Piliavin 2008 by p3K41J7b


									The Social Approach
   Altruism has been
    defined as behaviour
    intended to help others
    having NO benefit to
   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
   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
       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
   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

   Might I do more harm than good?
   It explains …….

   Why people DO NOT HELP

   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

   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
   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

   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

   The more people there were the more they
   Conclusion (2)
   The emergency created a ‘state of emotional
   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
   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
   Was it ethical?

   Did it have ecological validity
   Read .. the study

To top