POSITIVE SOCIAL BEHAVIOR

Definition

Positive Social Behavior or Prosocial behavior is a social behavior that benefit other people or
society as a whole, such as helping, sharing, donating, co-operating, and volunteering. Obeying
the rules and conforming to socially accepted behaviors are also regarded as prosocial behaviors.

Positive social behavior refers to the social competence with peers and adults, compliance with
rules and adult direction, and autonomy or self-reliance. Social competence or social skills
include getting along with peers, being well liked, being generous and thoughtful, and being
perceptive about others' feelings and perspectives. Compliance is not merely obedience, but
conforming to expectations without constant supervision. High autonomy entails self-reliance,
doing things on one's own, and not relying on others for unnecessary help. These positive
behaviors are more than the absence of problems ; they represent important skills for dealing
with both peers and adults.

Historically, policy research on children and youth has emphasized negative behavior. This
tendency reflects and also may contribute to the negative images of youth. Few studies have
given equal weight to youths' positive behavior. It is important to understand both positive and
negative behavior so that adults (parents, teachers, etc.) can make efforts not only to correct
problems but also to foster social skills and other kinds of positive behavior. Positive child social
behavior has often been assumed to be the opposite of problem behavior, an assumption that we
challenge. Positive or prosocial behaviors can include social skills for relating to peers and
adults, empathic and helpful actions, responsibility, autonomy, and self-control. One definition
includes voluntary actions that are intended to help or benefit another individual or group .

Types of Positive Social Behavior

There are 3 types of Prosocial Behavior

 For external reward

 Not for external reward
 Pure altruism - Behavior solely to benefit another without external or internal reward
Positive Social Behavior in Adolescents

Adolescents’ prosocial behavior, or voluntary behavior intended to benefit others has been
linked with several positive outcomes, including high self-esteem, academic success, and high
quality relationships. Although previous studies have consistently shown prosocial behavior to
increase during early childhood ,research on the development of prosocial behavior during
adolescence has revealed conflicting results. Regarding potential predictors of prosocial
behavior, empathy is thought to provide the motivation to express helping behavior. Both the
understanding of others’ inner states (i.e., perspective taking) and the experience of feelings of
concern for others (i.e., empathic concern) are believed to facilitate prosocial behavior .
Conversely, engaging in prosocial behavior may also foster adolescents’ tendency to exhibit
perspective taking and empathic concern.

Gender roles in Prosocial Behavior

Gender and moral socialization theorists posit gender specific socialization experiences that
orient girls towards nurturing, expressive, and caring behaviors. In contrast, boys are typically
socialized towards masculine-typed behaviors that include instrumentality, assertion, and
competitiveness. Gender stereotypes and gender-specific socialization practices may not only
result in differences in mean levels of prosocial behavior, but may also affect its links with
empathic concern and perspective taking. For instance, previous research suggests that the
cognitive process of perspective taking is a stronger motivator to show prosocial behavior for
boys, whereas empathic concern may play a more important role in girls’ prosocial behavior.
Moreover, girls may receive more positive feedback when engaging in prosocial behavior than
boys which may result in stronger predictive effects of prosocial behavior on perspective
taking and empathic concern for girls. Although previous studies provide some support for
gender differences in the associations between perspective taking, empathic concern and
prosocial behavior, this issue has not yet been studied thoroughly across adolescence.
Problem Behavior

Problem behavior, by contrast, is generally defined as behavior that deviates from social norms
or indicates distress and unhappiness. The most common measures of problem behaviors suggest
two extremes: externalizing and internalizing problems. Externalizing problems involve low
levels of behavior control-aggression, defiance, anger, and socially disapproved actions.
Internalizing problems are indicated by social withdrawal, sadness, and signs of anxiety. Clearly,
positive and problem behaviors are not the opposite ends of one dimension, and many have
argued that they should be measured separately to reflect their conceptual independence .

