Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Factors that influence pro social behaviour
Effects on the social learning theory
Effects on the social learning theory
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Factors that influence pro social behaviour
Prosocial Behaviors
Prosocial behavior has been used as a term since the 1970s and is the antonym of antisocial behavior. Prosocial behavior builds relationships and helps the society function effectively. For this assignment I will define prosocial behavior, go over the different theories and motives of prosocial behavior, elaborate on conditions in which diffusion of responsibility might occur and elaborate on the steps an individual must go through when deciding to help a stranger.
According to Eisenberg and Mussen (1988), prosocial behavior can be defined as voluntary actions that are intended to help or benefit another individual or group of individuals (p.3). Why do some people behave pro socially when others do not? Many social psychologists
…show more content…
He theorized that recurrent situations may have arisen during evolutionary history in which non-kin who forged mutually beneficial long-term exchange relationships could have helped one another, facilitating everyone’s survival and reproductive output. Kin Selection; is another type of natural selection which proposes that we exhibit preferences for helping blood relatives. We are likely to help those who are blood relatives because it will increase the odds that the survival of shared genes. Genetic determinism; we help those that are like ourselves; we are more likely to help those whom we perceive as genetically like ourselves, because we have inherited our ancestors’ assumption that this would be the most effective guarantee that similar genes would survive (Clarke, 2003, p.16).
Prosocial behavior is also learned through observation and direct reinforcement, the learning explanation (Nurture): Social Learning Theory, argued that prosocial behavior is learned in the same way as any other behavior and can be achieved in three ways: 1) for parents and others to reward prosocial acts with praise; 2) for parents to act as prosocial models themselves; 3) to expose children to other models who behave in prosocial ways (Clarke, 2003,
My attention was also drawn to several questions in this podcast, which made me eager to find the answers to these questions. For example, one interesting question I heard was “when you do see generosity how do you know it’s really generous” (Levy, 2010). This question stood out to me because it is one particular question I don’t think about often and made me wonder whether people help someone out because they see it as a duty. However, I believe the best answer to this question is the portrayal of the concept of norm of reciprocity, which indicates “the expectation that helping others will increase the likelihood that they will help us in the future” (Akert, Aronson, & Wilson, 2013, p.303). This is true because “generosity” happens when both persons are nice to each other and if an individual helps another person then it’s easy to assume that the person who was
Through Social Learning Theory, an individual can be studied based on the behavior acquired by a role model. Verbal conditioning procedures and observation influences the response to an individual’s personality. Environment factors contribute to the Social Learning Theory. Antisocial model is a major contribute to crime, which influences negative characteristics. The Social Leaning Theory has three core social concepts the must be followed: observational learning, intrinsic reinforcement and modeling process.
Human social affinity appears to be much more interesting than “nice people are liked” and “aggressive people are disliked.” A more nuanced view emerges when considering the evolutionary functions of behaviors as they relate to dominance. The bulk of psychology considers antisociality and prosociality as opposite ends of a single continuum and, as such, assumes that they serve opposing functions. Here, I have considered them as serving the same function as two sides of the same coin (437).
The two competing theoretical frameworks that attempt to explain the development of morality are cognitive-behavioral and cognitive-developmental. The cognitive-behavioral approach is taken by Liebert, and the cognitive-developmental approach is taken by Kohlberg.
The most common is kin selection, social exchange norm, and the social responsibility norm. According to Cherry in 2015, the idea of kin selection suggests that helping a member of one’s own genetic family makes it more likely that the kin will survive and pass on genes to the future generation. Cherry states that survival is one of the most common reasons behind helping, and subsequently, prosocial behavior. Given this, Cherry (2015) concluded that since people only tend to help their family members instead of other people, they are more likely to become selfish towards strangers. Another theory is the social exchange theory, assumes that helping is much like other social behaviors. Humans are motivated by a desire to maximize rewards (Myers, 2015). This theory suggests that prosocial behavior is determined by the rewards the doer receives from helping others. The rewards may be material or nonmaterial such as monetary gain or improvement of self virtues. Finally, the social responsibility theory states that people tend to be more helpful towards the needy (Myers, 2015). Women, children, elderly, and the disabled are some examples of those which people offer help to without thought of future reward. This theory suggests that people are prosocial simply because other people need them to be. Either people choose to be prosocial or are conditioned to be so, prosocial behavior is deemed as a socially desirable trait and it is highly encouraged among people around the world for it promotes cooperation and
For someone who believes in psychological egoism, i t is difficult to find an action that would be acknowledged as purely altruistic. In practice, altruism, is the performance of duties to others with no view to any sort of personal...
