As was the case for research on altruism, research into prosocial behavior hardly interested early researchers; until the 1960s, ten times more studies were devoted to aggressiveness and other antisocial behavior than to help, cooperation, solidarity, and so on. According to Hans-Werner Bierhoff, author of an overview of the subject,1
One of the reasons for this lack of scientific interest in the prosocial domain may lie in the belief that prosocial behavior is realized at the cost of economic prosperity.… This may well explain the conviction of many “tough-minded” people that prosocial behavior is connected with mawkishness on the part of the helpers. However, recent theorizing and research indicate that prosocial behavior has many positive side-effects for people who are helpers, and contributes to the functioning of society at large.2
Research has shown that the majority of individuals come to the aid of others in daily life. If someone (a researcher, in this case) drops a glove while walking on the sidewalk in such a way that the person behind him can easily see it, in 72% of the cases this person calls out to the researcher and hands him the glove.3
In this case, the cost of intervention and the vulnerability of the interventionist are negligible. But when the two factors gain in importance, the likelihood of helping others diminishes. If you are a man in New York and you ask someone permission to use his cell phone because you’ve lost yours, only 15% of people will grant your request. On the other hand, if you are a woman and you make the same request in a rural area, even if you are a stranger, the reply will be favorable in almost 100% of the cases.4
What about emergency situations? When a volunteer student pretended to faint on a subway line in Philadelphia, in 95% of the cases he received help in the forty seconds that followed. In 60% of the cases, more than one person intervened. Here again, the rate of intervention is high when the perceived cost is low. By “cost,” psychologists mean involvement in terms of time, psychological investment, the complexity of the intervention, and the foreseeable consequences. If (fake) blood was trickling from the victim’s mouth, the rate of intervention fell from 95% to 65% and the interventions were less immediate (an average of a minute went by before anyone intervened)—the sight of blood frightens people and increases the psychological cost of help.5
Someone faints, two individuals are about to fight in the street, a car accident has just occurred. Will I intervene, go toward the suffering person, interpose in the argument, or rush toward the accident victims? Many studies have shown that the probability that I will involve myself is inversely proportional to the number of people present. I will help much more often if I am the only witness. Bibb Latané, then at Columbia University, and John Darley, then at New York University, were among the first to show that 50% of people confronted with a realistically simulated emergency situation when alone will intervene, while this proportion falls to 22% when two witnesses are present.6
If several people are present during an incident, each of them will tend to pass the responsibility of intervening on to the others. This reaction is all the more pronounced when the group is large. This dilution of responsibility is also called the “bystander effect.” Each individual wonders why it should be up to him to intervene, and feels relieved at the idea that someone else will take charge. And when no one intervenes, everyone hesitates to take the initiative.
This “bystander effect” had tragic consequences in the often-cited case of Kitty Genovese. On March 13, 1964, in New York, Kitty was walking toward her car when an assailant approached and stabbed her. He left, then returned a few minutes later to stab her again. She shouted, “Oh my God! He stabbed me! Help! Help!” The attacker returned a third time to kill her. During this entire time, about half an hour, thirty-eight people who lived in apartments looking out on the street heard her calls for help and witnessed these repeated assaults. Not one of them budged. It wasn’t until half an hour after Kitty’s death that someone finally called the police. “I didn’t want to get mixed up in it,” said most of the witnesses. More recently, in 2011, in China, images taken by a surveillance camera show a two-and-a-half-year-old girl getting run over by a truck, which stops at first, and then goes on its way. Then, no less than eighteen people pass by without batting an eyelid in front of the bleeding child, who is still moving.7
Fortunately, that is not always the case. In California one day, Bobby Green saw an incident live on TV during which a man was brutally beaten. He rushed to the site, running over half a mile, and took the victim to the hospital.8
If witnesses have the impression that the people arguing are related (husband and wife, for instance), they will intervene much less frequently, even if one of them is obviously being abused. In 1993, a two-year-old child, James Bulger, was killed by two ten-year-old boys. Sixty-one people acknowledged having seen the child struggling and crying while the two older boys took him from a supermarket to an empty lot where they committed the murder. Most of these witnesses said they thought they were brothers bringing their younger brother home.
