Difficulty: Intermediate | Prerequisites: Social exchange theory (Ch. 11), group dynamics, norms (Ch. 5)
This chapter explains why people help others, when they fail to help and what increases helping behaviour. The bystander effect and Latané and Darley's five-step decision model are core exam material. The chapter balances evolutionary, social exchange and empathy-based explanations and argues that helping is shaped as much by situations as by personality.
Helping is shaped by situations, social norms and psychological processes at least as much as by personality. People help for a mix of selfish and selfless reasons. The bystander effect shows that more witnesses often means less helping, because responsibility gets diffused. Helping increases when the situation is unambiguous, when responsibility is clear and when empathy is high.
Altruism
A motive to increase another person's welfare without conscious regard for one's own self-interest.
In simple terms, helping where the helper may get nothing in return.
Social exchange theory (applied to helping)
Human interactions are transactions aiming to maximise rewards and minimise costs. Helping happens when rewards outweigh costs.
Reciprocity norm
The expectation that people should help those who helped them. Builds social capital (trust and cooperation).
Social responsibility norm
The expectation that people should help those in need, even without return.
Kin selection
Helping relatives increases survival of shared genes. We are more likely to help family than strangers.
Empathy
Vicariously experiencing another's feelings (putting yourself in their shoes).
Empathy-altruism hypothesis (Batson)
When empathy is high, people help even if no reward or recognition is possible. Suggests true altruism may exist.
Bystander effect
The more people present, the less likely any one person is to help.
Diffusion of responsibility
Responsibility is shared across bystanders, so each person feels less accountable.
Pluralistic ignorance
Assuming others are not reacting, so the situation must not be serious.
Decision model of helping (Latané and Darley)
Five steps: (1) notice the event, (2) interpret it as an emergency, (3) assume responsibility, (4) know how to help, (5) implement the decision. Failure at any step means no helping.
Moral inclusion
Seeing others as part of "our group," which increases helping.
Moral exclusion
Viewing others as outsiders, which reduces helping.
Overjustification effect (in helping)
Too much external reward for helping reduces intrinsic motivation to help.
Helping is a transaction. People help when rewards (praise, approval, feeling good about oneself) outweigh costs. External rewards include social approval. Internal rewards include the "do-good/feel-good effect," where helping increases positive mood and self-worth.
Positive emotions increase helping: happy people think more positively and act more prosocially. Negative emotions can also drive helping when it reduces unpleasant feelings like distress or guilt.
The reciprocity norm says people should help those who helped them. It builds social capital. The social responsibility norm says people should help those in need, even without return. These norms are strongest when reciprocity is public and when the person in need is seen as genuinely unable to help themselves.
Kin selection explains why we help relatives: helping family increases survival of shared genes. Reciprocity works among non-relatives in small groups where people remember favours and repeated interactions occur (direct reciprocity: I help you, you help me; indirect reciprocity: reputation-based helping). Group selection suggests helping benefits the group even if costly to individuals.
Batson's empathy-altruism hypothesis argues that when empathy is high, people help even if no reward or recognition is possible. This suggests true altruism may exist, alongside the egoistic motivation to help (helping to reduce one's own distress).
The Kitty Genovese case (1964) sparked research on bystander intervention. Latané and Darley's decision model identifies five steps where helping can fail:
Notice the event (people in groups notice less due to distraction)
Interpret it as an emergency (pluralistic ignorance: if others are not reacting, it must not be serious)
Assume responsibility (diffusion of responsibility: more bystanders means each person feels less accountable)
Know how to help (training increases helping, e.g. first aid knowledge)
Implement the decision (final action depends on costs, fear and social pressure)
Key experiments: in the smoke-filled room study, people alone quickly reported smoke but those in groups ignored it. In the epileptic seizure experiment, more bystanders led to slower or no help.
Helping increases when others model helping, when time pressure is low and when people are similar to the victim. The Good Samaritan study showed that even theology students failed to help when they were rushed. Time pressure strongly reduces helping.
Helping is linked to empathy, positive emotionality and self-efficacy, but personality traits predict average helping, not single acts. Men are more likely to help in dangerous situations; women are more likely to help in emotional and support contexts. Religious people tend to donate, volunteer and help strangers more.
