MT1 intro to social/developmental psych- helping Flashcards
What were the contemporary reactions to the Kitty Genovese murder
The tragedy was the consequence of city living and urban alientation
What was the reported Kitty Genovese case
38 individuals saw the murder of Kitty Genovese and did nothing, noone telephoned the police went to help
What were the facts of the Kitty Genovese case- 38 witnesses?
Manning et al (2007)- no evidence 8 people witnessed the assult, the trial only called on 5
What were the facts of the Kitty Genovese case- attacks?
Manning et al (2007)- there were 2 seperate attacks not 3, and they did not continue for ‘more than half an hour’
What were the facts of the Kitty Genovese case- witnesses watching the murder?
Witnesses mostly heard rather than saw the original brief attack, the second attack was in a stairwell and could not be easily seen
What were the facts of the Kitty Genovese case- no intervention?
Shouts from the apartment block opposite initially scared the attacker off, police were contacted after the 1st attack despite no 911 service being available, victim was still alive when police arrived on the scene
Was at 3am, most asleep!
What did Latane and Darley argue in contrast to the contemporary popular belief about he;ping
The presence of other people sometimes makes helping LESS likely
What does Latane and Darley’s model (1970) of bystander intervention suggest about helping
Helping is not a direct response to an emergency but requires the helper to make a series of successive decisions, several of which may be influenced by other people
What is Latane and Darley (1970)’s 5-step decision making model of bystander intervention
MUST BE
1) High awareness of event
2) Interpretation of event as emergency
3) Personal responsibility
4) Mode of assistance available (can I help?)
5) Implementing the intervention
What is the procedure for Latane and Darley’s (1968) smoke experiment
Ppts recruited for study of ‘problems of urban life’ filled out questionnaires either alone or in groups of 3
Simulated smoke was pumped into the room through an air vent
Investigators recorded how long ppts took to notice the smoke and to go get help
Latane and Darley’s (1968) smoke experiment- results, how did presence of others affect noticing the emergency (STAGE 1 of model)
63% of ppts noticed the smoke within 5secs when aloen
26% of ppts noticed the smoke within 5secs when waiting with others
Latane and Darley’s (1968) smoke experiment- results,why are we less likely to notice an emergency when with others
Constraints we feel in public places
We scan our environment more when noone is around
Subjects in groups didn’t want to appear rude and inquisitive
Latane and Darley’s (1968) smoke experiment- results, what was the behaviour of ppts reporting smoke when alone
Quick to react, 50% within 2 mins, in total above 70%
Latane and Darley’s (1968) smoke experiment- results,what was the behavior of ppts reporting smoke when with 3 naive participant
Initially only around 15% reacted, in total around 40% reaction
Latane and Darley’s (1968) smoke experiment- results,what was the behaviour of ppts reporting smoke when with 2 passive confederates
Only 10% reacted within 2 mins, after this reaction did not rise
What is pluralistic ignorance
Latane and Darley (1968)- the presence of other people may make it less likely than an ambiguous situation is interpreted as an emergency
If everyone is looking around and trying to appear calm while gauging the reactions of others, everyone will appear calm and noone will conclude the situation is an emergency
Latane and Darley (1970)’s 5-step decision making model of bystander intervention- how does the presence of other people reduce people’s sense of personal responsibility (STAGE 3)
The presence of others makes it less likely that each of them takes personal responsibility for intervening, so they are less likely to
If someone was alone, help must come from them, so they have personal responsibility
Darley and Latane’s (1968) seizure experiment, setting up scenario
Ppts recruited for discussion of personal problems of college life
Ppts talk from seperate cubicles using an intercom system, taking turns with their mic only operating for a fixed 2 min period
In reality, all problems were prerecorded except the genuine ppts
Darley and Latane’s (1968) seizure experiment, why were the mics only turned on for fixed periods one person at a time
Prevents ppts discussing with each other whether they should intervene or who should intervene
Darley and Latane’s (1968) seizure experiment, what happened in the experiment
First speaker talked abuot problems, mentioned his proneness to seizures
On their second turn, this speaker started out calmly then grew increasingly loud and incoherent- asking for help, choking noises, saying they’re going to die then silence
Darley and Latane’s (1968) seizure experiment, what were the 3 conditions
2 person group- discussion involved seizure man and real participant
3 person group- discussion involved one other (fake) participant
6 person group- discussion involved 4 other (fake) ppts
Darley and Latane’s (1968) seizure experiment- results, what % of ppts intervened before the victim’s mic cut off in each condition
