Prosocial behavior, or "voluntary behavior intended to benefit another",[1] consists of actions which "benefit other people or society as a whole,"[2] "such as helping, sharing, donating, co- operating, and volunteering."[3] These actions may be motivated by empathy and by concern about the welfare and rights of others,[4] as well as for egoistic or practical concerns.[1] Evidence suggests that prosociality is central to the well-being of social groups across a range of scales.[5][6] Empathy is a strong motive in eliciting pro-social behavior, and has deep evolutionary roots.[7]
Prosocial behavior fosters positive traits that are beneficial for children and society. It may be motivated both by altruism and by self-interest, for reasons of immediate benefit or future reciprocity. Evolutionary psychologist use theories such as kin-selection theory and inclusive fitness as an explanation as to why prosocial behavioral tendencies are passed down generationally, according to the evolutionary fitness displayed by those who engaged in prosocial acts.[8] Encouraging prosocial behavior may also require decreasing or eliminating undesirable social behaviors.[6]
Although the term "Prosocial behavior" is often associated with developing desirable traits in children,[9][10] the literature on the topic has grown since the late 1980s to include adult behaviors as well.[11]
According to CD Batson, the term "was created by social scientists as an antonym for antisocial."[12]
The purist forms of prosocial behavior are motivated by altruism, an unselfish interest in helping another person. According to Sanstock, the circumstances most likely to evoke altruism are empathy for an individual in need, or a close relationship between the benefactor and the recipient.[4] However, many prosocial behaviors that appear altruistic are in fact motivated by the norm of reciprocity, which is the obligation to return a favor with a favor. People feel guilty when they do not reciprocate and they may feel angry when someone else does not reciprocate. Either reciprocity or altruism may motivate many important prosocial behaviors, including sharing.[4]
Prosocial behavior is mediated by both situational and individual factors.
Situational factors:
The decision model of bystander intervention noted that whether or not an individual gives aid in a situation depends upon their analysis of the situation. An individual will consider whether or not the situation requires their assistance, if the assistance is the responsibility of the individual, and how to help. [13]
The number of individuals present in the situation requiring help is also a mediating factor in one’s decision to give aid, where the more individuals are present, the less likely it is for one particular individual to give aid due to a reduction in perceived personal responsibility. [14]
Additionally, Piliavin et al., (1981) noted that individuals are likely to maximize their rewards and minimize their costs when determining whether or not to give aid in a situation – that is, that people are rationally self-motivated. Prosocial behavior is more likely to occur if the cost of helping is low (i.e. minimal time, or minimal effort), if helping would actually benefit the individual providing the help in some way, and if the rewards of providing the help are large. If it is in an individual’s interest to help, they will most likely do so, especially if the cost of not providing the help is great.[15]
People are also more likely to help those in their social group, or their “in group”. With a sense of shared identity with the individual requiring assistance, the altruist is more likely to provide help, on the basis that one allocates more time and energy towards helping behavior within individuals of their own group. The labeling of another individual as a member of one’s “in-group” leads to greater feelings of closeness, emotional arousal, and a heightened sense of personal responsibility for the other’s welfare, all of which increase the motivation to act prosocially. [16]
Researchers have also found that social exclusion decreases the likelihood of prosocial behavior occurring. In a series of seven experiments conducted by Twenge et al., (2007) researchers manipulated social inclusion or exclusion by telling research participants that other participants had purposefully excluded them, or that they would probably end up alone later in life. They found that this preliminary social exclusion caused prosocial behavior to drop significantly, noting that,"Socially excluded people donated less money to a student fund, were unwilling to volunteer for further lab experiments, were less helpful after a mishap, and cooperated less in a mixed-motive game with another student."[17] This effect is thought to be due to the fact that prosocial behavior, again, is motivated by a sense of responsibility in caring for and sharing resources with members of one's own group.
