Altruism and Bystander Behaviour

EXPLANATIONS OF ALTRUISM

Biological and psychological altruism

• Biological altruism: The principle of natural selection predicts that individuals should behave selfishly to promote their own survival and reproduction. However, even though an altruistic act may decrease reproductive potential, it increases the survival of the genes; altruism is selfish at the levels of the genes. This is called kin selection (because one’s kin are being favoured) and is referred to as ‘apparent altruism’ because it is actually selfish behaviour.

• Psychological altruism: Altruism in humans is influenced by personal choice, empathy, morals and social norms. The behaviour of the bystander, Lenny Skutnik, who heroically saved passengers from an aircrash in the Potomac River illustrates all of these.

The empathy-altruism hypothesis (Batson et al., 1981) People are more motivated to help when they feel empathy for a victim rather than just seeing the distress. Batson claims that empathy is an innate trait, like altruism.

Research evidence

Batson et al. (1981) asked female students to take the place of ‘Elaine’ who was receiving mild electric shocks. Those who were led to believe that a placebo drug they took led to empathetic concern offered to take the shocks whereas those who had been led to believe that they would feel distress were more likely to leave.

Evaluation

• Developmental evidence suggests that children do become more altruistic as their empathy develops.

• Smith et al. (1989) proposed the empathic joy hypothesis, that we help another because empathy leads to shared feelings of joy.

However, Batson et al. (1991) found those lowest in empathic concern were keenest to hear about their successful altruistic act, supporting the empathy-altruism hypothesis.

The negative-state relief model (Cialdini, 1987)

Altruists act because of a desire to reduce their own negative state of distress which has been created through empathising with the victim.

Research evidence

Cialdini et al. (1987) misinformed participants about the effects of a placebo drug – saying it would ‘fix’ their mood. They found, as predicted, that participants were less prepared to help a student who was receiving shocks if this wouldn’t help them to reduce their own sad feelings.

Evaluation

• There is evidence that people do not always act out of self-interest.

Lerner and Lichtman (1968) found participants would voluntarily receive electric shocks in place of their partner if told the other girl was scared or that she would leave the experiment unless she was the control.

• We may only feel distress when we are attached to the other person, therefore this model cannot explain all altruistic behaviour.

Explanations of bystander behaviour

Bystander intervention is pro-social behaviour at minimal cost to the helper. The various 

studies by Latané and Darley were the result of questions asked after the tragic death of Kitty Genovese. She was fatally stabbed despite the fact that at least 38 people heard her screams. Why did no one act, even to phone the police?

Diffusion of responsibility

Darley and Latané (1968) arranged a conversation over an intercom between students. The empathy–altruism model suggests that people are not always motivated to behave selfishly. One confederate said he suffered from seizures and later appeared to collapse. When participants thought they were the only listener, 85% helped; if there was one bystander 62% helped; with four bystanders 31% helped. It is worth noting that participants couldn’t actually see if anyone else was helping.

Latané and Darley (1968) asked participants to fill out a bogus questionnaire in a room which filled with smoke. If the participant was alone 75% reported the emergency within six minutes; with two other participants this dropped to 12%.

Evaluation

• Laboratory studies may not represent real responses. In a field experiment on the New York subway Piliavin et al. (1969) demonstrated a reversal of the diffusion of responsibility effect. The more passengers in the immediate vicinity of the victim, the more likely help would be given. This may be because the costs of helping were low and not helping were high; it was also clearly an emergency and the victim could be seen (i.e. relatively unambiguous) and was less easy to ignore.

Pluralistic ignorance

Clark and Word (1972) arranged for a maintenance worker to walk through a room with a ladder while participants were filling out a questionnaire. Later a crash is heard. If this was followed by ‘Oh my back, I can’t move’ everyone offered help, whether alone or in a group, whereas only 30% helped in the ambiguous situation when nothing was heard after the crash. In ambiguous or novel situations we look to others to tell us what to do. Each non-responding bystander is communicating: ‘It’s OK, no action needs to be taken.’

Evaluation apprehension

Latané and Darley (1976) tested all three explanations by observing participants’ willingness to help a victim when they could (i) see the victim and be seen by other bystanders (diffusion of responsibility), (ii) see but not be seen (diffusion plus social responsibility), (iii) not see but be seen (diffusion plus audience inhibition), (iv) neither see nor be seen by onlookers (diffusion plus social responsibility plus audience inhibition). The likelihood of help was least in condition (v) and most in (vi).  

Characteristics of the victim

Piliavin et al. (1969, above) found that when the victim carried a cane 95% of bystanders helped within 10 seconds, if he appeared drunk help came in 50% of the trials. Varying the race (Black or White) of the victim, or his attractiveness (presence of an ugly facial birthmark) also altered the likelihood of helping. Bickman (1974) left a dime in a telephone box. If the experimenter was dressed in a suit he got the dime back 77% of the time, if he was wearing unkempt work clothes there was a 38% return rate.

Characteristics of the helper

Piliavin et al. (1969, above) found that men were more likely to help than women. Bierhoff et al. (1991) found that helpers at the scene of a traffic accident were likely to have a high internal locus of control, held a belief in a ‘just world’, were more able to empathise, and were less egocentric than non-helpers.