Prosocial Psychology Test 2

• Know the various norms...recognize examples of all.

-norm of reciprocity we help those who help us -personal norms and standards personal and moral obligation -equity help those to even playing fiels -norm of social responsibility help those dependent on us

Five step process for helping Latane and Darley

1. Notice the event 2. interpret the event as an emergency 3. assume responsibility 4.know appropriate form of assistance 5. implement decision

• How does the amount/intensity of a stimulus affect whether we will notice a specific stimulus?

Too little or too much stimulation causes us to notice a specific stimulus, needs to be just right

Gaertner & Dovidio (1977)...race-based helping....know what they did and what they found

White college students overheard a serious accident involving someone they were communicating with. Victim was either white or black and alone or in a groupo Didn't matter if alone or in group for white o More help given to black when alone o Diffusion of responsibility in order to use to your advantage

• Negative State Relief Model

o 3 assumptions: ♣ negative state that motivates can originate from a variety of sources ♣ other events besides helping besides helping may be just as affective in making a person feel better negative moods motivate helping only if people believe that moods can be improved by helping

• Definition of altruism

o A motivational state with the ultimate goal of increasing another's welfare

• How is informational social influence related to Latane and Darley's 5 steps of helping? What does such social influence affect?

o In step 2 (interpreting the event as an emergency) we use informational social influence by needing to be correct and looking to others which leads to pluralistic ignorance. We have a basic need to understand our environments so we draw information from others. Inaction becomes a source of information reciprocity, think someone would have helped by now. Affects the way we view situations.

• Darley & Batson's "Good Samaritan Study"....know what they did and results

o Asked: will help be given to those in need if potential helpers are in a hurry? o Seminary students were asked to give "a talk" o 1. Task relevant jobs were given to seminary students o 2. Helping Relevant= parable of the good Samaritan (make salient) make aware of the morals of the story o Varied high, intermediate, and low hurry- go to other building to give talk and was either really late, just on time, or early. o Along path between buildings, a shabby dressed man hunched down in alley seemed sick ♣ Head down, eyes closed, not moving ♣ Coughed two times and groaned o Expected good Samaritan talkers would help o Given a score: - 0- failed to notice victim at all -1- perceived person as possibly in need, but didn't offer aid -2-did not stop, but helped indirectly (contacted research assistant) -3-stopped and asked if the victim if they needed help -4-after stopping, insisted on taking the victim insdie -5- refused to leave victim/insisted on taking the victim somewhere else (wouldn't give up) o Although people not in a hurry gave talks, helped- all that mattered was whether someone was in a hurry or not o ALL ABOUT SITUATION- not about priming for help o o everyone in low hurry helped most o participants in a hurry were likely to offer less help than participants not in a hurry (REGARDLESS OF TYPE OF TALK) o Participants in a hurry were more likely to pass by the victim than those in less of a hurry o People did help (scored a 2 - somewhat prosocial)

• What are the differences between the Arousal: Cost-Reward model and the Negative State Relief model?

o Attribution of arousal is important in A: C-R ♣ NSR doesn't care where it comes from o A:C-R is tension reduction model that assumes victim's need produces arousal state (and goal is to alleviate one's own aversive state) ♣ NSR says we are motivated to obtain the reward that comes with helping (feeling good) o In negative state relief, doing nothing isn't an option, while in arousal cost-reward, we either leave, do nothing, or do something The goal is good mood in NSR while in A:C-R the goal is removal of unpleasant arousal

• What role does race play in determining help? Under what circumstances would a majority group member (e.g., White) help or not help a minority group member (e.g., Black)?

o Aversive racism- modern, subtle racial bias. Unconscious negative feelings. Many don't think they are racist. o Majority will help when social norms are clear and unambiguous. Very motivated to be non prejudiced. If the norm is strong enough that help should be given, increase help. (Threat to sense of self) o Wont help if they can justify the negative response not on race. ♣ Diffuse responsibility ♣ If there is an opportunity to pawn off responsibility they will use it.

• How does "mood" affect our attention to ourselves and to others?

o Being in a good mood will increase helping and focus attention outwards. People think more about rewards for helping and less about costs. Are willing to correct inequity of their good mood vs. others bad moods. Once in a positive mood, we want to maintain it by not be a downer by disappointing. Viewed as egoistic. o Being in a bad mood will decrease helping and focus attention inwards.

