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!

– Can helping behaviour be motivated by our desire

for pleasure?
Is ALTRUISM possible?

• The behaviourists & reinforcement?

– All behaviour is reinforced (shaped) by pleasure?

– Can we feel pleasure when we help others?

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)
The GOOD SAMARITAN

• The questions

• Why do we sometimes help others?

• When may we not help others?

• What triggered psychological research?

The Strange case of
Kitty Genovese
• Latane & Darley (1964)
• 38 witnesses & no-one helped!

• WHY the unresponsive bystander?

– Diffusion of responsibility?
The question…

• What conditions make it probable

• That we will help?

• or
• That we will look the other way?
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
Step 1 - Noticing the event

• If we do not NOTICE we will not help

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)
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
Step 4 - Choose a way to help

• This involves making a decision and perhaps

weighing up…..

• Costs vs Benefits of helping

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?

The problem with this model

• It explains …….

• Why people DO NOT HELP

• NOT WHEN & WHY THEY DO

Pause for thought …

• When do we help others

• When are we less likely to help others?

• (helping situations)
When DO people HELP and WHY

• Piliavin Rodin & Pilavin (1968)

– (A Field Experiment)

• Good Samaritanism on the New York Subway

• tested ….
The cost / benefit theory

• That when confronted with an ‘emergency’

• We balance
• The possible costs against the possible benefits
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)
The possible costs for
NOT HELPING
• We may feel ashamed (I should have helped)

• Something bad will ‘be our fault’ (The victim may

die)
The possible rewards for helping

• Social approval (thanks from victim)

• Self- esteem (feeling good about oneself)

• Positive emotional response (feelings of elation

and gladness)
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)
The study ……….

• Piliavin Rodin & Piliavin

• A Field Experiment

• Good Samaritanism on the New York Subway

The Field Experiment …..

• The method (Field Experiment)

• The location

• The New York Subway (underground train)

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

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
The field experiment …….

• What sort of people helped….?

• Males more than females

• More same ‘race’ helpers in drunk condition

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’
The field experiment …..

• Conclusion (1)

• The diffusion of responsibility hypothesis not

supported

• The more people there were the more they

helped
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
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
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
The field experiment …..

• Characteristics and situation of the victim may

contribute to the our decision as to whether we
help
The field experiment ……

• Was it ethical?

• Did it have ecological validity

Piliavin, Rodin and Piliavin …

• Read .. the study

• The topic ‘pro-social’ behaviour