Piliavin’s 1969 Samaritan study suggest that the characteristics of the person in need is an important factor in determining whether help is given or not. We perceive certain types of people to be more deserving of help than others. In the study, participants were more likely to offer help to the blind confederate (90%) rather then drunk confederate (20%). Race was another factor involved, there was no difference between black/white helpers if someone was blind, but black people tend to help the black drunk confederate and the white people help white drunk.
Piliavin et al (1981) proposed that gender and personality are also important factors in BB. Women are seen as helping more when a nurturing response is required whereas men tend to offer physical help. Men are more likely to help women than other men. Latane and Darley’s cognitive model formulated 5 stages to explain BB at emergencies why people sometimes do and sometimes do not offer help. This includes: whether the bystander notices the situation, interpretation of situation as emergency, whether person takes responsibility, whether they know what to do and the implementation of their decision.
It was suggested that the reluctance to help might be because they may not be trained or competent to do so. Therefore people who have the responsibility of group leadership or are trained to deal wit an emergency are more likely to help.
Piliavin et al introduced the theory of the arousal: cost reward model which suggest that a bystander’s motivation for involvement is determined by the mount of arousal they feel in relation to the outcome of weighing up both the costs and benefits of helping. For example, the costs of helping a friend is low whilst the emotional reward is high, the bystander is willing to intervene.
The costs of helping may include, effort, time, loss of resources, risk of harm, etc. All these factors are weighed against the benefits of helping such as, social approval, self esteem, positive emotional response, etc.
There is considerable support for the claim that people are aroused by the distress of others and this may differ across cultures. From this research, it is shown that we are more likely to help those we perceive to be similar ourselves, those less able to help themselves (children and elderly people) and those we are physically attracted to.
As most of the studies were lab experiments, there was the problem of experimental validity, did the participants believe the situation is real. The experiment was conducted in an artificial environment, which makes it difficult to generalise to real situation and therefore the result shave low ecological validity. Also there were the limitations of experimenter – participant relationship, demand characteristics and the outcome could have been due to the participants knowing that they were being observed. The Samaritan field experiment, it is not known whether the people involved were debriefing, could the study have cause any distress?
In the smoke experiment, the question of whether the researchers checked the participants’ health before exposing them to the ‘smoke’ is not known. An important and interesting factor is that we do not know who the other bystanders are, there may have been a doctor within the crowd, which may have affected outcome of results. Results due to conformity.
It can be seen therefore that research into BB has emphasised the complexity of the motivations and factors involved when deciding to help someone or not. These studies have made a radical contribution to research in that it has clarified causes why some people help and why some do not.
Altruism
Altruism, a form of prosocial behaviour had been one of many enduring questions social psychologists have investigated. Psychologists have attempted to explain altruism in terms of a person’s willingness to help at a cost. It has been defined by Walster and Piliavin (1972) as ‘ helping behaviour that is voluntary, costly to the altruist and motivated by something other than the expectation of material and social reward. This essay will look at research surrounding or reasons for altruistic behaviour.
Much debate surrounds this topic as it s often unclear whether behaviour is truly altruistic or egoistic (seeking personal reward). Cardwell 1966 suggested that the primary motivation for helping someone is seen as a desire to improve the welfare of another person rather than the anticipation of some reward.
One explanation of altruistic behaviour was attempted by Weiner 1986 who analysed the cause in terms of attribution of responsibility. These attributions create emotional responses, which motivates action or inaction. Attribution to uncontrollable causes such as illness or disability tends to produce sympathy, which results in helping. Attribution to controllable causes such as drunkenness produces anger, which inhibits helping behaviour. This was demonstrated in Piliavin study of ‘subway Samaritan 1969’. Weiner theory is one of many that tried to explain altruism.
Batson empathy altruism hypothesis explains altruistic behaviour in terms of empathy. Witnessing another person in distress creates empathic concern, which motivates helpers to try to relieve their persons distress. Again the reason for helping could be egoistic ‘I should help him to make me feel better’ or altruistic ‘I have got to help him so that he feels better’.
In Batson et al’s study of the empathic condition 1981, he found that the female students in the high empathy condition were much more likely to help the confederate even when they are in a position to escape from this responsibility.
As shown by Batson and his colleagues people help for reasons other than for their own self interest. But it is possible that people who help in such situations do so to avoid punishment such as social disapproval. It is also possible that people help simply to avoid feeling bad about themselves. However, this does not appear to explain why empathic concern motivating helping (Fultz et al 1986). Studies such Batson et al 1988 cast doubt on these claims.
This view of altruistic behaviour is very important, not only does it contradict the assumption that all motivation is directed towards the egoistic goal of increasing our own welfare but contradicts the notion that human nature is self serving.
Another model of altruism is a negative relief model (Cialdini et al 1987) which suggest that when we are experiencing negative states we are motivated to alleviate this condition by helping others. This is personally rewarding and eliminates the negative state. Therefore the motivation for helping is egoistic. This model states that the primary objective of helping behaviour is the enhancement of our mood.
Cialdini 1987 carried out an experiment similar to Batson study on ‘empathic condition’. This time, just before requesting for help was made, the researcher either offers a bonus or heaps of prayers. The bonus made no difference however, those who received praise were still motivated to help. This demonstrated that under some conditions experiencing a mood lifting event may lessen our motivation to relieve our own negative state by helping others. Cialidini research although showing some evidence of helping for egoistic reasons does also seem to support Batsons more optimistic view of human nature.
Smith et al 1989 developed a model empathy joy hypothesis that assumes we enjoy other people’s relief at being helped and so we help others because we are rewarding by their happiness. In Smith’s et al’s study on feedback Smith used a phrase ‘helpers high’ claiming that people get satisfaction when they see that the people they have helped feel better. It has been predicted that if we get feedback it encourages helping behaviour.
Batson 1991 argues that another factor that determines altruistic behaviour is the similarity to the person who needs help. We are more likely to feel emphatic concern when we a close attachment with the person in need.
As the studies were lab experiments, there was the problem of experimental validity, did the participants believe the situation is real. The experiment was conducted in an artificial environment, which makes it difficult to generalise to real situation and therefore the result shave low ecological validity. Also there were the limitations of experimenter – participant relationship, demand characteristics and the outcome could have been due to the participants knowing that they were being observed. Even though the studies have their limitations they have made a radical contribution to psychological research. The results also vary across cultures and so will also depend on the era pf that culture.
It can be seen therefore that research into altruism has emphasised the complexity of the motivations and factors involved when deciding to help someone or not. These studies have clarified causes why some people help and why some do not.
