Reading...
Play button
Play button
Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
19 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Prosocial behavior
|
Behavior performed with the goal of benefiting another person
|
|
|
Altruism
|
Prosocial behavior that does not benefit the helper at all
Subset of prosocial behavior..in no way benefits the person providing the help |
|
|
3 evolutionary factors
|
Evolutionary Factors
Kinship selection Preferential helping of genetic relatives Help the people genetically related to you If relative survive, genes also survive..more likely to help if related closer genetically Reciprocal helping Help others so they will help you Fits with norm of reciprocity…humans evolves in groups More likely to survive if they had understanding with neighbors for a norm of reciprocity Cooperative groups Help ingroup members more than outgroup members Even if this doesn’t directly help my genes survive, it still makes sure that my group will survive longer than the other group (adaptive) |
|
|
Social exchange theory
|
Help when rewards are greater than costs
Motivated by us maximizing awards and minimizing costs |
|
|
Empathy
|
Putting self in another person’s place
Can lead to altruism Empathy-altruism hypothesis (Batson, 1991) Empathy: Altruistic motivation drives helping No empathy: Social exchange drives helping |
|
|
The same act being explained
|
Goal will be to help that person…a selfless goal
Just feels personally upset…he is doing it for selfish reasons because he will benefit..his motive is to make himself feel better How do we know if they did it for altruistic reasons or ego reasons? You have to ask “was there an easy way out of this situation” |
|
|
Role models with altruistic personalities
|
People who have role models to help, are more likely to help
Study manipulated whether there was a role model helping that woman or not..second flat tire down the road..more likely to help second woman Also, parents who model it have kids that help more often |
|
|
5 things of WHO is likely to help
|
Role models
Ingroup status People more likely to help people in their ingroup Gender? Women are more likely to help in ways that require emotional nurturance/commitment Men are more likely to help in heroic events…mayor rushed in to carry woman out Good mood Good moods! People who are near cookie smells are more likely to provide help Increase compliance too with mood maintenance…happy primes Bad mood Sometimes bad moods can increase helping too Guilt increases likelihood of unasked-for helping, even if no one helps Will you take a picture of me with your friend..camera doesn’t work “you broke my camera” or “this thing breaks all the time”…manipulating whether you feel guilty…old lady walks by and candy falls out of bag..who is going to help her pick up that candy more often? “you broke my camera” (negative state relief hypothesis) |
|
|
4 things of who is more likely to RECEIVE help
|
Friends (vs. strangers)
Whether you are asking for help from friends or strangers..more likely to get help if asking friends or people you are close with Other factors? Attractiveness Attractive people get more help…have that stereotype that attractive people have all of these other good qualities Responsibility for predicament More likely to receive help, if it seems like it was not your fault Or maybe the “Just world hypothesis” More comforting if the people did something to deserve it..this would be a impediment to helping Similarity Like people who are similar to us…evolutionary motivated to help people in our in-groups |
|
|
Bystander effect
|
Presence of other people actually inhibits helping behavior
Its not my place to tell her..somebody else will tell her..the number of people witness an event, determines The more people witness someone needing help, less likely each individual person is for providing help Why? Diffusion of responsibility Expectation that others will or should take responsibility for helping |
|
|
Darley and Latane study
|
Group discussion over intercom
IV: 2-student, 3-student, or 5-student group “Victim”: “. . .I could really er use some help so if somebody here er help er uh uh uh (choking sounds) . . . I’m gonna die er er I’m gonna die er help er er seizure (chokes, then is quiet).” DV: % who helped within 6 minutes And how quickly As there are more people who witness emergency, less chance that people get help over time |
|
|
Van Bommel reading/study
|
Hypothesis?
High public self-awareness (concern with how others view us) & bystander effect: The bystander effect can be reversed if the people feel accountable for their actions, or other people are watching them or judging them..high in public self awareness 2 studies How do they manipulate public self-awareness? S1? Does your name stand out S2? camera How do they manipulate number of bystanders? # of others in chat room How do they measure helping? How many responses they gave to help seeking messages What do they find? Study 1 is classic bystander effect…the more bystanders, less people helped…they saw this effect when name wasn’t special..when name stood out, they got a reversal…more bystanders, less people helped Study 2 same thing..more people, less helping…but with camera, get reversal If you are made to feel that there are eyes on you, you will reverse it..more likely to help |
|
|
5 steps of providing help
|
Noticing, interpreting, taking responsibility, deciding how to help, helping
|
|
|
Step 1: noticing
|
Ps were studying to be ministers, asked to give a talk
Talk topic: ½ Good Samaritan (parable) or ½ job prospects Rushed or not: ahead of schedule, on time, or late On their way to the talk, Ps passed a person who was slumped in a doorway, coughing & groaning Who helped? THINKING OF HELPING OR NOT HAD NO EFFECT ON WHETHER HELPED OR NOT |
|
|
Step 2: Interpreting
|
Pluralistic Ignorance
People mistakenly believe that their own feelings are different from those of others, even though everyone’s behavior is the same. You think they have more information than you. Darley & Latane (1968) Smoke-filled room Alone or in groups of 3 Who alerted the experimenter? Alone? 75% Group of 3? 38% Interpreting what you notice as an emergency |
|
|
More about Step 2 interpreting
|
2: we feel less likely to interpret something as emergency if the two know each other
|
|
|
Step 3: taking responsibility
|
If feel anonymous, less likely to help..like Van bommel article
Group roles make you feel more responsible |
|
|
Step 4: deciding how to help
|
Special skills?
Direct help Do something yourself (e.g., medical procedure) Competence important Indirect help Get someone else to do something Particularly important for direct help But some kinds of help are more indirect like calling the police lack of competence |
|
|
Step 5 helping
|
Still have to overcome…
Cost-benefit analysis Still have to overcome social exchange theory (is it worth the risk to help) Audience inhibition Reduced helping due to concern over how we will look to others |
