Helping Flashcards
(49 cards)
What is the difference between prosocial behaviour and helping behaviour?
Prosocial behaviour: Acts that are positively valued by society (e.g. picking up litter).
Helping behaviour: A particular type of pro social behaviour. Acts that intentionally benefit someone else.
What is Latane & Darley’s bystander effect?
The bystander effect: The presence of a stranger induces the bystander effect, but the presence of a friend does not. - Less potential for embarrassment?
What are the results of Baron et al.’s study regrading mood and helping
(People walking in a mall were approached by a confederate who asked them for change)?
People were more likely to help when approached in a pleasant smelling area. People in the pleasant smelling areas were also in a better mood.
What were the results of Forgas et al. study regarding mood and helping (Sales staff were approached by a confederate who put them in a positive, negative or neutral mood).
Less experienced staff were more likely to help when they had been put in a good mood. The effect wasn’t seen for experienced sales staff.
Describe the study of Darley & Batson regarding running late (1973).
Students in a seminary were first directed to one location to complete a questionnaire. In the second phase they were required to prepare and deliver a speech (on career options or a bible paragraph).
Pps were told they were ahead of schedule, running late for the second phase, or precisely in time. En route to the venue of the second phase, pps encountered a man who had apparently collapsed in the alley.
10% of late running pps helped.
45% of on time running pps helped.
63% of early running pps helped.
Describe the study of Baumeister et al. (1988) regarding leadership roles.
Pps volunteered for a study which involved deciding the fate of survivors of a nuclear war. In groups of four (3 assistants, 1 leader), they were to discuss via an intercom system which survivors should be allowed into a shelter.
Unbeknown to the pps, 3 of the 4 grouo members were actually confederates.
Some pps were designated ‘assistants’ while others were designated ‘leaders’.
Assistants could make suggestions, but the leader had the final say.
Midway through the group discussion, one of the confederates started to choke and begged for help.
80% of the leaders helped; 33% of assistants helped.
Describe Regan et al.’s study regrading feelings of guilt (1972).
40 women in a shopping center were recruited. Each pps was asked by a male confederate to take his picture for a project. The camera would not work, and the experimenter either implied that the pps had broken the camera (guilt condition) or said that the malfunction was not her fault (control condition).
Soon after, a female experimenter crossed the pps’ path carrying a broken grocery bag from which items fell.
55% of pps in the guilty condition helped picking up the items; but just 15% of the pps in the control condition.
People are more likely to help when they feel competent- when they believe they have the skills and knowledge that the situation necessitates.
Name 2 studies.
1) Schwartz & David (1976) found that people who were told they were ‘good at handling rats’ were more likely to help recapture a ‘dangerous’ lab rat.
2) Shotland & Heinold (1985) found that people with first-aid training were more likely to help a stranger who was bleeding , than those without first-aid training.
What is Darwin’s view on evolutionary factors for helping?
Gene-based view on natural selection:
We don’t act to ensure our own survival per se, rather we act to ensure the survival and transmission of our genes.
We are more likely to help those who share more of our genes.
What did Burnstein et al. find out regarding evolutionary factors in helping?
People asked how likely they would be to help in different relations, in various situations (1-4 scale).
Related by:
- 1/2 of their genes (e.g. sibling)
- 1/4 of their genes (e.g. half-sibling)
- 1/8 of their genes (e.g. first cousin)
Situations:
- healthy person in everyday situation
- sick person in everyday situation
- healthy person in life-or-death situation
- sick person in life-or-death situation
People were more willing to help close kin.
What did Fitzgerald et al. (2009) find out regarding evolutionary factors in helping?
Pps were asked how willing they were to help a friend, half-sibling or sibling.
There were 3 levels of helping behaviour:
- low risk: e.g. picking up items up from a store
- medium risk: e.g. loaning them $10k
- high risk: e.g. trying to rescue them from a burning house
Effects if relatedness seen only for medium- and high- risk situations.
Describe the study of Levine et al. (2005) regarding influence of group membership.
Uk students who were Man Utd Fans were recruited.
First, pps completed questionnaire about support for the club. They were told to walk ti ither building for second part of the study.
En route, the pps encountered a jogger (confederate) who fell and appeared to twist their ankle. Jogger was either wearing a Man Utd shirt, a neutral shirt, or the shirt of the rival Liverpool.
90% helped the ingroup member;
30% helped the neutral person;
28% helped the outgroup member.
What did Hendren and Blank (2009)
find out regarding implicit bias and helping?
Confederates approached shoppers at UK car park and were asked: ‘Excuse me, can you help me please… I am short in change and need 10p to pay the parking charge… Could you check whether you have a 10p piece I could have? ‘
Confederates were either wearing a plain black t-shirt, or a t-shirt with ‘Gay Pride’ on the front.
