Crisp (2010) defines prosocial behaviour as ay voluntary act which benefits another, although such acts can also benefit the helper. Prosocial behaviour (PB) is, like most human behaviour, influenced by a set of two factors that are, dispositional and situational. Dispositional factors are unique and internal, whereas situational factors are external to people. This essay will consider the interaction between these forces in explaining PB.

Evolutionary theorists presume PB to be egotistically or selfishly motivated. They focus on principles of kin selectivity, sfafdf and reciprocal altruism in explaining such behaviour. Characteristics such as empathy have been observed in a varity of animals such as primates (De Waal, 2009). Social learning theorists argue that prosocial behaviour too is endorsed through observational learning and reinforcement. Wuzas (2011) for example has shown that the prosocial disposition of children is influenced by their parents.

In contrast, cognitive theorists, such as Latane and Darly (1970) have proposed a situational model of behaviour in emergencies. According to these theorists, a person must make a series of correct decisions in order to intervene in emergencies. If any decision is not made correctly, intervention does not occur. So, in order for PB to occur, people must notice the happening, decide that it is an emergency and that help is required, decide that they are responsible, decide that they can help appropriately, and lastly, decide to actually intervene. This model acts as an excellent rule of thumb in explaining PB in emergencies. However, it could be argued that this model is also less sensitive to other factors which influence PB, such as gender, birth place (rural/urban), attractiveness, or as McNeely (2010) investigated, self-efficacy.

In addition to the situational model proposed by Latane and Darly, people who engage in PB also must resist the psychological audience inhibition effect and the diffusion effect. The audience inhibition effect states that in group situations, people will be dependent on others for information and will be afraid to act because they fear negative evaluations, especially in cases where intervention is not actually necessary. The audience inhibition effect was illustrated by Latane and Darly's smoke-filled room experiment. In the condition with 2 unresponsive confederates, the rates of participant reports dropped from 75% when alone in a room, to just 10%.

Similarly, the diffusion of responsibility effect reduces PB. It describes how when people are in groups they feel less socially responsible than when they are alone. For example, Marky (2000) internet chat room experiment reports an increase in response time to requests for help in the chat room as the number of chatters increases. So, in group situations, those that intervene also feel more social responsibility.

Pavilion (1981) argues that PB occurs as a consideration of emotional arousal and a calculation of cost and reward. However, this approach fails to explain true altruistic action. Batson's 1991 empathy altruism hypothesis focuses on empathy as a key characteristic in such behaviour. He proposes that if a person experiences empathy, then they are more likely to intervene. Although, it must be noted that experiencing empathy is also dependent on additional factors. For example, Wilhelm's (2011) study showed empathetic concern to be mediated by morality. Therefore, one's moral response ability is an important dispositional factor.

In Fargins-Jones (2007) study on courageous resistence, they highlighted a fourth dispositional factor. Since altruistc acts often put the helper in danger, they proposed that risk taking, as a trait plays an important role. In their assessment of rescuers and non-rescuers in the holocaust, they found that the scaled measured of social responsibility, moral reasoning, empatheitc concern, and risk taking of rescuers was more than 3 SDs from the non-rescuers.

Moreover, since most religions promote inclusivity, Cliner and Cliner (1988) point to a deep sense of religiosity as an additional dispositional factor. All of the aforementioned factors support Carlos' (1991) notion of a prosocial personality.

In conclusion, Latane and Darley point to many situational factors which can hinder and prevent PB such as those outlined by their 5 step decision process and the diffusion of responsibility and audience effect. However, situational factors should never be considered alone as each person is unique.

As discussed, the main dispositional factors which influence PB are empatheic concern, moral reasoning ability, religiosity, and personal sense of personal responsibility. Knowledge and education around the factors that limit and hinder PB could encourage thought processes which assimilate rather than accommodate information in emergency situations. Thereby encouraging more engaging bystanders.