2 person- Around 85%
3 person- Around 60%
6 person- Around 30%
Why might the presence of others prevent someone from implementing an intervention and helping (STAGE 5)
Latane and Darley (1976)- evaluation apprehension. Bystanders worry about other people’s reactions if helping goes wrong
How did Latane and Darley (1976) test evaluation apprehension (STAGE 5)
Manipulated whether ppts were alone and whether they could see/be seen by a bystander when witnessing a victim receive an electric shock over CCTV- help was offered least in bystander condition
Man U study 1 into effect of social identity on helping- procedure
Levinr et al (2005)- Man U supporters wrote about how strongly they supported their team and completed a questionnaire about their level of group identification to raise the salience of their social identity as a Man U supporter
Then walked across to another building and saw a jogger trip and fall, clutching their ankle in pain
Man U study 1 into effect of social identity on helping- 3 conditions of procedure
Levine et al (2005)- jogger who fell was wearing 1 of 3 possible shirts
1)Man U shirt (ingroup) 2) Liverpool shirt (outgroup) 3) Red shirt (neutral)
Man U study 1 into effect of social identity on helping- results
Jogger in Man U shirt- around 90% helped
In Liverpool shirt or neutral- around 30% helped
Man U study 2 into effect of social identity on helping- procedure of this second study
Levine et al (2005)- Man U supporters told the study involved focusing on positive aspects of being a football fan
Ppts wrote about how much they enjoyed footbal and did a questionnaire about their level of identification with football fans in general
Then witnessed the same accident as ppts in study 1
Man U study 2 into effect of social identity on helping- results
Man U shirt helped slightly more than Liverpool shirt, but both helped way more than neutral shirt
Ingroup bias for football fans instead
Man U study into effect of social identity on helping- conclusions of experiment
Sharing a social identity increases likelihood of helping, but which social identity is salient can be manipulated to increase the prospects of individuals helping people they may not otherwise
3 possible motives for helping
Social consequences, personal consequences, altruism
Possible motives for helping- social consequences
Gratitude, congratulation, reduced disapproval (from victim and onlookers)
Possible motives for helping- personal consequences
Increased self-esteem, satisfaction, removal of unpleasant feelings (eg physiological arousal) associated with seeing someone else’s suffering (Cialdini et al, 1981)
Possible motives for helping- altriusm
Helping for its own sake (Batson, 1991), wanting the other person to be in a better situation
Batson et al (1981) quote about when helping is altruistic
‘altruistically motivated helping is directed toward the end-state goal of increasing the other’s welfare’ (p291)
What should be the effect of reducing personal costs of watching suffering
If helping is motivated by desire to reduce personal costs, reducing these costs should decrease helping
If helping is altruistically motivated, reducing personal costs should not affect helping (Batson et al, 1981)
Batson et al, 1981 Elaine experiment- procedure
Female ppts told their co-ppt ‘Elaine’ had been assigned to receive random electric shocks during 10 trials of a performance task
Ppts watch Elaine show negative responses during her first 2 trials, and tell the experimenter she had a childhood incident with an electric fence
Experimenter offered ppt the chance to trade places with Elaine for final 8 trials
Batson et al, 1981 Elaine experiment-manipulated variables of procedure
Ease of escape- ppts told they would observe Elaine over CCTV for either 2 of her trials or all 10
Similarity- ppts shown a questionnaire indicating Elaine had similar or different interests/values to theirs
Batson et al, 1981 Elaine experiment-what is the aim of the study
To test whether helping is motivated by egocentric motives ie not wanting to witness suffering, or altruistic motives
Batson et al, 1981 Elaine experiment-results in dissimilar condition
Ppts much more likely to help when they have to watch Elaine suffering, suggesting their helping is motivated by stopping their discomfort of watching someone in pain
Batson et al, 1981 Elaine experiment- results in similar condition
Helping is generally higher, ppts still help a lot even when they don’t have to view Elaine’s suffering to aren’t experiencing discomfort
Suggests this helping is altruistically motivated, they care about how Elaine feels
What is Batson et al (1981)’s empathy-altriusm hypothesis- HIGH EMPATHY
Altruistic motivation, helping whether or not there is an escape alternative
What is Batson et al (1981)’s empathy-altriusm hypothesis- LOW EMPATHY
Egoistic motivation, helping if there is no escape alternative but escape if there is an escape alternative
What is Cialdini et al (1987)’s negative-state-relief model
Person observes a suffering victim
Person feels negative emotion
Person helps to alleviate their own sadness (unless it is alleviated in another way)
