Social Responsibility Studies Flashcards
Latané and Darley
Essential Understanding: The perception that you are not the only one responsible for intervening reduces the likelihood of helping (diffusion of responsibility)
Aim To investigate if the number of witnesses of an emergency influences people’s helping behaviour
Sample 72 university students, participated for course credit
Procedure IV: the n. of bystanders that the participant thought was listening to the same discussion (n. of voices in the first round)
DV: the time for the participant to look for help from the start of the seizure
• Each participant was taken to an individual room with headphones and a microphone– deceived to believe that they were participating in a discussion about college life
• Participants told that the discussion took place via an intercom to protect the anonymity of participants
• Participants had to participate in the discussion for 3 rounds:
1st round: present own problems to the group
2nd round: listen to other people’s problems with college life and comment
3rd round: free discussion
- All voices heard by participant were actually pre-recorded
- In round 2, a victim staged an emergency situation, where he admitted that he felt embarassed having seizures,and he suddenly underwent a nervous seizure on the spot and made choking sound to ask for help
- Immediately afterwards, the first voice began to experience a seizure, asking for help and eventually choking and becoming silent
Participants were separated into two different conditions:
• Alone condition: participant believed only themselves and one other
person could hear the discussion (i.e. them and the ‘victim’)
• Four bystanders condition: participant believed there were 4 other
listeners (one of them being the ‘victim’)
Participants were debriefed at the end and were asked to complete a questionnaire
Results Percentage of participants who left the room to report seizure after 2 minutes:
• 85% of alone condition
• 31% of four bystanders condition
There are also many partipants in both conditions who decided to not offer help.
Conclusions Number of bystanders greatly affected participant’s reaction
According to the questionnaire, the psychologists found that the participants were in a state of conflict where they did not know what to do/ feel embarassed( decision model)
Factors influencing bystanderism in study:
• Pluralistic ignorance– ambiguity about a situation
• Diffusion of responsibility – belief that others may intervene
• Evaluation of apprehension– they did not know how to help or felt embarassed
Limitations • Sample bias – psychology students participating for course credit
• Low ecological validity – artificiality of experimental situation
• Ethical consideration – participants were deceived and exposed to a
potentially anxiety-evoking situation
Pilliavin et al. (1969) – the subway Samaritan
Research method Field study
Aim To investigate the effect of various variables on helping behaviour
Sample
• Average of 43 people in the carriage where the emergency took place
• Average of 8.5 people near the victim
Procedure • Variables:
1. Victim drunk or ill (carrying a cane)
2. Size of the group
Teams of student confederates consisted of:
• 2 female observers– recorded reactions
• 2 males acting as the victim and the model
Two conditions:
• “drunk”– victim smelled of alcohol and carried a bottle in a paper bag
• “sober”– victim had a walking stick
• Participants observed the ‘victim’ collapse on the floor shortly after the train had left the station
• The model did not help
Results • There’s no evidence of diffusion of responsibility based on the n. of people in the subway, but it depended on whether the victim is drunk or not.
• Sick victim received more help than drunk victim
• Helpers were 90% male
⇒ May reflect values: male assumed to take responsibility
• Social exchange theory– less threat to men
• Physical strength of men
• When victim was drunk, there was a delay of 109 s before help, when victim was with the walking stick, helpin time 5s.
• More white helpers (SIT)
Conclusions Victims who appear sick more likely to receive help than those who appear drunk
• “drunk” condition: higher cost of helping (physical ability, danger), lower cost of not helping a drunk men
• “Sober” condition: High risk of self-blame or guilt for not helping /Low cost for helping
• More male helpers: less risk for men ( they have the physical strength)
Strengths • High ecological validity – field experiment as opposed to laboratory setting
• Obtained large amount of detailed data
• Resulted in a theoretical explanation of factors influencing
bystanderism
limitations • Temporal validity– different values in 19th century
• Field experiment less controlled than laboratory experiment
• Fewer trials with drunk victims than victims with canes
• No strong relationship evident between number of bystanders and
speed of helping – contrary to theory of unresponsive bystander
• Researchers did not find support for diffusion of responsibility – may
be due to the ability of the observers to to clearly see the victim and decide whether or not the situation was an emergency
• Methodology– difficult to escape– in the same carriage
Warheken et al (2007) (animal and human study)
Warheken et al (2007) (animal and human study)
A: to investigate whether humans have a genetic predisposition for altruistic behaviour
M: independant samples design
P:
• Approx. 20 chimps born in the wild, approx. 20 human infants
• Chimp group: condition 1–researcher reach for a stick that was too high for him to get.
condition 2– researcher started at a stick which was too high for him to get
The chimps had to climb up in order to help the researcher.
