Social Psychology Week 10

A number of studies have been conducted demonstrating that people who feel good are more likely to help

A classic study conducted by Isen and Levin (1972) discovered that subjects who found a dime in a phone booth were much more likely to help a confederate pick up dropped papers. Good moods are believed to facilitate helping by generating positive thoughts. Another motivator for helping is the desire to maintain the good mood.

The norm of reciprocity

According to this norm, we help those who help us.

Twin studies indicate that tendencies to help may be related to genetics.

For example, identical twins have been found to have correlations with each other around .54 in altruism, but fraternal twins have been found to have lower correlations with each other, that is in the .20's.

The type of relationship makes a difference in the type of helping

In exchange relationships we are more likely to help if we feel that we owe a favor. Exchange relationships have a tit for tat norm like "I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine." Exchange relationships expect the favor to be repaid fairly quickly. In communal relationships like relationships with family and friends we are more likely to help out of concern for the welfare of the other rather than out of equity concerns like in exchange relationships. Communal relationships involve less score keeping and helping occurs without feeling the need to repay the help in kind.

sad, depressed, or guilty people will be more likely to help if helping will alleviate the bad mood

In one field study, subjects were asked to take a picture of tourists with the tourist's camera. The tourists were confederates of the experimenter. The alleged tourists then claimed that the subject broke the camera. Presumably the subject then felt guilty. Afterwards, the subject was asked for help from the tourists. The subject was more likely to give help as a result. It was assumed that the helping alleviated guilt over breaking the camera.

The nature of the need is another variable that influences helping

In one study, a confederate in a grocery store asked for a dime for milk or a dime for cookie dough. In the Milk Condition, 58% of the time the confederate received a dime, but in the Cookie Dough Condition only 36% of the time did the confederate receive a dime. So, if the potential helper does not perceive the need as worthy, the helper is less likely to give.

Latane and Darley (1970) proposed a five-stage model of how people decide whether to help in an emergency

In the first stage, the subject must notice the event. If a person is in a hurry or highly distracted, the victim may not be noticed. During the second stage, if the event is noticed, it must be interpreted as an emergency. For example, a person lying prone on the grounds of a university may be in that position because of excessive intoxication or because of a heart attack among other possibilities. If no one else seems concerned, the subject may infer that there is no emergency and that the alleged victim is likely intoxicated or sleeping. The third stage is called assuming responsibility. When there are many witnesses, the subject is more likely to experience a diffusion of responsibility and is less inclined to help. In the fourth stage, knowing how to help, the subject must feel competent to help in the situation before engaging in helping behavior. For example, studies have found that helping is more likely when blood is not present on the victim than when blood is present. Presumably, the blood indicated a higher level of seriousness, and the subject was less likely to feel competent to help. Finally, the fifth stage, deciding to implement help, involves intervening if competency to help is present and the cost of helping is not too great.

collectivist vs individualist

Members of collectivist cultures are more likely to help in-group members than members of individualistic cultures. The in-group refers to the group that the individual feels an identification with.

rural vs urban

People who live in rural environments are more likely to help than people who live in urban environments. The effect has been demonstrated in many different countries. The leading explanation for this difference is known as the urban-overload hypothesis. According to this line of thinking, the more crowded the environment, the more stimulus overload. People who live in urban environments try to manage their stimulus overload by avoiding arousal producing situations. Therefore, they are less likely to stop and help when they see an accident than people who live in rural environments.

Another variable that makes a difference in helping behaviors is the marital variable

Studies indicate that we are more likely to intervene in an attack by a stranger than an attack by a spouse. People seem reluctant to intervene when they believe the matter is a domestic dispute.

gender differences in helping

The general consensus of these studies is that males are more likely to help than females in dangerous situations. However, females are more likely to help than males in nurturing activities such as child-care.

the norm of social responsibility

This norm states that we should help those who are less fortunate than us. It is an important norm but also a less powerful norm than the norm of reciprocity

Similarity between the helper and the person in need is another factor that affects helping

We tend to help acquaintances and friends more as well as those whom we regard as similar to us

Helping behavior is typically divided into two categories

altruism and egoistic helping Altruistic helping is giving unselfishly. It is said to be voluntary, involves some cost, and is motivated by a desire to improve other's welfare. Mother Teresa is said to be an example of a true altruist. On the other hand, egoistic helping is motivated by self-interest. The egoistic person helps because they expect something in return.

Prosocial behavior

behavior that helps those in need It benefits others and has positive consequences

The personality of the helper also has an effect on tendency to help

helpers tend to be empathic and socially responsible The research also indicates that we are more likely to help attractive people than unattractive people

arousal cost model

helping is motivated by a need to reduce our own distress or diffuse physiological arousal The potential helper presumably does a quick cost-rewards analysis on balance, the costs are lower than the rewards of helping, the potential helper will assist the victim

reciprocal altruism

helping others including strangers may occur because of the expectation that we will be helped in return

What are the reasons for the bystander effect

irst, before a person is willing to help, that person must recognize that there is an emergency, feel competent to help, and feel responsible. Several factors conspire against the subject. One factor is called pluralistic ignorance. According to this concept, the subject assumes that nothing is wrong if no one else seems concerned enough to help. In other words, the subject uses the social cues of others to determine if there is a true emergency. If the social cues indicate that there is not an emergency, then the subject does not help. A second factor is called diffusion of responsibility. The more other people that are present, the less responsibility the subject feels to help.

sociobiological theories

members of certain species will sacrifice themselves for the survival of the gene pool. For example, worker ants will become sterile so that only the queen can reproduce. This sacrifice benefits the group more than the individual. This phenomenon has been called kin selection.

empathy altruism model of helping

people in the high altruism condition helped even when the cost of helping was high Subjects with high empathy levels were willing to trade places with Elaine even if they could escape to lower their arousal levels, whereas subjects with low empathy levels chose to escape, that is leave the situation, to lower their arousal levels. (shocked)

bystander intervention effect

the more bystanders there were, the less likely the subject was to help and the slower the help was when it did occur.