The Social Approach

Altruism has been defined as behaviour intended to help others having NO benefit to ourselves

Freud & the ID?

the ID operates on the pleasure principle!

Can helping behaviour be motivated by our desire for pleasure?

The behaviourists & reinforcement?

All behaviour is reinforced (shaped) by pleasure?

Can we feel pleasure when we help others?

The Social Learning approach

We learn to be unselfish and to help others by watching others helping

(and by being rewarded when we copy)

The questions

Why do we sometimes help others? When may we not help others?

What triggered psychological research?

Latane & Darley (1964) 38 witnesses & no-one helped!

WHY the unresponsive bystander? Diffusion of responsibility?

We must notice the event We must interpret the event as an

emergency We must assume personal responsibility We must choose a way to help We must implement the decision A negative response at any of these

5 stages means that the bystander will fail to intervene

If we do not NOTICE we will not help

In the sad case of Jamie Bulger many witnesses failed to intervene

They did not interpret the event as an emergency Would you intervene in a lovers quarrel? Not according to Shotland & Straw (1976)

If others are present you may assume THEY will help

This may lead to Diffusion of Responsibility Which may be why no one helped Kitty

Genovese

This involves making a decision and perhaps weighing up…..

Costs vs Benefits of helping

Am I competent to help?

Is there anyone else around who may be more competent?

Might I do more harm than good?

It explains …….

Why people DO NOT HELP

NOT WHEN & WHY THEY DO

When do we help others

When are we less likely to help others?

(helping situations)

Piliavin Rodin & Pilavin (1968) (A Field Experiment)

Good Samaritanism on the New York Subway

tested ….

That when confronted with an ‘emergency’

We balance The possible costs against the possible

benefits

The effort (may be physically demanding)

The time required (we may be late for work)

The loss of resources (damage to clothes) The risk of harm (we may get injured) Negative emotional response (we may

feel sick)

We may feel ashamed (I should have helped)

Something bad will ‘be our fault’ (The victim may die)

Social approval (thanks from victim) Self- esteem (feeling good about oneself)

Positive emotional response (feelings of elation and gladness)

If the rewards for helping outweigh the costs of not helping ….. we are likely to act in a pro-social manner (help)

Piliavin Rodin & Piliavin

A Field Experiment

Good Samaritanism on the New York Subway

The method (Field Experiment)

The location

The New York Subway (underground train)

When and where? (103 ‘experimental trials’ took place)

Between 11.00am and 3.00pm over a period of two months in 1968

On trains between 59th & 125th street No stops, journey time 8 minutes

The participants ? Estimated as 4450 travellers on the

trains 45% black and 55% white

Average number in a carriage was 43 Average no in ‘the critical area’ was 8.5

What was done by whom ?

Teams of 4 student experimenters(two male / two female) Male actors (victim and model) Females were observers

What did they do?

70 seconds after train left station the

VICTIM pretended to collapse…. Waited for ‘help’ …. If no-one ‘helped’ the ‘model’ helped the

VICTIM off at the next stop

Experiment Carriage layout

This was an experiment What were the IVs (independent

variables)

The experimental conditions IV Victims were either black or white

and aged 26 - 35 IV Victims carried bottle & smelled of

alcohol(drunk condition)

or Carried a cane (lame condition) The models were all white aged 24 - 29

The observers recorded the race, age, sex, and location of ‘helper’ passengers

Who helped in which condition?

Also – who said what and who moved away

On 62 of 65 trials the ‘cane’ victim was helped immediately

On 19 out of 38 trials the ‘drunk’ victim was helped immediately

of 81 trials once ONE person helped others did so too

What sort of people helped….?

Males more than females

More same ‘race’ helpers in drunk condition

How many people LEFT the critical area

21 of 103 trials 34 people moved away … more in the drunk condition

There was no diffusion of responsibility Note: people could not ‘get away’

Conclusion (1)

The diffusion of responsibility hypothesis not supported

The more people there were the more they helped

Conclusion (2) The emergency created a ‘state of

emotional arousal’ arousal heightened by

empathy with victim being close to situation length of time of emergency

This arousal state will be interpreted as fear, sympathy or disgust

Can be reduced by moving away helping deciding the victim is undeserving of help

Piliavin et al give a TWO factor model of helping behaviour

Factor 1: The level of emotional arousal (empathy)

Factor 2: The result of a cost: benefit analysis

Thus low empathy + high cost may predict NO helping

Characteristics and situation of the victim may contribute to the our decision as to whether we help

Was it ethical?

Did it have ecological validity

Read .. the study