WEEK 8 - Helping others Flashcards
What are Prosocial behaviors?
actions intended to benefit others
What are the explanations for helping behaviour
- biological
- learning
- attribution
- norms
- obligation to help
What is the biological explanation for helping others?
- helping as an evolutionary trait (protecting one’s kin.. and genes)
- sociobiological factors (e.g., how closely related + severity of need)
What is the ‘learning’ explanation for helping others?
- childhood - instructions: instructing children to be helpful (BUT ALSO providing a role model) and reinforcement (see figure)
- modelling: Bandura’s (e.g., 1973) social learning theory: can learn to be selfless as well as selfish as seen in the ‘Flat Tyre experiment’
*
What is the Flat Tyre experiment (in relation to learning how to help others)
‘Flat tyre’ experiment (Bryan & Test, 1967): modelling of helpful behaviours –> saw lone woman next to car with flat tyre (side of road)
* control (as above) vs. experimental (previously seen scenario of man assisting woman to change tyre)
* hypothesis: viewing a model will increse altruism (concern for others)
* results: support hypothesis (model-exposed 50% more likely to help)
* conclusions: role of modelling in incidence of helping behaviour,
learning by vicarious experience
What is the ‘attribution’ explanation for helping?
- as a ‘helpful person’ increases helping behaviours
- just world hypothesis (people get what they deserve): can reduce helping behaviours
What is the ‘norms’ explanation for helping?
- reciprocity norm (do unto others)
- social responsibility norm (help people in need)
- concerns about justice/fairness: perceived need
- Miller’s (1977) 2 types of needs:
- need extent (better if limited)
- need persistence (better if short-term)
What is the ‘obligation to help’ explanation for helping?
- duty to assist – ‘Good Samaritan’ laws in some countries, professional obligations
What is empathy
understanding or vicariously experiencing another individual’s perspective and feeling sympathy and compassion for that individual
How does arousal affect a person’s motivation to help others?
motivation to help = state of arousal (e.g., witnessing suffering) + empathy
What is altruism
to improve another’s welfare
What is egoism
to improve one’s own welfare
empathy-altruism hypothesis
empathic concern for a person in need produces an altruistic motive for helping
What is bystander effect
refers to the tendency for people to be inactive in high-danger situations due to the presence of other bystanders. Thus, people tend to help more when alone than in a group
Latane and Darley’s cognitive model
- definition of emergency situation: rare, unforseen dangerous situation (for person or property) requiring instant action
- similar to Sherif: role of ambiguity (look to others for guidance)
- Latane and Darley’s (1970) decision process: series of decisions to enable helping
What are the Obstacles to helping in Latane and Darley’s cognitive model?
- Distraction
- Self-concerns
- Ambiguity
- Relationship between attacker and victim
- Pluralistic ignorance (no one else seems worried)
- Diffusion of responsibility
- Lack of competence
- Audience Inhibition
- Costs exceed rewards
What is the Smoke-filled room’ experiment (Latane & Darley, 1970): Self in Danger?
In this experiment participants sat in a waiting room and filled out a questionnaire on life as a student. After completing two pages of the questionnaire, the room slowly filled with smoke that was puffed through an air vent. By the time the participant would have finished filling out the survey, visibility was impaired due to the smoke in the room. The results were:
- Participants alone reported the smoke 75% of the time.
- Participants in groups of 3 reported the smoke 38% of the time.
- Participants with two passive confederates reported the smoke 10% of the time.
What is the methodology in the Smoke-filled room’ experiment (Latane & Darley, 1970)?
- male participants in room completing questionnaire
- smoke poured into room from vent for 6 minutes
- alone vs. 2 unknown others vs. 2 confederates
What is the hypothesis in the Smoke-filled room’ experiment (Latane & Darley, 1970)?
people look at others for what to do
What were the results in the Smoke-filled room’ experiment (Latane & Darley, 1970)?
