PSYC 1440 Midterm 3: Prosocial Behavior

Prosocial Behavior

Any act that benefits another

Altruism

Prosocial Behavior that involves cost

Why altruism— kin selection

Even if you can’t pass on your genes to offspring, you can help your family members do so

Why altruism— reciprocity norm

If you help another person, they will help you in return (evolution-wise, they will help you pass your genes to the next generation)

Why altruism— learning social norms

A lot of cultures have discovered that it’s helpful to be helpful. Evolution taught us to pick up on social norms like this.

J Marley & Batson, 1973— The “Good Samaritan Study”

Two groups— one is told to give a five minute sermon on the Good Samaritan Bible passage, the other half told to give sermon on careers in ministry

Have to travel to another building past a man moving and slumped over in need of help. the man would say I’m fine the first time someone offered help but would the accept and go inside with them if they kept pressing.

ONE variable that affected whether or not they helped? TIME
One group told they were already late, the other not

LOW HURRY: 63% help

MEDIUM HURRY: 45% help

HIGH HURRY: 10 % help

OTHER variable with (less) effect; whether or not gave Good Samaritan speech

Career speech: 29% help

G.S. speech: 53% help

(technically signifcant but also small samples)

Nisbett & Wilson (1977)

We are not always aware of why we did a certain thing

We can’t say someone helped just because they did or didn’t have time

ALSO, could say that the people that passed by did so because they were helping the experimenter that depended on them

Kitty Genovese Case (1964)

Young women attacked and killed in NYC. 38 people saw or heard and no one helped (well ppl helped in a. few small ways one yelled “leave that girl alone”, two claimed to call the police but no records, one held her as she died)

Why? Diffusion of responsibility

Latene & Darley (1968)— Seizure Study

Intercome dicsusison w no interruptions. One guy starts speaking normally then stutters and is like bruh imma hava a seizure

Who helps:

Just you and confederate: 85%
One extra person: 62%

Four extra people: 31%

{People who didn’t help were still empathetic and concerned}

DIFFUSION OF RESPONSIBILITY

Pluralistic Ignorance: Smoke Room Study, Latane and Darley (1968)

Participants do study in a room alone or with two confederates

Smoke enter s the room through the vents

Alone: 75% report

With 2 unresponsive confederates: 10% report

How to react to situations like this

Notice event, interpret the event as an emergency (opposite of pluralistic ignorance), assume responsibility, know appropriate form of assistances implement the decision, intervene and offer assistance LuP

Pluralistic ignorance

Failing to take action as a result of other people appearing to not be worried or not care about an emergency

Empathy

Helping people for no other reason

Raises bigger question of can people ever help other but get nothing out if themselves

Toi & Baston (1982)— help Carol who has been in an accident

Carol asks for help going over notes for class

Easy escape: you can give me the material to study at home or I can meet you wherever

Difficult espcae condition: “You will see me in class I am the only one in a wheelchair”

have one group listen to an interview with Carol after being primed to be empathic and one group being primed to be unbiased

High empathy interview group: will help Carol regardless

Low empathy interview: will only help Carol if they have to see her (cost/benefit analysis)

Baston et al (1981): Take shock for Elaine?

Aversive arousal (personal distress) reduction— ALTERNATIVE to empathy

Elaine is sensitive to shocks so the experiment shocks will be harder for her than the normal person

Easy escape: if you don;’ take her place and continue as observer j answer a couple questions and you can leave

Difficult escape: if you don’t take her place you should do a few more trials and answer questions before you go

Low empathy: will help only if can’t escape

High empathy: will help regardless of escape

Baston et al: Help Katie who’s family died

Another alternative: empathy specific punishment (aka social reward)

Participants listened to interview about Katie who’s fam died and she needs to finish college to support siblings

Low empathy: help if everyone helps, otherwise no

High empathy: helps regardless

*made it clear additional folks would be asked later

How is this empathy specific punishment: looks bad if you don’t help

Relate alternative: empathy specific reward

Pride if help

Baston et al (1988, study 1— can do task that will reduce Brian/Janet getting shocked

Positive consequence group: participants performance will help the people from not getting shocks

Negative consequence group: will get shocked when others fumble

Two conditions:

No prior relief: Brian and Janet still have the same circumstance

Prior relief: no change in circumstances

Dependent variable: mood measures

Low empathy: happy if they as participant help reduce shock— otherwise not

High empathy— happy if help OR if person changed to nonshock condition

Vicarious joy (motivation for helping)

get to share joy with the person you helped

negative-state relief

Helping will elevate mood

Summary of barton studies

People help if wemptahy not just because want to stop feeling bad, fear what others with tihnk, expect to feel good, etc

Teddy Bear Study

• People who were primed to feel socially excluded felt an increase in prosocial behavior after touching a teddy bear. They volunteered for more experiments, etc

• People who were primed to feel social included already were prosocial w/o teddy, but the teddy touch gave them a lil boost

What is myopia (activated under cognitive load)

narrow focus to salient information

How to get people to engage in pro environmental behavior

Persuasive communication, evoke attitude consistent behaviors, Material incentives/disincentives, social incentives/disincentiveon, channel factors, nudge, give people feedback, modeling

Aronson Study: hypocrisy manipulation

1. 1. Mindful only condition: respond verbally to a survey about how much water you waste/conserve while showering

   2. Commitment condition: sign a poster to conserve water in the shower

   3. Hypocrisy condition: first mindfulness survey then commitment poster signing

Cialdini’s Norm Studies

2. Cialdini’s Norm Studies

   1. Descriptive: what’s actually done

      1. People littered the most in a park that was already full of litter (next most was in clean park, least was when there was a single piece of litter)

   2. Injunctive (prescriptive): what’s approved of

      1. People littered the most when there was pro-littering norm (the litter was unswept)

      2. They littered the least when there was a conflicting norm (swept litter)

3. Another Cialdini Study

   1. use norm information to show average power usage (descriptive norm)

   2. Add smiley face if you’re doing better (injunctive norm)

Channel factors: Lee Ross donation and Leventual tetanus

2. Channel Factors

   1. Leventhal Tetanus Shot Study (review)

      1. Fear appeal: 3% get shot

      2. Add map date book: 28% get shot

   2. Lee Ross study

      1. Neutral vs. Promotive condition

         1. Dear student vs actual name

         2. Any food vs. specific item to doante

         3. Letter vs. [letter + phone call + map]

      2. Most likely’s vs. least likely’s (as nominated by dorm RA’s)

How isa nudge different from a channel factor?

Uses defaults to encourage behavior without restricting options, while channel factors involve specific changes in the environment that facilitate desired behaviors. (eg lmk if you need a recycling bin)