How did Cialdini et al (1987) criticse Batson et al’s (1981) interpretation of their results
Cialdini argued Batson’s findings reflected increased sadness when participants empathize with victims
Cialdini et al (1987) mood-fixing study- procedure
Ppts heard a radio story about a student who had broken her legs and needed help going over lecture notes
Ppts were give a placebo drug that supposedly affected information processing
Pts reported how many hours of study support they were willing to provide the victim
Cialdini et al (1987) mood-fixing study- manipulated variables
Empathy- ppts instructed to adopt either an objective (low-empathy) or imagine-other (high empathy) perspective while listening
Mood fixing- one group was told the drug had the side effect of fixing their mood to its current state (so helping would not make them feel better)
Cialdini et al (1987) mood-fixing study- results, low empathy vs high empathy condtion
Hours of help offered was higher in the high empathy condition
Cialdini et al (1987) mood-fixing study- results, control vs mood fixed
When participants believe their mood is fixed, even when empathizing with a student, they don’t help them as much as they think their mood will not go up
Cialdini- helping is motivated by making yourself feel better
Why does people feeling better after helping others not mean helping is a selfish act
The fact people feel better after helping implies they care about other people’s feelings in any case
Feeling better may be a byproduct not the main goal
Study into whether knowldge of the bystander effect affects helpign
Beaman et al (1978)- ppts who watched a film about Latane and Darley’s research were much more likely to offer help to a confederate sprawled against a wall 11-17 days afterwards than those who learnt about an unrelated social psychological topic
Latane and Darley’s (1968) smoke experiment- in what way were postexperimental interviews were the smoke was mentioned consistent
Most thought the smoke looked ‘strange’, wasn’t sure if it was dangerous but felt it was unusual enough to justify some expectation
Latane and Darley’s (1968) smoke experiment- what did subjects who did not report the smoke say about it
They rejected the idea it was a fire and suggested a variety of alternative non-dangerous explanations eg steam, air conditioning vapours, ‘truth gas’, ‘it must be some sort of experiment’
Thought there was no reason to act
Latane and Darley’s (1968) smoke experiment- what did particpants claim about the effect of the presence of others
Claimed they had paid little/no attention to the other people in the room, unaware/unwilling to admit how the presence of others had affected their behavior
What does Levine et al (2008) propose the classic bystander effect is produced by
‘Absense of a group-level psychological relationship amongst bystanders which might provide prosocial norms and values, cohesion, or a sense of collective efficacy’
What do Levine et al (2008) argue is the effect of increasing group size on helping in friendship groups
Promotes increased social cohesion, increases the likelihood of bystander intervention if social norms favour helping
What may explain the different in effect of outgroup bystaders between men and women in Levine et al (2008’s)
Eagly and Crowley (1986)- sex role stereotypes
Size and direction of sex differences is a product of situational variables that determine what social roles are salient in particular situations
Application of Eagly and Crowley’s (1986) work on sex role stereotypes to Levine et al (2008)
When the male was with female bystaders, it created conditions for social norm of male, heroic intervetion in short-term emergency situations
When the female was with male bystanders, she defers to this stereotype, so is less likely to intervene herself
Levine et al (2008)- effect of group size for females
Female participants more likely to intervene in all-female group condition than when alone
In group condition, female ppts less likely to intervene when with 2 male ppts compared to an all-female group or a male minority group
Levine et al (2008)- effect of group size for males
Male ppts not significantly more likely to intervene in all male group condition than when alone
In group condition, males more likely to intervene when they were in a majority female group, than when in an all male group or a female minority group
Levine et al (2008)- what affects helping when the social cateory membership of bystanders and victim is consonant
Group size and social category membership encourage intervention, due to the importance of the inclusivity of group boundaries and the norm of helping ingroup members in need
Levine et al (2008)- what affects helping when fellow bystanders are not ingroup members
Other situation specific norms can be invoked that shape bystander response eg when gender identity is salient, the predominant role is the male sex role stereotype of heroic itnervention
Levine et al (2008)- what did ppts witness in the study
Participants witness a video of ‘CCTV footage’ of male-on-female violence
How does Batson (1981) explain the logistics of an act being purely altruistic even if one’s welfare is increased?
