prosocial behaviour Flashcards
(22 cards)
prosocial behaviour; kitty example
38 people, 32 minutes
- Kitty was murdered in NYC.
- Off from work, going home, someone attacked her on her way home.
- The man stabbed her multiple times, she screamed, but no one came out.
- 38 people witness this event in some shape or form.
- Original story; no one called the cops
Why did this happen?
- Initial reaction→ Nasty New Yorkers →Cold and callous (only care about themselves)
Remind you of anything we’ve studied?
- INTERNAL ATTRIBUTION, FUNDAMENTAL ATTRIBUTION ERROR
- Making an internal attribution about new yorkers to understand why this happened.
- Lesson of social psychology
- Is the situation shaping behaviour?
POWER OF THE SITUATION.
- Social psych. Researchers wanted to know if there was a power of the situation playing in this event.
what is the intervention tree to assistance
BYSTANDER INTERVENTION TREE: People make several decisions before helping someone in an emergency (Darley & Latane, 1970).
- When people see an emergency event, they make a series of decisions before offering help.
- Know that at each stage, people are faced with a decision or challenge where they veer off and do not provide help.
- Situation interferes at several steps →decreased helping
intervention tree to assistance
1. notice event (hurry or distracted –> less helping
2. interpret emergency (pluralistic ignorance)
3. assume responsibility (diffusion of responsibility)
4. know how to help (lack of knowledge or skill)
5. decide to help (weigh costs) (danger or embarrassment)
Bystander Interventiom: noticing need for help
intervention tree to assistance
1. Hurry→ less likely to notice→, less likely to help
- Good Samaritan Study (Darley & Batson, 1973)
- Seminary students (discuss the parable of Good Samaritan- studying to become priests)
- Story; a person who was seen as not such a good person helped someone randomly when other individuals (known as good people) did not.
in the research
- Were told they were gonna give a speech on the good samaritan parable.
- Hurry manipulation
- Low condition: “It’ll be a few minutes before they’re ready for you, but you might as well head on over.”
- Med condition: The assistant is ready for you, so please go right over.”
- High condition: “They were expecting you a few minutes ago… The assistant should be waiting for you, so you’d better hurry.”
- Along the way of going to the lecture hall, they placed a confederate on the sidewalk in need of help.
- Wanted to see if people who were in a hurry would stop and help?
- If people were in low hurry condition; 60-70% helped
- Med; 40-50% helped
- High; 10%. helped
after we notice an event… interpret emergency; intervention to assistance tree
Still need to interpret the event as an emergency.
- Confusing when others are around →take cues from them
- Calm or panic!
**PLURALISTIC IGNORANCE: ** a phenomenon where bystanders assume nothing is wrong because everyone else looks unconcerned.
- A girl crying on a sidewalk didn’t ask if she was okay because other people didn’t care.
- In a classroom, students don’t ask because no one else is asking a question.
what was latane & darley (1970) experiment where they demontrated pluralistic ignorance
Classic experiment
- Ps recruited for a study on “problems of urban life.”
- Come in, and fill out the questionnaire
- While working, smoke fills the room. (first its not too bad but gradually smoke fills the room)
How do you react?
- Alone
- With two other people (3-person group)
- 75% sought help when they were alone.
- 38% did when with other confederates who didn’t care.
- Why?
Why is this SO odd/neat/important/cool
- 1 person -75% get help →3 people should get help 98% of the time
Why did this happen?
- Ps not sure the smoke was an emergency
- Looked to others for cues→Others were not worried, so they didn’t panic (INFORMATIONAL SL)
- Everyone does the same → inaction
- when fire alarm goes off in classrooms (take cues from one another)
what is the bystander effect
Latane and Darley: More people →
- Lower % help when more people are around and at a longer delay
Pluralistic Ignorance
- When you can see others’ responses:
- People conform to what they wrongly believe is others’ unconcerned reaction when everyone’s copying each other.
- rahel demonstration before class; maybe people didn’t help her because they thought since no one else seems concerened they should just ignore it.
intervention tree to assistance; assume responsibility
- assume responsibility
- this time it isn;t pluralistic ignorance but diffusion of responsibility that takes place.
- DIFFUSION OF RESPONSIBILITY: Each bystander’s sense of responsibility to help drops as the number of bystanders increases.