• What are potential costs and benefits to empathy-based altruism?

o Benefits ♣ Inhibits aggression ♣ Increases cooperation ♣ Improves attitude toward stigmatized groups o Costs/Limitations ♣ Depends on group membership (Sturmer, Snyder, & Omoto 2005) ♣ Harmful to those that help (e.g. death) ♣ Burns out... we avoid situations that evoke us ♣ Feed favoritism, injustice, and indifference to the common good. Too focused on single person regardless of larger consequences.

• What does experiencing empathic concern do to a potential helper?

o Causes you to experience pain and want to help the other person regardless of personal costs

• What emotions do we experience based on how critical the emergency is? In other words, if we do or do not have time to "think" about the emergency, what emotions may we experience?

o Clear and serious emergencies are more rousing and emotional... o No time: upset, distress, discomfort, sympathy, compassion, fear, disgust etc.

• What role does "mood" and "emotions" play in persuasive messages/requests for help?

o Emotions are the real cause of behavior ♣ We like to explain cause and effect... not knowing isn't pleasant ♣ Clear and serious emergencies are more arousing/emotional ♣ Less critical, we have more time to asses the needs fully ♣ 2 possibilities: is it the victim's fault or not? • Uncontrollable=sympathy • Controllable=anger and may not help Negative moods can increase likeliehood of persuasion too, guilt increases compliance- even a penny technique: negative state-relief hypothesis

• Evolutionary v Psychological Altruism...what did we discuss in class about the differences?

o Evolutionary altruism: as long as there are costs to the helper, then it is altruism Psychological Altruism: Needs to have a motivation to help regardless of the cost

How and Why does self-esteem affect how successful fear-based persuasive attempts will be?

o High self-esteem: high levels of fear work best (more receptive in emergencies, and more threatened to get rid of negative emotion o Low self- esteem: low, moderate levels work best with a delay: already focused inwards, scare again and become even more inwardly focused (too distressed: will leave)

• Cialdini (1988) v Schroeder et al. (1988)...are they consistent? Why or why not?

o In Cialdini's study, people would not help even when similar (help, leave, or watch funny video). When empathy was high (similarity) it didn't lead to help like in Shroeder et al. 1988, where men were given drug of mood fixedness. Even if they thought their mood was fixed, people still helped.

• Piliavin et al. (1969) New York subway study...know what they did and what they found

o In a new York subway study, a victim would come in. depending on the length of time the victim would stare at the ceiling and fall down. o Half the time the victim had a cane. o Half the time the victim smelled of alcohol and had a brown bag. o They vary to the potential costs of intervention. Possible sources of need were varied. o Not helping someone with a cane, costs are high o VICTIM DESERVINGNESS o Also said costs to women may have been higher, victims were male—may have been too heavy for women. o Also said, womens role in culture was not to help o Diffusion of responsibility didn't occur—less people, less help o Victim with cane helped 95% of time o Drunk person helped 50% of time o Drunk person helped less b/c perceived costs were higher, and costs of not helping drunk were less- attribution: they did it to themselves

: Clark & Word (1972)...why was the bystander effect not found for some of the participants?

o In this experiment, male college students participated either alone or in groups of 2 person groups or 5 person groups. o While students were filling out questionnaires, they witnessed an apparent university maintenance employee enter an adjacent room carrying a ladder and blind set. o After a few minutes, the students either heard an unambiguous(loud crash and groans of pain) or ambiguous (crash but not verbal cues indicating pain) emergency o The typical bystander effect occurred for groups exposed to the ambiguous emergency. Students in the 2 and 5 person groups were less likely to help than those who were alone. o When the situation was unambiguous, the bystander effect was not present Helping occurred in every case regardless of who was present. o The emergency was so clear that there could only be one interpretation for what was happening. The victim was severely hurt, so assistance was needed immediately. o In ambiguous situations, people will seek social information to gain a better understanding of what is going on. We will be most influenced by people who are perceived to have the most valid information. (social comparison theory shows we seek information from people most similar to us)

• Reno, Cialdini, & Kallgren (1993)...what norms work best to promote helping?

o Injunctive norms work best to promote helping... people see what others do and follow suit. People littered the parking ticket less when they saw the confederate pick up the piece of trash, and vice versa.

