ul'- ' - t, ses w ·uch p bl . I h. ' resuma Y, would give them feelings of
1nL1rn,mh·. n t is 8tudy, those wearin th 1 · . · ' . k-· • g e g asses were more likely to act in a
.. dtr~h maimer, ta mg more of an availabl · f
. . _ e pnze or themselves, and giving less to
their p.1rtner:-.
PUTTING AN ECO_NO~IC VALUE ON OUR TIME REDUCES PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR
A~ \,·eh,;.\ t' ~een m this chapter, many factors can · fl h . m uence t e tendency to help
l,the1:: m ,·ar10us wa,·s. Emotional factors certainly 1 1 ( h · p ay a ro e empat y, current
n1~1 ~d- teel1•1g5 of awe), and cognitive factors (our accuracy in perceiving others'
fedIDf' an~i ~o 1~ understanding their need for help), too, are important. An addi
'.i,mal cogmh\'e !actor r_r1ight be the extent to which we think about helping others
in tem1s of the econorruc costs to us: Time used in helping others can't be used for
ticht:>r act1nties, including ones that generate income. To the extent that we think
,1hmt helping in this way (e.g., the economic costs of volunteering our time), we
rna) be less likely to engage in prosocial behavior.
T,\ o re::earchers, De Voe and Pfeffer (2010), have recently suggested that when
Feop!e think about the economic \'alue of their time, they may be less likely to
rnlunteer it to help others. Certain professions, of course, train their members to
think in ju::t these ways. \\'hile physicians bill patients according to the procedures
they pnform, attorneys (and other professionals such as accountants) bill in terms
of their tin1e. In fact, many attorneys bill in tenths of an hour-for each 6-minute
renod they use in working on clients' cases. Does this make them less likely to en
gase in rwsocial beha,·ior? Findings reported by De Voe and Pfeffer indicate that
it does. In one study, third-year la\'\' students, who had not yet practiced billing for
their time, were asked to complete a questionnaire concerning their willingness to
rnlunteer their time to organizations they cared about. Then, 5 months later, after
graduating and taking jobs, they completed the same survey. Results indicated that
as the researchers predicted, the now-practicing attorneys expressed less willingness
to \·olunteer their time than they had as law students. In fact, later, when they were
2ctually practicing la,v and billing for the time they invested in a case, they were
a::,ked how much time they were willing to volunteer to assist with various worthy
causes. Results indicated that those in the billing condition, who focused on time
and its use, e:\pected to spend fev,er hours on volunteer work than law :tuden_ts
v:ho had not yet engaged in such billing. These findings ha\'e been confume~ 111
other research, so it appears that to the extent we attach economic value to our time,
we ma: be less likely _to donate it to helping others (LeBo~u'., Shafir, & Bayuk, 20osi. The milk of human kindness it appears dries up when 1t 1s measured precise] . , , . . Y lt1
tenths of an hour. But what happens when we are the beneficiary of such kindnl•~ ,
Do we always react in a positive way? For an answer to this question, pleases:~
the special feature, "What Research Tells Us About. .. How People React to Being Helped."
Wh;:tt 8esP.;:trch Tells Us About ... How People React to Being Helped
Throughout this chapter, we have implicitly assumed that
prosocial behavior is a good thing; and why not? Helping
others who need assistance and showing generosity are
very positive actions. Thus, we have focused on factors that
promote or deter prosocial behavior. But, what about the
recipients of such assistance-do they always react posi
tively to it? Your first answer might well be "Of course!" but
think again. Have you ever received a gift you really didn't
want, but had to pretend to like (see Figure 9.15)? Or has
someone offered you help when you believed that you really
didn't need it, which made you feel that the person offering
it did not feel you were capable or competent? If so, you
already know that prosocial actions do not always generate
positive reactions; in fact, sometimes, they produce the op
posite effects.
Evidence that this is so has been provided by many
studies. The research indicates, first, that sometimes, being
helped can threaten our self-esteem. As mentioned earlier,
when we do not believe that we really need help, but it is
still offered, or even forced upon us, reactions to it can be
quite negative (DePaulo Brown, Ishii, & Fisher, 1981 ). A clear
example of such effects occurs when a parent offers help to
a teenager who protests loudly that "I'd rather do it myself!"