Measuring Positive Social Behavior

Eisenberg and Mussen (1989) suggest that there has been a lag in research on positive social
behavior for several reasons. First, modern society has only recently recognized the importance
of prosocial behavior and its role in enhancing humanity. The increase in interest led to studies
designed to understand how prosocial behaviors develop and the role societal institutions (the
education system, religious organizations, and families) play in fostering these behaviors early in
life. Another reason for the lack of research is the absence of a widely accepted method of
assessing prosocial behavior. For instance, the Positive Behavior Scale was developed originally
because no available scale was well suited for use with young children in low-income families.
Also, until about 30 years ago, there was little interest in studying prosocial behavior, and both
definition and measurement issues are complex. The assessment tools that have been developed
for prosocial behavior generally fall into one of five categories:

 naturalistic observations
 situational tests
 ratings
 sociometric questionnaires
 self-report questionnaires
Rating scales and questionnaires are the most economical methods of measuring social
behavior. Two scales are fairly widely used. The Social Skills Rating System (SSRS) created by
Elliot and Gresham (1987) defines social skills as the interaction between individuals and the
environment, as the tools used to initiate and maintain vital interpersonal relations. They specify
three components of social skills:

 peer acceptance (is the child accepted by peers?)

 behavior (behaviors exhibited in specific settings and situations in which punishment is
dependent on one's behavior)
 social validity (behaviors that in a given situation predict important social outcomes for
children; e.g., in school settings important social outcomes may include peer acceptance
and popularity)

Determining methods of measure

Including both prosocial and negative behavior provides an understanding of the reasoning
behind selecting specific behaviors for their measure. This conceptualization serves as an
appropriate guideline for developing assessments because it specifies the features of behavior
necessary to label it prosocial. The SSRS used by parents, teachers, and children to rate social
behavior is on a 3-point scale (often true, sometimes true, never true) .A significant feature of
this scale is the parent's or teacher's report of how important each behavior is for the child's
success in a variety of settings. The other commonly used rating scale for social behavior is the
Child Behavior Checklist. It contains a brief scale titled Social Competence, but the overall
measure contains much more detail about problem behaviors than about positive behaviors. A
related measure of problem behavior is the Behavior Problem Index (BPI), a 26-item scale
designed for children ages 4 years and older .
Helping Others : The Brighter Side of Human Nature

In the field of Positive Social Behaviour, the question that psychologists have looked at most
closely relates to bystander intervention in emergency situations. Bystander Intervention is a
social science model that predicts the likelihood of individuals (or groups) willing to actively
address a situation they deem problematic. What are the factors that lead someone to help a
person in need?

One critical factor is the number of others present. When more than one person witnesses an
emergency situation, a sense of diffusion of responsibility can arise among the bystanders.
Diffusion of responsibility is a sociopsychological phenomenon whereby a person is less likely
to take responsibility for action or inaction when others are present. Considered a form of
attribution, the individual assumes that others either are responsible for taking action or have
already done so. The more people are present in an emergency , the less personally responsible
each individual feels, and therefore the less help he or she provides. Although most research on
helping behavior supports the diffusion of responsibility explanation, other factors are clearly
involved in helping behavior .

The Decision Model of Helping

The decision model of helping, introduced in The Unresponsive Bystander by Bibb Latane and
John Darley, outlines a process of five steps that will determine whether a bystander will act or
not in a helping situation. This model is also intended to offer a counterargument to the
proposition that people do not help in emergencies simply because they become apathetic. As
Latane and Darley suggest, an individual’s interpretation of the emergency may be more
influential than the individual’s general motivation when it comes to his or her actions in an
emergency. The decision model of helping outlines the five steps to helping behavior. First, the
bystander must recognize a problem. If perceived as a problem, the second step requires the
interpretation of the problem as an emergency. If perceived as an emergency, the third step
requires the bystander to feel a personal obligation to act. If the bystander feels responsible to
help, the fourth step requires that bystander to decide how to act (form of assistance). And
finally, the bystander must decide how to implement the form of assistance. Thus, the decision
model of helping explains the helping behavior process from the perception of a problem to the
actual act of helping.

Five Steps to Helping Behavior

There are five distinct and consecutive steps in this model. First, one must recognize a problem.
Second, there must be an interpretation of the problem as an emergency. Third, the bystander
must feel a personal obligation to act. Fourth, the bystander must decide how to act (form of
assistance). And finally, the bystander must decide how to implement the assistance.

