L7 - Ingroup Helping Flashcards
Do you belive that human beings can be altruistic , or are we always being selfish, even when we help another person?
What are A) and B)
a) People can behaviour altruistically in some cases
b) People always have an ulterior motive for helping
Charities, Babies and Empathy
Altrusitic tendies have shown to emerge early in ontogeny as shown by research
Warnken and Tomasello that shows we are naturally predisposed to help
- The findings showes that infants helped in novel tasks (e.g experimenter struggling to put books in the cabinet) with unfamiliar adults.
- Showing that they have this innate tendency
Limitations of Warnken and Tomasello
- Is it difficult to determine if the child’s behaviour is helping or are they playing?
- Alternatively are they helping because there is nothing else to do
- If we are altruistic as childhood, why does not this carry through adulthood?
- Where is the cost? Is it altruism or prosociality?
Altruism vs prosociality
- Altruism is a type of prosocial behaviour that helps and benefits another individual, even at some cost to oneself.
- Prosocial behaviour is referred to acts that are intended to help and benefit others.
Baby Jessica
Background
baby in texas fell down well
received far more donations than other charities
Why baby Jessica and not other children?
- Disasters occur everyday
- 2012, 4 billion people aid
- Humanitarian diasters on increase due to climate change and political change
- Around 800 million people suffering from hunger, starvation
Altruism meets academic scepticism
Historically many researchers and philosophers have considered…
people to be ultimately selfish than altruistic
Altruism meets academic sceptism
Neuroscience
Historically, many researchers and philosophers have considered people to be ultimately selfish rather than altrustic
- When an individual is performing helping behaviour, dopamine is activated at the reward centre of their brain which causes that individual to experience pleasure.
Altruism meets academic sceptism
Historically, many researchers and philosophers have considered people to be ultimately selfish rather than altrustic
For example, there are evolutionary reasons as to why we are inclined to help others and cooperate
Reciporal altruism
- For example, in reciporal altruism in which an individual with help others with the expectation that they will help in return at some point in time (Trivers, 1971).
Altruism meets academic sceptism
Historically, many researchers and philosophers have considered people to be ultimately selfish rather than altrustic
Evolutionary reasons why we are inclined to help others and cooperate
For instance, researchers has shown that primates share food with other primates that share with them, they care for each other’s offspring (Frans de Waal, 1996)
Altruism meets academic sceptism
Historically, many researchers and philosophers have considered people to be ultimately selfish rather than altrustic
Evolutionary reasons why we are inclined to help and cooperate
Tit-for-tat reciprocity studies investigating cooperation note non-altruistic behaviours.
- This impulse to reciprocate acts of generosity tends to be a human universal.
- For example, in hunter-gather societies worldwide, the meat that is gained from hunts is shared with others on the assumption that this current act of generosity will be compensated in some later date (Flannery & Marcus, 2012).
Studies investigation cooperation note that helping behaviour is influenced by social norms
Alpizar et al. (2008)
Observation study
Found that donors in this observation in national park donated more money when they were a group with peers and the situation was not annonmyus.
On the other hand, individuals were less likely to donate when their donation was annoymus.
Altruism and donation
- If you helped and no one knows, suggest behaviour is altruism without making benefit
Reyniers and Bhalia (2013)
Relucant altrusim
Therefore, shows that participants follow social norms in regards to helping behaviour and care their reputation surrounding this,
- Participants in the study donate individually (control group - anonymously) or in pairs (test group: non-anonmusly).
- In the test group, the pair of participants revealed how much money they were going to donate.
- Paired participants in the test group also had the choice to revise their decision of donation.
- Findings showed that in the test group were more likely to donate as compared to the control group. However, they gave less average donations as compared to the control group.
- Therefore Reynier and Bhalla called this reluctant altruism and suggests this is due to peer pressure in making charitable donations
Altruism meets academic sceptism
Historically, many researchers and philosophers have considered people to be ultimately selfish rather than altrustic
Cialdini et al. Negative state relief model
- Individuals have this innate drive engage in helping behaviours in order to reduce negative moods
Some researchers argued against that
Historically, many researchers and philosophers have considered people to be ultimately selfish rather than altruistic
Batson and colleagues performed a series on studies on - emphatic concern
Individuals can be altruistic due to emphatic concern
Empathy as an mediator factor of altruism
- Baston defined empathy as feelings of concern and distress for another individual
- Batson et al. put forward an ‘empathy altruism hypothesis which proposes that altruism is directly associated with empathy and this can be demonstrated through the empathetic concern.
