IB Psychology Social Responsibility

Kin Selection Theory (Hamilton)

Predicts that the degree of altruism depends on the amount of shared genes we have with a person- we must maximise inclusive fitness; number of genes that are passed on to the next generation

The genes compete for survival rather than the individual

Indicates that we are hardwired to help

Warneken et al. (2006)

tested if there was any difference in altruistic behaviour in 18 chimps born in the wild and twenty-two 18-month-old human infants. The experiment used an independent samples design. In chimp condition 1, the researcher would reach for a stick that was too high for him to get. In chimp condition 2, the stick was too high for the researcher to get, so the researcher just stared at it. In both conditions, in order for the chimp to help, he would have to climb up 2.5 meters.

In the part of the experiment with an 18-month-old children, the researcher dropped a pen. Like in the chimp version of the study, in one condition the researcher would reach for the pen. In the other condition, he would simply drop it and not reach for it. In order for a child to help, s/he would have to cross a small obstacle blocking the way. In both cases, there was no reward for helping the researcher, so the behaviour can be considered altruistic.

In both cases, on average the chimps and the children helped the researcher more than 50% of the time. The chimps took slightly longer than the children to understand the situation, but still helped with the same frequency. The researchers argue that this study gives clear evidence that there may be an evolutionary root to such helping behaviour.

Evaluation of Kin Selection Theory

- supported by empirical evidence such as Hames and Smith et al

- concept of altruism is difficult to define

- observational studies do not give cause and effect relationship

- limited in scope as it does not explain altruism between non-relatives

Empathy-altruism model

An altruistic theory proposed by Batson (2011) that claims that people who put themselves in the shoes of a victim and imagining how the victim feel will experience empathic concern that evokes an altruistic motivation for helping.

Evaluation of empathy altruism model

Low construct validity

Batson's study

Aim: to see if empathy results in prosocial behaviour

Method: Participants filled out a questionnaire about themselves first. Had a confederate named Elaine; she was asked to complete a test of digit recall. She would receive an electric shock if she would give an incorrect response. Elaine was made to be either very similar to the participant or very different.

Results: if empathy was high then the participant was willing to switch places, even if escape would have been easy. However, if empathy was low and there was an easy rate of escape then participants would choose to not switch with Elaine and continue on with the experiment which entailed Elaine continuing to receive shocks.

Bystanderism: Latané and Darley

The presence of others seems to determine whether or not people will intervene. It appears that the presence of others has a significant effect on whether we choose to help or not.

Latane and Darley: Study (diffusion of responsibility)

Aim: laboratory experiment in which they told student participants that they were going to be interviewed about the kind of personal problems faced by students when they first move to university. They were told that in order to preserve anonymity they would be interviewed over an intercom. Some of the students were told there were five other people in the discussion group; some were told that there were only two other students; and some were told that there was only one other student taking part in the study. All the comments they heard from other group members were actually 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. When the students thought they were the only person there, 85 per cent rushed to help. When they thought there was one other person, this dropped to 65 per cent. And when they thought there were four other people, the figure dropped again, to 31 per cent. This study shows that believing somebody else will intervene lowers the probability of a person taking responsibility.

Latané and Rodin (1969) (pluralistic ignorance)

They asked participants to sit in a waiting room before participating in an experiment. Here the participants heard the female experimenter fall and cry out in the next room. The participants reacted more often and more quickly when they were alone than when they were sitting with a confederate who showed no reaction to the noise and did not offer assistance. The researchers concluded that in order for people to help, they need to understand clearly that help is needed. During post-experimental interviews, the participants revealed that they had felt anxious when they heard the experimenter fall, but since the others in the waiting room appeared calm, they concluded that there was no emergency. Actually, participants were experiencing a conflict between two social rules: "You must help somebody in need" and "You should do what everybody does." Since often when an emergency happens there is some confusion as to what is actually happening, we look to others to figure out what is the most appropriate response.

arousal: cost-reward model

the proposition that people react to emergency situations by acting in the most cost-effective way to reduce the arousal of shock and alarm

Piliavin et al (arousal cost-reward model)

Aim: to see if people would help in a subway

Method: he emergencies were staged in the short 7.5 min journey between two stations on the New York subway (underground). These were trains that did not stop at the stations in between. On each trial four researchers (two males and two females) entered the train. Four different research teams gathered data from 103 trails. The procedure was always the same: The female confederates took seats and kept notes as unobtrusively as possible, while the male "victim" and male model (potential "helper") stood near a pole in the centre of the train.