• How is attractiveness and similarity related to helping?

o Interpersonal, Physical appearance, friendly behavior, what you find attractive. o Cost-reward-> especially in opposite sex relations o As feelings and similarity increase, helping increases

• Benson, Karabenick, & Lerner (1976)...what did they do and what did they find?

o Laid out job applications on table (Half attractive/ half unattractive) o Dependent variable: who mailed them in. o ½ mailed attractive applications in while 1/3 mailed unattractive applications in

• Toi & Batson (1982)...what did they do? What were results? Why did results suggest empathy-based altruism exists?

o Listened to a taped interview with a student who had ostensibly broken both legs in an accident and was behind in classes. Two factors were manipulated: empathetic vs. non-empathetic set, manipulated by saying how you would feel in Carol's place; and the costs of helping, manipulated by whether or not the injured student was expected to be seen every day once she returned to class. The dependent variable was whether Ss responded to a request to help the injured student catch up in class. As the empathy-altruism hypothesis predicted, people in the high empathy condition helped regardless of cost, while those in the low empathy condition helped only if the cost of not helping was high o to produce empathic concern were asked to imagine how the person felt. o Students not empathically aroused, helped less when it was costly to them. o Varied to show empathic concern and helping do occur when they knew others wouldn't find out.

• According to the Arousal: Cost-Reward Model, what kind of arousal will actually motivate helping?

o Low costs for direct help, high costs for no help to the victim with direct interaction will actually motivate helping.

• How and when does ostracism affect prosocial behavior?

o Ostracism is being ignored and excluded ♣ Initial reaction=pain (regardless of personality or social/situational factors) ♣ Recover thwarted needs of control and meaningful existence (anti-social behaviors) Allows you to maintain control. o Recover Thwarted needs of self-esteem and belonging = social attentiveness and prosocial behaviors we present ourselves in a positive way because we cant risk not being included. Help people who exclude you. o We don't like being ignore, so we act prosocial to keep that from happening.

• Gaertner & Dovidio (1977) extra-sensory perception (ESP) study....what did they do? What were the results? What explains the results they found?

o Participants came and took an "ESP" pill o Pil had side affect: arousal o ½ were told of side affects o ½ had to figure out where arousal should come from o loud noises/stage o people who believed pill caused negative arousal helped 55% of the time (helping would not rid of the arousal) o people who didn't know about arousal source helped 88% of the time

• The Arousal:Cost-Reward Model...know the 5 propositions and recognize examples

o Proposition 1: Observation of need arouses bystanders ♣ Clarity, severity, and duration of need and bystander's psychological closeness. More arousal=more help o Proposition 2: As a victim's need grows, observer's distress grows depending on ... ♣ Bystander's sensitivity to others ♣ Victim characteristics ♣ Bystander-victim relationship ♣ Severity of situation, as distress grows, bystander's need to reduce distress grows ♣ Need to attribute arousal to the person in need ♣ STEP WHERE NEED TO ATTRIBUTE MATTERS (AN EXPLANATION) ♣ Two-factor theory of emotion explains this (asks what is a possible source for this??) o Proposition 3: Observers will conduct a cost-reward analysis ♣ A behavior will be chosen if if it reduces the arousal and the costs are as small as possible o Proposition 4: The quickest path to reduce arousal is chosen ♣ some observers will quickly choose a helping option without much consideration of the costs and rewards (eg. Net costs may be too high) in order to reduce arousal ♣ some observers will choose to leave and not help in order to reduce arousal. ♣ NOT SAYING THAT BECAUSE YOU NOTICE THE VICTIM, IT IS WHAT YOU CARE ABOUT o Proposition 5: absence of stimulus reduces distress ♣ The longer one is absent from the source of arousal, one's own arousal will eventually decrease regardless of whether the person in need received help.