Step 1: Recognizing the Problem

Bystanders must first recognize that whatever is occurring is not normal, usual, or common; it is
a problem. A famous experiment conducted by Darley and Latane exemplifies this first step.
Experimental participants were completing a questionnaire in a waiting room before an interview
when smoke suddenly appears out of an air vent. These participants were either in the waiting
room alone or with two other participants who were actually confederates pretending to be
waiting for their interview. Results showed that the 15% of the participants who were in the
waiting room alone reported the smoke to the experimenter, whereas only 10% of the
participants did so when in the waiting room with two other confederates. Darley and Latane
used this experiment to illustrate how people must first recognize a problem. Participants who
are alone think something is wrong when they see smoke emanate from a vent. Because this does
not usually happen, participants recognize that this could be a problem and hence report it to the
experimenter. However, in the other condition, the participants see that smoke is escaping an air
vent but then look to the calm expressions of the confederates, who continue filling out the
questionnaire, and make the inference that the smoke may not be a problem. After all, if it were a
problem, the confederates would have appeared to be alarmed. Hence, the implication is that the
same event, a smoky vent, can be interpreted as a problem when the participant is alone but not
when the participant is in the presence of calm peers.
Step 2: Interpreting the Problem as an Emergency

If bystanders conclude that there is a problem in Step 1, then Step 2 follows—interpreting the
problem as an emergency. Latane and Darley foresee considerable material and physical costs of
both intervention and nonintervention, noting additionally that the rewards associated with
helping are usually not high or profitable. Consequently, perceiving the problem as an
emergency is subject to rationalizations such as discounting the extent to which the problem is
really an emergency. The tendency for bystanders to avoid perceiving a problem as an
emergency is illustrated in an experiment involving a fight between children. Participants were
placed in a room adjacent to another in which (tape-recorded) children were purported playing
when the sounds of fighting or play-fighting occurs.

Participants were previously told that the children were either “supervised” or “unsupervised.”
Results showed that 88% of the participants who were told the children were supervised (no
personal responsibility) thought that the fight was real, compared to only 25% of those
participants who were told that the children were unsupervised (personal responsibility). In other
words, participants who had more personal responsibility for the children were more likely to
rationalize the fighting as playing than those who had no responsibility. Hence, the implication is
that the same problem can be perceived as an emergency in one case but not another. One’s
decision whether or not to help is rooted in the interpretation of the problem as an emergency.

Step 3: Deciding Whether One Has a Responsibility to Act

If people recognize a problem (Step 1) and interpret it as an emergency (Step 2), then a bystander
is forced to decide whether one has a responsibility to act. A bystander who is alone has all the
responsibility during an emergency. However, the level of personal responsibility that one feels
can become diffused to the extent that other bystanders are also present and aware that help is
needed. For example, consider the famous case of Kitty Genovese, who was murdered in New
York City despite her pleas for help. It turns out that many people in the neighborhood fully
understood that help was needed but no one felt personally responsible to help, as they assumed
that others in the neighborhood had already took action (i.e., calling the police). A bystander,
however, has a greater sense of responsibility to act when placed in situations with greater
personal involvement or a psychological connection to the victim or fellow bystanders. For
example, when experimental participants were accompanied by friends, there was not only a
significant increase in the percentage of participants completing Steps 1 and 2 of the decision
model but also Step 3—determining a responsibility to act. In fact, the rates at which participants
took the responsibility to act when accompanied by a friend were similar to the rates at which
participants did so when alone with a victim.

Steps 4 and 5: Deciding How to Assist and How to Act

Assuming that Steps 1, 2, and 3 are met, Steps 4 and 5 follow. Step 4 of Latane and Darley’s
model involves deciding what form of assistance to provide. This step has many variables in it,
including the competency and confidence of the bystander in a specific context (e.g., a bystander
familiar with CPR might hesitate before giving CPR compared to a bystander who is a
physician). This step is closely followed by the actual act of helping—Step 5. Latane and Darley
discuss Steps 4 and 5 together and note that once an individual reaches Step 4, it is highly likely
that he or she will continue with the Step 5. Thus, once an individual decides how to help, he or
she will very likely implement that way to help. To explain these final two steps and their
interconnection, experiments on the willingness to help someone purportedly experiencing a
seizure varied the composition of participants and confederates. The participants were either
female or male with female or male confederates, who were either medical experts or not.
Regardless of the characteristics, Latane and Darley concluded that, for Step 4, the form of
intervention is crucial, and it can be direct such as stepping in to break up a fight or reportorial in
which the need for help is reported to another person. Thus, in deciding what kind of assistance
to provide and how to provide it, subjects must make delineations between direct and reportorial
action.