the social approach altruism has been defined as behaviour intended to help others having no...
TRANSCRIPT
The Social Approach
Altruism has been defined as behaviour intended to help others having NO benefit to ourselves
Freud & the ID?
the ID operates on the pleasure principle!
Can helping behaviour be motivated by our desire for pleasure?
The behaviourists & reinforcement?
All behaviour is reinforced (shaped) by pleasure?
Can we feel pleasure when we help others?
The Social Learning approach
We learn to be unselfish and to help others by watching others helping
(and by being rewarded when we copy)
The questions
Why do we sometimes help others? When may we not help others?
What triggered psychological research?
Latane & Darley (1964) 38 witnesses & no-one helped!
WHY the unresponsive bystander? Diffusion of responsibility?
We must notice the event We must interpret the event as an
emergency We must assume personal responsibility We must choose a way to help We must implement the decision A negative response at any of these
5 stages means that the bystander will fail to intervene
If we do not NOTICE we will not help
In the sad case of Jamie Bulger many witnesses failed to intervene
They did not interpret the event as an emergency Would you intervene in a lovers quarrel? Not according to Shotland & Straw (1976)
If others are present you may assume THEY will help
This may lead to Diffusion of Responsibility Which may be why no one helped Kitty
Genovese
This involves making a decision and perhaps weighing up…..
Costs vs Benefits of helping
Am I competent to help?
Is there anyone else around who may be more competent?
Might I do more harm than good?
It explains …….
Why people DO NOT HELP
NOT WHEN & WHY THEY DO
When do we help others
When are we less likely to help others?
(helping situations)
Piliavin Rodin & Pilavin (1968) (A Field Experiment)
Good Samaritanism on the New York Subway
tested ….
That when confronted with an ‘emergency’
We balance The possible costs against the possible
benefits
The effort (may be physically demanding)
The time required (we may be late for work)
The loss of resources (damage to clothes) The risk of harm (we may get injured) Negative emotional response (we may
feel sick)
We may feel ashamed (I should have helped)
Something bad will ‘be our fault’ (The victim may die)
Social approval (thanks from victim) Self- esteem (feeling good about oneself)
Positive emotional response (feelings of elation and gladness)
If the rewards for helping outweigh the costs of not helping ….. we are likely to act in a pro-social manner (help)
Piliavin Rodin & Piliavin
A Field Experiment
Good Samaritanism on the New York Subway
The method (Field Experiment)
The location
The New York Subway (underground train)
When and where? (103 ‘experimental trials’ took place)
Between 11.00am and 3.00pm over a period of two months in 1968
On trains between 59th & 125th street No stops, journey time 8 minutes
The participants ? Estimated as 4450 travellers on the
trains 45% black and 55% white
Average number in a carriage was 43 Average no in ‘the critical area’ was 8.5
What was done by whom ?
Teams of 4 student experimenters(two male / two female) Male actors (victim and model) Females were observers
What did they do?
70 seconds after train left station the
VICTIM pretended to collapse…. Waited for ‘help’ …. If no-one ‘helped’ the ‘model’ helped the
VICTIM off at the next stop
Experiment Carriage layout
This was an experiment What were the IVs (independent
variables)
The experimental conditions IV Victims were either black or white
and aged 26 - 35 IV Victims carried bottle & smelled of
alcohol(drunk condition)
or Carried a cane (lame condition) The models were all white aged 24 - 29
The observers recorded the race, age, sex, and location of ‘helper’ passengers
Who helped in which condition?
Also – who said what and who moved away
On 62 of 65 trials the ‘cane’ victim was helped immediately
On 19 out of 38 trials the ‘drunk’ victim was helped immediately
of 81 trials once ONE person helped others did so too
What sort of people helped….?
Males more than females
More same ‘race’ helpers in drunk condition
How many people LEFT the critical area
21 of 103 trials 34 people moved away … more in the drunk condition
There was no diffusion of responsibility Note: people could not ‘get away’
Conclusion (1)
The diffusion of responsibility hypothesis not supported
The more people there were the more they helped
Conclusion (2) The emergency created a ‘state of
emotional arousal’ arousal heightened by
empathy with victim being close to situation length of time of emergency
This arousal state will be interpreted as fear, sympathy or disgust
Can be reduced by moving away helping deciding the victim is undeserving of help
Piliavin et al give a TWO factor model of helping behaviour
Factor 1: The level of emotional arousal (empathy)
Factor 2: The result of a cost: benefit analysis
Thus low empathy + high cost may predict NO helping
Characteristics and situation of the victim may contribute to the our decision as to whether we help
Was it ethical?
Did it have ecological validity
Read .. the study