SPRING pro social behaviour

Question 1

what is prosocial behaviour

Answer 1

any act performed with the intention of benefitting another person
not motivated by professional obligations

Question 2

why do people help others

Answer 2

humans thought to be altruistic
motivated by empathy
but could be egoistic - reward

Question 3

evolutionary perspective of prosocial beh

Answer 3

kin selection - preferentially help in over out group members
behaviours which help genetic relatives are favoured in natural selection - but not if costly

Question 4

norm of reciprocity

Answer 4

expect that helping others increases the likelihood of others helping us
ie marketing

Question 5

rewards for helping behaviours

Answer 5

relatively egoistic - improve by reporing or maintaining own welfare through improvement of others
relief from distress
maintain positive and attenuate negative emotions
social approval and improved self worth

Question 6

relief from distress reward

Answer 6

when observe an emergency, leads to hightened arousal and distress ie anxiety or unease
helping eliminates these feelings

Question 7

maintain pos and attenuate neg emotions reward

Answer 7

good mood more likely to help to make feel even better, and likely to be more receptive to the environment
feel guilty then more likely to help to eliminate those feeings

Question 8

islan and levin 1972 good mood and helping

Answer 8

84% found coin left in mall phone slots helped man pick up papers

Question 9

social approval and improved self worth reward

Answer 9

norm to behave prosocially
pressured if not comply
make look better to society

Question 10

costs of helping

Answer 10

physical danger
pain
embarassment
time
- tend to only help if rewards outweigh costs

Question 11

describe batson 1991 empathy altruism theory

Answer 11

perception of others needs and relation tot eh person evokes sympathy wihihc amplifies altruism
1- observe someone who needs help
2 - assess if feel empathy
3- yes: help regardless of self interest, rewards or cost
no: help only if in own sef interest or rewards outweigh costs

Question 12

describe toi and batson empathy and helping behaviour study

Answer 12

'carol' miss class due to accident
 high empathy vs low empathy & see in class in future or not
low empathy and not see sig reduced helping

Question 13

who is likely to help - gender

Answer 13

men - tend to be chivalrous and heroic - help where socially acceptable
female - more nurturing and long term care

Question 14

who is likely to help - religious

Answer 14

helps to look good but not when anonymous

Question 15

who is likely to help - prosocial personality?

Answer 15

helping in emergencies not driven by personality
but
empathy and helpfulness predict everyday acts of helping, organ donor willingness and willingness to help co workers

Question 16

when do people help - darley and latane 1968 bystander

Answer 16

the knowledge of the presence of others who might help inhibits intervention in an emergency
1 person and victim > help than 6 people and victim
expect others to help

Question 17

5 stages of helping in an emergency

Answer 17

1- notice event
2- interpret emergency
3- assume responsibility
4- know appropriate assistance
5 - decide to help

Question 18

5 stages of helping in an emergency - when not assist after noticing the event (1)

Answer 18

not help if distracted or in a hurry

Question 19

5 stages of helping in an emergency - when not assist after interpretting an emergency (2)

Answer 19

pluralistic ignorance

mistakenly believe own thoughts or feelings are different

Question 20

5 stages of helping in an emergency - when not assist after assuming responsibility (3)

Answer 20

by stander effect

diffuse to different person

Question 21

5 stages of helping in an emergency - when not assist after knowing appropriate assistant (4)

Answer 21

lacking knowledge or having competence to assist

Question 22

5 stages of helping in an emergency - when not assist after decision to help (5)

Answer 22

situation is a danger to self

Question 23

latane and darley 1968 bystander effect pluralistic ignorance

Answer 23

tendency to rely on the overt reactions of others when defining anambiguous situation.
when in a group - sig less likely to notify of smoke coming from other room
believe that others notice and not a problem so dont do anything

Question 24

what is audience inhibition

Answer 24

reluctance to help for fear of a bad impression/judgement

Question 25

in what situations does the bystander effect not hold (fischer et al 2011)

