P2 - Social Responsibility

Altruism

When one helps another person for no reward, sometimes even at a cost to oneself. It is seen as an unselfish interest in helping another person.

Prosocial behaviour

Behavior that is intended to benefit another person or has positive social consequences. However, prosocial behaviour can be motivated by both empathetic and egoistic motives. Behavior can be caused by a person focusing on their own social reputation rather than teh wellness of others. It could also be that prosocial behaviour is motivated by the wish to reduce negative feelings within oneself.

Theories behind prosocial behaviour

Social Identity Theory

Empathy-Altruism Theory

Kin Selection Theory / Brain composition and localization of function

Social Identity Theory Definition

According to SIT, we are more likely to help out people in our ingroup compared to people in our outgroup. An individual's social identity (e.g. ethnicity, gender, or religion) can influence their likelihood of engaging in prosocial behaviour. People often feel a stronger responsibility to help those within their social groups or communities. Hence, in-group favoritism can increase helping behaviors toward those with similar identities.

One explanation on why in-group favouritism happens even in showing prosocial behaviour is that we feel that our group is somehow better. Therefore, we give preferential treatment to the members of our in-group while excluding other groups.  When a group member needs help, we assume there is a true need for support. When a member of an out-group needs help, we may feel that the bad situation they are in is deserved or that it is not our responsibility to do something.

Another possible explanation is that we have an innate need to belong. It is important not to be rejected by the in-group, and helping behavior is a way to also seek approval within the in-group.

SIT Study

Levine (2005)

Levine (2005) - AIM

To see if in-group bias would affect helping behaviour.

Levine (2005) - PROCEDURE

Levine (2005) - RESULTS/FINDINGS

Empathy-Altruism Theory Definition

Toi and Batson (1982) — We experience two types of emotions when we see someone suffering: personal distress (i.e., fear and anxiety) to egoistic helping

empathetic concern (i.e., sympathy and compassion) to altruistic helping.

When you empathise with another person, you will help them, regardless of what you may gain from it. Relieving the person’s suffering becomes the most important thing. When you do not feel empathy, you consider the costs and benefits of helping in making your decision. 

Empathy-Altruism Theory Evaluation

Empathy-Altruism Theory Study

Toi & Batson (1982)

Toi & Batson (1982) - AIM

To investigate if manipulating an individual's level of empathy would influence their likelihood of demonstrating prosocial behaviour 

• Sample: Female introductory psychology students participated in the experiment. 

Toi & Batson (1982) - PROCEDURE

Randomly assigned to one of two conditions:

• Low empathy condition: participants were asked to listen to information presented in an interview. It was predicted that participants in this condition would display an egoistic pattern of behavior. 

• High-empathy condition, participants were instructed to imagine how the interviewee felt about the information presented in the interview. It was predicted that participants in this condition would display an empathic pattern of behavior.

Interview: Carol, who had broken both legs in a car accident. Spent the past month in the hospital & was now one year behind her peers.

All participants completed a questionnaire - emotional response to the interview. 

Participants were then given the chance to help Carol by volunteering to go over their notes from the course with her, thus enabling Carol to keep up with the class. However, to further check for if helping behaviours were egotistic or truely altrustic, participants were given the possibility of “escaping” this responsibility. This was done by manipulating whether participants could anticipate seeing Carol in the future. Hence there were two sub conditions. Either particiapants were in the easy escape condition or the hard escape condition.

Easy-escape condition: Participants were told that Carol's legs were in casts, so she was studying at home. Still, she could easily arrange transportation if the participant wanted to help. Participants in this condition who chose not to help had no reason to expect to hear or see Carol again. 

Difficult-escape condition: Participants were told that Carol was in the same discussion group of introductory psychology as they were and that she would be back in class next week. This meant that participants who chose not to help could anticipate seeing her in person and being reminded of Carol's problems.