A greater proportion of people helped the ones with plain t-shirt (74%) than when they wore the ‘Gay Pride’ t-shirt (54%).
What did Mullen & Skitka (2009) find out regarding the influence of culture on helping?
Americans and Ukrainians were asked which individuals should receive organ transplant.
Pps were given information about how personally responsible individuals were for their illness and how much they contributed to society.
- pps from both countries were more likely to favour patients who were not responsible for their illness and who contributed to society.
- American’s decision were influenced more by degree of personal responsibility.
- Ukrainian’s decision were influenced more by patient’s contribution to society.
What is Emphathy?
Emphathy is the vicarious experience of another’s emotional state.
Individual differences in emphathy likely account for much of the variability in helping behaviour.
The vicarious experience of someone’s suffering (empathy) makes us feel bad.
If we choose to help, we can reduce the bad feelings.
Helping others is often associated with a potential cost (e.g. embarrassment, financial cost, risk of physical harm).
Bystander calculus: the cost-benefit analysis of helping. Where the cost of not acting > cost of acting, then we choose to help.
Singer et al. (2004):
Common brain regions respond when we experience an electric shock ourselves, and when we view a stimulus that indicates that a loved-one is being shocked.
What happens when we feel emphathy?
The amygdala responds during the experience and recognition of fear.
The anterior insula responds during the experience and recognition of disgust (Calder & Young, 2001)
Describe study of Stocks et al. (2009) .
Pps were told about a fellow student (Katie) whose parents and sister had recently been killed in an accident, leaving, leaving her to care for her younger siblings.
At the end of the study pps were given opportunity to help Katie (e.g. lifts, babysitting).
Emphathy manipulation:
Students were told to remain as objective as possible (low empathy condition) or to imagine how they would feel in her position (high empathy condition).
Memory manipulation: pps were told that they would subsequently be trained to remember or forget what they had learned about Katie.
Low empathy condition:
8% of pps who were told to forget helped; 42% of pps who were told to remember helped.
High empathy condition:
68% of pps who were told to forgey helped; 58% of pps who were told to remember helped.
What did Henderson et al. (2012) find out regarding role models and helping?
US students read about a group of students from Peking University in Beijing, China who sent their free-time raising money for disadvantaged children.
The children were said to be in Beijing (low distance condition), or in Istanbul (high distance condition).
After reading this information the US students had they opportunity to support a charitable cause in the US, either by buying a t-shirt (study 1) or making a donation (study 2).
14% in small distance condition and 28% in large distance condition bought the t-shirt.
The mean donation in the small distance condition was 2.9 and in the long distance condition it was 4.6.
What did Rushton & Teachman (1978) study regarding positive feedback and helping ?
Boys (8-11 years) watched an experimenter play an electronic bowling game to win tokens. They saw the adult donate some of his tokens to ‘poor little Bobby’ who had ‘no mummy or daddy to look after him’. The plight of Bobby was described on a poster next to the arcade game, together with a donation bowl.
When the children played the game, the vast majority spontaneously donated some of their tokens to Bobby. Where observed, this behaviour was either praised or discouraged.
The children were then left alone to play the game a second time, while the experimenter went to ‘finsih some work’ (immediate test) and again after two weeks (re-test).
On both occasions, the children won 32 tokens.
Immediate test:
7.3 tokens donated by encoraged pps;
4 tokens baseline donation;
1.8 tokens donated by discouraged pps.
Re-test:
5 tokens donated by encouraged pps;
2.2 tokens baseline donation;
1.7 tokens donated by discouraged pps.
What did Costa & McCrae (1992) and Carprara and colleagues (2012) find out about personality and helping?
Pps completed personality questionnaire and a pro-social scale.
A strong correlation was seen between agreeableness and self-reported pro-sociality).
Agreeable personality traits are: Courteous, good-natured, empathic, caring.
Some cultures may have norms that encourage helping behaviour.
What is a social responsibility norm and a reciprocity norm?
Social responsibility norm:
We should help those in need because it is the right thing to do (i.e. irrespective of future exchanges).
Reciprocity norm:
We should help those who help us. Helping others now may secure help in the future.
What is altruism?
A special form of helping behaviour, sometimes costly, that shows concern for fellow human beings and is performed without expectation of personal gain.
What is evolutionary social psychology?
An extension of evolutionary psychology that views complex social behaviour as adaptive, helping the individual, kin and the species as a whole to survive.
How have Stevens, Cushman & Hauser (2005) distinguished two reliable explanations of cooperative behaviour in animals and humans?
- mutualism: cooperative behaviour benefits the cooperator as well as others; a defector will do worse than a cooperator.
- kin selection: those who cooperate are biased towards blood relatives because it helps propagate their own genes; a lack of direct benefit to the cooperator indicates altruism.