Another reason why prosocial actions may produce
negative reactions in the person being helped occurs when
the helper communicates a sense of superiority: "I'm helping
you because I know so much more or have so much more
than you do." Fortunately, such reactions can be reduced
when recipients of help perceive that the people offering it
sincerely care about them and their well-being.
But now, let's turn the situation around: Suppose you
have offered help to another person and they have accepted
it. What do you now expect? Often, people expect some indi
cation of gratitude. If you don't receive it, will you be more or
less likely to help this person in the future? Clearly, you will be
less likely to help-after all, it's only fair for the recipient to say
"Thank you." In contrast, if they do express their gratitude,
your willingness to help them in the future might increase.
What is it about expressions of gratitude that increases
prosocial behavior? Research conducted by Grant and Gino
{2010) provides an answer. They reasoned that when helpers
are thanked by the people they assist, this boosts the help
er's self-worth-the extent to which they feel valued and ap
preciated. To test this idea, they conducted a study in which
participants were asked to edit a job application letter for an
other student. Then, they met the person they supposedly
helped (actually, an accomplice of the experimenter) and had
a bnef conversation with her. The recipient of their help then
either thanked them for their help, or did not. Their willingness
to help this person was then measured by the amount of time
they then spent editing a second letter. As expected, this was
greater when they had been thanked than when they had not.
Overall, then, it seems that reactions to being helped
can be positive or negative, and that reactions to providing
help, too, can vary in this way. So by all means, help others
who need your assistance-but recognize that such actions
can sometimes be a mixed blessing.
Figure 9.15 Do the Recipients of Prosocial
Behavior Always React Positively?
Although the recipients of prosocial actions often respond
with gratitude and other positive feelings, sometimes-as shown here-they do not!
KeY Points -----• \'vl' ,1rt-' more likely to hel
P othern wt . c,ur ~elves 111011 others VVh '. 70 cue sirnilar to
0 a1 o lj1sslm ·1 T . 1o 1<1w01 tendencies to h · I I ar. his leact5
op People out 'd 80 ci;:tl g1uups. 81 e our own
, r !Hlping is increased by ex Posu,e top
1t can also be Increased by 1
• rosoclal models· P ay1ng pr . '
g.m1es. asocial Video
, Prosoc1al video games incre ase subse
prin1111g prosocial thoughts b 'Id' quent helping by
wo1 ks related to helping. ' ui ing cognitive frame-
• People higher in socioeconorn· ,c status are I l'k
to help others than are people 1
_ • • ess I ely
st,1tus. owe1 in socioeconomic
• When a stranger has helped us, by "payrng ,t forward,"
we are more likely to ree1procate by helping someone
else. • Several factors can discourage helping: after experi-
encing social exclusion or perceive that we no longer
belong, when we feel anonymous (under cover ot
darkness), and when we place an economic value on
our time. • People who recerve help from others do not always react
positively in part, because it threatens their self-esteem.
• Expressions of gratrtude from the recipients of help
increases prosocial behavior, by enhancing helpers'
feelings of self worth.
9.4: Cro':dfunding: A New Type of r rosoc1al Behavior Object Relate crowdfunding to th f t . fl .
e ac ors m uencmg prosocial behavior
Suppose )'PU ·were approached by a total stranger who asked you to donate funds so
ti at She could start a new business vou ld · 1 · 1 ' wou not own part of 1t because of your con-
tribution, and she would never return your money. If you answered: "No way!" think
again. In recent years, many internet sites have been established precisely for this rea
son: to help entrepreneurs obtain the funds they need to start a new business. Among
these are sites such as Kickstarter, Fundraiser, and GoFundMe. In general, these sites
present short\ ideos by entrepreneurs in which they describe their products or services,
and ask people who watch the video to contribute funds so that they can move ahead.
How successful are such efforts? Unbelievably so! For instance, one such project
involved a new video game called Space Combat, which received more than $65 million
from contributors. Most requests for funds, of course, are much smaller-entrepreneurs
ask donors to contribute $5,000 or $10,000. Many of these fail, but many others succeed.
