Paper 2: Altruism

Using one or more research studies, explain cross-cultural differences in prosocial behaviour

1. Race Topic Sentence: Piliavin et al conducted a study to observe the likelihood of help with the presence of a cost reward model of helping. Piliavin - Subway Samaritan (1969) Method: Confederate collapse on a NY subway and observers recorded how many passengers offered to help. They found the more people in the carriage the more likely help was forthcoming 2 conditions 1. Blind Help was even quicker and more likely 2. Drunk Less quicker and less likely compared to above Conclusion: Showing that 'deservingness' was a critical characteristic of victim TS: Another cross-cultural consideration in prosocial behaviour includes the race effect. DS: Piliavin Subway Samaritan Race effect: Cost Reward Model The black confederate received less help especially in the drunk condition Slight 'same race' effect Whites were slightly more likely to help whites than blacks Critical Analysis: Shows that the 'deservingness' of a person affects the likelihood of help Benefits of helping: social approval, self-esteem, positive emotional response Costs of not helping: negative emotional response (why more people helped because there were more people watching) Costs of helping: risk of harm (why less people were likely to help a drunk person) Ecological validity: setting was a subway Ethical issues: no informed consent, deception, respect, protection from harm Covert operation Interrater reliability Opportunity sampling: skewed due to the time of day (1-3) High ecological validity/mundane realism Ethic issues Opportunity sample High interrater reliability (2 data people) How do you quantify benefits of helping - construct validity 2. Environmental Influences A series of studies conducted by Levine et al investigated the effect of environmental influences on prosocial behaviour. Levine et al Conducted 5 field experiments that focus on simple acts of assistance (e.g. dropping a pen, asking for change, pretending to be blind etc.) Factors led to global differences in prosocial behaviour: Low economic productivity Slow pace of life Cultures that emphasise the values of social harmony CA: + Links to Sympatico Hypothesis: idea that a city's personality affects their decision to help - Issues with measuring helping: how to identify behaviours that would be valid indicators of helpfulness - Issues with translating behaviours across cultures (e.g. some of the measurements of helping behaviour may be seen as dangerous in some cultures) - Exceptions to trends that countries with lower economic productivity have higher helping rates are evident: e.g. Vienna and Copenhagen 3. Child rearing Whiting and Whiting (1975) Aim: Systematic naturalistic observation of cultural differences in child-rearing practices and the consequence of that on prosocial behaviour Procedure Observed children between the age 3-11 during their daily interactions with other people 6 different countries Kenya Philippines Japan India Mexico USA Results Consistent differences in the degree of prosocial behaviour in children amoung the studied cultures Children from Mexico and the philippines generally acted more prosocially than those from the Japan, India, and the USA Those who acted the most prosocial were the kids from rural Kenya. From the most traditional society The most egotistic kids came from USA One important difference was how much children participated in the household chores and in the care of younger children Most prosocial cultures = people tended to live together in extended families, female role was important, women contribution to family's economy was greater Women delegated more responsibility to their children In cultures where children are paid to do household chores don't participate at all the same degree of prosocial behaviour was not observed Conclusion The degree of modernization influences prosocial behaviour This was attributed to different child-rearing patterns and cultural dimensions such as individualism and collectivism Also demonstrates how different aspects of socio-economic organization of culture can promote or inhibit children's opportunities to acquire specific social behaviours CA: - Categories for investigating cultural variation (individualistic vs. collectivistic) may be too simplistic: some individualistic countries may be more individualistic than others and many countries see variation within their own culture. + Application: results found from study can be used for revaluation of parenting styles and show insight into the importance of parental influence on the development of children's helping behaviours - Methodological issues with empirical studies (Wills found that laboratory studies and field studies often produce contradictory results concerning the likelihood of people helping and seeking help)

Contrast two theories explaining altruism in humans

Altruism is a contested concept within human behaviour, therefore has numerous interpretations and theories attempting to explain altruism. One definition of altruism is that it is the motivation to help others out of pure regard for their needs rather than how the action will benefit oneself. 1. Hamilton's Kin Selection theory - the degree of altruism that one demonstrates depends on the number of genes that are shared by individuals. - based on natural selection - altruistic gene causes an organism to behave in a manner which reduces its own personal fitness but boosts the fitness of relative -- who have a greater than average chance of carrying the gene themselves, this is referred to as inclusive fitness. 2. Batson's Empathy-Altruism theory -if you feel empathy towards another person you will help them, regardless of what you can gain from it and when you do not feel empathy, you do not help. Observing another person's situation may either produce empathic concern (i.e. positive emotions like sympathy or compassion) or personal distress (i.e. negative emotions). "Empathy" evokes altruistic motivation to reduce another person's distress whereas personal distress evokes an egoistic motivation to reduce one's own distress. According to Batson (1991) three factors facilitate perspective taking: 1. the observer has had similar experiences 2. the observer is attached to the victim 3. the person is instructed to imagine what it is like to be in the victim's position Contrast: - they view altruism in two very different lights - The Kin selection theory believes that selflessness does not exist and that all altruistic acts are in reality selfish or egoistic -the empathy altruism theory is virtually one of the only theories that views altruism in a positive rather than a negative/selfish light. -the kin selection theory has a limited range as it is unable to explain why humans are altruistic to those who we are not related to -empathy altruism theory is able to explain why we commit altruistic acts to equally those we are related to and those who are not. - empath altruism theory accepts and identifies that there are different levels of altruism and that some people are more altruistic in comparison to others due to individual differences and the level of empathy felt towards the other individual. -Kin selection is linked more to the biological level of analysis while the empathy-altruism theory is more linked to the psychological roots of altruism. - two different levels of analysis and employ different research methods. - Most evidence for the kin selection theory is anecdotal -Kin selection theory can't be supported by experimental data only correlational or case study. - Within the empathy-altruism theory it is difficult to measure one's level of empathy. It could be a sense of egotism rather than empathy. -The experiment lacks ecological validity and is open to demand characteristics. In the Kin Selection theory Altruism is seen as a selfish activity whereas Batson's Model is based on selflessness and empathy Comparison -both theories suffer from construct validity -both theories are well accepted theories about altruism that most people understand -They are both testable and help to predict future behaviour of humans in helping situations -Another point of comparison is that both theories have empirical evidence -The Kin selection theory is supported by a study conducted by Madsen (2007) where participants were asked to hold a demanding skiiing position in which money was paid directly related to the length of time the pose was held. Madsen found that participants were able to hold the pose for longer if the money was going towards their relatives and within the relatives more money was raised for those who were younger -empathy-altruism theory can be found by a study conducted by Batson where he used a confederate to complete a digital recall test and for every wrong answer an electric shock was administered. Participants watch the confederate and were asked if they would swap with her, leave. Batson found those in the participants in the low empathy group were less likely to replace Elaine and those in the high empathy group were more likely to replace her

