Helping and Harming Flashcards
definition of
prosocial behavior
help
altruism vs egoism
prosocial behavior = behavior that intended to help someone
help = providing support or resources to help someone to do something
altruism = helping without having the prospect of reward
egoism = with the process of personal rewards (even just positive feelings of helping)
what are the factors that affect helping (helper and receiver)
Helper
personality: higher agreeableness
if helping is in the mind:
Greitemeyer & Osswald (2010)
played games that are neutral vs prosocial
then fill in reports that reports prosocial thoughts
showed that prosocial game predicts prosocial thoughts, which eventually predicts prosocial acts
receiver
if the receiver is anonymous = less help; if the identity of the receiver is known = more help (identifiable victim effect)
one explanation = knowing the receiver increases empathy from the helper
what are the factors that affect helping (4 situational)
the ambiguity of the situation
if the situation is ambiguous, we look for others’ reaction to make sense of the scene
showed by the Smoke-filled room experiment
when the participant is alone (75% offering help), when there were other confederates not acting, only 10% offered help
the number of other bystanders
if the participant is alone = would offer immediate or delayed help
the number of other bystanders negatively correlated with the percentage of the participant helping
supported the diffusion of responsibility: the presence of others diffuses each individual’s feeling of responsibility for action
norm of privacy
if conflict is between partners, less help offered compared to strangers
time
if the participant is in a hurry, regardless of what the person has in mind (good samaritan parable or other thoughts), they would not offer help
People in the control condition offered help > immediate condition > hurry condition
what is the egoistic model of explaining help
the central argument is whether help is provided just to relief the negative state
negative state relief model
assumptions:
most people don’t like to watch other suffer
helping is effective in reducing a negative state
experiments supporting the model:
Cialdini, Darby & Vincent (1973)
inferring negative state to a person
condition 1: relieving negative state by incentivising or praising
condition 2: no relief is given
showed that condition 1 has offered less help afterwards than condition 2
Harris et al. (1971)
showed that people before a confession offered more help than after
the central notion is that help is offered when people want to relief the negative emotion state
what is the altruistic model of explaining help
empathy-altruistic model
when seeing someone suffer
personal distress > want to escape
if escape was possible, will not offer help
help is offered only when escape is hard (egoistic help)
empathy help > helping regardless of the complexity of escaping
altruistic help
experiment supporting the model
Baston et al (1981)
watch someone suffer
manipulating empathy and escape
see whether people are willing to help
showed that if no empathy
easy condition lower in helping than the hard condition
but if there is empathy
regardless of the complexity of escaping, help is still very high
central notion is that if not emphasised, people would escape instead of helping. But empathy-based helping is not driven by relief of negative state, since if it was, results should have been the same (easy < hard)
definitions of dependency and autonomy-oriented help, and the perception of the help
dependency-oriented = providing with full solution
autonomy-oriented = enables the person to solve the problem independently even in the future
people generally prefer autonomy as they feel empowered and competent, but if the autonomy help is given from a peer, there may be negative emotions towards the helper
Definitions of aggression and what are the two types of aggression
aggression = intentional behaviours that are aimed to harm others
2 types of aggression
instrumental aggression = aggression used as a mean to an end
hostility aggression = aggression driven by anger, insults
what is the cultures of honour, and the experiment that supports the presence of cultures of honours
cultures of honour refer to cultures that have norms that believe:
men have to always be ready to fight
men have to fight to protect their properties and assets
fighting is a way to maintain their reputation
the police is weak
Cohen et al
first proposed that Southern Americans are more subjected to the culture of honours
showed that when they are insulted:
they feel more insulted than amused
giving less space to others to show dominance
more powerful handshakes
(compared to Northern Americans)
what is the frustration-aggression hypothesis and the refined version by Berkowitz
original version: frustration leads to aggression (frustration = blockage to a goal)
refined version by Berkowitz = frustration > negative emotion > aggression
how are cues and social learning, and depth of processing affect aggressive behaviour
cues to aggression
weapon effect, which is based on the activation model and priming
if the prime words relate to the target word = faster RT (since there is activation to the concept map)
showed that priming word (weapon) > quicker RT to the aggressive target word
social learning
looked at how video games can temporarily evoke aggressiveness
there is a temporal effect but other factors (such as the persuasiveness, duration) are still debated
superficial vs deep
superficial processing = affected by the automatic aggressive tendencies > leading to aggression
factors that promote superficial processing
high physiological arousal
time pressure
alcohol (does not lead to aggression directly, just when the person feels threatened)
Explain the General Aggression Model
Personal variables (e.g., personality) + situational context (social learning, cues) > present internal state (anger) > appraisal and decision processes (processing process) > behavior
how to reduce aggression
venting/catharsis doesn’t work
showed by bushman
control condition (sit)
punching a bag (whilst thinking to be fit (i.e., distracting) vs ruminating the insult)
showed that sitting down = decrease aggression the most, whilst ruminating increases aggression
reduce cues
promote non-aggressive norms
cognitive re-appraisal (showed that reviewing the incident from a third-person perspective = the most effective in reducing aggression)
decrease accessibility of aggressive cognitions at the present internal state stage
