Outline f05 N.helping (1)

8/13/2019 Outline f05 N.helping (1)

1/65

Why Do People Help?

ProsocialBehavior


2/65

Basic Motives Underlying Prosocial

Behavior

Prosocial behavioris any act

performed with the goal of benefiting

another person, regardless of motive.


3/65


Behavior

Alt ru ismis the desire to help another

person even if it involves a cost to the

helper.


4/65

Defining Prosocial Behavior

Prosocial

Behavior

Benevolence

PureAltruism

From Sim son 2004


5/65

Type of

Behavior


Prosocial

Behavior

Benevolence

Pure

Altruism

Definition Example

From Simpson, 2004


6/65

Type of

Behavior


Prosocial

Behavior

Benevolence

Pure

Altruism

Definition Example

Anyaction

intended tobenefitanother

(regardless

of motive)

Giving a

large tip toa waiter toimpress

your boss

From Simpson, 2004


7/65

Type of

Behavior


Prosocial

Behavior

Benevolence

Pure

Altruism

Definition Example

Benefitsanotherintentionally

for no

externalreward

Sending$20 to acharity to

make

yourselffeel good

From Simpson, 2004


8/65

Type of

Behavior


Prosocial

Behavior

Benevolence

Pure

Altruism

Definition Example

Benefitsanother

intentionally

for noexternal orinternalreward

Jumpingon a

railroadtrack to

help astrangerwho has

fallenFrom Sim son 2004


9/65


Behavior

A basic question that people have

asked is whether people are willing to

help when there is nothing to gain, or if

they only help when there is somebenefit for them.


10/65

Theories of Prosocial Behavior

Evolutionary

Social exchange

Empathy-altruism


11/65


Behavior

Evolutionary Psychology: Instincts andGenes

Evolutionary Psychologyis the attempt to

explain social behavior in terms of genetic

factors that evolved over time, according tothe principles of natural selection.


12/65


Behavior


Darwin recognized that altruistic behavior

posed a problem for his theory: if an

organism acts altruistically, it maydecrease its own reproductive fitness.


13/65


Behavior


The idea of kin select ionis the idea that

behaviors that help a genetic relative are

favored by natural selection.[Suggests can pass on genes by helping

genetic relatives have children or by

helping their children survive.]


14/65


Behavior


The norm of rec iproc i tyis the expectation

that helping others will increase the

likelihood that they will help us in thefuture.

[Suggests reciprocity may increase likelihood of

survival.]


15/65

Evaluation of Evolutionaryapproach

Although theorists can tell a story aboutevolutionary reasons for helping, wecannot know for sure whether helping has

an evolutionary basis.

Retrospective explanations, no hardevidence.


16/65


Behavior

Social Exchange: The Costs andRewards of Helping

Social exchange theory argues that much of

what we do stems from the desire to

maximize our outcomes and minimize our

costs. Like evolutionary psychology, it is a

theory based on self-interest; unlike it, it

does not assume that self-interest has a

genetic basis.


17/65


Behavior


Helping can be rewarding because

increases the probability that someone

will help us in return

relieves the personal distress of the

bystander

gains us social approval and increased

self-worth.


18/65


Behavior


Helping can also be costly (danger, time,

money); thus it decreases when costs are

high.


19/65


Behavior

Empathy and Altruism: The Pure Motivefor Helping

Batson (1991) is the strongest proponent of

the idea that people often help purely out of

the goodness of their hearts.


20/65


Behavior


He argues that pure altruism is most likely

to come into play when we experience

empathyfor the person in need; that is, we

are able to experience events and emotionsthe way that person experiences them.


21/65


Behavior


The empathy-al t ru ism hypothesisstates that

when we feel empathy for a person, we will

attempt to help purely for altruistic reasons,

that is, regardless of what we have to gain.


22/65



23/65


When did people agree to help Carol (who was in auto accident) w/workmissed in Intro Psych? (Toi & Batson,1982)

High empathy: Imagine how Carol felt Low Empathy: Be objective, dont be concerned w/ how Carol felt


24/65

Is it altruism? Why or why not?

exercise


25/65

Altruistic or egoistic motives?