Toi & Batson (1982) - RESULTS / FINDINGS

Participants in the low-empathy condition reported fewer feelings of empathy than those in the high-empathy condition. Low-empathy condition participants also helped more when it was difficult to escape than when it was easy. Pointing to the fact that the participants’ motivation was to reduce their distress, a sign of egoistic helping.

Meanwhile, participants in the high-empathy condition displayed high rates of helping even in the easy escape condition. Thus, this study supports the EAM as the motivation of these participants was most likely directed towards reducing the distress of the person in need  - an altruistic motive.

Toi & Batson (1982) - Evaluations

Findings have been replicated – e.g. Cialdini et al. (1987). So this study's results appear reliable. standarization

More modern research has supported this theory in two ways.  First, animal research shows that empathy may play a role in helping behavior.  In addition, modern brain imaging technology has shown that areas of the brain linked to empathy may be active during prosocial behavior.

However, the research has only investigated short-term altruism in a somewhat artificial experiment which reduces the study’s ecological validity. 

The interpretation of the results has also not considered personality factors. 

Kin Selection Theory Definition

Inclusive fitness

Biological original theory

Brain composition and localization of function

Brain composition and Localization of function definition

One possibility is that the degree of altruism depends on brain composition, specifically the size of a particular part of the brain. The brain is composed of several different parts. Localization is the psychological theory that specific parts of the brain have specific functions related to certain behaviors, like actions and emotions. Strict localization of function is the theory that there are very small, specific areas of the brain that carry different roles. This theory suggests if one part of the brain is damaged, a person may have difficulty carrying out the specific function attributed to that part of the brain. But behaviors are often complex and we often use several parts of the brain for any one action. Although specific parts of the brain may have specific functions, likely, the different parts work together to create different behaviors. This concept suggests that if one part of the brain is damaged, then other areas can take over due to neuroplasticity, lessening the impact of neural damage. 

The AMYGDALA is located between the temporal lobes and is crucial for processing emotionally salient stimuli, especially those related to fear, threat, and social emotions. Its core role is detecting emotional significance. This has been crucial for survival, as if someone looks afraid, it could signal a nearby threat — allowing us to react quickly (fight, flight, or help). Because these signals are vital, the amygdala has become especially sensitive to facial expressions of fear. The process by which the amygdala helps us sense others’ fear happens as follows: The visual cortex identifies the face, which then sends signals to teh amygdala, which in turn evaluates its emotional significance, which the prefrontal cortex uses to decide how to respond (e.g., comfort, help, flee).

Brain composition and Localization of function evaluation

Brain composition and Localization of function study

Marsh et al (2014)

Marsh et al (2014) - AIM

To study "extraordinary altruism" by identifying if individuals who have donated a kidney would have larger than average amygdala volume and faster responsiveness to fearful facial expressions, in contrast to previous studies on psychopaths, who have the opposite.

Sample: 19 people who had donated a kidney to a stranger, recruited nationally using mailings and electronic advertisements through local and national transplant organizations. 20 controls were matched for IQ, income, education, psychological history, and medication use. The age range was from 23 to 56 years old

Marsh et al (2014) - PROCEDURE

3 Stages:

1. Emotion recognition task in an fMRI. Participants were shown images of faces showing one of six basic emotions (anger, disgust, fear, happiness, sadness, or surprise). Each emotion was shown at a high and moderate intensity with 5 male and 5 female images. So, for a total of 120 images (6 emotions × 10 exemplars × 2 intensity levels). When shown the image, they had to press a button to indicate which emotion was shown. The time taken to decide was measured.

2. MRI scan to determine the structure of their brains

3. Participants took tests to measure their level of psychopathy and empathy

Marsh et al (2014) - RESULTS /FINDINGS

Extraordinary altruists had a greater average volume in the right amygdala than in the controls – the right hemisphere is associated with negative emotions and plays a role in the expression of fear and in the processing of fear-inducing stimuli. Additionally, there was a faster response time in the right amygdala to fearful facial expressions than in the control group.

These findings are the opposite of what has been shown in research studying psychopaths.  This means that there may be a biological basis for altruistic behavior.

