Week 8: helping and harming Flashcards
interpersonal helping
define:
1. prosocial behaviour
- altruism
- egoism
=> coperation
= compare to prosocial behaviour
- behaviour intended to help someone else
- > making it easier for someone to do something by offering services/resources - prosocial behaviour without any prospect of personal rewards
- behaviour motivated by the desire to obtain personal rewards
> incl. positive feelings about having helped
=> operation = 2 or more people working together toward a common goal
= pro social = 1 person helping another
when do people help
- need (3)
Helper needs to perceive that the recipient needs help
- facilitated by attention
- hindered by distraction
- ambiguity of the situation makes this unclear
= often look to others’ reactions to reduce ambiguity
- > ‘smoke-filled room experiment’
- > 75% act alone
- > 10% act in the presence of others
When do people help
- deservingness (2)
- Helper needs to believe that the recipient deserves help
- > factors that influence: - depends on relationship context (patterns of exchange norms)
> CS = need
> EM = reciprocity (only help if they have helped you in the past)
- depends on relationship context (patterns of exchange norms)
- attributions of recipient responsibility
> have they brought it on themselves
e.g. homeless people
when do people help
recipient attributes (2)
-> small, loewenstein and slovic
- identity
> ingroup vs outgroup
- identity
- identifiability of victim
> identifiable victim effect: tendency to offer greater help to specific, identifiable victims
- identifiability of victim
STUDY -> participants given 2 descriptions -> 1: general (large numbers of anonymous/statistical people) -> 2: specific (about 1 person) = gave more money specific example
=specific condition evokes empathy which drives charitable giving
when do people help
helper attributes (2)
-> Greitemayer and Osswald
helping, prosocial game
- individual differences
- > agreeableness - helping on the mind?
Greitemayer and Osswald
- > pro social video game vs control game
- > given the opportunity to help (experimenter knocks pencils on floor)
= pro-social game + pro-sosical thoughts = .6
= pro-social game + number of pencils picked up =.49
= more prosocial thoughts reported, more pencils picked up
THOUGHT ACCESSIBILITY makes a difference here
when do people help
- situational and social factors
“do I need to help?”
> bystander effect: Darley and Latane
- social inhibition of helping:
bystander effect
- > speaking via intercom other people
- > either speaking to 1, 2 or 5 others
- > someone has a seizure
= number of other people who could possibly help makes a difference that an individual will actually help
- > 1 other person: 100% do something
- > 2 others present: 80% do something
- > 5 others: 60% do something
= presence of bystanders decreases the likelihood of an individual helping
= Diffusion of responsibility:
> presence of others diminishes the individual’s feeling of responsibility for action
when do people help
- situational and social factors
“Is help expected”
Shotland and Straw
norm or privacy
-> when help should be offered
- > staged interaction in street (man aggressing against a woman)
- > woman either says “I don’t know you” or “I don’t know why I married you”
65% intervene = strangers
19% intervene = married
= norms on intervening
= power of norms/expectations on helping
when do people help
- situational and social factors
“do I have time”
Good samaritan study:
Darley and Batson
- > seminary students (studying for priesthood)
- > told to prepare a talk
- > either 1. on jobs or 2. good samaritan parabole (brings to mind helping)
- > either ‘hurry’ vs ‘intermediate hurry’ vs control condition
- > person who needed help in alleyway
= control 63% helped
= intermediate 43% helped
= hurry 10% helped
-> content of the talk didn’t matter, only how rushed they were
why do people help?
-> is all helping selfish?
“warm glow of giving”: Dunn
-> $5 or $20 spend on yourself or others
> spending on others increases happiness
why do people help?
- The egoist account: the negative-state relief model
- evidence for egoism: Cialdini, Darby and Vincent
- Harris
- more likely to help when someone is feeling bad
- > most people don’t like watching other’s suffering
- > help to reduce that negative aversive state
- > induced negative emotional state: cause or witness suffering
- > knock papers off the table or observed someone else knock them off
- > either praised (incentive) to relieve negative state and others weren’t
- > opportunity to help another
= helping was greater for participants who experienced a negative state (either witnessed or caused suffering) that was not removed prior to helping opportunity
= helping is greater when one has a negative state that needs to be relieved
- > approached people who were about to go to confession
- > approached before in (before sins confessed) or after (relieved of guilt)
- > asked for donations
= people more likely to give donations before entering (before the negative state is relieved)
why do people help?
The alturist
-> do people help regardless of personal rewards and costs?
Empathy-alturism model (2)
when seeing someone suffer either:
- helping if no other way of reducing aversive state is available = egoistic helping
- empathetic concern: compassion, concern, warmth
-> helping regardless of other means of reducing adverse state
= altruistic helping
why do people help?
The altruist
Batson et al
- > watch someone doing a learning task
- > learning is shocked when getting things wrong
- > she conveys suffering
- > will the participant offer to take her place or not?
- > conditions 1. presented the learner as similar to the observer or 2. different
- > ease of escape: observer only needs to watch 2 trials vs need to sit and watch all the trials
NO EMPATHY (only personal distress) easy escape = they don't help; they escape escape is hard = they help (60%)
EMPATHY
both easy and hard escape = they help regardless (90%)
= those who feel empathy help regardless if there is an easy alternative way of reducing aversive states
how to increase helping
- reduce ambiguity
- teach and activate prosocial norms
- infuse, don’t diffuse responsibility
- promote identification with those who need help
what kind of help do we want to promote?