This is known as crowdfunding-a process in which entrepreneurs use the money con
tributed to set up and then rw1 their companies. Since contributors will receive virtually
nothing in return (perhaps a T-shirt or other small "reward" for their help), this is clearly
a form of prosocial behavior-and one that has grown hugely in recent years.
Crowdfunding sites carefully screen the projects entrepreneurs submit, and
include safeguards to insure that the people who request funds really use them for the
purposes they describe. The overall effects are very positive: Entrepreneurs acquire
the funds they need to get started, and as you probably know, the companies they
start often provide jobs and contribute to economic growth. So clearly, this is a form of
prosocial behavior that benefits not just the entrepreneurs, but their communities too.
Why do people contribute? It has been suggested that they do because they believe the
products or services are good ones, and simply want to help the entrepreneurs to make
them available. Whatever their reasons, it appears that crowdfunding is here to stay.
9.4.l: Emotion and J>rosocit1l Behnv1or: MooJ, fi(•clinp\ of Elevation, and l-h;1 lping ) Suppose you w,,nl tu ask nnotlll'r JJ('J"½orl for .i /d vor; wh1•11 would you do lhi-i7 Wlll·IJ ::,;h{• or he is inn Vl'ry good nwnd or wlw11 .,Ju• or he j.., in .i v<·ry hilrl 01' ,mgty rn11od, 'I h" answtir b obvious. Most 1woplt· know th.it olh<·l' jH•opl(' ;i11d tlll'y th<1m<v<·lv1•s ,11 ;, more likl'ly to L'ng.1g<• in prosoci.il lwl1i1vior' wlt!'n 111 ,1 good mood lh.io n h.id r1101u1, But rc!s<'arch findings inJic,,tl' llit1! tlw <,Jl1J.ilio11 is d b1l mon· complkatPd lh,111 lh,11,
POSITIVE EMOTIONS AND PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR M,rny ing<•niour.., <;ludi<•., h,11,u bl'cn perform1•d to invl'slig,1ll' llw poknli.il link bclw<·<·n gooJ rnnodc, and lwlpin1-;. Ir, general, Lhis research mdirnlL•s lhal pvoplt> ,11·1• rnon· willing to lwl P il sl rd ng1•r wlH•,, their mood hns been ell'valPJ by som<· rec<·nt <'xrwrn•nn• for inc,lam<·, listr·ning hi a comedian (Wilson, 1981 ), fmcJing mmwy in lh<' mm rd urn slot of a public t<•lf•ph<,n1,
(!&en & Levin, 1972), s~wnding tinw outdoors on a plc,1s,111t day (Cunningham, 1979), r,r receiving a small unexpected gifl (Isen, 1970). bvl'n a pleasant frngrnn,(• in the: air c;in increase prosocial behuvior (Baron, 1990; Baron & l11omlcy, 1994) somdhing rl<~part n1ent stores know very well. That's why thc·y often pump plea<;,ant smells into the 11ir in the hope that this will increase purchases by customers.
Under certain specific circumstances, however, a positive mood can dr'crease thl• probability of responding in a prosocial way (I sen, l984). This 1s because being in a gor,d mood can lead us to interpret various situations-especially emergencies-as not really serious. And even if it is clear that an emergency exists, people in a good mood somC'times help less than those in a neutral mood if helping involves actions that are difficult (Rosenhan, Salovey, & Hargjs, 1981) or will detract from their current good mood.
NEGATIVE EMOTIONS AND PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR If positive moods increase helping, do negative moods reduce such behavior? Some research findings offer support for this view (Amato, 1986). As is true of positive emotions, though, specific circumstances can strongly influence or even reverse this general trend. For example, if the act of helping others generates positive feelings, people in a bad mood may actually be more Hkely to help than those in a neutral or even positive mood because they want to make themselves feel better, and helping others can help them accomplish this goal (Cialdini, Kenrick, & Baumann, 1982). This is consistent with the negative-state relief model described earlier. A negative mood or emotion is most likely to increase prosocial behavior if the negative feelings are not too intense, if the emergency is clear-cut rather than ambiguous, and if the act of helping is interesting and satisfying rather than dull and unrewarding (Cunningham, Shaffer, Barbee, Wolff, & Kelley, 1990).
