Altruism and Helping Behaviour Flashcards
1
Q
INTRO
A
- humans are naturally helpful; Ramadan 2020 saw record breaking donations despite increased risk.
HOWEVER, sometimes help is withheld when most required. - Cards divided into WHY and WHEN do humans help.
2
Q
WHY: Altruism
A
- Any act of voluntary self-sacrifice intended to benefit another WITH NO EXPECTATION OF REWARD
- ie. donating a kidney to a stranger; rarer.
- Arguably doesn’t exist; even if the benefit isn’t clear, we still feel good about helping, and so it’s still pro-social. Big PSYCH debate on this.
3
Q
WHY: Pro-social Behaviour
A
- Any act performed by an individual with the goal of benefiting another person.
- ie. volunteering at charity; common
4
Q
WHY: Evolutionary Perspectives
A
- Idea of evolutionary basis/natural selection; rationally strange as those who help prioritise others to the point of personal risk, so less likely to pass on genes.
- However, modern models are more complex.
5
Q
WHY: Inclusive Fitness
A
- The idea that the unit of selection is genes, not individuals, so its their survival that counts, so sacrifice of bearer may be necessary.
- Gene survival rises w/altruistic behaviour towards kin (ie. saving your child from drowning despite personal risk); natural selection should support this.
- People are naturally more helpful to kin because of this.
6
Q
WHY: Inclusive Fitness (Example)
A
- BURNSTEIN et al (1990s); pps given hypothetical situations to help/not.
- Manipulated: RELATEDNESS (ie. distant/close kin); TARGET HEALTH; SITUATION (ie. everyday/mortal)
- Expected: favour to close, healthy kin in mortal situations.
- Results: favour sick everyday, but healthy in mortal peril; goes down in all aspects for distant kin.
- Healthy can deal everyday, but their genes are important in mortal peril; survival of the fittest, but specific.
7
Q
WHY: Inclusive Fitness (Evaluation)
A
- HYPOTHETICAL; no evidence for pps actually choosing these irl; limits EXTERNAL VALIDITY.
- UNCONTROLLED VARIABLES; who is socially watching?
- UNCONCSCIOUS; we don’t typically consciously consider the genes; more to do w/social connection.
8
Q
WHY: Genetic VS Emotional Closeness
A
- KORCHMARCOS & KENNY (2001); repeated Burnstein w/irl kin; predicted=emotional closeness>genes (measured closeness via questionnaire).
- Found that genetic closeness did increase willingness to help; supports Burnstein.
- Emotional closeness was more likely w/close relatives than distant.
- Helping is determined by how much we care for the target.
9
Q
WHY: Cultural Differences of Helping (Example)
A
- Against evolutionary explanations, which claim helpfulness is innate; cultural values SHOULD be unimportant.
- WU, CROSS, WU, CHO & TEY (2016); Asian cultures favour mother everyday/mortally over spouse (honouring elderly); Western cultures are the opposite.
- Idea of past genes surviving in parents or future genes surviving in potential offspring; mother already fulfilling evolutionary purpose VS emotional connection argument.
- Supports Burnstein’s argument of genetic closeness in Asian sample, then emotional closeness in Western sample.
10
Q
WHY: Evolutionary Approaches (Evaluation)
A
- NO SOLID EVIDENCE; we can’t manipulate these scenarios and keep all variables constant; no support for genetic closeness causing willingness to help.
- OTHER PARAMETERS; helping mother may not be due to genes but emotions (ie. spending time together).
- HELPING STRANGERS; greatest conflict; no evolutionary benefit.
11
Q
WHY: Social Exchange Theory
A
- based on behaviourism (ie. learning & Skinner); MINIMISE COST, MAXIMISE REWARD.
- REWARD: tangible (ie. money); intangible (ie. approval); removal of aversive state (ie. distress)
- Agrees w/evolutionary ideas that its strategic & calculated via cost-benefit.
