140 likes | 361 Views
HUMAN RELATIONSHIPS: SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY. Bystanderism Pro-social behaviour Altruism. Pro-social behaviour : behaviour that benefits another person or has positive social consequences Does not consider the motivation Helping behaviour : intentional help or benefit to others
E N D
HUMAN RELATIONSHIPS:SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY Bystanderism Pro-socialbehaviour Altruism
Pro-social behaviour: behaviour that benefits another person or has positive social consequences • Does not consider the motivation • Helping behaviour: intentional help or benefit to others • Altruism: Helping others for no reward or even at some cost to oneself
Pro-socialbehaviour and bystanderism • See CC p.263-270, AL p.249-271, SP p.111-122 • The case of Kitty Genovese 1964 (SP p.112) research of helping behaviour • Latané and Darley: Not helping someone in need of help: bystanderism • Series of experiments • Five-step decision model of bystander intervention, SP p.113
Five-step decision model of bystander intervention: Step 1: Does the bystander notice the event? Step 2: Does the bystander interpret the event as one requiring help? (SP p.113-114) Step 3: Does the bystander assume personal responsibility? (SP p.114-115) Step 4: Does the bystander select a way to help? (SP p.115) Step 5: Does the bystander implement the selected decision? Steps 2-4: Work with a pair – teach each other the research related to steps + make notes
Step 2: Defining the situation as one in which help is needed • Less likely to define help needed if others are present pluralistic ignorance (SP p.113) • Latane & Darley 1968 • Latane & Rodin 1969 • Clark & Word 1974 • the effect of possible embarrassment
Step 3: Assuming personal responsibility or diffusing responsibility • Darley & Latané 1968 diffusion of responsibility (or dissolution?) inverse law of helping behaviour bystander effect
Step 4: Choosing a way to help: the role of competence • When having the necessary skills helping is more likely • Bickman 1971 (SP p.115)
An evaluation of the Latané and Darley’s decision model: • Helps to understand why bystanderism occurs • Applied to many occasions • Emphasis on the effect of cognitions, not emotions • Does not explain why ”no” decisions take place • Focus on why people don’t help, not on why people do help
The cost –reward –model (Piliavin et al.1981) • See SP p.117-, AL p.254-260 • Emphasis on two sets of factors 1) Situational, bystander and victim characteristics + we-ness
2) Cognitive and affective reactions • Arousal + attribution of arousal • Hedonic calculus: costs + rewards • See SP Box 12.4. p.11 • Dovidio et al.1991: the effect of emotional reactions to the distress of others • Emotions motivation • Cognitions the means
1a) effect of characteristics of the victim • Piliavin et al.1969: Study in a subway carriage the effect of a cane/a bottle (Box M + N: AL p.256-257) the effect of attribution • E.g. the effects of • Physical attraction • Race • Gender • Age • Appearance • Similarity to the helper • the effect of blood – Piliavin & Piliavin 1972 • the effect of an ugly facial birthmark – Piliavin & Piliavin are studied (see AL p.257-258 + SP p.116)
1b) the effect of the characteristics of the bystander - mood (SP p.116) - moral values: Oliner and Oliner 1988 (AL p.258) - need for approval (SP p.116) - fear of being embarrassed - the effect of being in a hurry: Darley and Batson 1973 (AL p.259)
1c) The effect of the situation • Amato 1983: the effect of urban/rural environment • Freedman and Fraser 1966 (AL p.259): Foot-in-the-door technique