The hypothesis was supported and % who took positive action: alone: 75%, unknown others: 38%, confederates: 10%
What was the conclusion in the Smoke-filled room’ experiment (Latane & Darley, 1970)?
presence of others inhibits emergency responses, people: slower theresponse, persuaded does not equal emergency
What is the method in the Falling filing cabinet’ experiment (Latane & Rodine, 1969):
- male participants in room completing questionnaire
- heard a woman in adjoining room struggling with filing cabinet (crash, cry of pain,
moans etc) - males were either alone or in pairs
What is the hypothesis in the Falling filing cabinet’ experiment (Latane & Rodine, 1969):
people look at others for what to do
What are the results in the Falling filing cabinet’ experiment (Latane & Rodine, 1969):
percentage who helped:
- alone: 70%, pairs: 40%, confederate: 7%, friends: 70%
What were the conclusions in the Falling filing cabinet’ experiment (Latane & Rodine, 1969):
friends increase rate of helping
What is the ‘Epileptic seizure’ experiment (Darley & Latane, 1968): bystanders present
College students were ina solitary rooms under the impression that a conversation with “other participants” that were in their own room would ensure. However, the other participants were just records playing. Each participant would speak one at a time into a microphone.
After a round of discussion, one of the participants would have a “seizure” in the middle of the discussion; the amount of time that it took the college student to obtain help from the research assistant that was outside of the room was measured. If the student did not get help after six minutes, the experiment was cut off.
Darley and Latané (1968) believed that the more “people” there were in the discussion, the longer it would take subjects to get help.
What is the methodology ‘Epileptic seizure’ experiment (Darley & Latane, 1968): bystanders present
- students communicated with each other via microphones
- told that either: 2 (self + victim) vs. 4 vs. 6 people
- ‘victim’ announced he experiences epilepsy then gasping, choking etc
What is the hypothesis in the ‘Epileptic seizure’ experiment (Darley & Latane, 1968): bystanders present
Darley and Latané (1968) believed that the more “people” there were in the discussion, the longer it would take subjects to get help.
What is the results in the ‘Epileptic seizure’ experiment (Darley & Latane, 1968): bystanders present
The results were in line with that hypothesis. The smaller the group, the more likely the “victim” was to receive timely help.
% who helped: (before seizure ended) alone: 85%, 2 others: 62%, 4 others: 31%;
(after 6 minutes) alone: 100%, 2 others: 81%, 4 others: 62%
What are the three processes underlying the reluctance of people in groups to help
1 - diffusion of responsibility: assumption of others’ responsibility
2 - audience inhibition: fear of overreacting
3- social influence: others provide model
What is Latane and Darley’s (1976) ‘Three-in-one’ experiment
(using cameras/ TV monitors; as the is more communication information (more opportunities to diffuse responsibility, make blunders etc), help decreases
What is Piliavin et al.’s bystander calculus model?
The bystander-calculus model of helping involves body and mind, a mixture of physiological processes and cognitive processes. According to Piliavin, when we think someone is in trouble we work our way through three stages, or sets of calculations, before we respond.
looks at the costs and benefits of helping vs. not helping
What are the three steps in Piliavin et al.’s bystander calculus model?
- physiological arousal at others’ distress
- labelling the arousal as emotion
- evaluation of the consequences of helping (the graph thing)
What are the Person factors influencing helping behaviour
- Mood (help more if good mood or feel guilty)
- Relationship with victim: help people we know more
- Urban vs. rural: people in smaller towns help more
- Sense of morality (terror management theory): fear of death promotes helping
- Competency: if feel competent, help more
- Responsibility: if feel more responsible, help more
- Gender: males help female victims more
- Culture: collectivist cultures (compared to individualists) help ingroup members more, outgroup members less
How would you get a bystender to help you if you were victim to a crime?
- Eye contact
- Pointing at helpers
- Direct requests
What type of people is more likely to help in dealing with a crime
role of prior commitment: more likely to help if prior
commitment to person (e.g., Neighbourhood Watch)
