Prosocial behavior can be defined as a social behavior that is intended to benefit another party, be it a person or society. Such acts include helping, sharing, donating, co-operating and volunteering. Other actions that are considered prosocial include obeying the rules and regulations set by a particular body and conforming to socially accepted behaviors, such as following road signs. These actions may be motivated by empathy or by concerns about the welfare and the rights of others. Other factors include egoistic or practical concerns, such as the need to protect and uphold one's social status and reputation, the hope for direct or indirect reciprocity, or adherence to one's perceived system of fairness (Fiske, 2009). Even though the existence of pure altruism is somewhat disputed, prosocial behaviors may also be motivated altruism which tends to fall into philosophical concerns rather than the psychological realm of debate.
Prosocial behavior may be motivated by factors ranging from personal to social concerns. This diffusion of responsibility may occur when one has fewer resources. This is the influence of social class on prosocial behavior. Ironically one would be expected to be less willing to spend their resources to help others when they have fewer resources that are associated with lower social class status. This class is typically characterized by fewer resources, more significant exposure to threat and a reduced sense of personal control. Giving back to the society is generally associated with the rich and mighty who have a lot of resources to spare. It would be expected that in lower social class, one would be consumed with self-interest, prioritizing their needs over the welfare of others. However, this may not be the case as far as prosocial behaviors are concerned. Social class is deeply embedded in objective features of material wealth, access to economic resources and conceptions of socioeconomic status. Social class identity influences one's life circumstances and patterns of construal in ways that are similar to other social identity constructs ( Piff, Kraus, Côté, Cheng, & Keltner, 2010). Based on this, social class background gives rise to class-specific patterns traits, cognition, and behavior which are unique and compelling to the lower class.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
In other words, members of the lower social class learn to get along based on their everyday challenges. This class tends to experience a reduced sense of control over life outcomes as far as resources and prestige are concerned. As a result, the members tend to orient to situational forces within the social context. By identifying such factors as prejudice, contextual factors and economic structures of the society, the members of the lower class tend to stick together to fight these factors as opposed to making personal progress to rise above these situational factors individually. As such, members of the lower class tend to show acts of kindness, aid, and assistance to each other in an attempt to rise as a block against social class oppression.
The second condition has a lot to do with sexual orientation. That is the attraction and stereotypes in same-gender relationships. Even though the LGBT community has been perceived more positively by the general community since the 1970s, the society still experiences hostility and homophobia from some sections of the straight community. To actively protect members of the LGBTQ community, activism in the society has been on the rise. In this case, more financially disposed LGBTQ members to use their resources unsparingly to provide such services as medical clinics or the establishment of safe spaces where the LGBTQ members can meet and get medical services without hate or prejudice, or get room to express their fears and be who they are freely without any fear ( Felmlee, Orzechowicz, & Fortes, 2010). This includes in no small extent organizing LGBTQ activities such as dragging, organizing pride celebrations.
In this case, prosocial behaviors by the wealthy LGBTQ members are meant to protect the vulnerable members of the gay community. This may be done out of the compelling desire to protect their own, or in creating awareness about the issues the LGBTQ society goes through in the country. Other than sexual attractions, these people are drawn together by a common goal of rising against homophobia, and they realize that the only way to achieve this is through sticking together through pulling together resources to help in the campaign. It is correct to point out that participants at an LGBTQ Pride event are apt to be more active in the LGBTQ community, and maybe more outgoing, outspoken or less reclusive than some. But still, the fact remains that these people are drawn together for the general good of the LGBTQ community, and would use whatever resource they have at their disposal to safeguard the rights of the community against homophobia or legal oppression.
Diffusion of responsibility is the reduced likelihood of helping a person in need when more than one person is acting as witnesses or bystanders. The perfect example, in this case, is when an accident occurs. In this scenario, if one thinks they are the only person witnessing the tragic scene, they become more compelled to intervene as opposed to when more than two witnesses are experiencing the tragedy at the same time. In this case, the likelihood of helping the victim is much more reduced than in the first scenario because The witnesses tend to take a more observant approach than intervening. This happens because when more than two persons are acting as witnesses, they tend to believe the other person will be more capable intervening than themselves, and as such will tend to ‘step' back to allow the other person enough room to intervene. But the problem arises when each party involved thinks the same of the other. In this case, none of the parties is willing to take the first initiative to intervene. Diffusion of responsibility, therefore, is the passing of responsibility to the other parties in the scene of the accident. Responsibility diffusion affects prosocial behaviors since the onlookers or persons acting as witnesses to a situation tend to discuss among themselves the best way to intervene, thus taking more time in formulating a strategy to help as opposed to when a person acts on impulse without much planning ( Latane & Darley, 1968). This form of intervention is much more effective than the planned one.
Prosocial behaviors tend to occur in three significant steps. The first step is noticing something unusual. In this step one sees something odd going on. They set to determine what is happening and whether or not it needs attention. This step is important because the level of urgency or emergency of the situation dictates what intervention steps should be taken. The second step is defining the event as an emergency. It is essential to classify an event as being an emergency event that requires urgent intervention. This step is crucial since it informs the person involved that their response is needed. Unless a situation is classified as an emergency, people tend to ignore the case and resume other activities. This step is also crucial because it ushers in the final phase of prosocial behavior; taking responsibility. In this final step, one accepts the responsibility to help the person or situation in question. If there is only one person, they tend to feel immense responsibility for the case as opposed to having a handful of witnesses leading to diffusion of responsibility ( Safrilsyah, Jusoff, & Fadhil, 2009). This step is crucial because the person gets to formulate a strategy of helping the situation, and gets to implement it, thereby providing a remedy, which could either be long-lasting or temporary till a better solution is arrived at.
References
Felmlee, D., Orzechowicz, D., & Fortes, C. (2010). Fairy tales: Attraction and stereotypes in s ame-gender relationships. Sex roles , 62 (3-4), 226-240.
Fiske, S. T. (2009). Social beings: Core motives in social psychology . John Wiley & Sons.
Latane, B., & Darley, J. M. (1968). Group inhibition of bystander intervention in emergencies. Journal of personality and social psychology , 10 (3), 215.
Piff, P. K., Kraus, M. W., Côté, S., Cheng, B. H., & Keltner, D. (2010). Having less, giving more: the influence of social class on prosocial behavior. Journal of personality and social psychology , 99 (5), 771.
Safrilsyah, S., Jusoff, K., & Fadhil, R. (2009). Prosocial Behavior Motivation of Acheness Volunteers in Helping Tsunami Disaster Victims. Canadian Social Science , 5 (3), 50-55.