• Latane & Darley (1970) smoke-filled room study...what did they do and what did they find?

o Pumping smoke into a room where questions were being asked. o Varied who you were in the room with. (1 other person-2, 2 other people-3) o Varied what other people did. (some were actors, non-reaction) o Some 3 naïve nonconfederates o P | PCC | PPP o When alone, 75% told someone about the smoke o When with 2 confederates, 10% told someone about the smoke o When with 2 participants, only 38% people got up. (might naturally feed each other ignorance o Where individual differences may matter, more similar, more influence. Bias you to think what they do is "right

• Piliavin & Piliavin (1972) Philadelphia subway study...know results

o Results: Subway in Philadelphia- half of the victims had blood showing while the other half had no blood ♣ When blood wasn't there, COSTS PERCEIVED TO BE LOWER, so more help was given. When blood was there, less help was given.

• Arousal: Cost Reward Model...know what factors increase or decrease the amount of arousal experienced

o Situational characteristics ♣ Norms, money, blood, type and number of bystanders, time, exclusion, severity o Bystander characteristics ♣ Expert, emotions, culture, nervous, system/genetic tendencies, self-licensing o Victims characteristics ♣ Race, similar, attractive, group membership, relative?

• Cialdini et al. (1975) door-in-the-face study...what did they find? Recognize examples of this technique.

o Solicitor asked to volunteer 2 hours per week for 2 years, then asked for 2 hours one weekend. o Asked 2 groups, one with prepping with first question, one with only the last question o 17% compliance after only small request 50% after large request then small request

• Levine et al.'s (2005) "ingroup" helping study....what did they do and what did they find?

o Students identified as "Manchester United Soccer Football Fans" o Study 1- send to adjacent building... (a jogger wearing one of two shirts, one of favored team and one of not) slipped on grass, grasped ankle, and groaned in pain. o An injured stranger wearing an in-group team shirt is more likely to be helped than when wearing a rival team shirt or an unbranded sports shirt. o More help was given to members of their "group"- 80% Manchester fans helped Manchester while only helped 20% of Liverpool fans o In second study, before being sent to adjacent building, researchers explained the research study concerned the "positive aspects of bring a football fan" o Jogger wore 1/3 shirts- Manchester, Liverpool, and plain. Signifigantly increased helping. Manchester 80%, Liverpool 64%, and Plain shirt 19%. o Showed that being apart of superordinate group was all that matters sometimes. Have to be remembered of it, may only care about a certain one at a time (common identity).

• Horowitz (1971) what did they do? What did they find?

o Took 80 males o 40 from social fraternity, 40 from service group. o Discussion with people you don't see over a microphone, assume others are there. o Half were talking about their various social groups. Half did not. o Believed they were either alone, or 3 bystanders o In social fraternity groups, bystander effect explained help taking longer than when alone. Help given faster when prepped by talking about it. o In Service groups, bystander effect was reversed because norms were enduced and people believed they would be judged for not helping.

• Darley & Latane's (1968) seizure study...know procedure, results and why results occurred

o Urban environment cover (epileptic seizure was said to happen at certain topics) o Halfway he seized o Dependent variable=how many people got up o Varied how many people believed were present (couldn't see them) o If they believed they were the only one they would be more likely to help quicker because there were no visible cues for inaction o Smaller group= more responsibility o o Alternate of study done where all people in different building, so size of group didn't matter= 100% responsibility because others are incapable o When people believed they were the only one in the room, most helped immediately and within a few minutes. When they believed that someone was listening as well, that there were two bystanders, they were less likely to offer help and did so more slowly. When they believed that four others were listening, (five bystanders) they were even less likely to help THE PRESCENSE OF BYSTANDERS REDUCE HELPING

Norm of Social Responsibility...how do attributions affect the emotional experience of this norm?

o We help those who NEED your help. Aka those who deserve your help. The controllability of a person's problem is a major determinant in whether you feel sympathy or anger. Liberals help regardless in natural disasters, conservative wonder what you could have done to stop the problem

• Cialdini & Schroeder (1976) "Even-a-penny" study...what did they do? What did they find? What was the reason they found it? What were donors avoiding by donating?

o Went around posing as American Cancer Society asking for money ♣ 28% gave half the time just a request ♣ 50% gave half the time when "even a penny" was used o removed any possible excuses, set people up for guilt, asked how much do people usually give? o Avoidance of bad, or search for good?? o All about how we feel