FEELINGS OF ELATION AND HELPING OTHERS When we see another person engaging in a kind or helpful act, this can have a strong effect on our emotions. In particular, it can trigger feelings of elation-it can make us feel inspired, uplifted, and optimistic about human nature. Does it also increase our tendency to engage in prosocial behavior? Recent evidence indicates that it does. Schnall, Roper, and Fessler (2010) conducted a series of studies in which participants were exposed either to an elevating video showing prosocial actions by others, a neutral video (about the ocean), or a video showing a funny comedian (mirth condition). The mirth condition was included a~ a control for the possibility that the effects of seeing other people behave in a prosocial ma~er merely increase positive affect, and as we noted earlier, positive moods do often mcrease helping in and of themselves.
After watching one of th , . . ese \'tdeos .
- ,:ircb had an opportun.it,., . . , parbc1panls in lhe re=e . . J act in a .
-tudY, tor mstance, they w prosoual manner. In
,rte :, ere asked . f l e~--perimenter by comp\etin 1 they would help
the g a quesf · . boring. The measure of hel . ionna1re describL'd
,1:, l ping Was h ticipants vo unteered. It w ow many minutPs
paC . as predi t d -ed to a video designed to . :l c e thrit those l'X
Figure 9.16 r,,nlinq~ ci1 F lnvnti<m at,d I h.>lpir,(l
lndiv1dunlt. oxpo'lot.J to .t vld1,ut11po dl''>iqr111,J tr, 1n1J111,t;
feeling~ of alovntion (foellnq'> nf IJ•,Jn<J u1,l1ft<;d, u1•.p1r1, 0 J1
later (JllC)flqed In rnoro h1•lp1r1t1 ti iltft th(Jr,fj f;/.rlJ';lj(j 1,; It
humorou!l tapfl or •,crn1a'l o f th,, oce:1I1 .
po:, . . inc lice fe 1·
f e]ings ofbemg uplifted insp · d '-' mgs of elevation
( e , ire etc) re t:i.J11e, and as you can see in p· , . would voluntPer
J11.0 . 1gure 9 16th' ·
l at happened. In fact partici · 1s ts precisely
,r1 ' pants who ,· . video volunteered about tw· 'iewed the eleval JJlg ice as much ti
the other two conditions. The f t h me as those m ac t atth .
( xposure to a funny comedian) ct·ct e mirth condition
e . 1 not in h • ;,.,dicates that feelings of elevatio d . crease elpmg ,... n o mdeed · 1 than merely positive affect. The mora m,·o ve more
d f·t 11 · h 1 of such research is [ear, an 1 s we wit research h
c . on t e effects of I ·
Prosooal video games. The tendency t P aymg
· 0 perform prosoc· 1
· ns c~n be increased b ia
ac:b0 · Y exposure to others en · · · · K. dn · gagmg m
such actton'-. m ess, m short is "c t . , . . ' on agious" and can be
P,HII( lf.J Ht1!, f',<r,v,wl tr 1" Tl,• rn111h :irid l v1deuti,r,., d,,•,11p,,,d tr, ,.c,ntrr;I , , ,nd t,,,, .
gpr,,,r,,tti fe,.,l,wir. of , J,d ,.,,. "·"· .• ,,,., I Piev11l1c,r, v0luni1 •Prnd the' ,,.. •. p,,,1 1 ,, rn11 11, ·•
mo•,t rrnnuter, 11,luritc• r• d
✓ " I r
II II I I
II II
!JO II I I
V) II II
Q) 41 II I I ... 40 ~ -0
- I ,/ I I
·- Q) / 1';
~ Q) 30 ,..
.... Q)
...
0 ... '- C 20 Q)..:?
