Soc 319: Sociological Approaches to Social Psych

Collective Behavior (cont’d) & AltruismApril 21, 2009

Theories of collective behavior

Contagion Theory –People are more likely to engage in antisocial behavior in a crowd because they are anonymous and feel invulnerable. Emotions spread across persons in the crowd. “Laws of imitation” and “group mind” (LeBon).

Convergence Theory – There is like-mindedness before the group comes together.

Emergent Norm Theory – Patterns of behavior emerge within the crowd. Crowds develop their own definition of the situation and establish norms for behavior that fits the occasion. Pre-existing norms may not be applicable.

Social movements

A social movement refers to a collection of individuals who organize together to achieve or prevent some social or political change.

There is a direct link between social movements and social change.

The success of a movement often is resource- dependent; where resources include money, labor, contact with media, credibility (Resource Mobilization Theory)

Stages in Social Movements

Preliminary stage - people begin to become aware of a threatening problem.

Coalescence stage - people begin to organize and start making the threat known to the public.

Institutionalization stage - organizational structure develops.

Survey of our class…

Have you ever participated in an organized protest?

A. Yes

B. No

Why do some people participate in social movements yet others don’t? Strength of attitude (recall attitude-behavior linkage

literature). Situational constraints (time, access). Risks vs. benefits: High-risk/cost activism raises

barriers to mobilizing participants. Rational decision is not to participate when perceived low success outweighed by potentially great cost (violence, loss of job, etc.).

“Social network” theory proposes that people may get involved because of relationships they have with others who already belong to the movement.

“Mass society” theory proposes that social movements attract socially isolated people.

Underlying Causes of Collective Behavior & Social Movements Strain: imbalance in society, typically between

wants/expectations and reality. Relative deprivation: a gap between one’s actual

conditions and the conditions of some other group/individual.

Grievances and competition: discontent over current allocation of resources. Competitive action: conflict between local groups. Reactive action: conflict between local group and

agents of national political system. Proactive reaction: demands for resources, rights, and

power.

Altruism & Pro-Social Behavior

Act performed with the goal of benefiting another person Intention to help Benefits to others, not to oneself Helper often incurs costs

Motives Egoism (self-interest, self-esteem

enhancement) Belonging (group, community, collective) Altruism (general concern for others)

Normative Expectations

Social responsibility: obligation to respond to those in need.

Reciprocity: help others because they have helped us in past (or will in the future).

Personal norm: feeling of moral obligation to help a specific person in specific situation, based on one’s own values.

Non-involvement (?): Norm that people are emotionally or physically uninvolved with others.

Social Exchange Theory

Individuals desire to maximize outcomes and minimize costs.

Helping can be rewarding in three ways: It increases the probability that someone will

help us in return; It can relieve the personal distress of the

bystander; It can gain us social approval and increased

self-worth.

Was Wesley Autrey behaving rationally??

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9JcX2X7XnM

Empathy-Altruism Model (Batson, 1981) Altruism occurs when we experience empathy

for the person in need; we are able to experience events and emotions the way that person experiences them.

Helping will occur for purely altruistic reasons, regardless of what one can gain.

Empathy and Altruism: The Pure Motive for Helping

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

High empathy: Imagine how Carol felt Low Empathy: Be objective, don’t be concerned w/ how Carol felt

Arousal/Cost-Reward Model of Helping Arousal/Cost-Reward Model of Helping (Piliavin & Dovidio)(Piliavin & Dovidio)

Others’ distress creates uncomfortable arousal in us.

We are motivated to reduce this arousal. Helping others may reduce this arousal. Before decision to help (to reduce arousal), we

may consider cost-reward factors: If rewards > costs, may be more likely to help

Increased Increased Chance That Chance That Help Will Be Help Will Be

OfferedOffered

Increased Increased chance that chance that help will be help will be

offeredoffered

Observation of another in clear need of

help

Increased negative

emotional arousal

If cost of helping is

small

If rewards are large

If arousal is strong

Arousal/Cost-Reward Model of HelpingArousal/Cost-Reward Model of Helping

Predicted Responses For Arousal Model (Piliavin & Dovidio)

Costs For Helping

Costs For Not

Helping

Low High

Low Will vary (Depends on

perceived norms for situation)

Leave the situation, ignore,

denial

High Direct intervention

Indirect intervention OR

Redefine Situation

Evolutionary Perspectives

Puzzle: If an organism acts altruistically, it may decrease its own reproductive fitness.