It is often difficult to disentangle whetherpeople are helping for altruistic or egoisticmotives.

If someone feels joy after helping, is that anegoistic motive?


26/65

Personal Determinants of ProsocialBehavior

Individual Differences: The AltruisticPersonality

Aspects of a persons makeup that lead the

person to help others in a wide variety of

situations defines the al t ru ist ic personal ity.


27/65



Research has found that the extent to

which people are helpful in one situation isNOT highly related to how prosocial they

are in another situation.

*High altruism scores not a good predictor

of helping

Personality is not the only determinant of

whether people will help, at least across

many situations.


28/65



It appears that different kinds of people are

likely to help in different types of

situations.


29/65

Gender and Helping

Women are universally perceived as kinder, more soft-

hearted, and more helpful.

But over 90% of Carnegie Hero awards go to men(for saving, or attempting to save, the life ofanother). Why?

--Women are more likely to help those theyalready know.

--Men are more likely to help strangers inemergency situations.

From Simpson, 2004


30/65

Gender Differences in Prosocial Behavior

Ex: Men > likely to help w/flat tire or in

dangerous situation. (short-term, strangers)

Women > likely to help take care of a

neighbor or elderly relative. (longer-term, closerelationships)


31/65

Gender differences in receiving help

Are people more likely to help women or

men? It depends.

Male helpers are more likely to help women thanmen.

Female helpers are equally likely to help men and

women.

Women not only receive more help frommen, but they also SEEK more help.


32/65


Cultural Differences in ProsocialBehavior

People across cultures are more likely to

help members of their in -group, the group

with which an individual identifies as a

member, than members of the out-group, agroup with which an individual does not

identity.


33/65


Cultural Differences in ProsocialBehavior

People from collectivist cultures are more

prone to help in-group members and less

likely to help out-group members than are

people from individualist cultures.


34/65


The Effects of Mood on ProsocialBehavior

People who are in a good mood are more

likely to help.


35/65


The Effects of Mood on Prosocial Behavior

Good moods can increase helping for

three reasons

good moods make us interpret events in asympathetic way

helping another prolongs the good moodgood moods increase self-attention and this in

turn leads us to be more likely to behave

according to our values and beliefs (and most

of us value altruism).


36/65

Positive Mood: Feel good, do good

When researchers have induced a goodmood (e.g., leaving dimes in the coinreturn slot of a pay phone, giving people

cookies, etc.), they find that people in agood mood are more likely to help thanthose in a neutral mood.


37/65


The Effects of Mood on ProsocialBehavior

Negative-state rel ief hypo thesissays that

people help in order to alleviate their own

sadness and distress; it exemplifies asocial exchange approach.


38/65

Negative mood and helping

Variety of studies show that, when peoplefeel sad, they are more likely to help (e.g.,donate money to a charity).


39/65

Helping can be increased by events that

trigger temporary sadness:

Reminiscing about unhappy experiences

Reading depressing statements

Failing at a task

Witnessing harm to another

Presence of Sadness

From Simpson, 2004


40/65

Young children are LESS likely to

help when in a sad mood.

They have not yet learned that

helping another can produce good

feelings.

AGE

From Simpson, 2004

H d d d h d b th l d


41/65

How can a sad mood and a happy mood both leadto more helping?

Different reasons

Sadness: Helping may improve temporarysadness. (But, if we blame others for ourbad mood, sadness is not associated withmore helping.) Complex association.

Happiness: May trigger positive thoughts

about others. May prolong good mood.Straightforward, consistent association.


42/65

Situational Determinants ofProsocial Behavior

Environments: Rural versus Urban

People in rural areas are more helpful. This

effect holds over a wide variety of helping

situations and in many countries.


43/65


Environments: Rural versus Urban

One explanation is that people from rural

settings are brought up to be more

neighborly and more likely to trust

strangers.


44/65

Situational determinants ofprosocial behavior

Or, it might be that people living in cities

are overwhelmed with too much

stimulation; if you put them in a calmer

environment, they might be just aslikely to help.


