Understanding Psychology (10th Ed)

prosocial behavior 
Helping behavior.
diffusion of responsibility 
The 
tendency for people to feel that respon-
sibility for acting is shared, or diffused, 
among those present.
FIGURE 4 
The basic steps of helping. 
(Source: Latané, Bibb; Darley, & John M., 
The 
Unresponsive Bystander: Why Doesn’t He Help?
Reproduced by permission of Pearson 
Education, Inc., p. 87–91. Copyright © 1971 
Appleton-Century-Crofts.)
Noticing a person, event, or 
situation that may require help 
Deciding on and implementing 
the form of helping 
Interpreting the event as one 
that requires help 
Assuming responsibility
for helping
feL82795_ch17_576-615.indd Page 611 8/17/10 9:52 PM user-f464
feL82795_ch17_576-615.indd Page 611 8/17/10 9:52 PM user-f464

---

612 Chapter 
17 
Social Psychology
least costly form of implementation. However, this is not always the case: In some 
situations, people behave altruistically.  Altruism  is helping behavior that is benefi cial 
to others but clearly requires self-sacrifi ce. For example, people who put themselves 
at mortal risk to help strangers escape from the burning World Trade Center towers 
during the 9/11 terrorist attack would be considered altruistic (Krueger, Hicks, & 
McGue, 2001; Batson & Powell, 2003; Manor & Gailliot, 2007).
People who intervene in emergency situations tend to possess certain personal-
ity characteristics that differentiate them from nonhelpers. For example, helpers are 
more self-assured, sympathetic, and emotionally understanding, and they have 
greater empathy (a personality trait in which someone observing another person expe-
riences the emotions of that person) than are nonhelpers (Graziano et al., 2007; 
Walker & Frimer, 2007; Stocks, Lishner, & Decker, 2009). 
Still, most social psychologists agree that no single set of attributes differenti-
ates helpers from nonhelpers. For the most part, temporary situational factors 
(such as the mood we’re in) determine whether we will intervene in a situation 
requiring aid (Eisenberg, Guthrie, & Cumberland, 2002; Dovidio et al., 2006; Sal-
lquist et al., 2009).
More generally, what leads people to make moral decisions? Clearly, situational 
factors make a difference. For example, one study asked people to judge the moral-
ity of plane crash survivors cannibalizing an injured boy to avoid starvation. Par-
ticipants in the study were more likely to condemn the behavior if they were placed 
in an emotional state than if they were less emotional (Schnall et al., 2008). 
Other psychologists, using a neuroscience perspective, believe that there’s a kind 
of tug of war between emotion and rationale thinking in the brain. If the rational 
side wins out, we’re more likely to take a logical view of moral situations (if you’re 
at risk for starving, go ahead and eat the injured boy). On the other hand, if the 
emotional side prevails, we’re more likely to condemn the cannibalism, even if it 
means we may be harmed. In support of such reasoning, researchers have found that 
different areas of the brain are involved in honest and dishonest moral decisions 
(Miller, 2008; Greene & Paxton, 2009; see Figure 5). 
Altruism is often the only bright side of a natural disaster.