Lecture 6 - Intergroup Helping

Question 1

Intergroup helping

Answer 1

• warneken and tomasello 2006 - we are born to help others (natural instinct)
• helping appears to differ cross culturally: CAF world giving index (2022) - Japan is one of the least generous cultures - may be due to cultural norms. other least generous inc those with low GDP e.g. cambodia, lebanon, egypt
• UK indivs and orgs donated around 12.7bil in 2022
• but fewer people overall are giving. those that do give more. this is LT trend but inc due to cost of living
• women generally more prosocial unless risky
• older people give more to charity

Question 2

why help some people and not others

Answer 2

• UN OCHA 2012. disasaters occur daily, 4bil people need aid, humanitarian disasters are inc.
• around 800mil are starving or malnoruished
• most countries and govt only donate a small % of GDP to helping overseas victims. less than 0.8% in UK
• wealth does not always predict helping as only 6 countries in G20 group also in top 20 for giving.
• there are certain causes we value more: religious orgs received 14% of all donations followed by overseas relief and animal welfare

Question 3

defining altruism - is empathy key?

Answer 3

• Batson et al conducted series of studies in 1980s/90s. define empathy as feeling concern and distress for others. 2 types:
  1. trait empathy - based on personality, doesnt predict behaviour well
  2. situational empathy - based on context
• empathy altruism hypothesis = altruism linked to empathy and can be demonstrated via empathetic concern
• batson et al 1983
  > pps see confederate take 10 shocks
  > confederate tells P they had a traumatic exp with shocks and is distressed
  > p report how thet feel and split into 2 groups: egoistic concern vs empathic concern
  > exp asks P if they want to take remaining shocks
  > those in high egoistic concern left when able, those high in empathy stayed
• evidence of altruism as there is a cost and a choice underpinned by empathetic concern
• Fulz et al (1986) manipulated empathy directly: pp’s read two notes by student confederate about themselves. pp’s either told to read objectively or focus on how the person felt. p’s in empathy condition more likely to volunteer for the confederate
• empathy explained how many hours they would spend with the student

Question 4

criticisms to empathy-altruism paradigm

Answer 4

• cialdini (1997) - studies don’t refute the neg state relief model because pps high in empathic concern may help because they feel back if not (selfish)
• other variables may matter more depending on situation
• task instructions questionnable
• Batson inadvertently measired empathic concern towards ingroup victims. cikara et al 2011 - lack of empathy is sign of intergroup failure and relates to SIT - helping someone you do not know is better test of prosociality

Question 5

empathy and identifiable victim effect

Answer 5

• people prefer to donate to single identifiable victim than group
• Kogut & Riyou (2005) - p’s shown a charity ad to raise money for children in medical need in israel. pps donated more to save one sick child than 8 & reported more distress for the one named sick child
• named could cause similarity effect - we help people more if we have something in common with them e.g. similar name, letters etc.
• also seen if similar letter is name of a storm - Kogut & Ritov (2007) 0 asked pp’s to donate to tsunami victims. Ps donated more to help a single named victim and more concern when victim was an ingroup member (named all pp’s this time)
• small et al (2007) - tried to remove effect by telling ps about IVE at start of exp and named everyone. Ps gave less money to single victims and groups (less prosocial)

Question 6

what causes the identifiable victim effect?

Answer 6

• Jenni and lowenstein (1997) - found IVE effect was explained by proportion effect rather than vividness. pps more likely to make a utilitarian decision for a group
• Erlandsson et al (2015) - IVE effect due to inc empathic concern towards single victim. due to inc vividnesss of their plight
• some find the effect is driven by empathy or vivdness and others found it has economic reasons etc. so unsure
• fundraising and having a young person who is clean generates more funds. adverts tend to be white people and named and states it is not their fault
• west chooses to report about ukraine more than yemen

Question 7

helping the outgroup - nuestra culpra

Answer 7

• Basil et al (2006) - manipulated guilt & empathy in africa. guilt had strong effect on intention to donate and made people feel responsible. guilt mediated empathy
• James & zagekfa (2017) - predicted dif process for helping ingroup/outgroup members. people helped mosy when there was an ingroup perpetrator and victim. led to higher empathy.

Question 8

helping is influenced by perceived social norms

Answer 8

• pps care about perceived responsibility and show strategic motives e.g. indiv/group reputation
• Thornton et al 1991 - pps donated less if solicitation method is anonymous regardless of framing. public situations more likely to show prosociality
• people who anonymously donate is a more true measure of prosociality. (reluctant altruism) people who were asked if they would donate more likely to say yes
• Clark 2002 - telling pps about overall donation amount did not inc donations but giving info on individual donations caused inc.
• fehre and gachter (2002) - not donating in a coop game led to punishments and neg evaluations from other pps.
• pps inc donations by 59% if their identity was visible alongside donation amount
• large donations seen as sign of political leadership
• importance of reputation:
• grace & griffin 2006 - ps give more when asked to wear a charity ribbon. conspicuous compassion - shows others what you value
• alpizar et al 2008 - donors in park in costa rica donated more when with friends
• reyniers and bhalla - ps display reluctant altruism and more likely tp giv when with frienfs

Question 9

strategic side of out group helping

Answer 9

• strategic motives for helping outgroup
  > helping in an intergroup context places groups needs at forefront (SIT)
  > SIT asserts that groups wish to maintain pos distinctiveness but group memberships are fluid and need to coop
  > ingroup must often help the outgroup for the benegits such helping provides

Question 10

the struggle for social dominance

Answer 10

• Nadler 2002 - 2 types of help
  1. dependency oriented - a full solution to the problem is provided. the target is perceived as incapable
  2. autonomy oriented - help is partial and temp. focus is on helping taget to help themselves
• high status groups may wish to prefer to give dependency oriented help especially when group hierarchies are unstable. lower status groups may refuse such help as they do not want to be seen as lower
• helping automaticallly means being seen as higher role than someone
• nadler and halabi (2006) argue helping relations are unequal
  > helping associated with resources
  > puts helper in position above
  > helps affirm helpers position

Question 11

ingroup strategic motives for helping the outgroup

Answer 11

• van leeuwen and tauber (2010) 0 3 motives for ingroups helping outgroup
  1. power and autonomy - ingroup want to maintain hierarchical relationship e.g. over-helping which can cause more stress
  2. meaning and existence - helping providing sense of purpose that ones group is valued and needed (scrooge effect) appeals to collective pride of dutch pps more effective than guilt appeals (van leeuwen 2007)
  3. impression formation - helping makes group seem positive to others e.g. that our nation is fair, egalitarian and competent e.g. scots vs english. scots more likely to fonate to welsh still showing english thet are nice.