Answer 25

when situation is dangerous for both the victim and the bystander
high arousal = impulsivity

Question 26

who are we more likely to help

Answer 26

attractive people (even when not interact)
those not responsible for the situation
those we feel similar to or close to

Question 27

describe levine et al 2005 who do we help (ingroup and outgroup)

Answer 27

confederate fall wearing manchester utd shirt (ingroup with pps) or liverpool (outgroup of pps) 
help MANU>LIVERPOOL
BUT
why is football important to you?
superordinate group - help both equally

Question 28

Austin (1979) gender and helping

Answer 28

found that men and women were equally likely to intervene at a high level of harm, but women more likely to intervene at low levels; women seem to have a lower threshold for noticing

Question 29

Eagly & Crowley (1986) gender and social roles in helping behaviours

Answer 29

sex differences in helping derived from social roles Women report providing friends with personal favors, emotional support, and counseling about personal problems than men do
Helping expectations for men assoc with nonroutine and risky actions and protective roles.
metaanalysis - men more helpful to the extent that (a) women perceived helping as more dangerous than men (b) an audience witnessed the act, and (c) other potential helpers were available.
Sex differences may be due to gender-related traits of masculinity and femininity, rather than to sex per se or to gender roles

Question 30

Staub 1978 altruistic personality

Answer 30

people high in self-esteem, high in competence, high in internal locus of control, low in need for approval, and high in moral development appear to be more likely to engage in prosocial behaviors

Question 31

Simmons et al (1977) bystander effect and family

Answer 31

The likelihood of an individual in need of a kidney receiving one from a sibling decreased almost linearly from 51 % when there was only one eligible sibling to 0% when there were 10 or 11

Question 32

what cases bystander effect

Latane´ and Darley (1970

Answer 32

diffusion of responsibility - tendency to subjectively divide personal responsibility to help by the number (N) of bystanders. The more bystanders there are, the less personal responsibility any individual bystander will feel.
evaluation apprehension - fear of being judged by others in public- fear to make mistakes when observed, which makes more reluctant to intervene
pluralistic ignorance - rely on the overt reactions of others when defining an ambiguous situation

Question 33

bateson et al 1981 Elaine

empathy altruism theory

Answer 33

If empathy evokes a desire to reduce personal distress, should help less in a situation that is easy to escape
if evokes a desire to reduce the other’s suffering, then should be no difference in helping between easy and difficult escape situations
- Elaine getting shocks for task - empathy increase(similar to pps) or deacrease (dissimilar to pps)
1/2 in each “easy escape” - leave after a few trials
1/2 “difficult escape” - must stay till end
given option to volunteer to take shocks for Elaine
high empathy increase volunteer even when easy escape

Question 34

Munich 2001 (fischer et al 2011)

Answer 34

a young man from Turkey helped a young Greek who was chased and beaten by a group of skinheads. The young Turk risked his life while many other bystanders were watching. Similar results were found in laboratory experiments, where the bystander effect vanished when the emergency was a particularly dangerous one (e.g., Fischer, Greitemeyer, Pollozek, & Frey, 2006).

Question 35

fischer et al 2011 bystander effect revisited

Answer 35

meta analysis of bystander studies
bystander inhibition is less pronounced in dangerous than in non-dangerous situations
why? - danger likely seen as clear-cut emergencies where someone needs help - increases experienced arousal and thus helping responses.
bystanders viewed as providers of physical support and thus reduce fear of intervention
bystander effect stronger in female than male participants + in strangers than in friends

Question 36

darley and bateson 1973 situational variables in helping behaviour

Answer 36

pps read good samarital bible verse and told be giving speech on it or on diff topic
told late, expected on time or a bit early (hurry)
- pass victim on way and helping behaviour rated
hurry less likely to offer help
good Samaritan para did not sig effect helping
religion only have effect on help where if help then more tentative/hesistant to help