• Human infants group: condition 1–researcher dropped a pen and reached for it
condition 2– researcher dropped a pen but did not reach for it.
R:
• Both chimps and children helped the researcher more than 50% of the time.
• Chimps took longer than children to understand altruistic behaviour, but still helped at the same frequency
• Humans and chimps are both hardwired for helping behaviour– altruistic behaviour has an evolutionary origin.
Evaluation:
• They have already participated in previous studies of prosocial behaviour, they might be conditioned to helping behaviour.
• Human behaviours might be influenced by culture (Enculturation–children would have been exposed to helping behaviour at home)
• Reductionist to explain the complexity of human behaviour
• Lack scientific (empirical) evidence to explain that genes are responsible for helping behaviour.
Madsen et al. (2007) – cross cultural study of kin selection theory
Experimental design Experiment, Repeated measures design
Aim To test the kin selection hypothesis in two contrasting cultures
Essential understanding Participants are more willing to endure pain when it benefits closer relatives. This pattern repeats cross-culturally.
Sample South African and UK students
Procedure • Participants asked to perform a ‘wall squat’ – physical exercise that becomes increasingly painful
• Each participant previously supplied list of biological relatives, not including those who shared a home with the participant
• Prior to each trial, participants told that one relative randomly selected from the list would receive payment or goods according to the length of time the participant remained ‘seated’ against wall
Results • Trend– the amount of time spent in the painful position increased with the co-efficient of relatedness
• Both groups of participants spent longer in position when money was given to more closely related family members
• South African participants did not seem to distinguish between cousins and biologically closer relatives such as siblings, aunts and nephews
Conclusion Kin selection is a powerful motivator to perform altruistic behaviours
Provide experimental evidence that kinship plays a role in moderating altruistic behaviour. Kinship has an influence over and above other possible factors.
Strengths Cross cultural study – highly generalisable
Limitations Variable of relatedness cannot be manipulated by experimenters – prevents clear isolation of cause and effect
Batson et al. (1981) – Elaine’s study
Aim To investigate participants’ motives to help when given the opportunity to escape
Method 2*2 experimental design
Sample University students enrolled in an introductory psychology class
Procedure Participants completed a questionnaire about themselves prior to the study to determine that whether they were similar or disimilar to Elaine
Participants watched a pre-recorded video of Elaine that they were told
was CCTV footage (Elaine taking electric shocks at random intervals)
After the second trial, they were given the chance to volunteer to help her by taking up her place
Two Independant variables:
1.Cost of escape without helping (easy/ difficult)
• Easy escape – could either take her place or complete a
questionnaire and leave
• Difficult escape – could either take her place or watch Elaine
complete the remaining 8 trials
2.High or low empathy
• High empathy – description allowed participants to identify with Elaine
• Low empathy – unable to identify as closely
Dependant variable: whether or not the participant agreed to help by replacing Elaine
Results • In high empathy condition most participants agreed to help Elaine in both situations
• In low empathy condition most participants withdrew in easy escape situation, whilst in difficult escape situation, more people chose to help.
• The motivation to help in high empathy condition was altruistic regardless of easy/difficult to escape– altruistic behaviour in humans is caused by feelings of empathy
Conclusion Supports negative state relief model (Cialdini, 1987) that altruists act because of a desire to reduce their own negative state of distress, created through empathising with the victim
Strengths Effective manipulation of operationalised variables
Limitations • Sample bias and demand characteristics – participants as psychology students may have guessed aim of experiment
• Personality factors may also play a role
• Low ecological validity
• Ethics: deception of participants and Elaine
Harm– Elaine’s childhood trauma, electric shocks
Levine et al. (2001) – prosocial behaviour in 23 countries
Aim To investigate the connection between helping behaviour and the cultural dimensions of individualism and collectivism
Research method Field experiment, Naive participants.