Will we intervene when we realize someone is in danger? Bibb Latané and John Darley identified five stages in this process. First of all, what is happening? I must take stock of the situation. Second, is it urgent to act? Is that person dozing on a public bench or has he fainted? Are those people about to fight or is it a simple verbal altercation between family members? Third, is it really up to me to intervene? Does the responsibility to come to someone’s aid fall on me or should I count on other people present to help the person in danger? Fourth, am I capable of intervening? Do I have the requisite skill? Should I intervene directly or call for help? Fifth, I finally make a decision. Research has shown that it takes about thirty to forty seconds to pass through these five stages. After that, the dilution of the feeling of responsibility and the evaluation of the danger weigh more heavily in deciding whether to take action.9
Many studies have revealed that inhabitants of rural regions are more likely to help than city dwellers. For example, people’s willingness to mail a stamped letter that had fallen on the street has been tested, as well as the wish to help someone who has dialed a wrong number.10 Inhabitants of small towns are much more helpful than big-city dwellers. When a child calls out to a passerby, “I’m lost, could you call my home?” three-quarters of the adults of a small town grant his request, as opposed to less than half in a large city. According to Harold Takooshian, the author of this study, inhabitants of cities “adapt to the constant demands of city life by reducing their involvement in the lives of their fellow citizens.”11
Confronted with an overload of social interactions, city-dwellers are forced to filter information and retain only what concerns them directly. They are more mistrustful and feel more vulnerable than their country-dwelling counterparts. The higher the crime rate is in a neighborhood, the less disposed the inhabitants are to help each other. In the United States, the crime rate is 2.7 times higher in cities than in the countryside.12
The city dweller is often wrapped up in various activities. He has lost the habit of establishing personal relationships with everyone he meets, since there are too many contacts, and they often seem meaningless. What’s more, the city-dweller is worried about his own safety. If, in the country, it’s natural to talk to the person you pass on the sidewalk and to be interested in what one’s neighbors are doing, such relations are unusual in cities. We rarely talk to the person sitting next to us in the subway.
In cities, unless it is one’s profession, it is impossible to take care of all the people in difficulty you meet in a single day: beggars, people who need help either because of the state of their health, their financial resources, or their homeless state. Stifling our compassion is not without its consequences. A study has shown that one’s moral sense becomes diminished. At the University of North Carolina, C. Daryl Cameron and Keith Payne asked a group of volunteers to repress their compassion while they were shown photographs of crying children, homeless people, and victims of wars or famines. Soon after, they were given tests to evaluate their moral sense. Compared to another group of volunteers who had looked at the same images while letting their emotions be freely expressed, those who had repressed their compassion more readily accepted the idea of bending the rules and compromising moral values according to the circumstances.13
The situation in cities and places where there is a lot of suffering poses a constant challenge, then, to those who are concerned with the fate of their fellow citizens. If one puts oneself every time in the other’s place, it becomes hard to look away. But if we wanted to intervene, we’d wind up doing nothing else. This laudable choice, which some make, is a full-time occupation, not something you can do now and then. Charismatic figures like Rosa Parks or the French priest Abbé Pierre,14 who cannot bear to remain indifferent faced with so much suffering and who mobilized their fellow citizens with a great force of inspiration, can play a major role in changing social norms or organizing a system of mutual aid. But, as a general rule, studies carried out in less-populated places testify that it should be up to the community of citizens, that is, the government, town councils, and NGOs, to translate into concrete action the solidarity naturally present in most of us.
