Altruism Flashcards
3 evolutionary factors in helping
selfish gene
reciprocal altruism
group-level altruism
evolutionary fact: “the selfish gene”
- kin selection. tendency to help genetic relatives
= important for survival of genes, not survival of the fittest individual
evolutionary factor “reciprocal altruism”
advantage of helping when not related?
- helping can be in your best interest; increase likelihod you’ll be helped in return later on.
- normative reciprocity?? textbook*
evolutionary factor group-level altruism
indirect reciprocity = i help you and somebody helps me.
- group selection: more likely to survive with altruistic members
evolution of morality, empathy
- define empathy - 2 aspects.
empathy = understanding or vicariously experiencing another individual’s perspective and feeling sympathy and compassion for that individual.
2 aspects:
– perspective taking cognitive.
– empathic concern. emotional
evolution of morality, empathy - only human trait?
no. seen in other species.
- binti the gorilla, help and rocked a kid that fell over. evolutionary impulse to take carea and survive.
3 rewards of helping
helping others to help oneself
helping to feel good
helping to be good
rewards of helping: helping others to help oneself
- other name?
- fundamental principle?
-
social exchange theory.
more likely to help wen potential reward outweight potential costs.
= cost-reward model. cognitive component.
- bystander calculus
what is bystander calculus
the “calculation” of erward vs cost when helping. requried for social exchange theory bc need more reward to do action.
rewards of helping: helping to feel good
relationship btw helping and feeling better - reducing one’s personal distress.
- often not conscious decision.
top 2 things that are often taked into consideration when helping
- reward/cost
2. right thing to do.
what is negative state model
help to counter their own feelings of sadness - feel better by helping
rewards of helping: helping to be good
- motivated to behave in way that’s consistent with morals/principles.
- right thing to do.
- more risky actions/ careers.
potential costs of helping
- protection
more sustained & deliberate AKA risky for you to be assoc w helping
- negative health effects if decreases your quality of life, involves constant, exhausting demands.
good samaritan laws = reduce cost by protected bystander. if bystander helps but something goes wrong, not liable.
duty to rescue - duty of ppl to provide or summon help.
define altruism
define egoistic
A - desire to incrase another’s welfare
E - increase one’s own welfare.
Batson’s hypothesis?
empathy-altruism hypothesis.
in empathic conern
- is other’s perspective taken?
- is there an emotional response?
- how is this motive satisfied.
Yes, taken.
empathic concern
reduce other’s distress
egoistic reponse
- other perspecitve taken?
emotional response?
motive satisfied?
no
personal distress
reduction of own distress
how to tell the difference btw egoistic and altruistic motives?
- study
how easy it is to escape. easy = decline helping
- egoistic motive, helping decline when escape from situation is easy
- altruistic motive: help given regardless of ease of escape
limitations to empathy-altruism hypothesis
not all help is altruistically motivated = can be mix.
motives =/= behaviour. other costs may be too high, over ride empathic concern.
what is bystander effect
the presence of others inhibits helping
what may contribute to bystander effect?
- apathy, anonymity in groups.
put responsibility on other.
what are the 5 steps to helping
noticing interpreting taking responsibility deciding how to help providing help
step 1?
- obstacle
noticing obstacle: do not notice, CANNOT consider helping self-concern distraction - urban-overload
step 2?
- obstacle
interpreting
obstacles:
- ambiguity: less likely to help when ambiguous sitauation
- relationship between attacker and victim
- behaviour of others - informational influence = pluralistic ignorance: think others feel differently than they do; think others know whats going on, go with what they think.
step 3?
obstacle?
assuming responsibility
- diffusion of responsibility
3 influences of diffusion of responsibility
presence of others
anonymity
roles/profession - group leader more likely to help. certain professions less likely to diffuse responsibility
step 4?
obstacle?
decide how to help
- competence: if don’t feel competent, dont help.
can do indirect assistance tho.
step 5?
obstacle
help
- audience inhibition: social consequences
- costs outweigh the risks
3 ways to get help
single out individual
- eye contact
- point
- direct request
time pressure & Good Samaritan study
- parable where the people “closest to God” didnt stop to help a person in need, but the social religioius outcast did.
- priests-to-be in study. get ready for speech about parable. told to walk to building across campus.
- told on time, early, late.
- early = 63% helped, on time = 43% helped. late - 10% helped
how can helping be increased?
- aware of barriers
- reward prosocial behaviour; not too much tho (overjustification effect)
- parents show prosocial behaviour to influence kids.
- playing prosocial video games/ listening to rprosocial music lyrics by increasing empathy and accessibility of thoughts about helping others.
the person and likelihood of helping
- gender
- ses
- culture/group
- religion
- mood
- residential mobility
- males help in “brave” acts, female help in “caring” acts.
- lower SES more likely to help bc more concerned with needs of others.
- need to view person as ingroup to help; interdependent less likely to help bc clear lines between us/them.
- religion: more religious - more likely to helpp.
- feel good do good: bright side, prolong good mood, increase attention to self = more likely to behave according to values/ideals.
- feel bad, do good. alleviate sadness.
- community important to help. in one area for longer = more help in community.