Increasing the other’s welfare is necessary and sufficient to attain an altruistic state goal, an end in itself
For an act to be altruistic, personal gain must be an unintended by-product and not the goal of helping
Batson (1981) Elaine- how did manipulating similarity also affect ppts’ perception of Elaine
Increased her perceived attractiveness and liking
Batson (1981) Elaine, what secondary study was conducted
Empathetic emotion was manipulated more directly using misattribution of dissonance arousal- subjects are induced to misattribute either their feeling of empathetic concern or personal distress to some other source eg placebo, so perceive their response to be predominated by the other
Batson (1981) Elaine, results of second study
Participnts who attribute their feelings of personal distress to a placebo perceive their own response to be predominantly empathetic concern, and help no matter how easy escape is
Consistent with other study
Study showing how robust the ‘bystander effect’ is as a finding
Latane and Nida (1981) metanalysis- the ‘bystander effect’ is one of the most robust findings in social psychology
Why does Cherry (1996) criticise the focus of experimental analysis of Kitty Genovese’s murder
The gendered aspect of the violence was overlooked by researchers at the time, as society was not sensitive to the social problem of male-on-female violence
They therefore are ‘culturally embedded theorising’ as they ignored the culturally unavailable issues
What idea lies at the heart of why bystander research has failed to prove practically valid (Smith and Haslam, 2012)
The persisting negative image of the group, that means people automatically assume the problem is how to overcome the shortcomings of the group
What is social identity approach
Haslam, 2004- when people define themselves as part of a particular social group, the norms and values associated with that social identity determine the individual’s behaviour
Haslam’s (2004) social identity approach- what affects the effect of the presence of others on behaviour
Whether a personal or social identity is salient, the extent to which the salient identity is shared by those present, and what the norms and values of that identity are
What study evidences Haslam (2004)’s social identity approach
Levine et al (2008)’s studies manipulating the salience of social identities and the no of bystanders witnessing an attack by a man on a woman
In what types of situation does the bystander effect not hold?
In situations of high potential danger for both victim and bystanders (Fischer et al, 2006)
What is evaluation apprehension particularly strong
When bystander have low self-efficacy, the presence of others may facilitate helping when a bystander feels they are competent to help (Schwartz and Gottlieb, 1976)
What are Piliavin et al (1969)’s ‘subway train studies’
Involve staged incidents on subway trains where a ‘victim’ collapses in a subway car and intervention rates are observed
How do Piliavin’s et al (1960) studies challenge the bystander effect
Helping is often at ceiling level regardless of the no of people present, no strong relationship between no of bystanders and speed/likelihood of help
How do Piliavin’s et al (1960) studies support Haslam’s (2004) social identity approach
There was a greater tendency for black individuals to help black victims, white individuals to help white victims
What is Piliavin et al’s (1981) original model of emergency intervention
The cost-reward model
What are the 2 major components of Piliavin et al’s (1981) original cost-reward model of emergency intervention
Central motivational component of vicarious arousal and a cognitive decision-making component component involving calculating costs and rewards of actions
Situational factors determine whether arousal is stimulated
What additional constructs are present in Piliavin’s et al revised cost-reward model (1981)
Cyclical effects, bystander and victim characteristics, whether costs are attented to, role of empathy as a form of arousal and ‘we-ness’
Piliavin’s et al revised cost-reward model (1981) add constructs- cyclical effects
Processes can occur cyclically rather than in a sequence
Piliavin’s et al revised cost-reward model (1981) add constructs- bystander and victim characteristics
Bystander characteristics includes competence and personal norms, victim characteristics eg similarity to victim
Piliavin’s et al revised cost-reward model (1981) add constructs- whether costs are attended to
eg in some emergency situations immediate impulsive helping may occur where the bystander’s attention is completely focused on the victim (eg clarity of situation, prior knowledge of victim), and no conscious-decision making is involved
Piliavin’s et al revised cost-reward model (1981) add constructs- role of empathy as a form of arousal and ‘we-ness’
‘We-ness’ increases likelihood of intervention as it increases the benefits and decreases costs of helping, and increases bystander arousal- helping victims perceived as ‘we-group’ is innate
Piliavin et al’s (1981) original cost-reward model of emergency intervention- what may the response to the emergency be
Direct or indirect intervention, escape, or reinterpretation of the situation
Study supporting mechanisms behind helping outgroups in WW2
Reicher et al (2006)- analysed key documents of resistance to Nazi demands of the deportation of Jews, found the 2 main strategies used were ingroup inclusion (Jews were Bulgarians too) and ingroups norms (Bulgarian values)
Study showing the motivations of different volunteer workers
Sturmer et al (2006)- social identity relationships moderate empathy-motivated helping at at AIDS charity
Empathy with the client was a strong predictor of helping in homosexual volunteers, while liking was a strong predictor of help in heterosexual volunteers
Study showing effect of bystanders in violent emergencies
