Arousal Cost-Reward Model

In 1981, Jane Allyn Piliavin, John Dovidio, Samuel Gaertner, and Russell
Clark introduced the “arousal cost-reward” model. This model assumes that
witnessing the need or distress of another person is physiologically arousing.
When one attributes the source of one’s arousal to another person’s distress,
the arousal is sometimes experienced as emotionally unpleasant, and one
becomes motivated to reduce it.
According to the arousal cost-reward model, a person will choose to engage
in the arousal-decreasing response associated with the fewest net costs.
Net costs are based on two types of rewards and costs associated with the
helping situation: costs for not helping and rewards and costs for helping.
Costs for not helping occur when no assistance is given and may include experiences
such as feeling troubled because someone in need is continuing
to suffer, or receiving criticism from others for being callous. Costs for helping
are direct negative outcomes that the potential helper might experience
after offering help, such as loss of time, embarrassment, or injury. Helping,
however, can also be associated with positive outcomes such as praise, gratitude,
and feelings of self-worth.

Piliavin and her colleagues suggest that both types of costs influence the
decision to help. When net costs are low, as the costs for not helping increase,
helping in the form of direct intervention becomes more likely. If
net costs for helping are high, however, direct intervention is unlikely regardless
of potential costs for not helping. In this latter situation, a person
may give indirect assistance (for example, by calling someone else to help).
Alternatively, the person may deny responsibility for helping, reinterpret
the situation as one in which help is not needed, or try to leave the scene altogether.