Reduce ambiguity and increase responsibility: make emergencies clear and assign responsibility directly ("you, help"). Guilt and self-image play a role: people help to reduce guilt and maintain a "good person" identity.
Socialise altruism through moral inclusion (seeing others as part of "our group"), modelling behaviour (seeing others help) and learning by doing (helping builds identity as a helper). Be cautious with external rewards: the overjustification effect means too much reward for helping can reduce intrinsic motivation.
Teach altruism: awareness of bystander research itself improves helping behaviour.
Students often think the bystander effect means people are cruel or indifferent. The research shows it is about diffusion of responsibility and pluralistic ignorance, not callousness.
Students sometimes believe altruism and egoism are easy to separate. The empathy-altruism hypothesis suggests true altruism exists, but the debate is not fully settled; both motives often coexist.
Students often assume helping is mainly about personality. The chapter's core message is that situations (number of bystanders, time pressure, clarity of the emergency) matter enormously.
Students sometimes think the reciprocity norm and the social responsibility norm are the same. Reciprocity is about returning favours; social responsibility is about helping those in need regardless of return.
⚠️ Latané and Darley's five-step decision model is heavily tested. Know each step and what can go wrong at each.
⚠️ The bystander effect and diffusion of responsibility are core concepts.
⚠️ Pluralistic ignorance is a favourite exam term.
⚠️ Know Batson's empathy-altruism hypothesis and how it differs from egoistic explanations.
⚠️ The Good Samaritan study (time pressure reduces helping) is a classic exam example.
⚠️ Kin selection and reciprocity are the two main evolutionary explanations; know both.
Fill in the blank: The more bystanders present, the ________ likely any one person is to help. (less)
True or false: Pluralistic ignorance means everyone assumes others know more about the emergency. (Close but more precisely: people assume the lack of reaction from others means the situation is not serious.)
Fill in the blank: Latané and Darley's model has ________ steps. (five)
True or false: The empathy-altruism hypothesis suggests all helping is ultimately selfish. (False. It suggests that when empathy is high, true altruism may occur.)
Fill in the blank: The ________ norm says we should help those who helped us; the ________ norm says we should help those in need. (reciprocity; social responsibility)
Q: Describe Latané and Darley's five-step decision model. At which step does pluralistic ignorance operate?
A: The five steps are: (1) notice the event, (2) interpret it as an emergency, (3) assume responsibility, (4) know how to help, (5) implement the decision. Pluralistic ignorance operates at step 2: people look at others, see no one reacting, and conclude the situation is not serious.
Q: Explain the bystander effect and the role of diffusion of responsibility.
A: The bystander effect is the finding that the more people present, the less likely any one person is to help. Diffusion of responsibility is the key mechanism: when responsibility is shared across many bystanders, each person feels less personally accountable for acting.
Q: Compare egoistic and altruistic motivations for helping. What does Batson's empathy-altruism hypothesis predict?
A: Egoistic motivation means helping to reduce one's own distress or to gain rewards. Altruistic motivation means helping out of genuine concern for the other person. Batson's hypothesis predicts that when empathy is high, people help even when they could easily escape the situation and even when no reward is possible, suggesting true altruism exists.
Q: Identify three situational factors that increase helping behaviour.
A: First, low time pressure (the Good Samaritan study showed even seminary students failed to help when rushed). Second, others modelling helping behaviour. Third, similarity to the victim (people help those who resemble them in appearance or group identity).
Helping connects to social exchange theory from Ch. 11, to norms and conformity from Ch. 5, and to group behaviour and diffusion of responsibility discussed in Ch. 10 (Aggression). The empathy concept links back to the attraction and relationship material.
Search tags: prosocial behaviour, altruism, helping, social exchange theory, reciprocity norm, social responsibility norm, kin selection, group selection, empathy, Batson, empathy-altruism hypothesis, egoism vs altruism, bystander effect, Kitty Genovese, Latané and Darley, decision model of helping, diffusion of responsibility, pluralistic ignorance, Good Samaritan study, time pressure and helping, moral inclusion, moral exclusion, overjustification effect, modelling helping, social psychology NYU