The Effects of Prosocial Behaviour on Communities

Cultural and social normalities are vital when discussing pro social behaviour. The general agreement amongst psychologists and researchers is that people conform to groups that they feel as though they belong to – this concludes that people act differently depending on the situation at hand, in a variety of contexts. When a deeper look is taken into different cultures and the variety of social norms across the globe, it is important to note that thousands of cultures have different social normalities. Due to this factor, it therefore concludes that pro-social behaviour is influenced by the culture of a particular society. By delving more into this idea, the notion of individualist and collectivist cultures arise into the influences of pro-social behaviours.

When comparing the collectivist and individualist societies, it is reasonable to say that collectivist societies are more likely to help ‘in-group’ people and ‘out-group’ people, to balance and benefit the society when compared to individualist society, where individualist societies primarily focus on themselves and their immediate family, rather than the group living in the same society. This is also a valid explanation to why collectivist societies are more efficient at controlling epidemics, as they are concerned about those apart of their ingroups and outgroups, rather than being concerned merely with those involved in the same ingroups. This is compared to individualist societies, where members within it are more concerned with their own personal needs, rather than the groups they belong to, unlike collectivist societies. Yau (1988) investigated the dimensions within Chinese culture that have formed a consistent values system for countless generations within Chinese society. Levine et al (2001) was to measure correlations between prosocial behaviours and sociocultural factors. Levine et al occurred around 23 cities across the globe. As population rates fluctuate around the world, the study took place in the largest city within the countries that were studied. Levine et al (2001) measured sociocultural factors – this included the levels of individualism and collectivism, economic productivity and finally life pace within each of the countries studied city. In each country, prosocial behaviour was measured the same way – by a confederate who acted as if they needed help. Levine et al (2001) had found an extremely strong correlation between economic productivity and helping others. In the study, the result of this was a negative correlation. This negative correlation showed that the higher the gross domestic product (a measure of wealth) was, the rate of prosocial behaviour within the country would lower. Levine et al (2001) can be linked to collectivist and individualistic societies as countries which exhibited more prosocial behaviour tended to be more of a collectivist society. Some of these countries included Malawi and El Salvador. Some of the individualist countries that were included within this study include the USA and the Netherlands. However, although there is a slight link between prosocial behaviour and whether the country was individualistic or collectivist within the study, there was also a link between the negative correlation with the fact that in order to develop economically, the citizens within the country needed to focus on individual goals, rather than the collective well-being of other people.

In Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck (1961), Chinese culture was described through five cultural orientations: man-to-nature orientation (harmony with nature), man-to-himself orientation (modesty), relational orientation (interdependence; group orientation, face, and respect for authority), time orientation (continuity and past/historical orientation), and finally, personal-activity orientation (harmony with others). The Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck (1961) study proposed that those of Chinese ethnicity and/or culture are brought up by their families and relatives to understand their role in the society to respect others. Linking back to Yau (1988), it is important to note that those living in Western countries/cultures say ‘thank you’ when complimented, however, Chinese people often attempt to reject the compliment whilst avoiding saying the word ‘no’ as they do not want to embarrass or offend anyone. This can be linked with the different cultures of societies and how a collectivist or individualist culture and/or upbringing can influence the way that one thinks and exhibits prosocial behaviours on an individual level. The study Yarrow et al (1970) revealed that young children are more likely to learn and display refined prosocial behaviours amongst those that the child is familiar with.

When talking about prosocial behaviour, it is also important to mention bystanderism, which is the polar opposite of prosocial behaviour and helping others out. The term bystanderism can be used to explain when people do not help those who are in need of support. Within the idea of bystanderism, there are two main ideas: informational social influence and diffusion of responsibility. These two main ideas are what largely contribute to bystanderism. Clark and Word (1972) found that the informational social influence occurs more readily as participants show more willingness to help during the emergent situation when they are in a room alone, compared to when they are with confederates within the study who do not show a reaction to the situation given at hand. The Darley and Latane (1968) smoky room study conducted an experiment to investigate whether people are less likely to act in an emergency situation when others are present. The results of the study exhibited evidence for diffusion of responsibility, as when there were three participants within the room, only 38 percent of the participants had helped, whereas when participants were alone, the rate of helping was much higher, at 78 percent.

With the studies mentioned across the sociocultural level in relation to prosocial behaviours and as mentioned throughout the discussion through the lens of possible influences through the sociocultural lens, it can be concluded that the degree and the level of prosocial behaviours can differ within separate cultures and a variety of social norms across the globe. However, prosocial behaviours may be different in every culture. Due to this very reason, it can be troubling to conclude cross-culturally, whether culture does influence prosocial behaviour when viewed on a larger scale, rather than looking at individual cultures, and whether the societies within these cultures are individualist or collectivist. As the degree of prosocial behaviours vary across cultures, it is also important to note that bystanderism may decrease when positive social normalities can be observed within cultures.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

Now you must be wondering, how does this all link to volunteering at the games expo? It's clear that all volunteers were exhibiting prosocial behaviour. Expecting nothing in return from the convention other than an enjoyable weekend not only for us, but for the rest of the community as well.

Initially as strangers, we then came together as a close, tight knit group by the end of the weekend, with a strong systems loop for the games community - a balancing systems loop. Why, you ask? Many of us volunteers at the Games Expo were completely new to conventions as volunteers. And now, many of us are volunteering at Dreamhack in April.

Our experiences from The Games Expo has created a community inside of the games community, (our 'in-group'), and the way that our collectivist behaviours had extremely benefitted the outcome of the way that the public had received The Games Expo as its first convention in Melbourne. This can also be expanded towards the way that people volunteer on twitch streams, discord servers, and online communities as mods - because they wish improve the space that they involve themselves in, and create it a more enjoyable space for everyone.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

Bibliography

Clark, R. D., & Word, L. E. (1972). Why don't bystanders help? Because of ambiguity? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 24(3), 392–400. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0033717. Last Accessed 14/04/2023

Darley, J. M., & Latané´, B. (1968). Bystander intervention in emergencies: Diffusion of responsibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 8, 377–383. Last Accessed 14/04/2023

Kluckhohn, F. R., & Strodtbeck, F. L. (1961). Variations in value orientations. Row, Peterson. Last Accessed 14/04/2023

Levine, Robert & Norenzayan, Ara & Philbrick, Karen. (2001). Cross-Cultural Differences in Helping Strangers. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology - J CROSS-CULT PSYCHOL. 32. 543-560. 10.1177/0022022101032005002. Last Accessed 14/04/2023

Yau, Oliver. (1988). Chinese Cultural Values: Their Dimensions and Marketing Implications. European Journal of Marketing. 22. 44-57. 10.1108/EUM0000000005285. Last Accessed 14/04/2023