1. AREA OF STUDY 1: INTERPERSONAL & GROUP BEHAVIOUR
UNIT 2: SELF AND OTHERS
AREA OF STUDY 1:
INTERPERSONAL & GROUP BEHAVIOUR

2. PRO-SOCIAL AND ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR
POSITIVE BEHAVIOUR =
PRO-SOCIAL
NEGATIVE BEHAVIOUR
ANTI-SOCIAL
PRO-SOCIAL AND ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR

3. PRO-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR PRO-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR is all about the INTENTION
of the behaviour, not the actual outcome
If I mean to do well, then I am engaging in pro-social behaviour
PRO-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR

4. LEARNING ACTIVITY 10.2 (pg.418)
HOMEWORK

5. FACTORS INFLUENCING PRO-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR (Latane & Darley 1968)
1. Situational Factors
- Noticing the situation
- Interpreting the situation
- Taking responsibility for helping
2. Social Norms
- Reciprocity Norm
- Social Responsibility Norm
3. Personal Factors
- Empathy
- Mood
- Competence
PRO-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR

6. FACTORS INFLUENCING PRO-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR
SITUATIONAL FACTORS
NOTICING THE SITUATION
Research findings indicate that individuals on their own are quicker to notice something ‘different’ or unusual then when they are in a group
This is just the first step though…
FACTORS INFLUENCING PRO-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR

7. FACTORS INFLUENCING PRO-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR
SITUATIONAL FACTORS
INTERPRETING THE SITUATION
Situation less ambiguous = more likely to help
Situation more ambiguous = less likely to help
Leonard Bickman (1971)
“Woman In Cubicle”
CONDITION 1
CONDITION 2
CONDITION 3
ACCIDENT TYPE
Certain emergency
Certain non-emergency
Uncertainty
RESULT
Help more frequently
Help less frequently
FACTORS INFLUENCING PRO-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR

8. FACTORS INFLUENCING PRO-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR
SITUATIONAL FACTORS
INTERPRETING THE SITUATION
Situation less ambiguous = more likely to help
Situation more ambiguous = less likely to help
Clark and Word (1972)
“Maintenance Worker and the Ladder”
CONDITION 1
CONDITION 2
ACCIDENT TYPE
With verbal cues
Without verbal cues
RESULT
100% of participants helped
30% of participants helped
FACTORS INFLUENCING PRO-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR

9. FACTORS INFLUENCING PRO-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR
SITUATIONAL FACTORS
TAKING RESPONSIBILITY FOR HELPING
Darley and Latane (1968) hypothesise that the presence of onlookers affected each individual’s sense of responsibility to take action
Kitty Genovese (1964) – 38 people watched, 35 minutes passed, 1 person called the police, no-one came to her aid
BYSTANDER EFFECT
FACTORS INFLUENCING PRO-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR

10. FACTORS INFLUENCING PRO-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR
SITUATIONAL FACTORS
TAKING RESPONSIBILITY FOR HELPING
Latane and Dabbs (1975)
“ Dropping in the Elevator”
175 confederates
1497 journeys
CONDITION 1
CONDITION 2
Number of people
1 person
6 people
Help given
40% of the time
20% of time
FACTORS INFLUENCING PRO-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR

11. LEARNING ACTIVITY 10.3 (pg.421)
HOMEWORK

12. FACTORS INFLUENCING PRO-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR
2. SOCIAL NORMS
‘Standards’ or ‘rules’ that govern what people should or should not do in certain social situations
RECIPROCITY NORM
An unwritten rule that we should give what we receive or expect to receive
“You scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours”
Sometimes people cannot reciprocate the help we give (eg. small children, elderly etc.) so therefore the reason that we help is due to…
FACTORS INFLUENCING PRO-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR

13. FACTORS INFLUENCING PRO-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR
2. SOCIAL NORMS
SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY NORM
We should help those who need help because it is our responsibility or duty to do so
(Meyer & Mulherin, 1980)
We are more likely to follow the social responsibility norm when people are victims of circumstance (eg. fire, burglary, flood)
If people have brought about their own misfortune, we are less likely to help, because we rationalise that they ‘deserve it’
FACTORS INFLUENCING PRO-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR

14. LEARNING ACTIVITY 10.5 (pg.424)
HOMEWORK

15. FACTORS INFLUENCING PRO-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR
3. PERSONAL FACTORS
EMPATHY
The ability to identify with and understand another person’s feelings or difficulties
Batson et al. (1997)
40 male and female participants
Half hear empathy promoting story
Half do not hear empathy
promoting story
FACTORS INFLUENCING PRO-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR

16. FACTORS INFLUENCING PRO-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR
3. PERSONAL FACTORS
EMPATHY
The ability to identify with and understand another person’s feelings or difficulties
Batson et al. (1981)
44 female participants
Observe a female confederate receiving electric shocks
Female confederate tells experimenter and participant that shocks are painful and she suffered as a child
Experimenter then invites participant to change places with the confederate
HOW MANY DO?
FACTORS INFLUENCING PRO-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR

17. FACTORS INFLUENCING PRO-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR
3. PERSONAL FACTORS
EMPATHY
Batson et al. (1981)
GROUP 1:
are led to believe beforehand that
they have a lot in common with
confederate
GROUP 2:
they are quite different from the
FACTORS INFLUENCING PRO-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR

18. FACTORS INFLUENCING PRO-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR
3. PERSONAL FACTORS
MOOD
People are more likely to help when they feel good
Isen, Clarke & Schwartz (1976)
“Pass On My Phone Message”
CONDITION 1
CONDITION 2
ACTION
Told they would receive a free gift
Not told they would receive a free gift
RESULT
95% were prepared to pass on phone message
10% were prepared to pass on phone message
FACTORS INFLUENCING PRO-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR

19. FACTORS INFLUENCING PRO-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR
3. PERSONAL FACTORS
MOOD
People are more likely to help when they feel good
Thompson, Cowan & Rosenhan (1980)
“Your Friend Has Cancer”
Participants told to imagine their friend has cancer
CONDITION 1
CONDITION 2
ACTION
Focus on how you are feeling
Focus on how your friend is feeling
RESULT AS ANONYMOUS HELPER
25% of participants volunteered to help
83% of participants volunteered to help
FACTORS INFLUENCING PRO-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR

20. FACTORS INFLUENCING PRO-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR
3. PERSONAL FACTORS
COMPETENCE
People with skills or training that are relevant to a situation in which help is required are more likely to help
Baron (1972)
Found that when the bystander knew they could relieve a person’s suffering, the greater the pain, the more quickly they responded
When the bystander believed they could not relieve a person’s suffering, the greater the pain, the slower they responded
FACTORS INFLUENCING PRO-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR

21. LEARNING ACTIVITY 10.7 (pg.429)
HOMEWORK