• Know the Cost for Helping/Cost for Not Helping matrix...what possible bystander responses are likely to occur when considering both kinds of costs?

o When cost for helping is high, do nothing of call upon someone else o When costs are low, assess situation and help or not o When costs for not helping are high, help

• Bystander effect: know what it is...recognize examples

o being in the presence of others inhibits helping in an an emergency where an illusion is created that no help is really needed ♣ Ex:) Kitty Genovese

• Social exchange theory...how does this explain helping?

o every human interaction is a "transaction". Everything affects our interpretation of what is costly/rewarding o Explains helping because we help those who have helped us in the past

What does moral self-licensing look like? Be able to generate a "typical" situation in which someone may succumb to self-licensing. Know the "typical" research done

o is when it is felt that past good deeds can liberate us to engage in immoral, unethical, prejudicial behavior. ♣ Typical situation in which one succumbs to self-licensing- diet soda with a cheeseburger then reward self with ice cream. View crime as obvious guilt and obvious non guilt. (4 white and 1 black)... say "good for me, I did something noble" ♣ Misremember how many blacks were actually in line up (memory) and misremember them as blacker (perceptions) racial discrimatory bias emerges ♣ Students who said they supported Obama, were more pro whie later on hard to convince someone that their motivation is changed.

Know Batson's 3-Motivation Paths to Helping

perception of other's need->Reward-seeking, egoistic, help given, not necessarily effectively perception of other's need-> egoistic, response that most reduces arousal perception of other's need-> altruistic, help effectively given

Step one: Notice the event

• May not notice because you are distracted or in a hurry. o Stimulus overload/too little stimulation o Close proximity helps o Mood can affect our attention (good mood- more willing to help)(bad mood- less willing, focus is outwards) o Other aspects grab attention such as screaming

Step 2: Interpret the event as an emergency

• More distressing stimulus, more likely to think it as an emergency. Grab attention in a clear way o What others do matters o Rather than just some noise (unclear)- presence of others in action may not matter o Easier to recognize and emergency in someone we know- familiarity matters o BYSTANDER EFFECT (although not a guarantee) o Informational social influence- need to be correct, look to others ♣ more similar, more likely to think that what they do it "right" ♣ leads to pluralistic ignorance ♣ inaction becomes a source of information reciprocity

Step 5: Implement Decision

• dangers- all about motivation legally physically • we can learn to be motivated by witnessing behavior and seeing them rewarded: Mr. Rogers • consider rewards- we will be motivated to help if we think we can get something out of it • time... am I busy or in a hurry? o Make a quick decision

Step 4: Know appropriate form of assistance

• may not know CPR or whatever is necessary • surrounded by "experts", you will help less

Step 3: Assume Responsibility

• size of group matters o only witness= 100% my fault o diffusion of responsibility o smaller group=more responsibility o BYSTANDER EFFECT (although not a guarantee) o Is it normal for people like you to help? o Norms not there or costs too high- we may pawn off responsibility o Latane and Darley say we will help if we don't have an out

o COSTS FOR NOT HELPING

♣ Guilt or blame • Publicly identified and someone who failed to help a person in need ♣ Potential irresponsibility • Personally identified as irresponsible ♣ Unpleasant Arousal • Feeling of upset and distress associated with witnessing another person suffer ♣ Victim's Need • the situation involves serious need for the victim and need continues ♣ Victim Deservingness • Victim seen as innocent or not responsible for the problem

o REWARDS FOR HELPING

♣ Monetary Compensation • High financial Reward ♣ Social Reward • Fame, gratitude, reciprocity, self-image ♣ Internal/Emotional • Reduce distress and guilt, self-image

o COSTS FOR HELPING

♣ Psychological Aversion • Situations involving someone or something that people find unpleasant (blood/drunk people), doubt or worry (worrying about not helping enough may lead you to not help at all) ♣ Possible Physical Harm • Direct Intervention may be dangerous or painful ♣ Effort and Time • Interruption/ postponement of important or desired activity ♣ Money expended or forgone • Financial cost ♣ Social Disproval Helping breaks a social rule (group norms)