Altruism and Helping Behaviour

Question 1

INTRO

Answer 1

• humans are naturally helpful; Ramadan 2020 saw record breaking donations despite increased risk.
  HOWEVER, sometimes help is withheld when most required.
• Cards divided into WHY and WHEN do humans help.

Question 2

WHY: Altruism

Answer 2

• Any act of voluntary self-sacrifice intended to benefit another WITH NO EXPECTATION OF REWARD
• ie. donating a kidney to a stranger; rarer.
• Arguably doesn’t exist; even if the benefit isn’t clear, we still feel good about helping, and so it’s still pro-social. Big PSYCH debate on this.

Question 3

WHY: Pro-social Behaviour

Answer 3

• Any act performed by an individual with the goal of benefiting another person.
• ie. volunteering at charity; common

Question 4

WHY: Evolutionary Perspectives

Answer 4

• Idea of evolutionary basis/natural selection; rationally strange as those who help prioritise others to the point of personal risk, so less likely to pass on genes.
• However, modern models are more complex.

Question 5

WHY: Inclusive Fitness

Answer 5

• The idea that the unit of selection is genes, not individuals, so its their survival that counts, so sacrifice of bearer may be necessary.
• Gene survival rises w/altruistic behaviour towards kin (ie. saving your child from drowning despite personal risk); natural selection should support this.
• People are naturally more helpful to kin because of this.

Question 6

WHY: Inclusive Fitness (Example)

Answer 6

• BURNSTEIN et al (1990s); pps given hypothetical situations to help/not.
• Manipulated: RELATEDNESS (ie. distant/close kin); TARGET HEALTH; SITUATION (ie. everyday/mortal)
• Expected: favour to close, healthy kin in mortal situations.
• Results: favour sick everyday, but healthy in mortal peril; goes down in all aspects for distant kin.
• Healthy can deal everyday, but their genes are important in mortal peril; survival of the fittest, but specific.

Question 7

WHY: Inclusive Fitness (Evaluation)

Answer 7

• HYPOTHETICAL; no evidence for pps actually choosing these irl; limits EXTERNAL VALIDITY.
• UNCONTROLLED VARIABLES; who is socially watching?
• UNCONCSCIOUS; we don’t typically consciously consider the genes; more to do w/social connection.

Question 8

WHY: Genetic VS Emotional Closeness

Answer 8

• KORCHMARCOS & KENNY (2001); repeated Burnstein w/irl kin; predicted=emotional closeness>genes (measured closeness via questionnaire).
• Found that genetic closeness did increase willingness to help; supports Burnstein.
• Emotional closeness was more likely w/close relatives than distant.
• Helping is determined by how much we care for the target.

Question 9

WHY: Cultural Differences of Helping (Example)

Answer 9

• Against evolutionary explanations, which claim helpfulness is innate; cultural values SHOULD be unimportant.
• WU, CROSS, WU, CHO & TEY (2016); Asian cultures favour mother everyday/mortally over spouse (honouring elderly); Western cultures are the opposite.
• Idea of past genes surviving in parents or future genes surviving in potential offspring; mother already fulfilling evolutionary purpose VS emotional connection argument.
• Supports Burnstein’s argument of genetic closeness in Asian sample, then emotional closeness in Western sample.

Question 10

WHY: Evolutionary Approaches (Evaluation)

Answer 10

• NO SOLID EVIDENCE; we can’t manipulate these scenarios and keep all variables constant; no support for genetic closeness causing willingness to help.
• OTHER PARAMETERS; helping mother may not be due to genes but emotions (ie. spending time together).
• HELPING STRANGERS; greatest conflict; no evolutionary benefit.

Question 11

WHY: Social Exchange Theory

Answer 11

• based on behaviourism (ie. learning & Skinner); MINIMISE COST, MAXIMISE REWARD.
• REWARD: tangible (ie. money); intangible (ie. approval); removal of aversive state (ie. distress)
• Agrees w/evolutionary ideas that its strategic & calculated via cost-benefit.