Study of prosocial behaviour across the major cities of 23 different countries
Procedure Used three helping situations:
1. Person drops pen on street without realising
2. Person wearing a leg brace drops some magazines
3. Blind pedestrian with a cane waits at a traffic light for assistance crossing
the street
Formed a helping index from the findings
Results • Collectivist countries scored highest (Rio 93%)
• Surprising findings (Vienna(individualistic)– 5th, Kuala Lumpur (collectivist)–only 40%
• Countries with a low socio-economic status were more prosocial
• There was a correlation between the pace of city life and individualism
• Wide range – Kuala Lumpur less than half Rio de Janeiro’s overall score
• None of the cultural variables measured was found to have a significant
relationship with helping
• Relationship between greater purchasing power per capita and less helping
behaviour
Conclusions Individualist cultures: the individual is valued above the group ⇒ Likely to limit helping behaviour to immediate family
Collectivist cultures: clearly defined group borders
⇒ Ingroup may be perceived as the entire cultural group, therefore likely to help
all members of the cultural group, not necessarily family
There are cross-cultural differences in prosocial behaviour, but culture is not the only factor
Other factors to consider:
• Frequency of interaction with others who need help – cities with higher
populations found to be less helpful
• Encouragement or necessity to compete for resources
• Social norms that guide behaviour
Evaluation Strengths: High ecological validity. Large sample size– generalizable. Definite differences in cultural prosocial behaviour observed.
Limitations: Extraneous variables might influence the results. Difficult to replicate (cost, sample size) Correlational– no cause-and-effect relationship
-Consider the influence of globalization on prosocial behaviour
Feshbach &Feshbac – empathy-training program in elementary school
A: To investigate the role of empathy-training in promoting prosocial behaviour
M: Field experiment, Matched-pair design
P:
• 98 participants in elementary school
• Two conditions: aggressive or non-aggressive
• Three conditions: empathy-training/ problem-solving training/ control – no training
R:
• Empathy-training condition lead to more prosocial behaviours in both aggressive and non-aggressive children than other conditions
• Compared with children in control groups, the children who engaged in this empathy training were much less aggressive in everyday playground activities.
• Therefore, empathy-training was effective in increasing prosocial behaviors
• Implementing a empathy-training in a real-life setting is beneficial to foster values of helping, sharing and compassion.
Evaluation:
Strengths
- Field-experiment– High ecological validity
- Methods are easily replicable—could be used in other school settings
- Matched pair design—keep confounding variables constant in all groups
- Application in the educational setting
Limitations
- Difficult to measure the level of aggression in children
- There might be other factors—the influence of parents/ peers/ media
- Samples are not representative
- Difficult to implement matching variables
Evaluation of Oliner et al
Strengths:
- Theoretical generalizability– support research on parenting style, support SCT
- Attempt to understand both helping behaviour and bystandarism– have a broader understanding of promoting prosocial behaviour/ social responsibility
- This research has a broad application in educational setting. It shows that individuals learn to be compassionate through social cognitive theory. (the sense of social responsibility towards the others could be reinforced through SCT)
- Large sample size– 400 participants
- Open-ended questionnaire—generate rich/thick data
Limitations:
- Expensive, time-consuming, difficult to replicate
- Researching personality– the variable of “personality” is not clear, difficult to define the concept
- Reductionist approach– personality is only formed through observational learning
- Can’t be generalized outside Europe
Oliner et al
A: to describe the altruistic personality using participants who had rescued Jews during teh holocaust / the importance of observational learning from parents
M: open-ended questionnaires– rich,thick data/correlation
P:
• 400 Europeans who had rescued Jews from WW2 as well as rescued survivors, bystanders who did not help in the Hollocaust. (contrast between helpers and bystanders)
• The researcher made correlations between altruism and personality based on the questionnaire.
• Rescurer’s personality: compassion, law and order
• Bystanders’ personality: feelings of uncertainty, hopelessness, fear
• According to Oliner, parents played a key role in shaping the altruistic personality of rescuers
R:
• The rescuers described their parents as avoiding the use of punishment, making their children aware of the consequences of their actions and their social responsibility to the others.
• Oliner theorised that the role modelling of the parents influenced the development of an altruistic personality.
• Hence,prosocial behaviours might be influenced by social cognitive theory and observational learning.
• This research has a broad application as it shows that individuals learn to be compassionate through social cognitive theory. (the sense of social responsibility towards the others could be reinforced through SCT)
