HRLP - Social Responsibility

Question 1

bystanderism

Answer 1

when people do not help someone else in need

Question 2

bystander effect

Answer 2

phenonmenon where individuals do not help in an emergency situation as there are other present

Question 3

diffusion of responsibility

Answer 3

when there are numerous witnesses to an incident, individuals will reason that others will act first

Question 4

informational social influence

Answer 4

when unsure how to react we look at others for info

Question 5

plurastic ignorance

Answer 5

tendency to rely on reaction of others = no one reacts, i will not react

Question 6

sensory overload

Answer 6

humans have limited cognitive energy for sensory inputs –> will block info that is not personally relevant

(people in crowded cities less likely to help)

Question 7

STUDIES FOR BYSTANDERISM

Answer 7

Darely & Latane
Pilivian et al

Question 8

Diffusion of responsibility study

Answer 8

Darely & Latane

Question 9

Darely & Latane summary

Answer 9

aim: investigate if presence of others decreases likelihood of helping

procedure: lab experiment, participants in room with:
a. participant + victim (2grp)
b. participant + victim + confederate (3grp)
c. participant + victim + 4 confederate (6grp)
believed they were communicating w/ other participants , actually listening to prerecorded clip
victim pretended to have seizure, measured time taken to respond

results: more bystanders, less likely to help even if stressed

conclusion: DIFFUSION OF RESPONSIBILITY –> larger group, believed someone else will help

Question 10

darely & latane evaluation

Answer 10

controlled setting, isolation of effect of bystander presence, high internal validity

replicable , high reliability

artificial setting

psychological stress

small sample

Question 11

Cost Reward Model Study

Answer 11

Pilivian et al

Question 12

Pilivian et al Summary

Answer 12

aim: investigate situational factors like victim type & group size on helping behvior in emergency

procedure: opportunity sample
drunk man vs ill man, dropped for 70 sec, stayed down till helped, model helper would intervene, recorded frequency of help, sex of helper, and verbal comments

Results:
78% received spontaneous help,
60% received 1+ helpers
ill victim helped more than drunk victim
most helpers were male
large group = faster respond time
more verbal comments when drunk

conclusion: helping behavior influenced by cost and benefit, not diffusion of responsibility
high cost = less help

Question 13

Pilivian et al Evaluation

Answer 13

real world setting
high generalizability
ecological validity
lack of informed consent
oversimplification
misled into fake emergency
lack of debrief

Question 14

arousal - cost model

Answer 14

helping behavior is motivated by desire to reduce negative emotions rather than empathy (egoistic)

Question 15

prosocial behavior

Answer 15

voluntary actions done with the aim of benefitting without repayment

Question 16

bio factors of prosocial behavior

Answer 16

kinship
evolution
neurobiological basis

Question 17

cog factors of prosocial behavior

Answer 17

empathy altruism model
cost reward model
SCT

Question 18

socio factors of prosocial behavior

Answer 18

cultural norms
social responsibility
reciprocity norm

Question 19

kinship def

Answer 19

relative w shared genes

Question 20

evolutionary perspective to prosocial behavior

Answer 20

evolved to enhance survival and reproductive success

Question 21

bio studies of prosocial behavior

Answer 21

madsen
hutcherson 2008

Question 22

madsen (bio prosocial) summary

Answer 22

aim: effect of kin selection on altruism

procedure: lab experiemnt, repeated measures, British & Zulu participants
asked to write list of family members, hold a painful physical position, every 20 sec maintained, money was donated or food hamper to the specific fam member, (themselves, parent, grandparent, cousin, local charity)

result: closer genetic connection = more likely to hold position

conclusion: experimental universal evidence for kin selection theory –> more altruistic w ppl closer to u

Question 23

madsen bio prosocial eval

Answer 23

controlled for extraneous variables (results based on genetic relation not everyday interactions)

universal evidence

exposed to physical discomfort but could withdraw at anytime

does not address other factors

Question 24

hutcherson et al bio prosocial

Answer 24

aim: if individuals can self generate feelings of social connection & positivity through loving-kindness meditation

procedure:
random allocation to 2 grp,
1. loving-kindness meditation (7min guided meditation)
or
2. neutral imagery induction (guided neutral imagery induction)
evaluate 6 pics (themselves, close person, 3 neutral strangers, nonsocial object) pic shown 18 times random order, followed by neg or pos word
had to quickly categorize word as either pos or neg, faster reaction to words = more positive implicit bias, reated how connected they felt out of 7pts)

results: meditation showed increase in social connection & positivity implicitly & explicitly = meditation can enhance empathy

conclusion: meditation has effect on prosocial behavior & empathy

Question 25

hutcherson et al evaluation

Answer 25

real worl application highlights role of social learning on behavioral changes social media amplifies influence of social proof individual differences influence responsiveness prosocial norms may be misrepresented using social pressure to shape behavior may be unethical

Question 26

cog studies of prosocial behavior

Answer 26

bechara (2000) - risky vs safe deck pilivian et al - cost reward model

Question 27

socio studies of prosocial behavior

Answer 27

levine et al pilivian et al

Question 28

levine et al study summary

Answer 28

aim: investigae helping behavior in diff cities procedure: testing response to help with dropped pen hurt leg (cant pick up magazine) blind person crossing street observers recorded whether help was offered results: Highest helping: Rio de Janeiro, San José Lowest helping: Kuala Lumpur, New York Helping rates varied significantly across cultures. Slower-paced, collectivist cultures were more helpful. conclusion: helping behavior is influenced by cultural values, economic development, and pace of life

Question 29

levine et al eval

Answer 29

cross-cultural → high generalizability standardized tasks → good reliability urban-only sample → not generalizable to rural areas uncontrolled variables (e.g., time of day, weather) → affect validity

Question 30

critical thinking; prosocial behavior strengths

Answer 30

multiple perspectives evolutionary & psych pov practical application IRL

Question 31

critical thinking; prosocial behavior limitations

Answer 31

role of genuine altruism debated (all have ego behind it) cultural differences - generalizability debatable lab experiments lack real world application self reported data - lacks objectivity kin selection - does not explain altruism of non relatives

Question 32

promoting prosocial behavior

Answer 32

strategies aimed at encouraging individuals to engage in behaviors that benefit others & society

Question 33

how to promote prosocial behavior

Answer 33

when ppl see helping is common or expected = more likely to do it

Question 34

consensus (social proof)

Answer 34

people look to others (social information) if many ppl behave a certain way, others will follow

Question 35

normative social influence

Answer 35

humans have strong desire to belong to group & align w members