Individual Factors
Individuals can be compelled to act prosocially based on learning and socialization during childhood. Operant conditioning and social learning positively reinforces discrete instances of prosocial behaviors. Helping skills and a habitual motivation to help others is therefore socialized, and reinforced as children understand why helping skills should be used to help others around them. [18]
Social and individual standards and ideals also motivate individuals to engage in prosocial behavior. Social responsibility norms, and social reciprocity norms reinforce those who act prosocially. As an example, consider the child who is positively reinforced for "sharing" during their early childhood years.[19] When acting prosocially, individuals reinforce and maintain their positive self-images or personal ideals, as well as help to fulfill their own personal needs. [20]
Emotional arousal is an important motivator for prosocial behavior in general. Batson's (1987) empathy-altruism model examines the emotional and motivational component of prosocial behavior. Feeling empathy towards the individual needing aid increases the likelihood that the aid will be given. This empathy is called "empathetic concern" for the other individual, and is characterized by feelings of tenderness, compassion, and sympathy. [21]
Agreeableness is thought to be the personality trait most associated with inherent prosocial motivation. Prosocial thoughts and feelings may be defined as a sense of responsibility for other individuals, and a higher likelihood of experiencing empathy (“other-oriented empathy”) both affectively (emotionally) and cognitively. These prosocial thoughts and feelings correlate with dispositional empathy and dispositional agreeableness. [22][23]
Prosocial behavior in childhood often begins with questions of sharing and fairness. Most sharing during the first three years of life is done for non-empathic reasons, such as for the fun of the social play ritual or out of imitation. Then, at about 4 years of age, a combination of empathic awareness and adult encouragement produces a sense of obligation on the part of the child to share with others. What is important developmentally is that the child has developed a belief that sharing is an obligatory part of a social relationship and involves a question of right and wrong.[4]
Parents can set examples that children carry into their interactions and communication with peers, but parents are not present during all of their children's peer exchanges. The day-to-day constructions of fairness standards is done by children in collaboration and negotiation with each other.[4]
Studies have shown that different types of media programming may evoke prosocial behaviors in children.
Channels aimed at younger viewers like Nickelodeon and Disney Channel had significantly more acts of altruism than the general-audience demographic channels like A&E and or TNT, according to one large-scale study. This study examined the programming of 18 different channels, including more than 2,000 entertainment shows, during a randomly selected week on television. The study revealed that nearly three quarters (73 percent) of programs contained at least one act of altruism and on average viewers saw around three acts of altruism an hour.[24] Around one-third of those behaviors were explicitly rewarded in the plot, potentially sending the message that these acts of prosocial behavior can come with positive consequences.[24]
However, other scholars have criticized academic discussions of this issue for often naively dichotomizing media into separate violent and prosocial categories when, in fact they overlap. For instance a study by Ferguson and Garza found that exposure to violent video games was associated with increased prosocial behavior, both on-line as well as volunteering in the real world. The authors speculated this may be due to the prosocial themes common in many violent games, as well as team oriented play in many games.[25]
Another study on the topic was conducted by University of Buffalo, Iowa State University and University of Minnesota professors. They studied children for two years for the purpose of investigating the role of media exposure on both antisocial and prosocial behavior for young boys and girls. The study concluded that media exposure could possibly predict different subtypes of aggression, such as relational aggression or physical aggression. The study determined that boys were at a higher risk of physical aggression after exposure than girls, who react with a more relational aggression.[26]
Whereas media exposure to violence can lead to aggression in viewers, some studies have shown that video games with prosocial messages can lead to prosocial behaviors. Tobias Greitemeyer, at the University of Sussex, and Silvia Osswald at Ludwig-Maximilians-University had undergraduates come into their lab and play a prosocial video game. They then staged situations in which the students had the opportunity to act prosocially. Students either witnessed the experimenter drop a cup of pencils, were asked to volunteer for another study without compensation, or witnessed a man (an actor) harass the experimenter. The researchers found that students who played the prosocial video game were more likely to help pick up the pencils, more likely to volunteer for future studies, and more likely to try to stop the angry man. The authors also found that playing the prosocial video game increased the accessibility of prosocial thoughts in the students. They concluded that just as exposure to violent media can increase thoughts and acts of aggression, so can prosocial media increase positive thoughts and actions. [27]
In an effort to force stations to air education and prosocial programming for children, the Children's Television Act of 1990 was adopted. It states that channels must produce and air programming developed specifically for children as a condition to renew broadcast licenses. After discussions as to the definition of "specifically designed for children" really means. In 1996 guidelines were passed to specify these concerns.[28]
Social media can also be a catalyst for prosocial behavior. One example occurred during the relief efforts in the wake of the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami off the coast of Japan, when users turned to Facebook and Twitter to provide financial and emotional support via their social networks. Direct donations to Japanese relief were possible on The Red Cross fan page on Facebook,[29] and via online discount sites like Groupon and LivingSocial.