- Only witness →feel a responsibility to help
- A Group of witnesses → assume others will do it
- I.e., witness a crash after class, and you’re the only one who witnessed it, so you call the cops and help, but if a lot of other cars are around, then you may think others will help, so you don’t need to.
what was the latane & darley (1968) study that demonstrated diffusion of responsibility?
Latane & Darley (1968) - study on student life
- Ps come in and are seated alone in a cubicle
- Discussing student life with
- 1 or 3 or 5 other people via an intercom system
- One p has a seizure during a conversation (was tlaking aout how they struggle in life because they have epilipsy)
- How do people react? Help??
- did they check on this person who was having a seizure alone in a cubicle?
- did them being in a group influence their decision?
- 80% of people who were alone they helped
- when they thought 2 other people heard the incident, it dropped to 60% who helped
- when they thought 4 other people heard the incident helping rates dropped 30%.
- more people –> less help; diffusion of responisbility
The Bystander Effect
- Latane and Darley: More people → Lower % help →Longer delay
- Diffusion of responsibility
- When we can’t see others’ responses (especially)
- when its ambiguous; we assume someone else is helping so you don’t have to (when we cant see others reaction, we assume someone is helping)
- Someone else will take care of it.
kitty example; diffusion of responisbility
Diffusion of responsibility; Kathy murdered NYC.
- Samuel & Marjorie Koshkin saw an attack from a window
- Mr. Koshkin wanted to call the police
- Mrs. Koshkin, “I didn’t let him. I told him there must have been 30 calls already.”
bystander effect; decision tree
→ Notice
- Hurry or distracted, don’t notice, don’t help
→ Interpret as emergency
- More bystanders → pluralistic ignorance
- Ambiguity of situation
→ Assume responsibility
- More bystanders → diffusion of responsibility
→ Know what to do
- Expertise
- I.e., not giving CPR because you’re not certified.
→ Decide to help (e.g., weigh costs)
- Fear of embarrassment
- I.e., know CPR but are afraid to do it wrong
- Seeing someone on train tracks who is about to get hit but scared to help because you might get injured too if you jump in and help.
example of bystander effect; video of person needing help in UK
Why did people not help?
See someone in need?
- No one else helping, scared to help, running late, don’t care
- Many on way to work hurry
Interpret as an emergency?
- Pluralistic ignorance; no one else cares or has done anything about it.
Diffusion of responsibility
- Busy station, lots of people
- Know how to help?
- Weigh costs?
- “Crackhead” in dirty clothing, don’t want to touch them
Status of a person in need, clean, and well off in a suit.
Safety of the person helping.
who helps more? men or women
For years, assumed that men helped more
Why?
- Studied heroic helping
- Studies by men
- New look- depends on the type of help.
- Men; More likely to help in heroic situations, E.g., save a neighbour from a burning house.
- Women; More likely to help in nurturing ways, E.g., by volunteering time to those in need.
who recieves more help; men or women?
- Women!!
- Especially when dressed femininely
- SES
- SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS: Someone’s economic and social position, typically based on education, income, and occupation.
- Who is more generous? A person of high or low SES?
- Low SES more likely to help
evidence for ses helping
Study 1 (Correlational Evidence)
Methods:
- 124 undergrads played a dictator game (given money and decide how much money they will give to strangers)
- One week before, they completed a demographic survey incl., a measure of SES (captured their SES)
Results:
- Low SES students gave more than High SES students in a dictator game
study 2 (Experimental Evidence)
Methods:
- 81 students were asked to look at an image of 10 step ladder that represents American society
- Randomly assigned to
- High SES; led them to feel they were of high status.
- low ses
- high ses manipulation; compare yourself to bottom level ladder; used words like compare yourself to people with least amount of money, education etc.
- low ses manipulation; used words like compare yourself with those that have the most amount of money, most education, etc.
After, people were asked to indicate what % of their income they should devote to various expenses, such as:
Food, Luxury items, Recreation, Clothing, gifts, Bills, Education
- Charitable donations (key DV)
Results;
- Low SES said they should give a higher % of earnings (4.65%) than high SES (2.95%)
- But even still, context matters….
- * Follow up work by Cote, House & Willer (2015).
Follow up work by Cote, House & Willer (2015) of ses study
- raised questions and nuance of ses study
- in some contexts, people in lower ses give porpotionally more than high ses but it depends on the context.
- original work (ses study) was conducted in california (state of highest levels of inequality in the world)
- used real world examples data; pauls original work only holds in places of high levels of inequality.
- higher income folks do demonstrate lower levels of genorosity in states with high levels of inequality.
