Post on 30-Dec-2015
description
What do we mean by “prosocial”
• Not as easy to define as one might think– Which is more important, the intent or the effect?
• “The road to hell is paved with good intentions”
• “Enlightened self-interest”
• Without intent, any good outcome suddenly becomes evidence of moral behavior
– When one group benefits and another is disadvantaged, is the act “prosocial”?
– Can the actor benefit from “pro-social” behavior? Can one’s family?
“Prosocial” working definition• For our use, a person will engage in prosocial behavior
when she intentionally commits any act which will be likely to improve other people’s welfare overall– The actor can (and as we see later, hopefully does)
feel good about the act– If the actor is really not free to decide whether to
benefit another or not then the action is really not prosocial, though the person requiring the beneficial behavior may be acting prosocially
– Contributions to Red Cross taken out of your check while the boss looks on
What kinds of prosocial acts have been proposed?
• Altruism• Control of aggressive impulses• Delay of gratification/task persistence• Explaining feelings of self or others• Reparation for bad behavior• Resistance to temptation• Sympathy
• Liebert & Sprafkin
Prosocial effects
• The study of prosocial effects of media portrayals is a minor part of effects study
• Most prosocial effects research occurred in late 70s and early 80s
Researchers of prosocial effects apply theories akin to those for
violence studies• Social learning (social cognitive) theory
• Affect referal
• Differential effects
• Not catharsis, though
Scholars have reviewed the findings
• A number of meta-analyses have been produced– Rushton
– Hearold
– Paik
– Mares
Most research looks at children’s learning of prosocial behavior
• Developed as an extension the 1960s-1970s concern over the application of television to the goal of public education– Educational content– Prosocial content
• Often the two are combined (Sesame Street)
Prosocial effects
• Conclusions– Prosocial content can lead to positive
behavioral outcomes– Effects of exposure to prosocial content are
comparable in strength to those of exposure to antisocial content
• Scholars disagree on which is stronger
– Altruism is the most effective prosocial portrayal
Prosocial effects
• The effect of prosocial content on boys is not significantly different from the effect on girls – Paik, 1995
• Prosocial portrayals in family sitcoms have a greater effect than in educational programming
• The effects are positive for all ages• The effect is greater for donation than for
prosocial play or cooperation• The effect of stereotyping is greater than the effect
of anti-stereotyping content
Hearold, 1986
• Synthesis of 1,043 studies of effects of television on social behavior– “Effect sizes for prosocial treatments and behavior, of
course, were consistently greater than for antisocial treatments on behavior.”
– “The implication is that if subjects watched the antisocial treatments, usually violent programs or episodes, they would be elevated from the 50th to the 62nd percentile in antisocial behavior, typically physical aggression, and if they watched the prosocial treatment, they would be elevated from the 50th to the 74th percentile in prosocial behavior, typically altruism.”
Critique of studies
• Stimulus materials were usually either: 1. depictions of prosocial behavior developed
specifically to elicit the behavior, or
2. Either Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood or Sesame Street
• Normal tv fare sends mixed messages– prosocial violence– characters exhibiting good and bad behaviors
Prosocial content research
• Liebert, Sprafkin, Rubinstein and others (mid 70s)
• Greenberg et al. (late 70s)
• Baxter & Kaplan (early 80s)
• Lee (late 80s)
• Potter & Ware (late 80s)
Distribution of prosocial acts on Saturday morning TV, 1970s
0
5
10
15
20
25
Altruism Sympathy orexplainedfeelings
Reparationfor bad
behavior
Resistance totemptation
Control ofaggressiveimpulses
Poulos et al. Greenberg et al.
