2. 80.1 – Identify the times when people are the most – and least – likely to help.
Why does one individual help someone in distress, while another may ignore the person altogether? Altruism, a genuine concern for the safety and well-being of another, and what propels a person to commit altruistic acts, has been an area of much interest for social psychologists.

3. 80.1 – Identify the times when people are the most – and least – likely to help.

4. 80.1 – Identify the times when people are the most – and least – likely to help.

5. 80.1 – Identify the times when people are the most – and least – likely to help.
Helping Behavior
Why would a person assist someone else? One way to explain altruistic behavior is through the arousal cost-reward theory, weighting several options in order to reduce the unpleasant feeling associated with seeing a person in distress. According to this theory, if person A sees person B in distress, person A will begin to feel anxious or unpleasant and begin weighing the costs of action against those of inaction. If person A feels that the cost associated with helping person B is relatively low, but the cost of not helping person B is also low, person A is more likely to help the person in distress. However, if the cost associated with helping person B is high, while the cost of not helping person B is low, person A is more likely to not help the person is distress. However, not all decisions to act are based on the arousal cost-reward theory.

6. 80.1 – Identify the times when people are the most – and least – likely to help.
Helping Behavior
The decision of whether to help sometimes comes down to whether the person feels he or she will gain some benefit in doing so. Reciprocal altruism, assisting another person with the expectation that that person will repay the deed in the future, is also known as tit- for-tat. The idea is based on the belief that if you help a person now, they will help you in your time of need – it’s sometimes summarized as “If you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours.” For example, if Tyler missed some meetings of his psychology class, he might ask Melanie if he could borrow her notes to look over prior to a test. If Melanie agreed on the condition that Tyler would let her do the same later if necessary, she would be likely to let Tyler borrow her notes. However, if Tyler didn’t let Melanie borrow his notes to study for the next test, Melanie would be less likely to help Tyler in the future.

7. 80.1 – Identify the times when people are the most – and least – likely to help.
Non-Helping Behavior
Seeing a person in distress doesn’t always produce a helping reaction in people. In some instances, the cost of getting involved it too high. An example of non-helping behavior is known as the bystander effect (bystander apathy), when the presence of others inhibits the helping behavior of an individual. The bystander effect was first tested by Bibb Latane and John Darley in response to the lack of bystander intervention in the murder of Kitty Genovese. The Genovese murder attracted national interest when it was learned that 38 people witnessed it, yet not one of them called for help. According to Latane and Darley, the reason was simple: the larger the crowd, the less likely a person is to intervene, mainly due to the fact that the person believed that others had already called for help. In the Genovese murder, onlookers experienced what is known as diffusion of responsibility, not intervening in the presence of others because the person thinks that others are going to intervene in the situation. In this kind of situation, people feel they cannot personally be held responsible because there are others around.

8. 80.1 – Identify the times when people are the most – and least – likely to help.
Non-Helping Behavior
Latane and Darley conducted a series of experiments to demonstrate the bystander effect and diffusion of responsibility. In those experiments, subjects were put in separate rooms and instructed to listen to the words being presented through headphones. While in there individual rooms, the experimenters had a confederate cry for help. To the surprise of the researchers, few subjects exited the rooms and came to the aid of the person in apparent need of help. According to the researchers, each individual felt that another person would intervene and provide help, and therefore did not respond. In another experiment, Latane and Darley conducted, participants were asked to sit with others in a waiting room. Unbeknownst to the subjects, the others were in fact study confederates. Researchers then pumped artificial smoke into the room through the vents. The confederates were instructed to ignore the smoke and sit quietly, without reacting. When the actual subjects realized that smoke was coming from the vents, they looked around at the others in the waiting room for a response. Latane, and Darley’s explanation was that because the confederated did not react in an alarmed manner, the subjects inferred that the situation was not of dire consequence, and therefore displayed a sense of diffusion of responsibility and conformity.

9. 80.1 – Identify the times when people are the most – and least – likely to help.
Non-Helping Behavior
Some factors that contribute to the bystander effect and diffusion of responsibility are that a person might feel incompetent in front of others, may be having a bad day, is in an unfamiliar environment, doesn’t realize that the situation is a genuine emergency, or simply doesn’t want to be singled out by getting involved. To counter the bystander effect, research suggests that a person should take charge and assign roles to others. Pointing directly to a person and assigning him or her a task ensures that that person, as well as other, will help.

10. 80.2 – Discuss how social exchange theory and social norms explain helping behavior.
Norms for Helping
why do we help others?
1) Social Exchange Theory – our social behavior is an exchange process to maximize benefits and minimize costs.
2) Reciprocity Norm – an expectation that people will help those who have helped them.
3) Social-Responsibility Norm – expectation that people will help those needing their help.

11. 80.3 – Explain how social traps and mirror-image perceptions fuel social conflict.
Conflict: a perceived incompatibility of actions, goals, or ideas.
the elements of conflict are the same at all levels: nations at was, cultural groups feuding, or partners sparring within a relationship.
Social Traps: a situation in which the conflicting parties, by each rationally pursuing their self0interest rather than the good of the group, become caught in mutually destructive behavior.

12. 80.3 – Explain how social traps and mirror-image perceptions fuel social conflict.
Non-Zero Sum Game sum game

13. 80.3 – Explain how social traps and mirror-image perceptions fuel social conflict.
Enemy Perceptions
people in conflict form diabolical images of one another.
Mirror-Image Perceptions: each side can see itself as ethical and peaceful, and the other side as evil and aggressive.
Self-Fulfilling Prophecy: a belief that leads to its own fulfillment.

14. 80.4 – Discuss how we can transform feelings of prejudice, aggression, and conflict into attitudes that promote peace.
Cooperation
Superordinate Goals: shared goals that override differences among people and require their cooperation.
communication and understanding develop through talking to one another (sometimes it is mediated by a third party).

15. 80.4 – Discuss how we can transform feelings of prejudice, aggression, and conflict into attitudes that promote peace.
Communication
Graduated and Reciprocated Initiative in Tension Reduction (GRIT) – this is a strategy designed to decrease international tensions.
one side recognizes mutual interests and initiates a small conciliatory act that opens the door for reciprocation by the other party.