FOLLOW-UP STUDY
Similar to above but participants were told they would have to complete a Maths test before helping Elaine. This gave them the chance to fail and avoid having to help.
It was found that the participants who scored high on the Maths test also scored high on empathy. This suggests that some individuals have a genuine concern for others and behave unselfishly. It focuses on the positive aspects of human behaviour.
However it is difficult to prove people’s motives for helping and there are times when people help for selfish reasons.
CIALDINI – NEGATIVE STATE RELIEF MODEL
Altruism improves our mood and reduces negative feelings.
Altruism is a selfish act because we do it to make ourselves feel better.
Giving money to charity relieves our guilt about living in a rich society when many people in the world have little to eat.
We are more likely to help if we are in a bad mood as this will help us feel more positive.
The bad mood can arise from the situation where help is needed or from events prior to the situation.
We are more likely to help when helping is easy and very rewarding.
This suggests that if a negative mood cannot be changed by our actions then helping behaviour will not take place.
Cialdini attempted to show this in the laboratory.
CIALDINI’S LABORATORY STUDY
PROCEDURE
Based on Batson’s study
Participants were given a drug (placebo) and told that it would fix their mood so they would not feel any happier whatever they did to improve their mood.
They were then given the chance to behave altruistically by taking the place of someone receiving mild electric shocks (like the Elaine study). They were compared with another group who did not have the drug and believed that their mood could be changed by their actions.
FINDINGS
Participants who had mood fixed didn’t behave altruistically because it wouldn’t make them feel better.
CRITICISMS
- Lacks ecological validity/ Ethical concerns of deception (see Batson’s study)
- Intense negative feelings don’t result in altruism.
People are more likely to help if they are in a good mood.
- Implies humans are selfish
- Cultural bias
Laboratory research conducted in America - an individualistic society.
Cross-cultural research has shown that altruism is higher in collectivist cultures.
(See notes on cultural differences)
A LEVEL PSYCHOLOGY PRO & ANTI – SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR
BYSTANDER BEHAVIOUR
LATANE & DARLEY – DECISION MODEL
When deciding whether to help we ask ourselves 5 questions
- Is there a problem?
- Is help needed?
- Will I help? (Am I prepared to become involved?)
- Can I help? (Have I got the ability to help?)
- Should I help?
SUPPORTING EVIDENCE
- Question 2 - Is help needed?
CLARK & WORD – Study of workman falling of ladder
If we are not sure if help is needed then we are less likely to help
If workman fell off ladder in full view (clear emergency) 100% helped
If fell behind a screen (ambiguous emergency) 50% helped
2. Question 3 - Am I prepared to take responsibility?
LATANE & DARLEY – Study of the smoke filled room
The more people there are present at the emergency the less like people will help
If people were in groups they responded more slowly to the emergency of smoke in the room. They waited for someone else to take action.
This is called DIFFUSION OF RESPONSIBILITY as the responsibility becomes shared out between those present.
3. Question 4 - Can I help?
BYSTANDER CHARACTERISTICS- Studies of different types of helpers
Experts - more likely to help in medical emergency if have first aid training and help in a violent situation if trained in self-defence
Gender – Men more likely to help if dangerous situation or if there is an audience.
They are more likely to help a woman (especially if she is attractive) than another man.
CRITICISMS OF THE DECISION MODEL
- Some of the evidence is based on laboratory studies that lack ecological validity (example of experimental reductionism)
- Doesn’t explain why people will behave impulsively in serious emergencies. We don’t have time to make decisions.
- Implies that helping behaviour is logical and does not consider the emotional effects of experiencing an emergency situation.
An alternative model considers the emotional effects – Arousal/Cost-Reward Model
PILIAVIN – AROUSAL/COST-REWARD MODEL
5 stages to helping
1. Awareness of problem (Is there a problem?)
2. Physiological Arousal results from an awareness of the problem
3. Seek the cause of the arousal: if we experience anger nervousness this decreases likelihood of helping. If we are experiencing concern or distress this increases likelihood of helping.
Whether we actually help also depends on the next stage.
4. Weighing up the Costs v. Rewards of helping and not helping
Costs – Time, Safety, Negative judgements from others
Rewards – Praise, Satisfaction, Relief of guilt
5. Helping behaviour. If cost of helping is low and cost of not helping is high (saving baby who might die) helping will be direct and swift. If the cost of helping is high and cost of not helping low (intervening in a fight) then unlikely that direct help will be given bystander will probably leave the scene.
SUPPORTING EVIDENCE
Research into the costs of helping
PILIAVIN – VICTIM CHARACTERISTICS
If helper is at risk because the victim could cause harm then less likely to help
Observation studies on New York subway using an actor to collapse to see who would help
Less likely to help a drunk / more likely to help disabled
BATSON – TIME
Less likely to help if in a rush
Participants were told they had a task to complete to a deadline.
They then encountered someone needing help. Those in a rush were less likely to help than those who had more time.
CRITICISMS OF AROUSAL/COST-REWARD MODEL
- Doesn’t explain why people will behave impulsively in serious emergencies. We don’t have time to weigh up the costs and rewards of helping.
- People do not need to become aroused before helping. Some people will help without becoming emotional aroused e.g. a doctor is trained give help and respond calmly in emergency situation
CONCLUSION
The Arousal/Cost-Reward model is more acceptable because it considers the emotional effects of dealing with an emergency.
BUT
Research is based in individualistic culture. In collectivist cultures helping behaviour is more likely as there is greater concern for the individuals within the group.
The Decision model and the Arousal/cost-reward model may not be appropriate.
