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

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

3. 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

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

5. 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)

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

7. The Strange case of Kitty Genovese
Latane & Darley (1964)
38 witnesses & no-one helped!
WHY the unresponsive bystander?
Diffusion of responsibility?
8/7/2018

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

9. 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

10. 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

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

12. 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

13. 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

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

15. 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?

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

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

18. Diffusion of responsibility experiment

19. The study

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

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

22. 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)

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

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

25. 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)

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

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

28. 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

29. 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

30. 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

31. 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

32. The field experiment …….
Experiment Carriage layout

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

34. The field experiment …….
The experimental conditions
IV Victims were either black or white and aged
IV Victims carried bottle & smelled of alcohol (drunk condition)
or Carried a cane (lame condition)
The models were all white aged

35. 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

36. 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

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

38. 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’

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

40. 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

41. 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

42. 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

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

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

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