- dependency-oriented help
- autonomy-related help
- Alvarez and Van Leeuwen
- provides one with full solution
> but limited knowledge/tools for future problem solving - enables one to independently solve problems
> provides tools to help solve future problem solving
= participants generally prefer autonomy-related help
BUT
- -> problem-solving task
- > help from either a student or teacher
- > autonomy help = giving hints or dependency = giving answers
= autonomy related help was judged to be better than oriented help regardless of who it came from
BUT
when asking recipients to judge the helper:
autonomy help from expert
= feel respect, trust and less anger
autonomy help from peer
= less respect, less trust and angrier
= autonomy related help, in general, makes one feel good and empowered BUT it also depends on who is giving the help
what is aggression?
- instrumental
- hostile
behaviour intended to harm another
- aggression used as a means to an end
- driven by anger (at insult, disrespect or threat)
- who aggresses?
2. aggressive cultures?
- men>women
- cultures of honour
> norms of aggression in certain circumstances
> men should be tough in response to insult/threat
= enforce one’s rights, protect family and possessions
= these reputations serve as a deterrent
= especially in places in which institutions (police) aren’t effective
Cultures of honour
> southern USA and honour culture:
Cohen, nisbett, Bowddle and Schwarz
- study 1: bump and insult
- study 2: distance and non-verbal aggression
- > responses to insults amongst people from southern and northern American participants
- > staged insult: confederate bumps and call participant “asshole”
emotional responses to insult
= south more likely to respond with anger than amusement
- > after, a different confederate walks down a hallway near the participant
- > how closely the participant came to the confederate was measured
= when insulted, southern participants pass more closely to the confederate (sign of non-verbal aggression)
- > handshake with another confederate
- > how firm
= when insulted, stronger handshake (dominance/ non-verbal aggression)
= cultures of honour, when insulted they are more likely to respond with aggressive tendencies
frustration-aggression hypothesis
- define frustration
- Dollard et al hypothesis
- Berkowitz
people aggress when they are frustrated
- frustration: follows blocking an important goal
- frustration inevitably triggers aggression
- it’s not goal blockage, but negative feelings/arousal that arises (that can arise from goal blockage)
cues to aggression
- weapons priming effect: Anderson, Benjamin and Bartholow
-> aspects of environment linked to aggression can activate thoughts of aggression
- seeing a gun -> activation spreads to related concepts
= seeing a gun can trigger aggressive thoughts
- > participants computer task
- > weapon name shown, followed by a word either aggressive or non-aggressive
weapon followed by aggressive word = faster RT
= more accessible a concept is the more likely it is to influence behaviour
social learning
- aggressive role models
- video games: Anderson and Dill
- can increase aggression
- -> play violent or non-violent video game
- > accessibility of aggressive thoughts measured =(processing aggressive/non-aggressive thoughts - accessibility)
- > aggressive behaviour measured = competitive RT task: playing a competitive game against another participant (actually a computer)
- > if lost a race on a trial the received a noise blast from opponent
- > if won they set the level of the noise blast sent to the opponent
= exposure to violent video games increases aggressive behaviour
-> higher intensity noise blasts were delivered to opponent
= playing violent video games increases the accessibility of aggressive thoughts which accounts for the effect of the video gameplay on aggressive behaviour
superficial and deep processing (aggressiveness)
-> factors that impair deep processing
> Taylor, Gammon and Capasso
initial automatic aggressive tendencies can be overcome by deeper processing
aggressive thoughts/tendencies more likely to translate into behaviour due to:
- arousal
- time pressure
- alcohol
> set shock level to opponent when won a task
> in the task some participants believed their opponent was kind and didn’t want to hurt others (i.e. posed no threat)
> no threat: alcohol or not, no difference
> threat: shocks especially higher when alcohol is involved
= when under threat, alcohol can influence the likelihood of aggressive behaviour
= increases the extent to which aggressive tendencies will occur
= when processing superficially due to time pressures, alcohol or arousal, more likely that any automatic aggressive thoughts/tendencies will influence behaviour
General aggression model
> Anderson & Bushman
personal variables
- e.g. high N, low C
+ situational variables
- violent media, cues (weapons)
->
influence the internal state: affection
cognition
arousal
(aggressive or not aggressive)
->
appraisal and decision processes
(deep or superficial)
- arousal, time pressure and alcohol
->
behaviour
(aggressive or not aggressive)
Reducing aggression
- what doesn’t work
- -> Bushman
- Catharsis/venting
-> vent anger = decreases the likelihood of it taking aggressive form
BUT
-> it doesn’t work - -> write essay
- > hash negative feedback = induction of anger via insult
- > either: hit a punching bag or sitting quietly
- > punching bag condition: either ruminate or distraction (think about something else)
- > RT task with noise blast
= control = low levels of condition
= distraction = higher levels
= rumination = highest levels
venting = increases aggression, especially when accompanied by runimation
Reducing aggression
what works?
a) self-distancing
Mischkowski
b) increase empathy
Feschb ack and Seymour
- promoting norms of non-aggression (changing role models)
> pro social video games - minimising cues (undermining cues)
> environmental cues - cognitive re-appraisal / reinterpreting a negative action/insult
a) self distancing:
-> participants provoked
-> reflect on provocation
either
1. control
2. first person: imagine it again, emerge the self
3. self-distancing: imagine it from a third-person perspective
-> measure: implicit - word completion task e.g. M_D -> frequency of aggression relevant completions = accessibility of aggressive thoughts
=control and self-immersion = high accessibility of aggressive thoughts
= self-distance = lower accessibility
anger
- > self-distancing = less anger
- > self-immersion = increased anger
b) increase empathy
- > teaching empathy to school students
- > decrease in playground aggression
Aggression minimising strategies
what works?
Bushman
-> decrease accessibility of aggressive cognitions, arousal and negative effect
= delay, distraction, relaxation, incompatible responses
-> TARGET INTERNAL STATE (general aggression model)