- but don’t see these differences in places with fairly equal levels of ses (alaska for exmaple shows same levels of genorosity)
positive mood study; Usen & Levin (1972)
Positive Mood
Isen & Levin (1972)
- “Feel good, do good” effect
Experiment 1:
- 52 males studying at the library
- research assistance walked past student, either giving cookies or just walking by.
- a few minutes later, someone came and asked for help
- IV: Provide cookies (PA) vs. Walk by (control)
- DV: Willingness to help with data collection on a task that was either helpful or distracting to others
Results
- People who received cookies were willing to help more on tasks that others found helpful but not those others found distracting.
Limitations
- Copying helpful model? Those who receive cookies are reminded of the norm to help
- Solicitation but not action: Agree to help, but don’t actually do it
experiment 2
- either a dime in the payphoen or not, those who found dime helped more than those who did not.
Design
- IV: Dime in payphone (or not)
- Finding a dime boost mood
- DV: Help the confederate who drops papers?
Results
- 84% found dimes helped
- 4% did NOT find dime helped
- Good mood increased helping behaviour!
does swb predict larger acts of assistance?
Does SWB (subjectvie well-being) predict larger acts of assistance? (Brethel-Haurwitz et al., 2014)
- Examine extraordinary altruism = live kidney donation to a stranger
- IV: SWB assessed by Gallup
- DV: Donation rates/state from United Network of Organ Sharing
- Covariates: m/f sex ratio, prop of pop with a degree, ethnicity, median income, gini (measure of inequality), health, religiosity, individualism-collectivism
- States in which people report greater well-being are those that also provide more altruistic kidney donations per capita.
- They are likely to do kind things when they’re doing well.
- we should conisider well-being of citizens as it shows people are more liekly to do kind things when they’re well.
increasing helping; value of helpful models?
Helpful model → increased helping
Helping on the highway study
- People driving on the highway the researcher stationed someone on the highway who needed help.
- Did helping rates differ on account of what people saw beforehand
- Yes, when something was modelled beforehand, people were more likely to help.
- observing a positive model can increase your chances of helping.
increasing help; value of education
Method (Beaman et al., 1978)
- students were Randomly assigned to a Lesson topic (one lesson on bystander intervention and another unrelated topic)
- Bystander intervention
- Unrelated topic
- Two weeks later: “separate study.”
- Student approached someone lying on the floor
- stationed a Confederate that acted unconcerned
Results
- Bystander Lesson → More likely to help (more aware of the effect)
- They know they should overcome this diffusion of responsibility.
- Were more aware of the effect.
why help? what are the benefits?
perceptions of helpers
People like helpers
- Sensitivity to others’ actions begins early in life. Even young kids (6- and 10- mo. old) pay attention ….
- And prefer helpers (Hamlin, Wynn, & Bloom, 2007)
- Kids, like adults, prefer helpers
- a dog gets his ball stolen by another dog, whereas another dog helps the dog. the kids reached for the puppets that wer helpers and not the stealers.
- In several studies, young, pre-verbal infants preferred helpers > to hinderers
- helpers are likable.
aknins research; why people help
Why help?
- A growing body of research suggests that helping others leads to happiness
- Lots of correlational evidence linking helping & happiness
Dunn, Aknin, & Norton (2008)
Windfall
- $5
- $20
Spending instructions
- Personal: bill, expense, or gift for self
- Prosocial: gift for someone else or charitable donation
- Pre & Post Happiness
- how happy people were feeling later.
results
- personal; not as happy as prosocial.
- prosocial; happier than personal
fundamental feature of prosocial behaviour
Fundamental feature
- Human adults, rich and poor nations around the world, experience happiness from sharing resources with others.
- When do humans pair good deeds with good feelings?
Toddler study
- 20 toddlers (22-24months) came into the lab with guardians and:
a. Meet puppet (touch, pet, interact)
b. Child given 8 treats
c. Observe prosocial act; child watches give a treat to puppet*
d. Non-costly prosocial act:
e. child gives one of the E’s treats to
- kids smiled more when they gave away treats than when they recieved treats.
- giving own treat led to higher hapiness than recieving treat.
- giving own treat led to higher hapiness than finding an identical one not for them (researchers bowl). (giving found treat)
Why?
- The emotional rewards of generous spending have been replicated among….
- young children under 2 years
- in rich and poor countries among ex-offenders and gang-involved youth
- in large, pre-registered studies
- May be a human universal!
