SP Lecture 12: Helping Flashcards
prosocial behaviour =
broad category of acts that are defined by some significant segment of society and or ones social group, as generally beneficial to other people
4 aspecten van prosocial behaviour
- helping
- cooporating
- empathy/sympathy/compassion
- statements or acts of remorse or reconciliation (sorry, forgiveness asking)
hobbes mening mensen
humans are intrinsically egoistic and have no regards for others
rousseau
humans are good by nature and only corrupted by civilization
frans de waal mening: moral behaviour and empathy in animals
humans are not just aggressive and competitive. we also have capacity for cooperation empathy and prosocial behaviour. killing is not easy, we have to be trained to and mentally suffer from war
hoe is reconcilatiation, cooperation en empathy in primates
- Reconciliation is common in primates and nonprimates.
- Cooperation among primates is underappreciated.
Cooperation also happens in strangers. - Expressions of empathy are common in apes and
resemble human behaviors.
3 evolutionary theories explain why prosocial acts increase fitness
- kin selection
- reciprocal altruism
- group selection
fitness =
how good a particular genotype is at leaving offspring in the next generation relative to other genotypes
kin selection =
evolutionary strategy that promotes the survival of ones genes present in relatives, even when that means a cost to the self
dus jezelf ‘opofferen’ zodat jouw genen/de genen van relatives wel doorgegeven worden.
inclusive fitness =
the successful transmission of one’s genes from all sources to the next generation
adaptation is at the level of … not the …
adaptation = genes!!
not individual.
kin selection on prosocial behaviour
There is evolutionary benefit to supporting relatives (similar genes pass on).
This means inclusive fitness is more important than personal fitness. Is this why
we call parents heroes if they sacrifice themselves for their children? Outside of
genes, is there moral reason to help our own family over other people?
experiments laten zien dat er een relatie is tussen relatedness (hoeveel genes two individuals share) and willingness to help
ole
reciprocal altruism
- people also help genetically unrelated others
- we benefit from helping others if this favor is repaid
group selection
a group with altruists (people willing to sacrifice themselves) has an advantage over a group with selfish individuals
- Altruistic group will dominate the selfish group and has a reproductive advantage
- At population level this would results in more altruists relative to selfish individuals
- This theory is controversial and evidence is mixed
empathy =
the ability and tendency to share and understand others internal states
empathy leads to prosocial behaviour
oke
is empathy innate?
ja, observed in humans and other animals. ook babies
is empathy genetically determined
in twin studies: 30-60% heritability
most research focuses on
(a) The interplay of genes and environment in prosocial behavior:
* A: Additive genetic variance
* B: Shared environment
* C: Unshared environment and measurement error
Note: small effects and interactions are the norm
(b) The development of individual differences in prosocial tendencies
Related to personality, e.g., Big Five Agreeablenes
is empathy and prosocial behaviour stable over someones life
ja, relatief. maar increases slightly
two dimensions of prosocial behaviour
- Prosocial thoughts and feelings, such as a sense of responsibility and a
tendency to experience cognitive and affective empathy (“other-oriented
empathy”) - The self-perception that one is a helpful and competent individual
(Helpfulness)
dus prosocial thoughts and feelings, en self-perception over jouw helpfulness
prisoners dilemma
selfish strategy is individually best and cooperation is best for all
helping others can increase status and reputation even when there is no recipocation
oke, dus recipocation is niet nodig voor increasing status door te helpen.
the bystander effect
the presence of others inhibits helping
in welk exp meten ze de bystander effect
smoke filled room, met passive bystanders
theory of emergency response
emergency -> notice -> (pluralistic ignorance) -> interpret as emergency -> (diffusion of responsibility) -> take responsibility for providing help -> decide on how to help -> (evaluation apprehension) -> provide help
evaluation apprehension
the fear of negative evaluations from other group members or external members prevents participants who are working in groups from presenting their more original ideas
stigmatized outgroup =
outgroup that is strongly devalued
stigmatized person =
person whose social identity or membership in some social vategory calls into question their full humaity, the person is devalued, spoiled or flawed in the eyes of others
3 soorten stigmas
- abominations of the body (mental disorder, handicapped, obese, aids)
- moral character stigmas (homeless, drug addicts, criminals)
- tribal stigmas (people from cultural or social group that is devalued)
differences in prosocial behaviour and stigmas per person
- individual differences in attributing responsibility to these people
- belief in a just world: people get what they deserve
- attribution of responsibility: good things happen to good people, bad things to bad people
predictors of interpersonal helping
- characteristics of helper (similarity between helper and helpee?)
- characteristics of help: alignment with values and goals?
- characteristics of recipient (bv self esteem)
2 types of helping
- dependency-oriented help: giving someone a fish
- autonomy-oriented help: teaching someone how to fish
dependency oriented help, en tot welke dependency leidt het
provides a full solution, does not rely on skills of helpee. will be given again whenever the need arises.