Children raised in collectivist cultures, in which stress is placed on the well-being of the group and on community life, exhibit much more altruistic behavior than children raised in individualist cultures. Beatrice and John Whiting, at Harvard, observed the behavior of prosocial children aged three to ten in Kenya, Mexico, the Philippines, Japan, India, and the United States. They noted that children from community-based, nonindustrial societies were clearly more helpful than the others. For example, 100% of Kenyan children observed had a high altruism score, against only 8% of American children.15 These children took part very early on in community activities and offering help had become second nature to them. That is also the case for children raised in Israeli kibbutzim.16
In general, helping behavior can vary considerably from one culture to another. One of the first studies on helping behavior was carried out by Roy Feldman in Paris, Boston, and Athens.17 In a train station, a person who was obviously a native of that place asked a sample of passersby to mail a stamped letter for her, explaining she was about to go abroad. In Boston, 85% of people accepted; in Paris, 68%; and in Athens, 12%. Faced with a foreigner who didn’t speak the language well, the readiness to help changed notably: 75% of people helped in Boston, 88% in Paris (so Parisians are friendlier than they say!), and 48% in Athens. Why are Athenians so uncooperative with their compatriots? It seems that Greeks narrowly define their social circle and consequently react distantly toward most of their fellow citizens.18
Although women and men are similar in their engagement in extensive prosocial behavior, they differ in their emphasis on particular kinds of behaviors. Women tend to engage more in prosocial behaviors that are more communal and relational, while men are more likely to engage in strength-intensive and action-oriented behavior.19
According to studies carried out in North America in the 1980s and 90s, in dangerous situations, men help more.20 In one of the studies carried out in the streets of New York, 60% of those offering help during an accident were men.21 According to the list of Americans who have received the medal from the Carnegie Hero Fund Commission (awarded for heroic actions), only 9% of the recipients are women. The interpretation offered by the researchers is that men are less hesitant to intervene in crisis situations that require physical involvement of a potentially dangerous nature.
On the other hand, women are more often rewarded (56%) than men for getting involved in humanitarian actions. And more women (58%) than men are organ donors.22 Women provide more medical care and psychological support. In volunteer agencies in Europe, however, there are as many women as men offering their help.23
People in a good mood help more than others. It might be a temporary situation: they might just have experienced some success, heard some good news, imagined a vacation in Hawaii, or maybe shared a meal in enjoyable company.24 But it has also been observed that people who temperamentally are usually in a good mood take part more in social activities than average people in the same society.25
The image we have of ourselves also influences our inclination to help others. After a personality test, half of the participants were told that the results indicated they were very attentive to others, and the other half were told that they had a high intelligence level. As they left the laboratory, each student who had just taken the test passed someone who dropped a dozen pencils, which scattered over the floor. The students who were described as kind and helpful picked up on average twice as many pencils as those whose intelligence was praised.26
As the French psychologist Jean-François Deschamps explains, consistent and planned behavior that extends over several months or years is usually inspired by personal values. According to the definition of the Israeli psychologist Shalom Schwartz, who has studied the question for three decades, values are concepts or beliefs that relate to aims or behavior we deem desirable, for ourselves as well as for others, and which guide our choices in most circumstances of daily life.27 These values take shape in childhood and can be revised as our experience of the world and of others is enriched. Jean-François Deschamps and Rémi Finkelstein at the Parisian Laboratory of Social Psychology have shed light on a correlation between altruism regarded as a personal value and as prosocial behavior. Notably they showed that people who consider altruism an important personal value become more involved in volunteer activities.28
According to Shalom Schwartz, all of these studies show that kindness and “universalism” are the two values leading most often to prosocial behavior. For this author, kindness concerns mainly the well-being of those close to us and the group with which we identify, while universalism concerns the well-being of everyone. It turns out that these are also two of the three values regarded as the most important in the seventy-six cultures studied. To those is added conformism, which urges us to behave in a prosocial way in order to stay in harmony with the norms current in a society and thereby to be accepted by its members.
Among the other factors favoring prosocial behavior in general, researchers noted moral values transmitted by parents, confidence in one’s ability to change things, the capacity to tolerate the unforeseeable, and openness to new experiences.29
Among the values that oppose prosocial behavior, Schwartz cites the feeling of insecurity, which makes us more worried about our own fate than the needs of others, and makes us try to maintain a stable, protective, and safe environment. This feeling limits openness to others and discourages risk-taking. Finally, the pursuit of power puts the stress on personal self-interest, valuing self, and dominating the competition. It leads us to justify our egocentric behavior, even to the detriment of others.
According to Vincent Jeffries at California State University at Northridge, self-restraint, strength of mind, fairness, concern for others, and discernment are among the virtues that favor prosocial behavior. These qualities allow us to master our emotions and favor the spirit of initiative, the sense of justice, compassion, and a tendency to take the long view.30
Novels, films, and other media are very effective at awakening empathy for the oppressed and victims of discrimination, like slaves (Uncle Tom’s Cabin), people interned in psychiatric asylums (One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest), people who are disfigured (Elephant Man), victims of colonial oppression (Gandhi, Lagaan), animals treated as products for consumption (Earthlings, Food Inc.), and the current and future victims of climate change (An Inconvenient Truth and Home).
