People stop every day to donate blood, tutor a challenging classmate, replace a stranger’s flat tyre, or give up their bus seat. These little deeds fall into a larger category that psychologists refer to as prosocial behaviour, which is defined as voluntary activities meant to aid another person, often with no obvious gain to the helper (Batson, 1991).
This begs the straightforward but essential question: why would someone put their life in danger to save another person? Numerous overlapping theories in psychology that look at empathy, personal values, social standards, and evolutionary effects are used to solve this issue. The primary theoretical arguments in favour of prosocial behaviour are examined in this essay, along with real-world examples.
Read More: The psychology behind Prosocial Behavior
Defining Prosocial Behaviour
Amitha and Azhagannan (2024) define prosocial action as everything from modest deeds of kindness to significant personal sacrifices committed with the goal of helping another person or group. It is not the same as altruism, which is a narrower concept that specifically refers to helping someone out of pure concern for their well-being without expecting anything in return. Instead of being driven by altruism, some prosocial activities are driven by self-interest, peer pressure, or the hope of reciprocity. Prior to analysing why people assist, it is crucial to comprehend these differences.
Read More: Odisha’s Balasore Train Accident: Understanding Batson’s “empathy-altruism hypothesis”
The Empathy-Altruism Hypothesis
Batson’s empathy-altruism hypothesis is the most well-known notion of truly selfless assistance. According to Batson (Batson & Shaw, 1991), genuine altruistic motivation, in which the helper’s ultimate objective becomes the welfare of the other person rather than their own, can be generated when a person feels empathetic care for someone in suffering.
Participants in a well-known set of studies who were persuaded to feel more empathy toward someone receiving moderate electric shocks were significantly more eager to take that person’s place, even though they could have easily avoided the suffering by just leaving (Batson et al., 1981). This finding challenged the long-held psychological theory that all human behaviour, including helping, is ultimately self-interested.
A real-world example might be a nurse who puts in extra time without getting paid to console a patient who is near death. The emotional bond created by empathy motivates the extra care, even if the nurse is not compensated. This notion has been further developed by subsequent research, which shows that empathy can also promote helping through group identification, where a sense of “oneness” or connection with another person increases the drive to help (Cialdini et al., 1997).
Read More: Teaching Empathy to Medical Professionals: A Prescription for Better Patient Care
Egoistic Alternatives: Social Exchange and Negative-State Relief
Helping is never really unselfish, according to some psychologists. According to social exchange theory, assisting is a subtly self-interested transaction rather than a genuinely selfless one because the perceived benefits of helping, such as social acceptability, decreased guilt, and reciprocal aid, outweigh the costs (Batson & Shaw, 1991).
The negative-state relief paradigm, which contends that seeing someone else suffer causes an unpleasant emotional state in the observer and that providing assistance is a means of relieving one’s own discomfort rather than actually improving the welfare of the other person, is closely linked. For instance, someone might contribute to a disaster relief fund in part because they find it personally upsetting to witness pictures of suffering on the news, and making a short donation helps them feel better.
Although some assistance plainly matches the self-relief pattern, Batson’s tests were deliberately designed to distinguish this egoistic explanation from genuine empathic altruism. His results show that even in cases where fleeing misery is easy, empathy alone can nevertheless induce assistance (Batson et al., 1981).
Read More: The Psychology of Donations: Empathy or Hidden Motives?
Evolutionary Perspectives: Kin Selection and Reciprocity
Evolutionary psychology looks at prosocial conduct at the level of genes and survival, going beyond sentimentality. According to Hamilton’s kin selection theory, organisms are more willing to assist genetic relatives since doing so increases the likelihood that shared genes will be passed on, even if doing so does not directly improve the helper’s own survival (Hamilton, 1964). This explains why parents are significantly more willing to put their lives in danger for their kids than for complete strangers.
Helping unrelated people can evolve when there is a plausible hope that the favour would someday be repaid, according to a second evolutionary mechanism known as reciprocal altruism (Trivers, 1971). Communities with “helping today, being helped tomorrow” traditions had a higher chance of surviving than those without. In everyday life, this takes the form of neighbours watching each other’s homes or coworkers covering each other’s shifts with the tacit understanding that the favour will eventually be repaid.