Examine factors influencing bystanderism

Bystanderism The phenomenon that an individual is less likely to help in an emergency situation when passive bystanders are present. 1. Darley and Latane Theory 1. Diffusion of Responsibility If there are other bystanders present, then people are less likely help as they assume that the other potential helpers are present. This is because the psychological costs of not intervening have decreased. 2. Informational social influence (pluralistic ignorance) If no one else helps, we assume that it is not an emergency situation. If at least one person reaches out to help, then we are more likely to follow. 3. Evaluation apprehension Awareness of the presence of other people and the fear of being judged or viewed negatively if we were to react Fear of social blunders Study: Darley and Latane Topic Sentence: Darley and Latane conducted an experiment in order to study the diffusion of responsibility and how that may affect bystanderism. Male students seated in cubicles connected by an intercom system The had volunteers to take part in a discussion on college life 3 conditions 1. Students were led to believe they were alone with one other 'participant' who would later simulate an epileptic seizure 2. 2 other participants 3. 4 others Once discussion underway the victim clearly announced he was experiencing a seizure Help was less likely and slower when participants believed other potential helpers were present When the students thought they were the only person there, 85% rushed to help. When they thought there was another one person, 65%. When they thought there were 4 other people, 31% (Diffusion of responsibility). Critical Analysis: Ethical issues: watching people go through a seizure Low ecological validity: it was in a lab setting High mundane realism: it is a possible occurrence to witness someone having a seizure Androcentric Participant variable: they tested it on multiple people for the different conditions Theoretical generalizability Does not take into consideration the 'deservingness' of a person 2. Pilliavin et al. Theory of Cost Reward Model of Helping Both cognitive (cost-benefit analysis) and emotional factors (unpleasant emotional arousal) determine if bystanders are to intervene. Egoistic motivation to escape an unpleasant emotional state. 3 stages 1. Physiological arousal When we see someone in distress we become physiologically aroused The greater the arousal the more likely to help 2. Labelling the arousal How we interpret the arousal E.g. personal distress or empathic concern 3. Cost benefit analysis Weighing up the costs and benefits of helping out Costs of helping: effort, time, loss of resources, risk of harm Costs of not helping: disapproval, damaged self esteem and negative emotional response Benefits of helping: social approval, self-esteem and positive emotional response. Reductionist point of view Looking at the opposite version of the empathy-altruism model Study: Piliavin Subway Samaritan (1969) 3. Darley and Batson (1973) Aim Investigate whether situational variables influence people's helping behaviour in emergency situations Helping stranger came at a cost - participants were under time pressure to get to a meeting and helping them would force them to deviate from the original plan Procedure 40 male seminary students at Princeton, studying to become priests Told they were participating in a study on religious education and vocations (deceived) 1st session Participants answered personality questionnaires to determine their type of religiosity 3-5 min talk based on what he thought could be relevant for a good minister Or on a text Or read a passed from bible with the parable on the good samaritan 2nd session Participants began experimental procedures in one building and were asked to report to another building for the next procedures While participants passed between two buildings they passed the victim (confederate) in an alleyway Once in second building Record a speech Answer questions about the last time they had helped someone 3 conditions High hurry Intermediate hurry Low hurry Victim was sitting slumped over in a doorway, head down, eyes closed, not moving As participant passed, victim coughed twice and groaned Results Helping was significantly influenced by the time pressure manipulation Those in no hurry condition were more helpful that those in intermediate hurry Those in hurry condition were least helpful Of 40 participants 40% offered some form of direct or indirect help 60% did not Low hurry condition 63% offered help Intermediate condition 45% offered help High hurry 10% offered help CA: Field experiment High ecological validity High mundane realism High internal validity Ethical considerations Deceived However not harmed Properly debriefed Respected Thanked Androcentric Low generalizability YAVIS bias

Distinguish between altruism and prosocial behaviour

Pro Social Prosocial behavior is defined as actions that benefit other people or society as a whole. It is characterized by helping that does not benefit the helper; in fact, prosocial behavior is often accompanied by costs. Altruism Altruism means acting out of concern for the well-being of others, without regard to your own self-interest. However, it is a commonly debatable concept as there are arguments to contest if altruism exists 1. Kin selection theory 2. Empath altruism theory