TYPES OF HELPING 1)LONG VERSUS SHORT-TERM HELPING 2)DIRECT VERSUS INDIRECT (COSTS) 3)BEHAVIORAL, EMOTIONAL, OR INFORMATIONAL EXAMPLES: A)SHORT-TERM, DIRECT, BEHAVIORAL, DANGER PRESENT Prevent other’s drowning Stopping a shoplifter B)SHORT-TERM, INDIRECT, BEHAVIORAL Call 911 C)DIRECT RESPONSE WITHOUT DANGER Giving up seats on a bus Picking up dropped goods

Examples cont… D) RESPONSE TO A DIRECT REQUEST Give some spare change Let someone use your phone Give directions E) RETURNING LOST ARTICLES Letters Wallet Money F) LONG-TERM HELPING Listen to a friend in need Letting an elderly parent live with you Reading to a child Working on a help/hot line Care for someone with a terminal disease DONATIONS Money, clothes, food, blood, organs, time

Latane and Darley’s model of Emergency Intervention (1970) What are the cognitive steps an individual must progress through before offering help in and emergency? 1. Notice the emergency HELP 2. Define the emergency 3. Take responsibility 4. Decide on a way to help 5. Implement a chosen way to help Don’t Help Don’t Help Don’t Help Don’t Help Yes No

Time from Start of Smoke Infusion (minutes) Cumulative Proportion Reporting Smoke (%) Alone Three Naïve Subjects Two Passive Subjects “Pluralistic Ignorance” – Social Comparison

Cumulative Percentages of Subjects Responding in Different Conditions to Smoke Pouring into the Room What effect does the presence of other people have on our response to a possible emergency??? In this study by Latane and Darley (1970) subjects sat in a room either alone with two other subjects, or with two passive confederates. As they completed questionnaires, smoke began pouring into the room through an air vent. The researchers measured how quickly subjects sought help or reported the emergency. *** As the previous graph shows, single subjects were much more likely to seek help, and they responded to the possible emergency more quickly.

Cumulative Proportion Helping (%) Time from Beginning of Fit (Seconds) Subject & Victim Subject, Victim & Stranger Subject, Victim & 4 Strangers “Diffusion of Responsibility” – Others Can Help

Cumulative Percentages of Subjects Responding to an Epileptic Fit Under Different Conditions Does the bystander effect occur in an unambiguous emergency involving a suffering human victim? Latane and Daley (1970) had subjects communicate via a microphone with another student in a nearby room. Subjects believed there were no, one, or four other people listening in on the conversation. Partway through the experiment, the other student seemed to experience an epileptic seizure. The researchers observed how quickly subjects helped the victim ***As the previous graph shows, subjects were more likely to help the victim of the seizure when they were the only person participating in the conversation. All subjects who believed that they were alone when they heard the seizure aided the victim within three minutes; however, not all subjects in the other two situations aided the victims.

Time Elapsed Before Intervention (Seconds) Nonarousal Placebo Arousal Placebo Unambiguous Emergency (with screams) Ambiguous emergency (without screams)

Misattribution of arousal and speed of helping in ambiguous or unambiguous emergencies How do attributions of arousal affect our behavior in emergency situations? In Gaertner and Dovidio’s (1997) experiement, subjects sat in a room and heard what sounded like a stack of chairs falling on a woman in the next room. Sometimes the emergency was unambiguous (the woman screamed), and sometimes it was ambiguous (no scream). Subjects had earlier taken a pill (a placebo); some were told that it might increase their heart rate, and some were not. Gaertner and Dovidio measured how quickly subjects responded to the possible emergency in the next room. ***As the previous graph shows, subjects responded more slowly to the ambiguous emergency. Furthermore, subjects exposed to the ambiguous emergency responded even less quickly when they could misattribute their arousal to the pill.