- Emphatheitc concern is when individual identifying with someone in need (feeling and understanding what that person is going through), this follows with the intention to help person.
Method
Batson et al. (1983)
- Participants would interact with another participant of the same sex in the study (conderate of the experiment).
- The participants took part in a series of trials of digital recall task and would receive an electric shock after each mistake
Batson et al. (1983)
Method
Egoistic Conern vs Empathetic Concern
Two conditions
- The participants would observe the confederate being shocked 10 times.
- The confederate would tell the participant about their traumatic childhood experience with shocks
- The participants would be asked to report their current feelings of the situation. The participants would then be spilt into two groups based on their responses of egotistic concern (concerned for themselves) and empathetic concern group (concern for others)
- The experimenter was then asked if the participant is willing to take the remaining shocks of the confederate
Batson et al.
Findings
Those participants scoring high in empathetic concern stayed and volunteered to take more shocks in egoistic concern even when they could leave the study
Batson et al.
Conclusion
- Therefore argues that this is evidence of altruism
Issues with Batson’s study
(1983)
- However, there is other factors such as consciousness (aware of their surrounding) and agreeableness that would want the participants to stay behind in the experiment and take the shocks alongside empathy
Some researchers argued against that
Historically, many researchers and philosophers have considered people to be ultimately selfish rather than altruistic
Empathy as a mediating factor of altruisim
Fulz, Batson et al. (1986)
Aim
- Due to the limitations of Batson et al (1983) study, Batson conducted another experiment to specifically manipulate empathy
Some researchers argued against that
Historically, many researchers and philosophers have considered people to be ultimately selfish rather than altruistic
Empathy as a mediating factor of altruisim
- Fulz, Batson et al. (1986)*
- Method*
- Notes*
- Participants read two notes by a student confederate about themselves
- In note 1, the student confederate expressed feelings out of place and depressed.
- In note 2, the confederate said they needed a friend and asked the participant if they wanted to hang out (confederate was of the same sex of the participant)
*
Some researchers argued against that
Historically, many researchers and philosophers have considered people to be ultimately selfish rather than altruistic
Empathy as a mediating factor of altruisim
Fulz, Batson et al. (1986)
What was measured
- They measured if the participants would agree to spend time with the confederate and how many hours they would prepare to spend time with the student confederate
- They manipulated these participants responses to either be anonymous or not anonymous
Some researchers argued against that
Historically, many researchers and philosophers have considered people to be ultimately selfish rather than altruistic
Empathy as a mediating factor of altruisim
- Fulz, Batson et al. (1986)*
- Empathy manipulation*
- Participants in the low empathy condition condition where told to read objectively
- Participants in the high empathy condition were told to focus on how the other person(student confederate) felt.
Some researchers argued against that
Historically, many researchers and philosophers have considered people to be ultimately selfish rather than altruistic
Empathy as a mediating factor of altruisim
- Fulz, Batson et al. (1986)*
- Method - Anonymus*
*
Some researchers argued against that
Historically, many researchers and philosophers have considered people to be ultimately selfish rather than altruistic
Empathy as a mediating factor of altruisim
- Fulz, Batson et al. (1986)*
- Findings*
- Regardless of whether the responses were anonymous or not, participants in the empathy condition were more likely to volunteer and spend more time with the student confederate (presumably as a buddy/mentor)
Some researchers argued against that
Historically, many researchers and philosophers have considered people to be ultimately selfish rather than altruistic
Empathy as a mediating factor of altruisim
- Fulz, Batson et al. (1986)*
- What does these finding show?*
- Results support the empathy-altruism hypothesis and that empathetic concern is the main motive of altruistic behaviour
Critical thinking:
Criticisms of empathetic concern as a mediating factor of altruistic behaviour
Cialdini (1997) - negative state relief model
- Studies above (e.g Batson et al + Fulz) does not rule out the negative-state relief model as participants high in empathetic concern may be motivated to help as they do not want to feel bad - therefore demonstrating it is a selfish motivation for altruistic behaviour
Critical thinking:
Criticisms of empathetic concern as a mediating factor of altruistic behaviour
Cialdini (1997) - Other variables
- Argued that other variables predict altruistic behaviour depending on the situation
- Support for the empathy-altruism hypothesis would be stronger if other variables were investigated simultaneously alongside empathy
- Cialdini found that perceived one-ness with the victim was a stronger predictor for altruistic behaviour than emphatetic concern
Part 2: Identifiable Victims and Mother Teresa Effect
What is the identifiable effect?
