In 2007 Wesley Autrey, a 51-year-old African American father of two young girls, earned the title “The Subway Hero” when he saved the life of a 20-year-old art student.  The art student suffered a seizure and fell on the tracks in front of an oncoming train.  With only seconds to spare, Wesley jumped down on the tracks and lay on top of the young student, pushing him down into the space between the tracks.  The train went over the top of them and both men survived.  When asked why he did it, Autrey replied, “I don’t feel like I did something spectacular; I just saw someone who needed help. I did what I felt was right.” 

Stories of people taking risks to help others always make a great impression on us. Heroes like the German Oskar Schindler, or Paul Rusesabagina – the Hutu manager of the Hotel Milles Collines who saved the lives of many Tutsis during the Rwandan genocide - have been the focus of very successful Hollywood films. What is it that makes these people risk their own lives to save people from certain death while others do not get involved? Are heroic individuals just special, or are there psychological explanations for why they are more likely to help than others?

 Teacher only box

Based on your understanding of the sociocultural approach, how well does Social Identity Theory predict that Wesley Autrey would help the art student?  What about Oskar Schindler or Paul Rusesabagina?

The bottom line is that the theory does not do a good job of explaining this type of altruism! Wesley Autrey was a father, an African-American, and an adult - he shared no clear common "in-group" with the young art student, except that they were both taking the metro (subway)! And, as in the cases of both Oskar Schindler and Paul Rusesabagina, there was a direct threat to his life by taking this action.

What hypothesis would you make at this point in the chapter to explain why these men made the choices that they did?

Students will propose a range of hypotheses - including religious background, proximity,  past experience of helping or not helping others, or the stress caused by not responding.

Prosocial behaviour can be defined as behaviour that benefits another person or has positive social consequences (Staub 1978). Prosocial behaviour is seen as behaviour that is intended to help or benefit another person, a group of persons, or even society as a whole. In other words, prosocial behaviour is often planned with the goal of “making a difference”. Going to a hospital to assist at a children’s clinic or donating money to charity are examples of prosocial behaviours. Prosocial behaviour can be motivated by empathy or the concern about the welfare and rights of other people. It is also possible that more egoistic motives are behind prosocial behaviour. It could be that a person is more focused on his or her social reputation than the welfare of others. It could also be that prosocial behaviour is motivated by the wish to reduce one's own negative feelings.  Another possibility is that people expect something in return. No matter the reasons for prosocial behaviour, Helliwell and Putnam (2004) have found that engaging in prosocial behaviour - both individually and with others - is robustly related to happiness and life satisfaction.

Altruism is when one helps another person for no reward, and perhaps even at some cost to oneself. Altruism is thus seen as an unselfish interest in helping another person. Wesly Autry’s courageous act of saving the young art student is clearly an act of altruism. He put himself at risk in order to save the life of a stranger. This is also the case of heroic helpers who willingly risked their own lives to save Jews during the Holocaust.  You might argue that the purest form of prosocial behaviour is motivated by altruism. In the following chapter, you will investigate how psychologists attempt to explain this behaviour.

Origins of prosocial behaviour