..c 0 E> 10 :::, z
0
encouragec. by witnessing it in the acti· f ons o others. Elevation Mirth Cc,ntrol
9.4.2: Gender and Prosocial Behavior
Do T r\Tomen and Men Differ? ·
Experimental Condition
Suppose } ou wanted so~eone to help you cope with a distressing situation-one that
has caused you to expenence very intense negative ti. w uld k d , emo ons. o you see -an
exp~ct-more help from women or men? In another context, suppose that you were
seeking somecne who w~uld be willing to offer help to a stranger but doing so would
expose the helper to considerable danger-for instance, rescuing someone from a burn
ing budding or from the ocean where they appeared to be drowning. Who would you
expect to be more likely to perform this task, men or women? Many people would an
swer "wrJmen" to the first situation and "men" to the second. This suggests that, in fact,
we don't expect women and men to differ in terms of their overall willingness to engage
in prosocial behavior; rather, such differences may emerge only in specific situations.
A large body of research (e.g., Eagly, 2009) provides support for this suggestion:
Women are more helpful than men in some contexts, and men are helpful than women
in other contexts. These differences are consistent with gender roles or stereotypes which
suggest that women are more likely to be friendly, unselfish, and concerned with others,
while men tend to be masterful, assertive, competitive, and dominant. These gender
stereotypes indicate, overall, that women are more communal than men-they connect
with others and bond with them in close interpersonal relationships. In contrast, men
are expected to be more agentic-they tend to connect not in close relationships, but
rather, with collectives-that is, relatively large groups. For instance, women form close
relationships with their friends-relationships in which they offer each other emotional
support. Although men, too, form friendships, they are often focused on activities
people with whom they play tennis or golf, or with whom they discuss investments.
The implications of these differences is that women are more likely to engage in
prosocial actions when these involve people with whom they have personal relation
ships rather than with strangers, while men may be just as likely to help a stranger as
Key Points
i1 frien~. For instance, research findings indicate that men are more likely than wornen to rec~1ve awards for heroism- help ing others when doing so involves risking their own lives. In fact, more than 90 percent of such awards go to men. In contrast, women are more li kely to receive awards for helping organizations in their communities
ones that focus on assisting specific individuals in need of assistance. So, are women or men higher in their tendency to engage in prosocial behavior?
The answer is: This is the wrong question; mstead we should ask, "When-in What
situations-do such differences exist?"
• Receiving help does not always generate positive
reactions in the recipients. In fact, under some
conditions, they are more likely to experience
feelings of resentment and unwanted obligations to the helper.
• Similar effects occur among helpers, too: They react
more positively to helping others when the recipients
express gratitude. • Crowdfunding, a new form of prosocial behavior,
allows individuals to make financial contributions to
entrepreneurs, to help them start new companies. The
contributors receive nothing 1n return for their help. • An important factor determining how recipients react
to help is the motivation underlying such behavior. If it
seems to stem from internal motives (e.g., a genuine
desire to l1elp), positive feelings and reactions may result.
If, instead, it sterns from external motives (i.e., the helper
felt obligated to extend assistance), reactions tends to be far less favorable.
• Women and men do not differ in prosocial behavior
overall, but women are more likely to engage in proso
cial actions when these involve people with whom they
personal relationships than with strangers, while men
may be just as likely to help a stranger as a friend.
9.5: Final Thoughts: Are Prosocial Behavior and Aggression Opposites? Objective Describe the relationship between prosocial behavior
and antisocial behavior
Helping and hurting: At first glance, they certainly seem to be opposites. Rushing to
the aid of victims in emergencies, donating to charity, volunteering to help the wildlife
harmed by the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, giving directions to people who are lost
these and countless other helpful actions seem in many ways the opposite of aggression, which social psychologists generally define as intentional efforts to harm others in some
way (see Chapter 10). But are helping and aggression really opposites? If you stopped
one hundred people at random, and asked them to place helping and aggression along
a line, almost all of them would place these forms of social behavior at opposite sides.
But get ready for a surprise: Social psychologists have thought long and hard
about this issue and reached the conclusion that in many ways, prosocial behavior and
aggression are not opposite'\ In fact, they overlap much more than you might expect.
First, consider the motives underlying such actions . The motivation for helping,
you might assume is simply to do something beneficial for the recipient; the motiva
tion for aggression, in contrast, is to do something to harm the recipient in some way.
