Chapter 4: Why do People Help? Flashcards
What are two reasons why we may act selflessly to help someone?
- Learned behaviour
2. Social & Personal Standards
What is Thorndike’s Law of Effect? What is the social learning theory? Describe experiments that support these theories.
We may help someone because we learn to.
Thorndike’s Law of Effect; if our helping is rewarded, we are more likely to help in the future
Participants were approached by a confederate in a busy street asking for directions
IV: the confederate either was very grateful (positive reinforcement) or was rude and interrupted them (negative)
DV: the same participants later encountered a woman struggling with a bag, will they help
- 93% of those who were positively reinforced helped her, and only 40% of those who had been negatively reinforced offered assistance, in the control condition 85% helped
Social Learning Theory: learning by specific instructions or by watching how other people behave
Participants saw a confederate return a lost wallet and the confederate either seemed happy or displeased to be helping, later, participants came across a “lost” wallet
People who had seen the confederate pleased to help, helped much more than people who had observed the unpleasant confederate
What social and personal standards do we hold that influence helping?
- Norm of reciprocity; we should try to replay, in kind, what another person has provided us
Regan had participants sit with a confederate where they either offered them a gift (a can of coke) or they were offered no gift. The confederate asked the participant if they would buy some raffle tickets they were selling
IV: gift or no gift
DV: if they would buy raffle tickets
Participants who were given a gift bought 2x as many raffle tickets than those who weren’t given a gift.
They asked participants if they liked the confederate, and the amount they liked the person did not contribute to how many raffle tickets they ended up buying.
Whatley et al. found that people reciprocated favours whether or not the person who did the initial favor would be aware that their prosocial act had been repaid → people attempt to maintain stable, reciprocal relationships with others
Students who received favours and could not return the favour to the original helper were more likely to offer assistance to another person in need
- Norm of social responsibility; we should help those who need help
ex. helping those in need after a natural disaster
- People are less likely to help those who believe they are dependent because of their own choices;
ex. people are less sympathetic to AID victims who obtained it from sexual promiscuity than from a blood transfusion. - Personal moral code; expectations for oneself in particular situations, these may be embedded within religious beliefs
What is Batson’s altruism perspective?
The motivation for helping is solely to offer aid to another person. Empathy-altruism hypothesis maintains that feelings of empathy for a target can motivate purely altruistic acts.
Describe Batson’s “Elaine” experiment.
Participants watched a confederate (Elaine) receiving shocks, but before the experiment the participants overheard that Elaine was scared of shocks because of a past traumatic experience
I.V. 1: induced high empathy vs. low empathy for Elaine
I.V. 2: easy vs. difficult to escape the viewing room for the participant
D.V: after two shocks they were offered to trade places with Elaine and receive the last eight shocks, or if they were in the easy condition they could simply leave
- In the high empathy condition, even when they could escape, almost all offered to switch places with her; while in the low empathy condition, only 20% offered to switch in the easy escape, while 60% offered when they couldn’t escape
This suggests people with low-empathy will only help when they have selfish intentions (they don’t want to watch Elaine suffer anymore)
Describe Toi & Batson’s “wheelchair” experiment.
Participants listened to an interview with a student who was confined to a wheelchair and would need to drop out if they couldn’t receive notes from someone else
I.V. 1: high empathy induced by getting them to imagine how the student feels vs. low empathy
I.V. 2: high cost (student would return to class and they’d have to see her every week) vs. low cost (student would stay home and they wouldn’t have to see her)
D.V: participants willingness to help the student
- The results showed that people were more willing to help in the low empathy condition when people were going to see her, in the high empathy condition the second variable made no difference
Describe Batson’s “Janet” experiment.
Female participants formed an impression of “Janet” a lonely university student who was asking for a friend through a letter
I.V. 1: high empathy induced by asking to imagine how she felt vs. low empathy
I.V. 2: high social evaluation (experiment knew what the notes said) vs. low social evolution (experimenter knew nothing)
- In the high social evolution, high empathy allowed people to volunteer more and the same result was found in the low empathy condition → meaning some altruistic motives must be presented
What is Cialdini’s egoistic perspective?
The motivation for helping is to gain rewards and avoid punishments.
The negative-state relief hypothesis: people help others to alleviate their own distress and to enhance their mood.
There could still be benefits to the beneficent, but there is some other motive such as receiving an award, recognition, feeling good, etc.
Describe Cialdini’s data destruction experiment.
IV1: Some participants were induced to feel guilty by thinking they accidently destroyed student’s thesis data while some weren’t induced with stress.
IV2: The guilty participants were given money, praise or nothing - this was to try to reduce the negative feeling of the accident
D.V.: willingness to do task for other experimenter
- The results strongly supported the negative-state relief hypothesis; the guilty who received money or praise were less likely to offer help than those were offered nothing and felt guilty.
When we feel we are not just more likely to help the person we harmed, but anybody who needs assistance.
Explain the results of the “Elaine” study when Cialdini ran it.
Participants who empathized with Elaine were less likely to trade places with Elaine if they received money or praise
What is Piliavin’s Arousal/Cost-Reward Model?
This model is a mix of egoism and altruism; since both theories can be supported
Someone in need → negative emotional arousal → increased chance of help
However, people are more likely to help those who are similar to them, “we” connection with victim
When the cost/reward ratio is large we will likely relieve our arousal in some other way, such as escaping the situation
Someone in need → negative emotional arousal → strong arousal → “we” connection with victim → cost/reward ratio is small = most likely chance someone will help
Describe Harbaugh et al. food bank donation experiment.
While undergoing fMRI, participants were given $100 to keep, some participants were asked if they would donate any of the money to the food bank (voluntary), and some were told how much they had to donate (mandatory)
They found that giving is pleasurable, when participants gave voluntarily dopamine was active in the reward centre (nucleus accumbens)
When donations were involuntary, dopamine was still being released but at a lesser extent
What constitutes volunteerism?
Volunteerism is:
- performed voluntarily
- reflects deliberative decision-making
- requires substantial time and effort
- carried out without explicitly expectation of reward or punishment
- in service of individuals/groups/causes who desire help
- associated with an agency or organization
In 2013, 44% of Canadians (aged 15+) participated in nearly 2 billion hours of volunteer work
On average, Canadians volunteer 150 hours per year
What are two main reasons people volunteer?
- Other oriented
2. Self oriented
What are other oriented reasons we volunteer?
- Expression of personal values
ex. environmental groups - Community concern
ex. school, youth groups, addiction centres