Television news programs that portray the daily lives of female victims of spousal abuse in Mexico, or the problem of genital mutilations and the forced marriage of underage girls in Africa, have helped people to change their way of thinking in fields where governments and NGOs have long failed.
Elizabeth Paluck evaluated the impact of a TV series meant to promote reconciliation between Tutsis and Hutus in Rwanda.31 The people portrayed are prey to dilemmas with which many Rwandans are confronted. The problem of friendships between members of the two ethnic groups is examined, as well as the difficulty of dealing with the memory of massacres, poverty, and so on. One of the scenes portrays a couple made up of a Tutsi husband and a Hutu wife who love each other despite the disapproval of their communities; they founded a youth movement for peace and reconciliation. It was observed that the viewers had closely identified with the protagonists, and according to Paluck’s investigation, the effects have been very positive. Compared to a sample of viewers of other programs, those who watched the episodes of the series more readily accept mixed marriages, and want to cooperate more with members of the other community.
Empathy can favor the resolution of conflicts between the negotiators of two opposing groups. Adam Galinsky and his colleagues have shown that when negotiators coldly determined their tactics by anticipating the possible reactions of the opposing party, like in a game of chess, they stuck to the position that was most advantageous for their own camp. On the other hand, when they were asked to put themselves in the place of their opponents, to imagine their situation, their difficulties, and their hopes, this reflection led them to make concessions and created a positive atmosphere leading to better results for the two parties over the long term.32 Galinsky concluded from this that “thinking about what the other is thinking” offers a tactical advantage if you want to win at all costs, but that “feeling what the other is feeling” facilitates adopting a mutually acceptable solution that is beneficial in the long term.
Prosocial behavior is also beneficial for the person who displays it. Meeting the people one is helping, taking part in volunteer activities, belonging to nonprofit organizations, and putting into play one’s own skills in the service of others go hand-in-hand with a high level of wellbeing. Many studies have highlighted the link that exists between altruistic behavior and happiness.33
Allan Luks observed the morale of thousands of Americans who regularly took part in volunteer activities. He noted that they were generally in better health than other people of the same age, that they showed more enthusiasm and energy, and that they were less subject to depression than the average population.34 Another study showed that teenagers who devote some of their time to a volunteer organization are less affected with drug addiction, early pregnancy, and dropping out of school.35 Finally, people who experience depressive periods following tragic events, such as the loss of a partner, recover more quickly if they devote some time to helping others.36
While a large number of studies reveal correlations between positive psychological states and the act of helping others, they still do not show that altruism is the cause of these mental states. Daniel Batson and other psychologists wonder if it’s altruism or the simple fact of spending more time with one’s fellows that has positive effects on health. It is conceivable that the simple fact of becoming a member of a group of bird-watchers or a bridge club might produce the same effects.37
Aware of these methodological problems, Doug Oman reviewed six investigations that more rigorously took into account other factors likely to influence the results, and concluded that volunteer activity increases not only the quality of life of older people, but also its length.38
Martin Seligman, one of the pioneers of positive psychology, proposed that one group of students spend a day amusing themselves and another group take part in a volunteer activity (helping the aged, handing out food in a soup kitchen, and so on). Each group was given the same amount of money and asked to write a report for the class. The results were conclusive: the satisfaction procured by personal pleasures (eating out, going to the movies, having an ice cream, shopping, etc.) was much less than that produced by altruistic activities. The students who had taken part in volunteer activities noted that they were more enthusiastic, attentive, easygoing, and even appreciated by others on that day.39
Several studies have also shown that taking care of an animal improved psychological and physical health by reducing stress and blood pressure, and also increased longevity. Taking care of a pet was also linked to notable benefits among the ill and solitary people in retirement homes, as well as among prisoners.40
Countless testimonies also remind us that kindness is one of the most powerful determinants of a feeling of accomplishment and contentment. Necdet Kent, the Turkish diplomat in Marseille who succeeded in persuading the German authorities to release dozens of Jews who had already been loaded onto a train, confided to French writer Marek Halter that he hadn’t felt such a feeling of inner peace at any other time in his life.41