= leidt tot chronic dependency
autonomy-oriented help
limited in degree and duration to the transfer of specific tools or instructions from helper to helpee, who will then use this to regain self-reliance
= leidt tot transient dependency
intergroup helping, wat is de evidence hiervoor?
- Less help to out-group than in-group
members - No relationship
- More help to out-group than in-group
members (reverse discrimination)
egoistic (self-focused) helping =
motivated by preserving maintaining or enhancing own welfare
welke 3 factoren horen bij egoistic helping
- reward seeking
- punishment avoidance
- reduce bad feelings
wat voor soort analysis is egoistic helping
= cost-reward analysis of helping
motivation for altruism
preserving, maintaining or enhancing others welfare
empathy-altruism hypothesis =
The theory that feelings of empathic concern lead to a motive to help someone in need for his or her own sake.
increased by similarities between the self and others
batson et al experiment shocks
Female participants
observed “Elaine” who received unpleasant electrical shocks
Condition 1:
High similarity in attitudes,
traits and interests =
high empathy + helping
Condition 2:
Low similarity in attitudes,
traits and interests =
low empathy and helping
helping = taking shocks instead of elaine
dus vaker de shocks overnemen van elaine wanneer ze hogere similarity in attitudes, traits en interests hebben.
= meer empathy and helping
outgroup helping: 3 strategic motives
- power and autonomy
- meaning and existence
- impression formation
power and autonomy =
- exert power over another group through helping.
- stay autonomous by rejecting help
helping implies unequal status relations, one is dependent
soort van bij derde wereld landen = power and autonomy
meaning and existence
Help is used to restore meaningfulness and purpose of the
in-group after threat to group identity
scrooge effect =
mortality salience increased contributions to charity
dus meer praten over mortality = meer doneren.
experiment dutch help after a threat:
conditions:
1. Secure position of the Netherlands in the EU
2. The Netherlands under threat in the EU
condition 2: more helping to Tsunami victims in the domain of water management
- > reduced threat of being in EU
impression formation
use helping to create a positive impression of the group as kind and generous (warmth) or capable (competence)
hopkins study scots
when stereotype of Scots as mean
was salient, Scots donated more to out-group, but not to in-group
volunteering =
“prosocial action in an
organizational context, which is planned
and that continues for an extended
period”
verschil volunteering and interpersonal helping
less likely to result
from a sense of personal obligation to a particular
person: ‘nonobligated helping’
dus geen verplichtingen verder
volunteering reasons
family or religion
eduction and income
attitudes, ideals and identity
social networks
resume building etc
- Family and religious organizations drive initial decision to volunteer
- Identification with religion is positively related to different types of
volunteering (not only in that group) - More education and income predict more volunteering
- Attitudes, identity, ideals: good feeling about the self
- ‘Volunteer role identity’ (Grube and Pillavin, 2000)
- Social networks
- Other motives, e.g., resume building!
positive outcomes of volunteering
- self esteem
- mental and physical health: improved satisfaction, lower mortality rate.
More different kind of activities in midlife -> less likely to get
Alzheimer’s disease in 70s
oke!
More different social roles and multiple group memberships is
positive for health and well-being!
oke!
volunteering mechanisms for positive outcomes
- refocusing of attention
- improve self-evaluation, sense of value
- better mood
- social integration
- sense of control
- improves health, minder mortality
- strongest health effects for socially isolated individuals! dus goed om aan te raden voor mensen die lonely zijn
cooperation =
involves two or more people coming together as partners to work interdependently toward a common goal that will benefit all involved
verschil cooperation and helping/volunteering
status relations are equal, they are interdependent
social dilemmas 2 aspects
- each individual alone receives a higher payoff for not doing the groups best interest
- all individuals are better off if they cooporate
= cooporation is beter voor hele groep, maar voor individual beter om dit niet te doen
collective action problem
tabel met ignore vs cooperate. cooperate = slecht voor 1. ignore is dan beter (tenzij beiden cooperate)
4 ways prosocial behaviour can be stimulated
- perspective taking
- recategorization
- social identity
- identify relevant values
perspective taking =
cognitive!
the ability to entertain the perspective of another.
what does perspective taking predict
social competence, self esteem
what does perspective taking promote
empathic concern
2 effects of perspective taking on emotional responses
- imagine how the target feels: empathic concern
- imagine how you would feel: arousal and distress
recategorization -> the common in-group identity model
Bias in prosocial behavior toward out-group members can be reduced
when in-group members recategorize themselves within a superordinate
group
when is less help offered in recategorization?
when ppl express dual identity instead of common identity
muslim uva student (minder help) vs uva student (meer help)
dus common is meer help dan dual
social identity and helping: 3 factors
- salience of social identities (bv european, student)
- boundaries of social identities: wie is ingroup en wie is outgroup?
- content of social identities: group norms and values
dus salience, boundaries en content
emergency events themselves can lead to formation of common identities, but this only happens if there is …
a perception of common threat!!