Harari et al (1985)- ‘attempted rape’ staged on a university campus…more participants in groups intervened than participants who were alone, and most were direct rather than alerting a campus security officer
Court transcript study arguing against the 5 step cognitive decision making model
Levine (1999) argued the 38 witnesses of the abduction that preceded the murder of 2yo James Bulger saw that James was injured, thought intervention might be needed, and their failure to act can’t be explained in terms of diffusion of responsibility/pluralistic ignorance
Why did the witnesses fail to intervene in the Levine (1999) study of James Bulger’s court trascript
They assumed James was the boys’ brother, making it psychologically difficult for them to act due to the invocation of ‘the family’ as the category dominating bystander interaction (strangers should not become involved with children from other families), rather than the categories of adults and children
What did Eagly and Crowley (1986) argue are the characteristics of female gendered helping behaviours
More frequent in long-term close relationships like caring for the personal and emotional needs of others, delivering routine forms of personal service etc
What did Eagly and Crowley (1986) argue are the characteristics of male gendered helping behaviours
Non-routine risky acts of rescuing others that often feature in bystander effect studies- this is why the rate of helping by men is seen as higher
What does work from long-term helping behaviour draw from
Identity theory (Stryker, 1980)- we have different role identities which make up the self and relate to behaviour The more a person voluntarily performs a particular role, the more likely it is their identity will develop in relation to the behaviours involved in that performance
Study showing a model of donation based on identity theory
Lee et al (1999)- perceived expectations, parental modelling, personal norms, past behaviour and role-identity as a donor all predict intention to donate
What is the volunteer process model
Omoto and Snyder (2010)- the antecedents, experiences and consequences of volunteer behaviour operate at different levels- individual, interpersonal, organisational and societal
What personality and dispositional factors, as well as motivational factors predict involvement in volunteering
Empathetic concern, concern for community (Omoto and Snyder, 1993)
How does long term involvement in volunteering increase prosocial action
Omoto and Snyder (2010)- as volunteers become increasingly connected to a community of shared concerns, this sense of community motivates more volunteerism, as well as greater psychological health
What is the Prosocial Personality Battery (PSB)
Penner et al (1995)- comprised of the factors other-oriented empathy and helpfulness
Research supporting the Prosocial Persoanlity Battery (1995)
Penner (2002)- many behaviours correlate with the other-oriented empathy and helpfulness factors of the PSB eg speed of response in simulated emergencies, frequency of everyday helping acts, willingness to be an organ donor etc
What is the public goods game
3+ individuals anonymously play a game where they can reward points to themselves or a common account that would benefit everyone
What are the behaviours exhibited in the public goods game
Selfish behaviour is punished even when the punsihment hurts the punisher eg giving up money or paying a fine to ensure the selfish player loses money- altruistic punishment (Fehr and Gachter, 2002)
What is the purpose of altruistic punishment
A form of helping, as it dissuades individuals from behaving selfishly and contributes to the maintenance of cooperation and promoting group interest
What do Fehr and Gachter (2002) argue altruistic punishment does not fit the principles of
Doesn’t fit the principles of reciprocal altruism or reputation management, doesn’t appear to be self-interested
What is reciprocal altruism
Trivers (1971)- explains why we might help strangers or non-kin, may have been beneficial to incur the cost of helping IF there is an expectation the helped will help the helper back at a future date
Study showing the fMRI data of seeing others being unfair in a public goods game
Sanfey et al (2003)- seeing others being unfair operates the bilateral insula, associated with negative emotional states like pain/distrust, the stronger the activation the more likely people are to reject an unfair offer
Study showing the brain activity when giving to charity
Fehr and Camerer (2007)- activation in reward-related brain areas related to positive social or financial rewards eg striatum, suggesting altruism has its own intrinsic rewards
Study showing the fMRI data of football fans offering/withholding help from ingroup/outgroup members- activation when helping an ingroup member
Hein et al (2010)- willingness to help an ingroup member related to activation in anterior brain region central to empathy related brain responses)
Study showing the fMRI data of football fans offering/withholding help from ingroup/outgroup members- activation when not helping an outgroup member
Hein et al (2010) Not helping the outgroup member predicted by activation in the nucleus accumbens, associated with pleasure from the misfortune of others, suggesting processing in a reward-related manner
Helping behaviour on the Titanic vs Lusitania- Titanic
Frey et al (2010)- children were more likely to survive than adults, women more likely than men
There was a fair amount of time after the original shock of the emergency, so social norms reestablished themeslves (eg women and children first)
Helping behaviour on the Titanic vs Lusitania- Lusitania
Frey et al (2010)- adults more likely to survive than childre, men more likely than women
There was no time following shock of emergency, causing more self-interested and selfish behaviour predominated
What do the different helping behaviours on the Titanic vs Lusitania suggest
Responses to emergencies can be shaped by social norms rather than panic, normative behaviour can become strongly established if time allows