But look a bit more closely: As we have seen in this chapter, people sometimes engage
in prosocial actions not primarily to help the recipients, but rather, to boost their own
l1;; ,1nd to ?1i11 a p~~iti\'e reputation . . . . . . ,t.it ..
01ething benehcial f th · the1r motivation, m short, 1s not necessanly
1L' :,L1 or e reci . . . tt1 l f emp..1thy-based helpin .
6 . ?tents. Certainly, that motive does exist m the
Jll o g, ut 1t 1s oft 'bl f\1r
1. t· il Ktions toward oth en not the primary motivation respons
1 e
• J1e p t c ers. tl,r NtlW consider aggression- ls tl . - · 1e moti ti. h . · ..., in some wav7 Co .d va on behind such behavior always to arm
nct!l1• ; . nsi er the f ll . . . tltt.' h eft·ort an athlete
1· , • .
0 owing situation: A sports coach, dissatisfied . 11 t e s mvestm · .
,111 t t take "ten laps ar d g_ in practice_ and angry at this person, orders the
tl [ete 0 oun the field" ,1 1 that evenu
1g· no t· and then also confmes the athlete to her or
.. room · par 1es or getti . \11'. ·a-1
1t seem to be . ng together with friends. Do these actions-
1-,,-h fl'l1o aggressive ( t 1 · f , ,•iu'- fr ti' a east potentially from the recipient's point o . ,·)-stem om a mo veto harm th
1•1e• 1 1
tl thl . e athlete? Not necessarily. The coach takes these ·ons to 1e p 1e a ete improve ;ictl th
1 -or at least, become more motivated. We could
. r rnam· o er examp es, but th . . . . ofte ·. d . e mam point 1s clear: TI1e motives behind proso-. 1 behanor an aggression somef . oa . inl . tl imes overlap and can't be easily separated. In this
respect, certa . y, 1ey are not polar opposites. Now consider, the ~pecific acti · · . h 0 !1§ involved in prosocial behavior and aggress10n.
1 ,e \ ou rru a t o-uess are direct · · · · 11es 1 ? 0 '. opposites. Prosocial actions help the rec1p1ents in
\\'aY while ao-Q"ress1ve actio h h · f $Dille , , 00 ns arm t em, so they mvolve very different kmd o . - Per'1aps But now im · th f acl:JOD~- ·. agme e ollowmg scene: A young woman takes a sharp
needle ard uses it_ to puncture the skin of another person, who cries out m pam. Is she
el vi.IY ag(Tress1vely7 Maybe b h b 1a b ,. ~ . , ,, · yes, may e no. What if she is placmg a tattoo on t e suppose~! 'ic~ s body-one she has requested and paid form advance? So while
these acL.JflS might appear to be aggressive, they may actually have little or nofumg to
do with harming the "victim." Not all aggressive and prosocial actions overlap m this
sense, but some do and this suggests that these two aspects of social behavior are not
direct opposites. - Fina 11) consider the effects of aggression and prosocial behavior. By defini-
tion, aggression produces harm and prosocial actions produce benefits, but agam,
not always. For instance, consider someone who uses a very sharp knife to cut mto
the bod~ of another person. Is this aggression? On the surface it may appear to be.
But what J the person performmg this action is a skilled surgeon, trying to save the
other person' s life? The short-term effects might seem harmful (the "victim" bleeds
profusely), but the long-term effects are actually beneficial: The patient's health is
restored. Similarly, prosocial actions can seem beneficial in the short term, but harm
the recipient m the long-term. Help we don't request or want can undermme our self
esteem and confidence, so short-term benefits can soon tum mto long-term harm.
Finally, we should mention the fact that research fmdmgs (e.g., Hawley, Card, &
Little, 2007) indicate that aggression and prosocial behavior are sometimes used by
the same people to gain popularity and status. Specifically, such research indicates
that individuals who behave aggressively can be highly attractive to others-rather
than merely alarming-if they combme such actions with prosocial ones. Such people
are seen as tough and assertive, but also as possessmg social skills that allow them to
be charming and helpful; and they know when to "tum" their tough sides on and off.
