1 / 41

AS Psychology The Core studies

AS Psychology The Core studies. The Social Approach. Pro-social (Altruistic) behaviour. Altruism has been defined as behaviour intended to help others having NO benefit to ourselves. Is ALTRUISM possible?. Freud & the ID? the ID operates on the pleasure principle!

wynonna-romero
Download Presentation

AS Psychology The Core studies

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. AS PsychologyThe Core studies The Social Approach

  2. Pro-social (Altruistic) behaviour • Altruism has been defined as behaviour intended to help others having NO benefit to ourselves

  3. Is ALTRUISM possible? • Freud & the ID? • the ID operates on the pleasure principle! • Can helping behaviour be motivated by our desire for pleasure?

  4. Is ALTRUISM possible? • The behaviourists & reinforcement? • All behaviour is reinforced (shaped) by pleasure? • Can we feel pleasure when we help others?

  5. Is ALTRUISM possible? • The Social Learning approach • We learn to be unselfish and to help others by watching others helping • (and by being rewarded when we copy)

  6. The GOOD SAMARITAN • The questions • Why do we sometimes help others? • When may we not help others? • What triggered psychological research?

  7. The Strange case of Kitty Genovese • Latane & Darley (1964) • 38 witnesses & no-one helped! • WHY the unresponsive bystander? • Diffusion of responsibility?

  8. Latane & Darley The 5 steps to helping behaviour • 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

  9. Step 1 - Noticing the event • If we do not NOTICE we will not help

  10. Step 2 - Defining the event as an emergency • 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)

  11. Step 3 - Assuming personal responsibility • 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

  12. Step 4 - Choose a way to help • This involves making a decision and perhaps weighing up….. • Costs vs Benefits of helping

  13. Step 5 - Implement the decision • Am I competent to help? • Is there anyone else around who may be more competent? • Might I do more harm than good?

  14. The problem with this model • It explains ……. • Why people DO NOT HELP • NOT WHEN & WHY THEY DO

  15. Pause for thought … • When do we help others • When are we less likely to help others? • (helping situations)

  16. When DO people HELP and WHY • Piliavin Rodin & Pilavin (1968) • (A Field Experiment) • Good Samaritanism on the New York Subway • tested ….

  17. The cost / benefit theory • That when confronted with an ‘emergency’ • We balance • The possible costs against the possible benefits

  18. The possible costs of helping • 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)

  19. The possible costs for NOT HELPING • We may feel ashamed (I should have helped) • Something bad will ‘be our fault’ (The victim may die)

  20. The possible rewards for helping • Social approval (thanks from victim) • Self- esteem (feeling good about oneself) • Positive emotional response (feelings of elation and gladness)

  21. The result of our ‘analysis’ • If the rewards for helping outweigh the costs of not helping ….. we are likely to act in a pro-social manner (help)

  22. The study ………. • Piliavin Rodin & Piliavin • A Field Experiment • Good Samaritanism on the New York Subway

  23. The Field Experiment ….. • The method (Field Experiment) • The location • The New York Subway (underground train)

  24. The Field experiment ….. • 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

  25. The field experiment…... • 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

  26. The field experiment ……. • What was done by whom ? • Teams of 4 student experimenters(two male / two female) • Male actors (victim and model) • Females were observers

  27. The field experiment ……. • 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

  28. The field experiment ……. Experiment Carriage layout

  29. The field experiment …... • This was an experiment • What were the IVs (independent variables)

  30. The field experiment ……. 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

  31. The field experiment …... • 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

  32. The field experiment……. • 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

  33. The field experiment ……. • What sort of people helped….? • Males more than females • More same ‘race’ helpers in drunk condition

  34. The field experiment ……. • 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’

  35. The field experiment ….. • Conclusion (1) • The diffusion of responsibility hypothesis not supported • The more people there were the more they helped

  36. The field experiment …. • 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

  37. The field experiment …. • 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

  38. The field experiment …. • 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

  39. The field experiment ….. • Characteristics and situation of the victim may contribute to the our decision as to whether we help

  40. The field experiment …… • Was it ethical? • Did it have ecological validity

  41. Piliavin, Rodin and Piliavin … • Read .. the study

More Related