12
Q
WHY: Negative State Relief Hypothesis
A
- SCHALLER & CIALDINI (1988); when we expect to engage in alternative mood enhancing activities, we are less inclined to help.
13
Q
WHY: Empathy-Altruism Model
A
- BATSON (1991) suggested that whether people help depends on emotional reaction (aka. EMPATHY IS CRITICAL)
- Empathies presence/absence causes two paths; w/o=help given only in interest (SOCIAL EXCHANGE); w/=help given regardless of cost-benefit
14
Q
WHY: Empathy
A
- The ability to sense another’s experiences; identifying with/experiencing another’s emotions/thoughts/emotions.
15
Q
WHY: Empathy Increases Altruism (Example)
A
- TOI & BATESON (1982) manipulated empathy and cost.
- Low empaths agreed to help less w/low cost; high empaths agreed to help 80% regardless of cost.
16
Q
WHY: Empathy Increases Altruism (Evaluation)
A
- Empaths engage in pro-social acts motivated by altruism.
- BUT this might be unconsciously motivated to feel egoistical “empathic joy” just as sometimes help is used to remove distress; is this just behaviourism and rewards again?
17
Q
WHY: Is Empathy Altruism? (Example)
A
- BATESON et al. (1991); manipulated empathic joy opportunity; pps told they would/wouldn’t be given feedback of actions.
- Low empaths helped considerably more with feedback than w/o; high empaths help a lot regardless.
18
Q
WHY: Is Empathy Altruism? (Evaluation)
A
- Consistent evidence that empathy overrides cost-benefit analyses.
- Argue that altruism should be purely empathy-driven, independent from all rewards including emotions.
19
Q
WHEN: Situational Factors
A
- KITTY GENOVESE murder (1964) shows that people sometimes refuse giving help assuming others will (“BYSTANDER EFFECT”)
- LATANE & DARLEY (1970); pps filled questionnaire in room gradually filled w/smoke.
- Approached experimenter: 75% (alone); 38% (w/strangers); 10% (w/pps who ignored smoke)
- Just thinking about others reactions causes bystander effect.
20
Q
WHEN: Situational Factors (Examples)
A
- GARCIA et al. (2002); pps imagined themselves alone/w group.
- The less people they were with, the more income they were willing to donate.
- LEVINE et al. (2010); same as Garcia but varied crowd.
- Reaction time to communal words increased with strangers present rather than just women.
21
Q
WHEN: Attribution Theory
A
- WEINER (1995); says people ask why someone may need their help.
- We unconsciously focus on: RESPONSIBILITY (is the target responsible) and CONTROLLABILITY (do they have control over the situation).
22
Q
WHY & WHEN: Thoughts, Emotions, Actions
A
- Someone needs help = Uncontrollable/Controllable? Responsible/Not?
- Uncontrollable/Not responsible = Empathy/No anger
- Controllable/Responsible = Anger/No empathy
- Empathy/No anger = Pro-social action
- Controllable/Responsible = Anti-social action
23
Q
WHY & WHEN: Victim Responsibility
A
- SSCHMIDT & WEINER (1988); pps told classmate asked to borrow notes since: problem w/eyes/gone to beach for lecture.
- Control/responsibility correlated w/increased anger and decreased empathy/intentions to help.
- LEVINE et al. (2005); identity of target is vital; Leicester pps told to explain love for football team, then confederate stages needing help after a fall w/football/neutral t-shirt.
- Pps more likely to help Manchester t-shirt than neutral/Liverpool (rival) t-shirt after activating social group thoughts.
- BUT in alternative, pps just told to think about love for football as a whole; leads to helping all football t-shirts equally, and only ignoring neutral.
24
Q
SUMMARY
A
- Evolutionary mechanisms work on selfish basis of gene survival (inclusive fitness).
- Social exchange approach looks at avoiding punishment/getting rewards (aka. behaviourism)
- Bystander effect makes people assume others will help, so they don’t.
- Target perceptions; why is the help needed/what is the targets group identity in relation to individual.