Marsh et al (2014) Evaluation

variability) as there could be external social motivations for them to donate kidneys.

The study is a quasi-experiment → therefore, a cause-and-effect relationship cannot be determined.

Using averages is problematic when concluding a small sample size of MRI scans. 

The fact that one is in an fMRI may lead to artifacts - that is, anxiety from being in the tunnel could account for activity in the amygdala.

Since kidney donors make a well-reasoned, thoughtful, and conscious decision, this is not representative of all altruistic behavior.

Kidney donations are carefully and consciously reasoned, and no one can ‘just do it’, so this may not be an example of true altruism – instead edoigtic

Small sample size

Theories on Factors Affecting Bystanderism

Diffusion of Responsibility 

Arausal-Cost-Reward Model

Smth else

Diffusion of Responsibility Explanation

In situations where several people watch an incident occur, many bystanders seem to reason that somebody else can, should, and probably will offer assistance. So, the personal responsibility to take action is severely reduced. This could explain why people are generally more likely to help when they are the only person available to offer assistance.

Diffusion of responsibility Study

Darley and Latane (1968)

Darley and Latane (1968) AIM

Aim:  To 

Darley and Latane (1968) PROCEDURE

Told student participants they would be interviewed about the personal problems students face when they first move to university. Interviewed over an intercom “to preserve anonymity.”

Students were randomly allocate dto one of three codnitiobs

All the comments they heard from other group members were pre-recorded. At a certain point, one of the voices cried for help and made sounds of severe choking, as if the person was having an epileptic seizure. 

Darley and Latane (1968) RESULTS/FINDINGS

2-person group: 85% rushed to help

3-person group: 65%

6-person group: 31%

This study shows that believing somebody else will intervene lowers the probability of a person taking responsibility.

Darley & Latane (1968) EVALUATION

As the study is an experiment, the study is somewhat artificial (meaning low external validity). Participi’ants also knew that they were being studied so there may have been some demand characteristics that occured.

The sampler is very limited and biased (WEIRD), so this limits generalizability

This study also employs deception, so there are also ethical drawbacks to teh study

Arousal-Cost-Reward Model

In deciding whether to help or not we weigh teh costs and benefits. This is basis for social exchange theory, which claims that human relationships are based on a subjective cost-benefit analysis - that is, it is rational. We are more likely to help when we feel that the benefits of helping outweigh the potential costs.

Piliavin et. al. (1969) proposed the more complex ACRM.

• Arousal (the state of being energized, awake, and alert) is a motivational factor because it is unpleasant, and the bystander is motivated to reduce it. 

• However, before helping, the individual will assess possible costs and rewards. This approach is linked to the basic assumption that prosocial behavior is motivated by cognitions and emotions.

Arousal Cost Reward Model. Limitations

Pessimistic explanation of human behavior. It does not explain altruism and assumes that people make rational decisions.

Study for Arousal-Cost-Reward Model

Piliavin et. al. (1969)

Piliavin et. al. (1969) AIM

 To investigate how various situational factors may influence prosocial behavior. 

• Sample: Opportunity sample of New York subway travelers who were observed between 11am and 3pm while they were on a non-stop 7.5min journey between stations.

Piliavin et. al. (1969) PROCEDURE

Participants witness one of two confederate scenarios

A man with a cane who appeared ill or a man who seemed to be drunk would fall to the floor of the subway car. The “victims” were men, aged 25–35, who were dressed and acted identically. They collapsed to the floor soon after the train left the station and remained on the floor until they were helped. A “model helper” was instructed to help after 70 seconds if no one else offered assistance.

Two researchers recorded the data. The independent variables were the type of victim (drunk or ill) and the size of the group. The researchers measured the following dependent variables: frequency of help, the speed of help, the sex of the helper, movement away from the victim, and verbal comments. In other words, they gathered both quantitative and qualitative data.

Piliavin et. al. (1969) RESULTS/FINDINGS

Overall, 78% of the time, someone helped spontaneously. 60% of the time that someone helped, more than one helper was involved.