Question 12

WHY: Negative State Relief Hypothesis

Answer 12

• SCHALLER & CIALDINI (1988); when we expect to engage in alternative mood enhancing activities, we are less inclined to help.

Question 13

WHY: Empathy-Altruism Model

Answer 13

• BATSON (1991) suggested that whether people help depends on emotional reaction (aka. EMPATHY IS CRITICAL)
• Empathies presence/absence causes two paths; w/o=help given only in interest (SOCIAL EXCHANGE); w/=help given regardless of cost-benefit

Question 14

WHY: Empathy

Answer 14

• The ability to sense another’s experiences; identifying with/experiencing another’s emotions/thoughts/emotions.

Question 15

WHY: Empathy Increases Altruism (Example)

Answer 15

• TOI & BATESON (1982) manipulated empathy and cost.

- Low empaths agreed to help less w/low cost; high empaths agreed to help 80% regardless of cost.

Question 16

WHY: Empathy Increases Altruism (Evaluation)

Answer 16

• Empaths engage in pro-social acts motivated by altruism.
• BUT this might be unconsciously motivated to feel egoistical “empathic joy” just as sometimes help is used to remove distress; is this just behaviourism and rewards again?

Question 17

WHY: Is Empathy Altruism? (Example)

Answer 17

• BATESON et al. (1991); manipulated empathic joy opportunity; pps told they would/wouldn’t be given feedback of actions.
• Low empaths helped considerably more with feedback than w/o; high empaths help a lot regardless.

Question 18

WHY: Is Empathy Altruism? (Evaluation)

Answer 18

• Consistent evidence that empathy overrides cost-benefit analyses.
• Argue that altruism should be purely empathy-driven, independent from all rewards including emotions.

Question 19

WHEN: Situational Factors

Answer 19

• KITTY GENOVESE murder (1964) shows that people sometimes refuse giving help assuming others will (“BYSTANDER EFFECT”)
• LATANE & DARLEY (1970); pps filled questionnaire in room gradually filled w/smoke.
• Approached experimenter: 75% (alone); 38% (w/strangers); 10% (w/pps who ignored smoke)
• Just thinking about others reactions causes bystander effect.

Question 20

WHEN: Situational Factors (Examples)

Answer 20

• GARCIA et al. (2002); pps imagined themselves alone/w group.
• The less people they were with, the more income they were willing to donate.
• LEVINE et al. (2010); same as Garcia but varied crowd.
• Reaction time to communal words increased with strangers present rather than just women.

Question 21

WHEN: Attribution Theory

Answer 21

• WEINER (1995); says people ask why someone may need their help.
• We unconsciously focus on: RESPONSIBILITY (is the target responsible) and CONTROLLABILITY (do they have control over the situation).

Question 22

WHY & WHEN: Thoughts, Emotions, Actions

Answer 22

• Someone needs help = Uncontrollable/Controllable? Responsible/Not?
• Uncontrollable/Not responsible = Empathy/No anger
• Controllable/Responsible = Anger/No empathy
• Empathy/No anger = Pro-social action
• Controllable/Responsible = Anti-social action

Question 23

WHY & WHEN: Victim Responsibility

Answer 23

• SSCHMIDT & WEINER (1988); pps told classmate asked to borrow notes since: problem w/eyes/gone to beach for lecture.
• Control/responsibility correlated w/increased anger and decreased empathy/intentions to help.
• LEVINE et al. (2005); identity of target is vital; Leicester pps told to explain love for football team, then confederate stages needing help after a fall w/football/neutral t-shirt.
• Pps more likely to help Manchester t-shirt than neutral/Liverpool (rival) t-shirt after activating social group thoughts.
• BUT in alternative, pps just told to think about love for football as a whole; leads to helping all football t-shirts equally, and only ignoring neutral.

Question 24

SUMMARY

Answer 24

• Evolutionary mechanisms work on selfish basis of gene survival (inclusive fitness).
• Social exchange approach looks at avoiding punishment/getting rewards (aka. behaviourism)
• Bystander effect makes people assume others will help, so they don’t.
• Target perceptions; why is the help needed/what is the targets group identity in relation to individual.