Rel Studies And Theories (Rel 3-6)

Front 1

Whiting and Whiting, 1975
- effects of culture on pro-social behavior
- a sociocultural factor affecting pro-social behavior / human relationships
- culture as a factor affecting bystanderism

Back 1

Whiting and Whiting, 1975 showed that there are cultural differences in the degree of prosocial behavior among the children (probably due to different childrearing patterns and cultural dimensions such as individualism and collectivism) in six cultures.
Method: systematic naturalistic observation of cultural differences in child-rearing practices and the consequences of that on prosocial behavior
Aim: to compare prosocial behavior in six cultures as a result of child-rearing practices
Participants: 3-11-year-old children in six different countries
Kenya, The Philippines, Japan, India, Mexico, USA

Results: The degree of modernization influences prosocial behavior. Children in more modern societies are exhibit less prosocial behavior.
- More prosocial behavior found in Mexico and the Philippines than in the other countries
-Most prosocial behavior found in the most traditional society, in rural Kenya
- The most egoistic children came from the most complex modern society, the US.

Front 2

Whiting and Whiting - evaluation

Back 2

(-) High ecological validity since a naturalistic observation was used.
(-) No cause and effect can be inferred.
(+) High cross-cultural validity since the study was conducted in as many as six different cultures on different continents. However, we don’t know to what extent one can generalize to similar cultures that were not included in the study.
(-) A general problem with cross-cultural qualitative research is that few studies follow the same method in each culture and that what is meant by ‘help’ differs between cultures as do motives for helping. It is difficult to compare cultures. However, trained anthropologists were used as researchers.
(-) In order for the results to be valid, the results need to be replicated but qualitative methods such as observations are difficult to replicate. However, there are quite a few cross-cultural studies that confirm the cultural differences, so one could conclude that there are some differences.

Front 3

Madsen, 2007
- a biological factor affecting pro-social behavior / human relationships
- supports kin selection theory (bio theory of altruism)

Back 3

METHOD: Natural experiments using a repeated measures design.
IV: the genetic closeness/relationship between the participants and the one receiving the monetary or food award. DV: helping (operationalized as the time the participant endured in a painful position)
AIM: to investigate whether an individual’s willingness to endure physical pain to the benefit another person depends on their biological relatedness in different cultures (students in London and two Zulu populations from South Africa (two non-western populations)
PARTICIPANTS: Students in London (western culture) and two Zulu populations from South Africa (two non-western populations where food items were used
RESULTS: the cost that participants imposed on themselves (the pain endured measured in the time they kept the position) was proportional to the degree of relatedness of the recipients. The closer the relationship, the longer they held the position. The only difference between participants from London and South A

Front 4

McMillan and Austin, 1971

Back 4

METHOD: experiment
IV: whether the participant is made to lie/feel guilty by asking them if they had any information about the test. One group had received information and the other had not; DV: the number of minutes they helped correcting papers
Aim: to investigate whether creating a feeling of guilt (IV) in participants would lead to helping (DV) another person to a greater extent.
IV: guilt (guilt was created by making the participants lie about having heard about the test before. Some lied and some didn’t.
DV: helping (number of minutes the participants would help correct papers written by other students)
PARTICIPANTS: students (who believed they were participating in a study to earn credit toward a course requirement), so it was a lab experiment but they were deceived about the true aim.
PROCEDURE:REad in handout.
RESULTS: Those who had lied and not mentioned that they knew about the test offered help for 63 minutes on average, while those who had not lied offered less

Front 5

McMillan and Austin - evaluation

Back 5

(+) High ecological validity (field experiment)
(+) Cause and effect established (IV, DV). Guilt causes people to help to a greater extent.
(-) There are other explanations (biological, etc.). See the biological theory and use it as another possible explanation.
(-) Deception

Front 6

Kin selection theory
- a theory of altruism
- a theory of human relationship

Back 6

The theory states that the degree of altruism depends on the number of genes shared by individuals. The closer the relationship between the helper and those being helped, the greater the chance for altruistic behavior.

It is a biological theory (since it is an evolutionary explanation of altruism).

Front 7

Kin selection theory - evaluation

Back 7

(-) The theory does not explain why people sometimes help complete strangers. If the motive for helping is to reproduce your genes then there would seem to be no reason to, for example, adopt a child or help people who are not related to you.

(-) The theory is difficult to test under controlled conditions, altruism is difficult to operationalize but this specific study is quite ingenious.

(-) It is always difficult to provide evidence for evolutionary explanations since you would have to show evidence of how human kind has developed, so most of the explanations are post hoc explanations. This means that studies are conducted today, to show evidence of something that has already occurred (evolutionary change), in this case that altruism as a behavior has survived because it has increased the survival of our own genes, since we share them with those who are related to us.

Front 8

The negative state relief theory
- a theory of altruism
- a theory of human relationships

Back 8

According to this theory, people help in order to overcome the negative moods/emotions/states that arise from harming another person. Guilt, for example, is a negative mood and we want to relieve it. We can do this by helping someone.

