Human Relationships - Social Responsibility

IB Psychology Flashcards on Social Responsibility (Human Relationships Poster)

Biological Approach

Suggests everything psychological has a biological basis, so to study human behaviour, biological structures and processes must be considered.

Cognitive Approach

Studies information processing and ways in which that information is extracted, stored, retrieved, and how this guides behaviour.

Social-Cultural Approach

All about how societal and cultural influences affect how we develop, think, feel, and behave.

Biological Approach Strength

High Testability: Easy to test biological substrates through blood tests, brain scans, etc.

Biological Approach Weakness

Reductionist: Ignores the environmental and cognitive processes that influence behaviour.

Cognitive Approach Strength

Application: We can use therapy or group interventions to change thought patterns of individuals and increase empathy to help increase levels of prosocial behaviour in society.

Cognitive Approach Weakness

Empirical Evidence: The data supporting the theories often come from unrealistic tasks used in experiments, leading to the ecological validity being questioned of whether they are realistic representations of behaviour.

Social-Cultural Approach Strength

Predictive Validity: This approach can explain changes in time and individual differences.

Social-Cultural Approach Weakness

Testability: It can be difficult or unnatural to isolate variables when studying the approach and theories.

What are the two studies for Biological Approach in Prosocial Behaviour.

Simmons and Madsen

What are the two studies for Cognitive Approach in Prosocial Behaviour.

Toi & Batson and Batson

What are the two studies for Social-Cultural Approach in Prosocial Behaviour.

Barragan & Dweck and Levine

What are the two studies for Bystanderism?

Latane & Darely and Pilliavin Et Al

What are the two studies for Promoting Prosocial Behaviour?

Flook and Greitemeyer & Osswald

Simmons: Aim, Method, Procedure, Findings

Aim	To test kin-selection theory by investigating the extent to which close relatives of a kidney patient would be willing to offer themselves as a kidney donor
Research Method	Quasi-experiment IV: relatedness to patient DV: Donate/don't donate
Procedure	Questionnaires used to ask if they would be willing to donate their kidney, to their relative who was currently receiving treatment. Kidney patients rated how close they felt to the donor (before the choice from their relatives was made)
Findings	-86% of parents agreed to donate. 47% of siblings. Donors 63% close. Non-donors 42% close

Simmons: CT & EC

Research Strengths + Weaknesses	Strength -High Mondain Realism - Limitation: -Low internal Validity
Ethics Strengths + Weakness

Madsen: Aim, Method, Procedure, Findings

Aim	To investigate how family relationships influence prosocial behavior
Research Method	Lab Experiment: IV: You can keep the money/siblings keep the money/cousin keeps the money/a charity keeps the money DV: how long they lasted in painful position
Procedure	Participants had to maintain a painful position- squatting with their backs against the wall – for as long as they were willing to do so. The longer the participants are willing to hold the painful position, the more money accumulated in their account. Participants attended on successive days and carried out the experiment for one of the nominated categories of relatedness on each day.
Findings	Participants lasted longer in the painful position if the one receiving the money was genetically closer to them

Madsen: CT & EC

Research Strengths + Weaknesses	Strength -High Internal Validity - Limitation: -High Chance of Order Effecs
Ethics Strengths + Weakness

Barragan & Dweck: Aim, Method, Procedure, Findings

Aim	To test the idea that altruism is stimulated by reciprocal activity, rather than being innate.
Research Method	Lab Experiment: Independent groups design with IV: Reciprocal Play vs Parallel Play DV: Helping Behaviour
Procedure	Reciprocal Play: The experimenter and child sat down together and played with one set of toys. They took turns, handing the toy to each other. Parallel Play: The experimenter and the child sat 3 feet away from each other and played from two sets of toys (they were given one set of toys each). The experimenter followed a standardized schedule of looking at the child, smiling at them, and making positive comments about toys. Following initial play: The experimenter signaled they needed help to reach a certain item out of reach. Children were given 30 seconds to help on each trial.
Findings	Children in the reciprocal play helped more than parallel play. Engaging in reciprocal play may establish a 'norm' of helping. Altruism is learnt.