Median response time: The man with the cane was 5 seconds; for the drunk victim, 109 seconds.

It appears that it took people longer to consider the costs and benefits when the man who fell was drunk than when he was ill and had a cane.

It was found that 90% of helpers were male, which was statistically significant.

The researchers also found that there were more comments made about the incident the longer that the victim waited for help, and there were more comments made when they thought the victim was drunk.

Piliavin et. al. (1969) RESULTS/FINDINGS

Strengths:

• High ecological validity - field experiment (carried out in a real-life situation).

• Also, since the participants did not know that they were being observed, they were not likely to demonstrate fewer demand characteristics.

Limitations:

• Low internal validity - Field experiment

• Although the procedure was highly standardized, it is questionable to what extent we can draw conclusions about cause and effect.

• The study is limited to both the type of help that was required and the type of victim. The victims were all male. Having female victims may make a difference in the behavior of the individuals.

• Sampling bias (American) means that generalizability is limited.

• Deception, Lack of consent or debrief, possible undue stress

The time taken for people to help was used as an indicator that the participants were weighing the cost and benefits of helping. This may not be a highly accurate measure of the variable. The study may suffer from low construct validity.

Promoting Prosocial Behavior Theories

Helping Behavior educational programs

Social Cognitive Theory

Helping Behavior Educational Programs

Latané and Darley (1969) hypothesized that there are three factors that negatively influence our willingness to help.

• Diffusion of responsibility - when there are other people present, we assume that someone else will help. So, the more people present, the less likely one is to help.

• Informational social influence - a form of conformity in which we figure out how to behave by watching the behavior of others. In the case of helping behavior, if others don't help, we won't either.

• Evaluation apprehension - the fear of social criticism for helping in a situation where helping was unnecessary.

Helping Behavior Educational Programs Study

Bearman et. al. (1978)

Bearman et. al. (1978) AIM

Bearman et. al. (1978) PROCEDURE

Bearman et. al. (1978) RESULTS/FINDINGS

Bearman et. al. (1978) EVALUATION

Social Cognitive Theory

Posited by Bnadura (199’—),

explain why this happens. Watching prosocial behavior on television or in video games shows the viewer the consequences of such behavior. Seeing the rewards received by the person who carried out the prosocial behavior results in vicarious reinforcement.

Three types of Q3 questions

1. Discuss the possibility of generalizing the findings of the study.

2. Discuss how a researcher could ensure that the results of the study are credible.

3. Discuss how the researcher in the study could avoid bias.

→Changes if qual/quan

Possibility of Generalizing Findings (QUANTITATIVE)

1. Representatives of the sample (participant variability)

2. Sample size

3. Mundane realism

4. Ecological validity

5. Internal validity

Representatives of the sample (participant variability)

Is the sample in the target population?

Does the sample reflect the larger population?

Could sampling bias (WEIRD, sex, ethnicity, etc.) affect generalizability?

Sample size

How big is the sample + cell?

Could study be replicated for increased reliability?

Mundane realism

Could the event in the study actually happen?

Ecological validity

How the environment affects the results of the study (controlled vs. natural setting)

Internal validity

Were extraneous variables controlled?

Construct validity // Operationalisation

Are the constructs adequately measured // Is the measure measuring my DV?

Ensuring credibility (QUANTITATIVE)

Validity

1. Internal

2. External

Interna Validity definition

“The rigor of the study and the extent to which

the researcher took alternative explanations into

account.“

→Looking at if extraneous variables are sufficiently controlled so as to not influence results

How to improve internal validity

Operationalization of variables (construct validity)

Control extraneous variables

If internal validity is low…

…cause and effect relationship is compromised due to the possibility of extraneous variables making it seem as if there is a causal relationship.

External validity definition

“The extent to which the results of a study can be

generalized or transferred to another sample or

context”

Types of external validity

Ecological & Population

Ecological validity definition

“The extent to which experimental findings can be generalized to real-life situations, considering the realism and immersive nature of the experimental settings.“

→ Consider mundane realism and controls set in place (is it “too“ controlled?)