This is a psychological theory of altruism.

Front 9

The negative state relief theory - evaluation

Back 9

(+) There is research to support, for example McMillan and Austin (+) and the theory has stimulated further research (It has so called heuristic value).
(+) The theory can explain why we might help a perfect stranger. This is something that kin selection theory cannot explain.
(+) Since there is experimental research to support, we can draw the conclusion that negative mood/feelings cause people to help.
(+) The theory has high falsifiability value meaning that it uses concepts and definitions that can be tested.
(-) However, feelings like guilt are a bit difficult to operationalize (in this case by making them cheat. Not everyone feels guilty after having cheated, maybe.)
(+) Applicability: the theory has helped psychologists understand everyday human helping behavior. From this particular study we understand that guilt as an emotion can make us help others.
(-) The theory does not really predict how one person will behave in a given situation

Front 10

Theory:pPuralistic ignorance
- a theory of bystandersim
- the factor affecting bystanderism is presence of others

Back 10

This factor means that if several people are present and nobody shows signs of concern or action, then the situation may be socially defined as ’in need of no action’. This is a form of informational social influence (=others influence us because we think that they are right). Bystanders look to each other to know how to react and if they help will depend on if others react.

Front 11

Theory: Diffusion of responsibility
- a theory of bystanderism
- the factor affecting bystandersim is presence of others

Back 11

As the number of bystanders in an emergency increases the number of helpers decreases (the greater the belief is that someone else will help. It is as if the responsibility is shared.). When several people watch an incident like the Kitty murder, they seem to reason that somebody else can, should, and probably will offer assistance. This is called the bystander effect. With a higher the number of bystanders, help decreases.

Front 12

Latene and Darley, The smoke filled room
- study supporting the theory of pluralistic ignorance
- a theory explaining human relationships (helping)

Back 12

METHOD: lab experiment
AIM: To investigate if individuals exposed to a room filling with smoke in the presence of passive others will remain passive (and how group size influences helping)
IV: the presence of others (1. participant alone, 2. two confederates (not reacting) with the participant, 3.Three participants (not known to each other. DV: helping (.ength of time they remained in the room before leaving to report the smoke was measured.
PARTICIPANTS: male students
RESULTS: Participants were less likely to report the smoke when in the presence of passive others (10%) or in groups of 3 (38%) than when alone (75%) even though they couldn’t see clearly after 6 minutes.
When others were passive 10% helped
When 3 participants were there 38% helped (probably because some of them helped)
When alone 75% helped
CONCLUSION::The participants seem to have interpreted the ambiguous situation as not being an emergency. Seeing otherS remain passive, led them to decide not to help

Front 13

Latené and Darley - evaluation

Back 13

(-) Demand characteristics: The participants could have figured out the aim. In the post-experiment interviews some said they figured out the smoke was a part of the experiment
(+) Cause and effect can be inferred: The cause of not helping (DV) is other people not reacting (IV)
(-) Deception: The participants were not told the true aim. They were invited to an interview to discuss ”some of the problems involved in the life at an urban university”. However, they were debriefed and little harm was caused. The means could be said to justify the ends (Finding out which factors influence helping behavior is important).
(-) Lack of ecological validity (Make sure that you are aware that, even though most experiments on this phenomenon seem to be experiments, there are famous field experiments. Piliavin conducted helping experiments in a real life environment)

Front 14

Latené and Darley, 1968 - Discussing social problems in cubicles when someone has a seizure
- supports theory: diffusion of responsibility
- a theory explaining human relationships (helping)

Back 14

METHOD: lab experimentIV: size of group The participants thought they were talking to other participants from their cubicles (with 5, 2 or 1 other ”participant” or alone)
DV: helping
PARTICIPANTS: students from New York
AIM: to investigate diffusion of responsibility in a lab setting (and the influence of the size of the group)
RESULTS: As the number of others believed to be present increases, the percentage of participants helping decreases.
•Alone: all intervened
•Group of 2: 85% intervened
•Group of three: 62% intervened
•Group of six 31% intervened

Front 15

Latené and Darley, 1968 - seizure study
Evaluation

Back 15

(-) Deception: participants were led to believe that it was a study of how students adjust to university life in a highly competitive, urban environment. They were also told the others were participants, but the voices were pre-recorded.
(-) Participant distress: Participants were led to believe that an emergency is taking place. Seizure
(+) Debriefing was very careful + post-experimental questionnaire: all said they believed the deception was justified and would be willing to participate in similar experiments again. None reported any feelings of anger towards the experimenters. All of them reported anxiety (which means they cared)
(+) Cause and effect can be determined (a larger number of people present causes less helping)
(-) Lack of ecological validity since it was a lab experiment
(+) Control of extraneous variables in lab experiments, for example making sure that every participant was exposed to the same conversation (voices recorded)