Barragan & Dweck: CT & EC

Research Strengths + Weaknesses	Strength -High Mundane Realism: Playing is natural behaviour for children. - Limitation: -Participant Variability: Maybe children in reciprocal group were just more prosocial.
Ethics Strengths + Weakness

Levine: Aim, Method, Procedure, Findings

Aim	To investigate prosocial behaviour using the cultural dimensions of   individualism/collectivism.
Research Method	Quasi-Experiment: IV: City and helping measure DV: Rate of helping Psychologists were used all over the   world to collect data.
Procedure	23 cities selected and classified as   individualistic or collectivist.  Opportunity sampling within each   country (people who were present when they study was taking place) 3 different scenarios outdoors: 1.A pedestrian  drops a pen in the street without noticing 2.A pedestrian  wearing a leg brace drops some magazines 3.A   blind pedestrian  with a cane waits at the traffic light for assistance.
Findings	Researchers observed the rate and   degree of help given in each of the situations.

Levine: CT & EC

Research Strengths + Weaknesses	Strength - Population Validity (over 20+ countries) -High Ecological Validity Limitation: - Opportunity Sampling (depending on the time of the day, different individuals would have been selected and they may have different characteristics)
Ethics Strengths + Weakness

Toi & Batson: Aim, Method, Procedure, Findings

Aim	To test the idea that the high empathy will lead to a higher degree of helping behavior
Research Method	Lab Experiment: IV: Asked to be objective/asked to empathise DV: Helping Behaviour
Procedure	The participants listened to a fictive interview with Carol Marcy, a freshman in the class who had both of her legs broken in an auto accident and was worried about being able to still pass the course. the researchers manipulated the level of empathy: half the participants were asked to listen to the interview, trying to be as objective as possible (low empathy condition). the other half was asked to imagine the perspective of the person being interviewed (high empathy condition). the researchers also manipulated how costly it would be not to help Carol. in one condition, participants learned that Carol would come back to class next week (high-cost condition) whereas they were told that she would not come to class in the other condition (low-cost condition). after listening to the interview, subjects were asked to help Carol in going over the missed lecture notes.
Findings	those in the high-empathy group were almost equally likely to help Carol in either set of circumstances. The participants in the low-empathy group helped less when it was easy to escape than when it was difficult to escape

Toi & Batson: CT & EC

Research Strengths + Weaknesses	Strength -Internal Validity (control variable is the same story) -Reduced Demand Characteristics (because of deception) - Limitation: -Low Mondain Realism -Participant Variability -Low Population Validity (only students and only females)
Ethics Strengths + Weakness	Ethics: -Deception was used

Batson: Aim, Method, Procedure, Findings

Aim	To conduct a study to compare the negative state relief theory vs the empathy altruism theory
Research Method	Lab  Experiment: IV: AND ease of escape (difficult=10 trials continue watching vs easy=2 trials thats it) DV: helping Elaine (altruistic behavior)
Procedure	Before the experiment began all participants filled out a personality questionnaire. Half of the participants were lead to believe that Elaine was very similar to them (high empathy) while the other half were lead to believe that she was quite different (low empathy). Participants were told they had a partner and there will be one observing and one participating in a memory task to see how someone works under stressful conditions. The observer would watch the partner. Participants watched Elaine (confederate) receive electric shocks at random intervals while she did a memory task and as she become increasingly distressed.   The experimenter went to get Elaine some water and asked participants to complete a survey to measure whether they were feeling personal distress or empathy towards her (key aspects of the empathy-altruism model)  When the experimenter returned, they asked participants if they would like to swap with Elaine or they’d have to continue watching for 8 more trials (10 total for difficult task) or just escape after the 2 are done (easy task)
Findings	High Empathy / Ease of Escape (91% helped) Low Empathy / Ease of Escape (18% helped) High Empathy / Difficult Escape (82% helped) Low Empathy / Difficult Escape (62% helped) The %s above show how many in each condition helped. If they had an easy escape and they were in the low empathy (dissimilar) condition, only 18% of people agreed to swap with Elaine. This is compared to 91% of participants who also had an easy escape, but were lead to believe that Elaine was similar to them (i.e. high empathy condition).