Read More: The Role of Reciprocal Liking in Relationships
Social Norms and Reciprocity in Society
Beyond its evolutionary origins, learnt social standards have a significant influence on helpful behaviour. The norm of reciprocity is the widely recognised societal expectation that individuals should help those who have helped them, but the norm of social responsibility demands that people help those who depend on them regardless of previous transactions (Graf et al., 2023). Social responsibility and perceived social standards were found to be significant predictors of online prosocial behaviours, such as sharing helpful information or helping friends in need, according to a recent study on teens. This suggests that even in virtual environments, social norms have a big impact (Pastor et al., 2024).
Cultural environment is important as well. Prosocial behaviour is more commonly presented as a personal, voluntary decision in individualist societies, while it is generally defined as a responsibility linked to collective cohesion in collectivist societies (Alfirević et al., 2023). It has also been demonstrated that civic education and community service enhance young adults’ feeling of social responsibility, which in turn boosts helpful conduct in the actual world.
Read More: Corporate Social Responsibility And Women Empowerment
Personal Values and Individual Differences
Finally, personal values determine who is more inclined to help. People who prioritise universalism and compassion in their personal value systems are consistently more likely to act in a prosocial manner, whereas those who prioritise power or personal success are less likely to assist others unless it directly benefits them, according to Amitha and Azhagannan (2024). Personality traits like agreeableness and dispositional empathy also predict volunteerism, charitable giving, and helping others. This explains why some bystanders could react right away to the same situation while others can delay or become completely detached.
Read More: Kindness Makes Us Better Together: What a New Study Says About Being Nice
Conclusion
One factor is insufficient to explain prosocial conduct. While empathy may be the source of genuine altruistic motivation. Egoistic factors like guilt reduction and social exchange also contribute significantly to daily help. Although evolutionary concepts like kin selection and reciprocal altruism provide a strong biological foundation. How and when these traits manifest in day-to-day living are determined by personal beliefs and established social conventions.
When considered collectively, these concepts show that helping others is frequently driven by a complex interaction. This interaction involves emotion, biology, upbringing, and personal identity. It is rarely driven by a single reason. This serves as a reminder that our long-standing psychological past influences even the tiniest deeds of compassion.
References +
- Alfirević, N., Arslanagić-Kalajdžić, M., & Lep, Ž. (2023). The role of higher education and civic involvement in converting young adults’ social responsibility to prosocial behavior. Scientific Reports, 13(1), 2559. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-29646-5
- Amitha, T. K., & Azhagannan, K. (2024). The altruistic personality: Exploring its influence on prosocial behaviour and compassion fatigue among students of healthcare and social work. Indian Journal of Positive Psychology, 15(4), 412–419.
- Batson, C. D. (1991). The altruism question: Toward a social-psychological answer. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
- Batson, C. D., Duncan, B. D., Ackerman, P., Buckley, T., & Birch, K. (1981). Is empathic emotion a source of altruistic motivation? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40(2), 290–302. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.40.2.290
- Batson, C. D., & Shaw, L. L. (1991). Evidence for altruism: Toward a pluralism of prosocial motives. Psychological Inquiry, 2(2), 107–122. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli0202_1
- Cialdini, R. B., Brown, S. L., Lewis, B. P., Luce, C., & Neuberg, S. L. (1997). Reinterpreting the empathy–altruism relationship: When one into one equals oneness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(3), 481–494. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.73.3.481
- Graf, C., Suanet, B., Wiepking, P., & Merz, E.-M. (2023). Social norms offer explanation for inconsistent effects of incentives on prosocial behaviour. Journal of Behavioural and Experimental Economics, 104, 102008. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2023.102008
- Hamilton, W. D. (1964). The genetical evolution of social behaviour. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 7(1), 1–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-5193(64)90038-4
- Pastor, Y., Pérez-Torres, V., Thomas-Currás, H., Lobato-Rincón, L. L., López-Sáez, M. Á., & García, A. (2024). A study of the influence of altruism, social responsibility, reciprocity, and the subjective norm on online prosocial behaviour in adolescence. Computers in Human Behaviour, 154, 108156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2024.108156
- Trivers, R. L. (1971). The evolution of reciprocal altruism. The Quarterly Review of Biology, 46(1), 35–57. https://doi.org/10.1086/406755
Leave feedback about this