45/65

Situational Determinants of Prosocial

Behavior

Field studies conducted in 36 cities in theU.S.

The more densely populated the area, theless likely people were to help.

Location (rural or urban) more importantthan whether person grew up in small

town or large city.


46/65


The Number of Bystanders: TheBystander Effect

The bystander effectis the finding that the

greater the number of bystanders who

witness an emergency, the less likely any

one of them is to help.


47/65



Latan and Darley (1970) developed a decision treeto show how people decide whether to help in an

emergency:

1. Noticing an Event: Yes No

2. Interpreting the Event as an Emergency Yes No3. Assuming Responsibility Yes No

4. Knowing How to Help Yes No

5. Deciding to Implement the Help Yes No


48/65

Stage 1: Noticing the event

The Good Samaritan study


49/65


50/65

Kitty Genovese case

Was noticing the event a problem?

St 2 I t ti th t


51/65

Stage 2: Interpreting the eventas an emergency

Smoke-filled room study

video clip


52/65



Plural is t ic ignoranceis the phenomenon

whereby bystanders assume that nothing iswrong in an emergency because no one else

looks concerned. This greatly interferes with

the interpretation of the event as an

emergency and therefore reduces helping.


53/65

Kitty Genovese

Was interpreting the event a problem inthe Kitty Genovese case?

Stage 3: Assuming


54/65

Stage 3: Assumingresponsibility

Recall seizure study (earlier in the course)

When more people were present,participants were less likely to help (by

getting the experimenter) and they tooklonger to help (if they did help).


55/65


Stage 3: Assum ing respon sibi l i ty

Dif fus ion of respon sib i l ityis the

phenomenon whereby each bystanderssense of responsibility to help decreases as

the number of witnesses increases. This

results in a reduction of helping.


56/65

Kitty Genovese

Was assuming responsibility a problem?

St 4 W i hi d d t


57/65

Stage 4: Weighing rewards and costs

People help when the rewards outweigh the

costs Potential rewards

Reciprocity

Social approval

Self-satisfaction

Reduced guilt and arousal

Potential costs

Danger/life threatening Financially detrimental

Embarrassing

Time consuming

Stage 5: Deciding how to


58/65

Stage 5: Deciding how to

help People cannot help if they do not know

how to help.

Do you know CPR? The Heimlichmaneuver? Your own blood type?

These were not an issue in the case ofKitty Genovese.


59/65


The Nature of the Relationship:Communal Versus Exchange

Relationships

Communal relationships are those in which

peoples primary concern is with the welfare

of the other, whereas exchangerelationships are governed by equity

concerns.


60/65


The Nature of the Relationship:Communal Versus Exchange

Relationships

Communal/exchange distinction means that

generally we are more helpful towards

friends (> likely to be communal) thanstrangers; the exception occurs when the

other is beating us in a domain that is

personally important and thus threatens our

self-esteem. (Recall Tesser video)


61/65

How Can Helping Be Increased?

Prosocial role models

1--Bryan & Test (1967) L.A. drivers for

more likely to offer help to a female

driver with a flat tire if a quarter of amile earlier they had witnessed

someone helping another woman

change a tire.


62/65

Increasing helpingProsocial models

2Byran & Test (1967) New Jersey

Xmas shoppers were more likely to

drop money into a Salvation Army

kettle if they had just seen

someone else to donate.


63/65

Increasing helpingprosocial models

3Rushton & Campbell (1977)

found British adults more willing to

donate blood if they were

approached after observing a

confederate agree to donate.


64/65

Media can encourage helping

TV programming

NIMH study of Mr. Rogers

4 wks preschool program

Kids from less educated homes becamemore cooperative, helpful, likely to statetheir feelings during the 4 wk period thanthose who did not see the show.


65/65

Increasing helping: Disseminate research findings

Beaman et al. (1978) Students who hadheard a lecture on bystander intervention

were more likely to help in a stagedemergency 2 wks later.

Heard lecture 43% helped

Did not hear lecture 25% helped

Documents

Outline f05 N.helping (1)