AS Psychology The Core studies The Social Approach 8/7/2018

Pro-social (Altruistic) behaviour Altruism has been defined as behaviour intended to help others having NO benefit to ourselves 8/7/2018

Is ALTRUISM possible? Freud & the ID? the ID operates on the pleasure principle! Can helping behaviour be motivated by our desire for pleasure? 8/7/2018

Is ALTRUISM possible? The behaviourists & reinforcement? All behaviour is reinforced (shaped) by pleasure? Can we feel pleasure when we help others?

Is ALTRUISM possible? 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 GOOD SAMARITAN The questions Why do we sometimes help others? When may we not help others? What triggered psychological research? 8/7/2018

The Strange case of Kitty Genovese Latane & Darley (1964) 38 witnesses & no-one helped! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdpdUbW8vbw WHY the unresponsive bystander? Diffusion of responsibility? 8/7/2018

The question… What conditions make it probable That we will help? or That we will look the other way? 8/7/2018

Latane and Darley (1968) Linked study Laboratory experiment Participants were asked to hold conversations with other participants through an intercom system using headphones During the discussion they heard one of the participants having an epileptic seizure Results showed that those who believed the other witnesses had heard the victim, were less likely to seek for help

Latane & Darley The 5 steps to helping behaviour 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 8/7/2018

Step 1 - Noticing the event If we do not NOTICE we will not help 8/7/2018

Step 2 - Defining the event as an emergency 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) 8/7/2018

Step 3 - Assuming personal responsibility 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 8/7/2018

Step 4 - Choose a way to help This involves making a decision and perhaps weighing up….. Costs vs Benefits of helping 8/7/2018

Step 5 - Implement the decision Am I competent to help? Is there anyone else around who may be more competent? Might I do more harm than good?

The problem with this model It explains ……. Why people DO NOT HELP NOT WHEN & WHY THEY DO

Pause for thought … When do we help others When are we less likely to help others? (helping situations)

Diffusion of responsibility experiment https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YwZjhUI81Pw

The study

When DO people HELP and WHY Piliavin Rodin & Pilavin (1968) (A Field Experiment) Good Samaritanism on the New York Subway tested ….

The cost / benefit theory That when confronted with an ‘emergency’ We balance The possible costs against the possible benefits

The possible costs of helping 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)

The possible costs for NOT HELPING We may feel ashamed (I should have helped) Something bad will ‘be our fault’ (The victim may die)

The possible rewards for helping Social approval (thanks from victim) Self- esteem (feeling good about oneself) Positive emotional response (feelings of elation and gladness)

The result of our ‘analysis’ If the rewards for helping outweigh the costs of not helping ….. we are likely to act in a pro-social manner (help)

The study ………. Piliavin Rodin & Piliavin A Field Experiment Good Samaritanism on the New York Subway

The Field Experiment ….. The method (Field Experiment) The location The New York Subway (underground train)

The Field experiment ….. 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 field experiment…... 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

The field experiment ……. What was done by whom ? Teams of 4 student experimenters (two male / two female) Male actors (victim and model) Females were observers

The field experiment ……. 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

The field experiment ……. Experiment Carriage layout

The field experiment …... This was an experiment What were the IVs (independent variables)

The field experiment ……. 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 field experiment …... 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

The field experiment……. 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

The field experiment ……. What sort of people helped….? Males more than females More same ‘race’ helpers in drunk condition

The field experiment ……. 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’

The field experiment ….. Conclusion (1) The diffusion of responsibility hypothesis not supported The more people there were the more they helped

The field experiment …. 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

The field experiment …. 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

The field experiment …. 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

The field experiment ….. Characteristics and situation of the victim may contribute to the our decision as to whether we help

The field experiment …… Was it ethical? Did it have ecological validity

Piliavin, Rodin and Piliavin … Read .. the study The topic ‘pro-social’ behaviour