In 1941 Hervey Cleckley[30][31] described psychopathy as a disorder in which individuals often initially appear intelligent, charming, and even kind but are in fact egocentric, grandiose and impulsive. He described individuals who would, on a whim, leave their families to cross the country gambling, drinking and fighting, only to return and act as if nothing was out of the ordinary.
Today, psychopathy is described as a personality disorder that is characterized by decreased anxiety, fear, and social closeness as well as increased impulsivity, manipulativeness, interpersonal dominance and aggression[32][33][34]. These traits lead to numerous types of antisocial behavior including high rates of substance abuse[35], serial short term relationships[36], and various forms of criminal behavior[37]. One common misconception about psychopathy though is that all psychopaths are serial killers or other viscous criminals. In reality, many researchers do not consider criminal behavior to be a criterion for the disorder although the role of criminality in the disorder is strongly debated[38][39][40]. Additionally, psychopathy is being researched as a dimensional construct that is one extreme of normal range personality traits instead of a categorical disorder[41][42].
In regards to the lack of prosocial behavior in psychopathy there are several theories that have been proposed in the literature. One theory suggests that psychopaths engage in less prosocial behavior (and conversely more antisocial behavior) because of a deficit in their ability to recognize fear in others, particularly fearful facial expressions[43]. Because they are unable to recognize that their actions are causing another distress, they continue that behavior in order to obtain some goal that benefits them. A second theory proposes that psychopaths have a sense of “altruistic punishment”[44] where they are willing to punish other individuals even if it means they will be harmed in some way. There has also been an evolutionary theory proposed[45] stating that psychopaths lack of prosocial behavior is an adaptive mating strategy in that it allows them to spread more of their genes while taking less responsibility for their offspring. Finally,there is some evidence that, in some situations psychopaths behavior may not be antisocial but instead it may be more utilitarian[46] than other individuals. In a recent study Bartels & Pizarro (2011) found that when making decisions about traditional moral dilemmas such as the Thomson's Footbridge problem, individuals high in psychopathic traits actually make more utilitarian (and therefore more moral in some views) choices. This finding is particularly interesting because it suggests that psychopaths, who are often considered immoral or even evil, may actually make better moral decisions than non-psychopaths. The authors of this study conclude that individuals high in psychopathic traits are less influenced by their emotions and therefore make more “mathematical” decisions and choose the option that leads to the lowest number of deaths.
The theories discussed above are not intended to be a comprehensive list but instead to provides a sense of how psychopaths differ in their approach to social interactions. As with most psychological/social phenomenon it is likely a combination of these factors that lead to psychopaths lack of prosocial behavior. Further research is needed to determine the causal nature of any one of these individual deficits as well as if there is any way to help these individuals develop more prosocial patterns of behavior.
Stefano Passini and Davide Morselli argue that groups will obey authority so long as its system, basis, and demands are viewed as legitimate. Passini and Morselli distinguish between anti-social disobedience, which they see as destructive, and pro-social disobedience, which they see as constructive. “Disobedience becomes pro-social when it is enacted for the sake of the whole society, including all its different levels and groups. In contrast, anti-social disobedience is enacted mainly in favour of one's own group, in order to attain individual rights.” A main difference between anti-social and pro-social dissidence is the way that they relate to authority; anti-social dissidents reject authority and disobey its norms and laws, while pro-social dissidents understand the important roles that societal laws play in maintaining order, but also recognize and address the flaws in authoritative reasoning. Pro-social protests, if viewed in a positive manner, can increase freedoms and equality for the general public, and improve democratic institutions. [47]