Batson: CT & EC

Research Strengths + Weaknesses	Strength -High internal validity   -No order effects - Limitation: -Low mundane realism (WHO GETS ELECTRIC-SHOCKED IN THIS DAY AND AGE)  -Low populational validity – all psych students relative small sample size (only 40)  -
Ethics Strengths + Weakness	Ethics: -Deception was used

Latane & Darely: Aim, Method, Procedure, Findings

Aim	To investigate why people  fail to intervene when there are many bystanders present.
Research Method	Lab  Experiment: IV: The apparent number of other participants either: (1, 2  or 4).  DV: if participants helped
Procedure	Participants were told they were being   interviewed by intercome,   in separate rooms (to preserve anonymity). Midway through the interview   participants hear another "participant" cry for help, making   choking sounds (confdereate  and audio recording).
Findings	1 other student (who began to choke):   85% rushed to help. 2 other students: 65% 4 other students: 31%

Latane & Darely: CT & EC

Research Strengths + Weaknesses	Strength -High internal validity   Limitation: - Low Ecological Validity
Ethics Strengths + Weakness	Ethics: -Deception was used

Pilliavin Et Al: Aim, Method, Procedure, Findings

Aim	To investigate why people  fail to intervene when there are many bystanders present.
Research Method	Field  Experiment: IV: Victim smelt of alcohol and was   carrying a whiskey bottle OR was carrying a cane.  DV: he frequency and speed vy which a person helped
Procedure	A victim (confederate) collapses on the   floor of a subway car.  Opportunity sampling: New York subway   travelers who were observed between 11am and 3pm. While on the train they   would witness one of two scenarios explained in the IV above.  The "victims" were men aged   25-35 who dressed and acted identically. They collapsed on the floor 70   seconds after the train left the station. After 70 seconds a 'model helper   (confederate) was instructed to help if no one else had.  103 trials. 38 with a drunk victim and   65 with a sober victim with cane.
Findings	78% someone helped. 62/65 for cane and   19/38 for drunk victim.  Median response for man with cane was 5   seconds and drunk man 109 seconds.

Pilliavin Et Al: CT & EC

Research Strengths + Weaknesses	Strength -High ecological validity -High moundain realism Limitation: -Opportunity sampling
Ethics Strengths + Weakness	Ethics: -Deception was used

Flook: Aim, Method, Procedure, Findings

Aim	To investigate the effects of a 12 week mindfulness-based "Kindness Curriculum" on levels of prosocial behavior in preschool children
Research Method	Lab  Experiment: IV: Whether they participated in the Kindness Curicullum DV:  altruistic or selfish behavior
Procedure	The children were randomply allocated to one of the following conditions: 1)Participants experienced a 12 week mindfulness-based "Kindness Curriculum". Each session was 20-30 minutes, where children were trained on how to practice mindfulness 2)Participants who were waiting to experience the Kindness Curriculum 3)The Control group who had not experience the Kindess Curriculum and were not on the waiting list Teachers would observe the children and rated them based on measures such as sharing, delayed gratification, and cognitive tasks involving decision-making
Findings	The control group had the highest level of selfish behavior

Flook: CT & EC

Research Strengths + Weaknesses	Strength -High internal Validity Limitation: -Population validity (they are all children) -Behavioral variables are difficult to measure precisely and may be subject to interpretation
Ethics Strengths + Weakness	Ethics:

Greitemeyer & Osswald: Aim, Method, Procedure, Findings

Aim	To evaluate whether prosocial elements in a video game has impacts on behavior
Research Method	Lab  Experiment: IV: Prosocial game (city crisis) vs neutral game (tetris) DV: Whether participants intervened Independent groups design
Procedure	36 Women  At German University  Played game for 8 minutes  Prosocial Opportunity: Male confederate entered lab and played role of ex-boyfriend. He shouted at researches and pulled researchers arm to drag her out of lab. She was instructed to act calmly. If participants did not intervene, another researcher would enter to help.  Participants played 1 more minute of game then filled out a questionaire on the prosocial content of the video game.  All patients were debriefed.
Findings	4/18 who played Neutral Game intervened.  10/18 who played Prosocial Game intervened.