Population validity definition

“Whether you can reasonably generalize the findings from your sample to a larger group of people (the population)“

→ Consider representativeness of the sample in relation to the target population (sampling method)

What to discuss in relation to credibility

• Balance between internal and external validity

• Controls used (were they effective in controling EVs/ too effective)

• The effectiveness of internal and external validities

Avoiding Bias (QUANTITATIVE)

1. Researcher Bias

2. Sampling Bias

3. Participant Bias

Researcher Bias

Researchers beliefs or expectations of the results of the study affect the data callection and analysis of results

• Confirmation Bias

• Funding/ Publication Biases

• Biases from Design/ Methodology

Confirmation Bias definition and how to reduce it

“the tendency to search, interpret, and recall information in a way that aligns with our pre-existing values, opinions, or beliefs”

One way to limit that chance of comfirmation bias is single/double blind control

Funding // Publication Bias definition and how to reduce it

“The tendency of a scientific study to support the interests of the study's financial sponsor”

“The idea that studies that find null, or unexpected, effects are less likely to be published than those that find significant effects in the expected direction.“

Ways to limit include peer reviewing in publication process and publishing study no matter results

Biases caused by method or metholodgy examples

• Leading questions

• Forced choice questions (surveys)

• Order, practise and fatigue effects

Sampling Bias

“Sample is not representative of the target population”

→Ideally sample would be selected randomly

Participant Bias

“Participants chamnge their befabiou to how [they believe] the researcher wants them to act”

Including:

• Demand characteristics

• Expectancy Effect

• “Screw you” and “Please you” Effects

• Social desireability

Possibility of Generalizing Findings (QUALITATIVE)

1. Representational generalization

2. Inferential generalization (transferability)

3. Possibilities of creating a psychologocal theory from research

Representational generalization

The ability of the results of the study to be generalized to the population the sample fits in

Inferential generalization

Question the possible considerations that should be taken into account when transferring the findings to another population

Forming a theory from research

Could a psychological theory be formed to fit a larger/global population? What limitations are there?

What should be discussed

Sampling Bias’ effect on gen.

The variables that would have to be the same (think “is the situation in thsi study too specific to be generalised”)

Ensuring credibility (QUALITATIVE)

Ensuring accuracy and truthfulness of the study

Relies on credibililty of researches (so how much they allow their biases to affect their research) and research methods

How to enhance credibility:

1. Phenomenological approach

2. Member checking

3. Aggregate research

4. Peer review

5. Triangulation

Phenomenological approach definition

“The acknowledgement that the research only credible to the extent to which the participant agrees the results reflect their reality”

Member checking definition

“Check results with participants to allow them to explain behaviours, correct errors or give more information as necessary”

Aggregate research

Findings of the study are in line with previous research and reflect grounded theory

Data triangulation definition

“The use of a variety of data sources, including time, space and persons, in a study. Findings can be corroborated and any weaknesses in the data can be compensated for by the strengths of other data, thereby increasing the validity and reliability of the results.“

E.g. interviews on different dates or in public vs private, questionnaires among two separate populations

Method triangulation definition

“Tests a theory or a psychological phenomenon using different methods of inquiry. Data from a variety of methods (survey, interview, case study, experiments) is used to help validate the results of a study.”

Researcher triangulation definition

Use more than one researcher to carry out the study and analyse the results to make sure results not just due one person’ interpretation of the data (like confirmation bais or misinterpretation of data)

Avoiding Bias QUALITATIVE

Consider

1. Researcher triangulation

2. Sampling bias

3. Leading questions

4. Personal reflexivity

5. Epistemological reflexivity

6. +Could consider the three biases mentioned in quanti

Personal reflexivity

How the researcher’s own values, attitudes and experiences affect their ability to remain objective when carrying out the study & analysing the results

Epistemological reflexivity

How the way research carried out may effect the findings, e.g. face to face interview on a sensitive topic