Importance of kin selection: behaviors that help a genetic relative are favored by natural selection.

Impact of reciprocity, or expectation that helping others will increase the likelihood that they will help us in the future. Simon (1990): The best learners of societal

norms (esp. altruism) have a competitive advantage.

8080

6060

2020

00

High(parents, siblings, children)

High(parents, siblings, children)

Cunningham et al., (1995)

Cunningham et al., (1995)

4040

Degree of RelatednessDegree of Relatedness

Mod. (grand-parents)

Mod. (grand-parents)

Low (first cousins)

Low (first cousins)

None (attractive strangers)

None (attractive strangers)

Would you lend this person your car? Proportion saying “yes” are plotted values.

Why didn’t anyone come to the rescue of Kitty Genovese? [Reprinted with permission from the March 27, 1964 New York

Times. Copyright © 1964 by the New York Times Co.]

37 Who Saw Murder Didn't Call the Police

Apathy at Stabbing of Queens Woman Shocks Inspector

By MARTIN GANSBERG

For more than half an hour thirty-eight respectable, law-abiding citizens in Queens watched a killer stalk and stab a woman in three separate attacks in Kew Gardens. Twice the sound of their voices and the sudden glow of their bedroom lights interrupted him and frightened him off. Each time he returned, sought her out and stabbed her again. Not one person telephoned the police during the assault; one witness called after the woman was dead.

Influences on Prosocial Behavior: Social Context Number of bystanders (Latane & Darley)

Diffusion of responsibility Urban v. rural

urban overload hypothesis (Milgram): persons living in cities keep to themselves to avoid being overloaded by all the stimulation they receive.

Cultural context Collectivist cultures more likely to help in-group

members and less likely to help out-group members than in individualist cultures. (In general, in-group favored)

Darley & Latane: Number of bystanders & helping behavior # in Group: One Two Five

Percent

Helping

85 62 31

Lag Time

(second)

52 93 166

Diffusion of responsibility

A decrease in the individual sense of responsibility for taking action in an emergency because of the presence of other bystanders. The greater the number of bystanders, the less likely each person is to act.

Bystander effect: As number of bystanders increases, likelihood of helping decreases and more time passes before help occurs.

Darley/Latane Model of Helping

Bystander must perceive an emergency. The unaware cannot act.

Bystander must interpret situation as an emergency. Pluralistic ignorance: misinterpretation/inaction by

many may stifle action. Bystander assumes responsibility to act.

Must know what to do, show expertise. Bystander must decide (and know how) to help.

Must assess costs and efficacy of routes. Bystander actually does help.

Does not ensure effectiveness.

8080

6060

2020

00

Alone Alone

Percentage Reporting Smoke

Percentage Reporting Smoke

4040

With 2 other real subjects

With 2 other real subjects

With 2 calm confederates With 2 calm confederates

Darley & Latane: Smoked filled room where “subjects” were completing questionnaires.

Influences on Prosocial Behavior: Characteristics of Helper

Positive v. negative mood Negative-state relief hypothesis: people help to

alleviate own sadness and distress (Cialdini) Good mood: interpret events in a sympathetic way;

helping prolongs the good mood; increases self-attention and behavior consistent w/values.

Gender: Men help in chivalrous, heroic ways, and women help in nurturing ways involving long-term commitment (Eagly & Crowley, 1986) ??

Similarity to target Personality : Not one enduring trait that enhances

helping across all contexts (e.g., empathetic, belief in just world, locus of control, social responsibility)

Influences on Prosocial Behavior: Characteristics of Help Recipient “Deservingness”: Responsibility is assigned

to victims in varying degrees. Piliavin et al. “subway” studies Weiner et al. Reason why patient as AIDS

(e.g., sex v. blood transfusion) Attractiveness/likeability Similarity to help-giver

Personal style Political views Race/ethnicity

Source: Levine (2003)