- Individuals tend to give greater aid and help with a specific, identifiable victim than a group of victims
Part 2: Identifiable Victims and Mother Teresa Effect
Identifiable effect demonstrated repeatedly in literature that participants prefer to donate to a single identifiable victim (like Baby Jessica) than to a group of victims
e. g
* Kogut & Ritov (2005)*
* Method*
- Participants were shown a charity aid to raise money for Israelian children in medical need
- Participants can either donate either one child in need or 8 children in need.
- The participants donated more money to save one sick child (Roka) and reported more distress and concern for them as compared to the group of 8 children.
- Therefore, suggests that individuals feel more empathy and more likely to help an single identifiable victim than a group
Kogut and Ritov (2005)
Findings can be argued due to the naming effect (victim name was Roka) as research has shown that if an individual is more likely to help when they share similar names/initials with the diaster and of the victims.
Chandler et al.
The “I” of the storm: Shared initials increase disaster donations
- Participants are more likely to donate to victims of a hurricane if the hurricane’s name shared an initial with the participant’s name.
how did kogut and rivot’s (2007) test follow up study test whether it was just a naming effect
Aim/method
- Kogut and Ritov (2007) replicated their previous study by asking participants to donate to tsunami victims. They gave the participants all the names of the victims to control for the naming effect in IVE.
how did kogut and rivot’s (2007) test follow up study test whether it was just a naming effect
Results
- Participants donated more money and reported more concern for a single named victim.
- However, this effect was only present when the victim was an ingroup member.
- Therefore empathy and identifiable victim effect only occurs for an ingroup than outgroup member.
Small et al. (2007)
Wanted to investigate whether participant’s donation response will change if they are told about the identifiable victim effect at the start of the experiment
- In this experiment the participants choosen whether to donate to a single identifiable victim or a group of victims.
- Results shown that participants would generally donate less money to both the single idenfiable victim and the group of vicitms
What causes the IVE?
Jenni and Lowenstein (1997)
Replicated with IVE paradigm but measured with a number of possible plausible explanatory variables like the perceived impact of donating, the vividness of victim’s situation and empathy
They found individuals especially males want as much impact as possible therefore they feel their donation has more impact with the victim than a group.
What causes the IVE?
Erlandsson et al. (2015)
Found IVE effect was due to increased empathetic concern to a single victim because of their increased vividness of the hardship of the victim
What causes IVE?
- Unclear why it might be
- Is it because of empathy, impact, vividness?
describe fetherstonhaugh’s (1997) study into the effect of statistics
- Participants shown three different medical interventions in which each one claimed to reduce a different number of deaths.
- Drug A could reduce deaths from 15,000 to 5,000 (66% lives saved)
- Drug C could reduce deaths from 290,000 to 270,000 (6.8% efficient)
- Participants more likely to choose policy A, the drug that was more effective than drug C that saved the most lives.
- Researchers argued that participants become insensitive to value of human life when victims presented in statistics.
which effect does fetherstonhaugh’s study investigate
the psychophysical numbing effect
what is the psychophysical numbing effect
the Psychophysical Numbing effect (PN) is also referred to as the Mother Teresa effect (Slovic, 2007)
what is the PN effect based on
weber’s law
as the size of a stimulus increases, our ability to detect changes in that stimulus decrease.
A light that is four times as bright is only judged to be twice as bright.
Applied to donations, this means many more victims need to suffer for us to notice the difference, i.e. to feel the same level of concern and distress for the victims