Hawley and her colleagues describe this as "the allure of mean friends" (the appeal of
people who are indeed aggressive, but also have other skills that help them to attain
important goals) and have found that this combination of toughness and prosocial
action is seductive and far from rare. I
. As you can see, then, the question of whether helping and aggression are oppo-
sites is far more complex than first meets the eye. The motives from which these forms
c•t bduivior spring, the behaviors themselves, and effects they produce are complex
and ll\ erlap much more than you at might initially guess. And that's not really Sllr
rrisin~ bec,1use all social behavior is complex; generally; it stems from many different
moti\'es, takes a \\ ide range of forms, and produces many different effects. So yes,
indeed, helping and hurting are very different in several respects but not, perhaps, as
different as common sense suggests.
Sumn1ary and Review
St>n?ral different nwtiYes may underlie prosocial be
havior. The empathy-altruism hypothesis proposes
th,lt, be-:.:iuse uf empathy, we help those in need be
cause n-e e,perien.:e empathic concern for them.
Empathy a.:tually consists of three distinct compo
nents-emotional empathy, empathic accuracy, and
empathic concern .. All three components can serve as
a basis for helping others. The negative-state relief
model prop0ses that people help other people in order
tr- relie,·e and make less negati,·e their own emotional
discomfort. The empathic joy hypothesis suggests
that helping stems from the positive reactions recipi
ents show "·hen they recei,·e help (e.g., gifts) and the
positi.Ye feelings this, in tum, induces in helpers.
Recent e,·idence indicates that people around the
,,·orld experience positive feelings (affect) when they
engage in prosocial behavior. The competitive altru
ism theory suggests that we help others as a means
of increasing our ov;n status and reputation-and so
benefit from helping in important ways. Kin selection
theory suggests that we help others who are related to
us because this increases the likelihood that our genes
will be transmitted to future generations. Another mo
tiYe for helping behavior is that of reducing the threat
posed by outgroups to our own ingroup, known as de
fensive helping. "\\'hen an emergency arises and someone is in need
of help, a bystander may or may not respond in a pro
social '"''ay-responses can range from apathy (and
doing nothing) to heroism. In part because of diffusion
of responsibility, the more bystanders present as wit
nesses to an emergency, the less likely each of them is
to proYide help and the greater the delay before help
occurs (the bystander effect). This is true for helping
between strangers, but is less likely to occur for help
ing among people who belong to same groups. The
tendency for an individual surrounded by a group of
strangers to refrain from acting is based on pluralistic
ignorance: Because each of the bystanders depends on
the others to provide cues for appropriate action, no
one does anything. We are more likely to help others who are similar
to ourselves than others who are dissimilar. This leads
to lower tendencies to help people outside our own
social groups. Helping is increased by exposure to
prosocial models; it can also be increased by playing
prosocial video games. Prosocial video games increase
subsequent helping by priming prosocial thoughts,
building cognitive frameworks related to helping.
Empathy is an important determinant of helping
behavior. It is weaker across group boundaries than
within social groups. Several factors reduce the ten
dency to help others. These include social exclusion,
darkness, and putting an economic value on our time.
People who receive help from others do not al
ways react positively, in part because it threatens their
self-esteem. An important factor determining how re
cipients react to help is the motivation underlying such
behavior. If it seems to stem from internal motives (e.g.,
a genuine desire to help), positive feelings and reactions
may result. If, instead, it stems from external motins
(i.e., the helper felt obligated to extend assistance), reac
tions tends to be far less favorable. Similar effects occur
among helpers, too: They react more positively to help
ing others when the recipients express gratitude.
Crowdfunding, a new form of social behavior,
allows individuals to make financial contributions to
entrepreneurs, to help them start new companies. The
contributors receive nothing in return for their help.
Women and men do not differ in prosocial behavior
overall, but women are more likely to engage in pro
social actions when these involve people with whom
they personal relationships than with strangers, while
men may be just as likely to help a stranger as a friend.
Helping and prosocial behavior have many differ
ences, but can share some underlying motives.