Comparison of pro- and antisocial behavior primetime
(Kaplan & Baxter, 1982)
050
100150200250300
Verba
l ass
istan
ce
Complim
ent
Insu
lt
Physic
al as
sista
nce
Physic
al ag
gres
sion
Rewar
d
Symbo
lic ag
gres
sion
Theft
Frequency of acts
Note: 12 hours, 17 programs
Prosocial content
• The relative incidence of prosocial and antisocial acts varies widely among studies– Greenberg et al., about 42 pro- and 40
antisocial acts per hour– Kaplan & Baxter, 46 pro- and 17 antisocial acts
per hour
• Altruism– Greenberg et al., 14 acts/hour, most common
pro-social act– Potter & Ware, 2 acts/hr, 5th most common
Prosocial and antisocial acts per hour of primetime programming
05
101520253035404550
Greenberg et al. Kaplan & Baxter
ProsocialAntisocial
Prosocial content
• Males engage in the most prosocial acts– Potter & Ware: 67% of pro, 80% of anti– Baxter & Kaplan: 69% of pro, 78% of anti– However, there are more male characters
• The great majority of both violent and prosocial acts are seen as justified
• The outcome of prosocial acts was not reviewed
Proportion of prosocial and antisocial acts committed by gender
(Greenberg et al. primetime 1975-78 study)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Prosocial Antisocial
MalesFemales
Prosocial content
• Most analyses exclude violent content from prosocial acts– Some evidence exists of a significant amount of
prosocial violence• Heroes commit a significant amount of violence
• Saturday morning tv
Liss and Reinhardt
• Regular and prosocial Saturday morning cartoons
• Antagonists commit more violent acts than protagonists
• No significant difference in the amount of violence on regular and prosocial cartoons
Prosocial content
• We were interested in:– Relationships among actors
– Involvement of third parties
– Rewards for altruism
– Social support
The method:finding and measuring altruism
• Primetime programs recorded for one week on ABC, NBC and Fox networks
• 26.5 hours of programming included in the study
• Only regularly scheduled series included (no movies, game shows, sports, news)
• Unit of analysis: the altruistic act
Defining altruism
• “social behavior carried out to achieve positive outcomes for another rather than for the self” (Rushton, 1980)– must include some nontrivial self-sacrifice– leaves open the possibility of antisocial
altruism
Acts of altruism
• Risking life, health or safety
• Risking career or future
• Sacrificing money
• Sacrificing or giving up time
• Sacrificing something of personal value, a dream or satisfaction
• Not included: common courtesy or minimal sacrifice
Coding altruistic acts on TV• Relationship of the benefactor and beneficiary
– Friends, neighbors or coworkers– Mere acquaintances– Strangers– Superior and subordinate– Subordinate and superior– Family– Lovers or romantically involved
Coding altruistic acts on TV
• Gender of beneficiary and benefactor
• Relationship to violence
• Involvement of a third party
• Outcome of the act for any third party
• Immediate response to the act by the benefactor and the beneficiary
• Long-term outcome of the act for the benefactor and the beneficiary
Measuring altruistic acts on TV
• Coding the justification of the acts– Was it part of the benefactor’s job?– Was it expected under the circumstances?– Was this above and beyond what would be
expected?
Measuring altruistic acts on TV
• The coding instrument was pretested– Both authors viewed two hour long programs– (Neither program included in results)
• Programs were recorded on videotape and later coded
• Second author coded all programs
• No “sweeps month” programs included
Research questions
• 1: What is the rate for altruistic behavior in primetime programming?
• 2: Is there a relationship between the gender of the benefactor and the gender of the beneficiary of the altruistic acts?
• 3. What is relationship between the benefactor and the beneficiary?
• 4: What is the nature of the altruistic act?
Research questions
• 5: What are the consequences of the altruistic act for the benefactor and the beneficiary? – Outcome– Response
Results
• 27 acts of altruism identified in 26.5 hours of primetime programming
• Just over one act per hour (1.1 acts/hour)
– Fewer than in previous research
Nature of the altruistic act
Sacrifice of:
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
Money Time Health Career Value
Outcome for the actorsPercent of acts (n=27)
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Benefactor RecipientPositive Neutral Negative
Response to the altruism
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Benefactor Recipient
Positive Neutral Negative
Results
• Altruistic acts were rarely tied to violence
• Most acts (63%) exceeded expectations for benefactor behavior based on occupational role or social norms
• The outcome for third parties was negative more than half the time
Conclusions
• Results of altruism are as likely to be negative as to be positive
• Gender is less related to TV altruistic acts than in the past
• Altruistic violence is uncommon