Discuss the Psychological Processes Which Influence Whether an Individual Will or Will Not Help an Individual In Need.

Although there is credit in the sociobiologist's view of human altruism there are obvious limitations in trying to explain human actions through evolutionary terms. Evolution may leave us with basic theories on helping but today's social and environmental forces have altered our evolutionary processes compared with animals. Therefore, when analysing why a human will help it is also important to assess the social explanations alongside the biological ones.

Social and environmental force's, have altered our evolutionary processes, to become part of everyday life for example social norms such as reciprocity, social responsibility and social justice which serve as guideline's to prosocial behaviour. Nurture can influence whether an individual will or won't help for example parents who discourage aggression and are sharing, caring and empathic themselves, thereby showing the child how and why to help others are more likely to produce altruistic children (Kohn 1988). Alongside parenting influences is the more obvious factor that a warm, friendly community or environment encourages more helping responses than a cold, impersonal environment, for example urban environments. Research has also shown that those who help tend to ne more confident, happier, positive and more achieving people (Myers 1992). if we ourselves have experienced the same or similar stressful situation as someone in need we are more likely to show concern for them(Dovido and Morris 1975). "Altruism depends first on your liking and accepting others, second on our being concerned for others' welfare, and third on your feeling responsible for helping others in need." (E. Staub).

Darley and Latané's Bystander Intervention Model (1970) is a theory that whether a bystander helps in an emergency is a result of a five step decision making process, where each step can result in the bystander failing to help. (1) Do you notice something unusual? One can't react to every unusual sight especially in today's environment where strange things are viewed almost everyday, this is known as the stimulus overload effect. If the situation was perceived to be unusual then certain ambiguities due to different social settings (for example a man lying on the pavement could be drunk, a tramp or physically heart) can deter a bystander from intervening. Urban environments also lack a feeling of community and coldness which creates a less willing to help environment. This is proved by a negative correlation between helping and population density, (Levine et al. 1994). Therefore even at step one there are many reasons for a bystander to ignore a situation without guilt. (2) Do you decide something is wrong and help is needed? We are often prone to incorrectly defining a situation and quickly assuming they are all right and no intervention is needed. (3) Responsibility to help? One's own responsibility can be quickly abandoned if an appropriate authority figure, e.g. Police or doctor, is present. Also if a large number of people are around then the responsibility can be shifted to another, like in the Kitty Genovese case where most of the neighbours assumed that another was calling the police or helping. (4) Do you know the appropriate form of help? Lack of confidence in knowing what to do at this stage is fundamental in not helping as people feel inhibited that they wouldn't know what to do and therefore the possibility of embarrassment can cause them to become an unresponsive bystander at this late stage. (5) Implement one's form of help? Last minute fears of injuring oneself or potential embarrassment can yet again prevent someone from helping.

Relating to Darley and Latané's bystander Intervention Model is their theory of the Audience Inhibition Effect which claims that people are less likely to help when there are others present. This is evident in their 'smoke experiment' of 1968. Subjects were asked to fill out a questionnaire in a room when suddenly white smoke enters the room through a grate, does one react? The results found that when a subject was alone it reacted almost immediately and 75% reported an emergency. However when there was a group of three there was a delayed reaction and only 38% of the time was an emergency reported. When two confederates who were acting unconcerned were in the room with one true subject only 10% reported an emergency. Therefore the Audience Inhibition Effect can be linked to why at each step of the decision model the bystander might decide not to act. There are three components to the Audience Inhibition Effect:(1) Diffusion of responsibility, a belief that the presence of others makes one less personally responsible for events and the assumption that someone else will be helping. (2) Pluralistic ignorance, for example in the Kitty Genovese case the neighbours looked to others for an example of what to do and copied - so did nothing. (3) Ambiguity can make a bystander conscious of potential embarrassment or being negatively evaluated by other bystanders if one perceives a situation wrongly, for example the Kitty Genovese case could have been a lovers' quarrel. However we are unaware of the effect others might have on us when it comes to the decision of helping, therefore this underestimation makes us more likely to fall prey to the Audience Inhibition Effect.

In conclusion, the psychological processes involved in whether an individual will or won't help a stranger in need are both complicated and varied. According to sociobiological principle of kin selection we are more likely to help blood relatives as this will increase the survival of our genes. Sociobiologists also explain that helping strangers can be put down to the act of reciprocity. However biology explanations aren't substantial enough in explaining why people help and one must take other factors into account such as the Audience Inhibition Effect, the Social Exchange Theory, environmental and social forces as well as abstract individual factors which can effect decisions at any one of the five steps in the Bystander Intervention Model. However the question still remains, Does true altruism exist? It is an unflattering view of humans that we only help when we can either gain benefits or the act can be reciprocated. Although it can't be denied that there are rare acts of altruism in humans and it is perhaps a miracle that they exist at all, for example the Christians who sheltered Jews during the Nazi Holocaust by risking their own lives, (London 1970). However it can't be denied that in most cases a human will help a stranger in need mostly when the cost to them is low and the benefits high.

REFERENCES

Franzoi, S.L. (1996) Social Psychology.

Illinois: Brown and Benehmark

Gross, R. (1996) Psychology (Third edition)

London: Hodder and Stoghton

Gleitman, H. (1995) Psychology (Fourth edition)

London: W.W. Norton and Company

Internet Resources

Nancy Duncan Page 1