Kids in general learn from the people in their environment. If they see something good that someone else does, they too will do the same thing. They are not able to control the way they think yet because their cognitive learning skills aren’t as strong as they are when you become an adult. If a child sees someone doing something bad instead of good, the same reaction as the first example will take place and that child will exhibit bad behavior. This goes hand in hand with the social learning theory. The social learning theory focuses on individual behavior. Kids are easily influenced by other kids in their age group bec...
Social work has long recognized the relationship between the behavior of an individual and the environment in which the individual interacts (Hutchison, 2008). Human behavior theories offer a framework to organize, interpret and understand this relationship (Hutchison, 2008). For this case study, the following three theories will be examined for relevancy: Life cycle theory, role theory and resiliency theory.
The social learning theory “states that behavior is learned from the environment through observational learning” (McLeod, 2011). For instance, I saw my mom getting ready for church and eventually I noticed that she put her hair in a ponytail only on Sundays. Furthermore, after seeing her do this so many times I began doing the same thing on Sundays. As a child, I observed her every move and I wanted to imitate her behavior. Through observational learning, I learned what was socially acceptable by watching my mother’s
According to the article, Altruism and helping behavior, it is common for people to help others. Altruism is defined as “the desire to help another person even if it doesn’t benefit the helper” (Altruism and Helping Behavior. Print.). Helping behavior is “any act that is intended to benefit another person”
Bystander effect, (Darley & Latane, 1970) refers to decrease in helping response when there are bystanders around relative to no bystanders. Referring to previous study stating that there are some cases of which group size may promote helping instead of hindering it (Fischer et al., 2011). Researchers then speculate the possibility of positive influences from bystanders by taking public self-awareness into consideration. Researchers proposed that high public self-awareness would reverse the bystander effect in this study with 2 independent variables which are bystander and presence on the forum. They are defined as number of bystanders (absent vs present) and salience of name (salient vs non-salient) respectively. 86 students are randomly assigned to one of the four conditions in the experiment. Response of participants in the online forum is the operational definition for the dependent variable of helping behavior. The result shows that number of response increases with respect to increase in bystanders when public self-awareness is enhanced by using accountability cue (Bommel et al., 2012). Participants were asked to rate how notable they were from their view afterwards as a manipulation check.
Cultures that favor generous, supportive and cooperative behavior promote these responses by reinforcing prosocial behavior. People who are cooperative are also more likely to come to the aid of people in distress. Several of the factors that promote cooperation such as personally adjustment, cognitive level, imitation, and cultural background also affect generosity and helpfulness.
Thomas, George and C. Daniel Batson. “Effect of Helping Under Normative Pressure on Self-Perceived Altruism.” Social Psychology Quarterly 44.2 (1981): 127-131. Web. 5 Feb. 2012
Albert Bandura has come out with social learning theory which support aggression is a learned behavior. Bandura stated that aggression can be learned through 2 ways which is by direct and vicarious experience. (Hogg & Vaughan, 2011) Learning by direct experience means an individual learn aggressive behavior because he or she were receive reinforcement from it. For example, Adam grabs a candy from the other kid, but no one stop him or he did not receive any punishment for doing this, he will most properly do it next time. This is because he receives the reinforcement (candy) from bullying other kid and nobody stop him and tell him not to do that. In the other hand, learning by vicarious experience means an individual will learn aggressive behavior when he or she saw others receiving reward by behave in that way. For example, when James saw his brother hit a dog and his parent didn’t stop James’s brother from doing that action but give his brother some reward, James will be encouraged by this and will do the same thing next time because he think that he will receive reward by doing that action. In addition, aggression also can be learned through observation. For example, when parent always argue and fight in front of their children, their child will learn all this behavior and imitating those action. Some research also found out that children who exposed to violent in family are likely to grow up become aggressive themselves. This theory illustrated in the famous Bobo Doll Experiment by Bandura. Based on the experiment, Bandura found out when compare to those children who did not exposed to the aggressive model, the children who exposed to the aggression model are more likely to act in psychically aggression. (McLeod,
Behavior and social learning are two theories that are inherently intertwined. Behavior to some extent is taught for social reasons, and social learning can very much shape and create behaviors. While behavior is something intentionally taught, social learning can teach and reinforce many unintentional behaviors, such as dishonesty or aggression. In order to adequately discuss these two interrelated topics, theory exploration is in order.