Greitemeyer & Osswald: CT & EC

Research Strengths + Weaknesses	Strength -High Moundain Realism Limitation: -Construct Validity (only looks at short-term effect)
Ethics Strengths + Weakness	Ethics: They were debriefed! Potential stress and harm due to traumatic events :(

Prosocial Behaviour - Theory

Behaviour that intends to benefit another person that has a positive social consequence.

Prosocial Behaviour - Biological Theory

Kin Selection Theory: The more two individuals are genetically related, the more sense (at the level of genes) it makes for them to behave selflessly with each other.

Strength:

Generalizability- Almost everyone has genetic kin.

Weakness

Testability- Can be hard to isolate social and genetic connections.

Prosocial Behaviour - Cognitive Theory

Empathy Altruism Hypothesis (Toi & Batson): Feelings of empathy for another person produce an altruistic motivation to increase that person's welfare

Negative State Relief (Batson): Prosocial behaviour is more likely to manifest when the situation is worse because there is a greater drive for someone to make themselves feel better by doing something nice. 

Other Key Terms:
Altruism = when one helps another person for no apparent reward and potentially even at the cost to oneself.

Personal Distress = Egotistic helping
(A type of help where the goal of the helper is to increase positive thinking or to receive some sort of benefit)

Empathetic Concern = Altruistic Concern

Strength:

Empirical Support – Research has consistently shown that when individuals feel high empathy toward someone in need, they are more likely to help, even when they have the option to avoid the situation. This suggests that empathy can indeed lead to genuine altruistic behaviour.

Weakness:

Difficulty in Distinguishing True Altruism from Egoism – It is hard to prove that helping behaviour is truly selfless. For instance, some suggest that people help others not just out of empathy but to reduce their own distress or maintain a positive self-image, which would make the motivation egoistic rather than purely altruistic.

Prosocial Behaviour - Social-Cultural Theory

Social Cognitive Theory (Barragan & Dweck):

Explains how behaviour is learned through observing others in the environment who are called models. The individual would observe the model and identify what happened which would then be imitated.

Cultural Dimensions (Levine):
How the values of a society affect behaviour. A dimension describes the trends of behaviour in a given culture.

Culture is a set of common rules that regulate interactions and behaviour in a group, as well as a number of shared values and attitudes in the group.

Strength:

Application- Can teach prosocial behaviour.

Weakness:

Testability- (The approach) it is difficult to isolate the variables when studying this topic.

Bystanderism - Theory

When an individual is less likely to help someone in an emergency situation if there are other bystanders nearby.

Diffusion of Responsibility (Latane & Darely):

Diffusion of Responsibility occurs when people fail to take action because they assume that since others nearby are not acting, action is not appropriate.

Arousal-Cost Reward Model (Pilliavin Et Al):

The arousal-cost-reward model of pro-social behavior indicates that wether or not people are willing to help is based on an internal calculation of risks and rewards.

Promoting Prosocial Behaviour - Theory

Simply how we can promote prosocial behaviour!

Social Cognitive Theory (Greitemeyer & Osswald):

Explains how behaviour is learned through observing others in the environment who are called models. The individual would observe the model and identify what happened which would then be imitated.

Direct Tuition (Flook):

Within the social cognitive theory. It is when an individual is directly told what to do or what not to do.

Social Responsibility

Explores Prosocial Behaviour, Bystanderism, and Promoting Prosocial Behaviour.