Culture and Prosocial behaviour

Promoting Prosocial Behaviour

Whiting and Whiting (1975)

- Comparison of prosocial behavior in six cultures as a result of child - rearing practices

- anthropological study, systematic naturalistic observation of cultural differences in child-rearing practices and the consequence of that on prosocial behavior.

- researchers observed children between the ages of 3 and 11 years old in six different countries (Kenya, Philippines, Japan, India, Mexico, and USA) during their daily interactions with other people.

- Results showed consistent differences in the degree of prosocial behavior in children among the studied cultures. Children from Mexico and Philippines generally acted more prosocially than those from Japan, India, and USA. Most prosocial children from most traditional society, rural Kenya. Most egoistic children came from most complex modern society, USA.

- one important difference was how much children participated in household chores and in the care of young. Most prosocial, people tended to live together in extended families, female role was important and women's contribution to the family's economy was greater and more responsibility delegated. Households in USA where kids paid to do chores or don't do them at all had lesser degree of prosocial behavior.

- Results overall indicate the degree of modernization influences prosocial behavior. This was attributed to different child-rearing patterns and cultural dimensions such as individualism and collectivism.

- also shows how different aspects of socioeconomic organizations of a culture can promote or inhibit children's opportunities to acquire specific social behaviors. Findings also emphasize the importance of everyday practices in the promotion of concern to others.

Evaluation:

can be generalized since it uses a variety of cultures

Beaman et al. (1979)

showed a group of students a film about helping. Two weeks later, the students were observed in what they believed was an actual emergency. Actually, the emergency was staged on campus with the goal of observing the behaviour of both those that had seen the film and students who had not seen the film. Of those who helped, 43 per cent had seen the film, versus 25 per cent who had not. It appears that having seen a film about helping may have made a difference.

Staub et al

Aim: Carried out a study to see if prosocial behaviour could be learned.

Method: He asked young children either to write letters to other children who were in hospital, to tutor a younger child, or to make toys for chronically ill children. A second group of children were asked to do similar activities, but ones that would only benefit people that they knew. For example, they were asked to make a toy for themselves, writing a letter to their mother or study with a friend.

Results: He found that the children who had engaged in prosocial behaviour rather than in behaviour that benefited either themselves or their friends, were more likely to help when placed in a situation where help was needed.

Conclusion: It appears that pro-social behaviour could actually be developed through education.

Banyard et al

Banyard et al (2005) 389 undergraduates were randomly allocated to one of two treatment groups or a control. The first treatment group had three sessions on how to help someone in danger of sexual assault or who needed help after being a victim of sexual assault. The second treatment group had only one session and the control group had no training. After four months, surveys were given to determine their likelihood of intervening and their understanding of myths and realities of sexual assault. The findings showed that both treatment groups had a significant improvement as a result of the course and they were much more informed and likely to help.

Greytmeyer and Oswald

Greitemeyer and Osswald (2010)The researchers conducted experiments where participants played either a prosocial (City Crisis) or neutral (Tetris) video game. Thirty-six students from a German University were randomly assigned to one of the two videogame conditions. The participants entered the lab one at a time and were greeted by two female researchers. One of the researchers then demonstrated how to play the videogame and the participants then played for eight minutes. One of the two female researchers left the room and a male confederate entered the lab, playing the role of an ex-boyfriend who was angry that his ex had left him. When the confederate entered the lab, he ignored the participants and approached the female researcher and shouted at her. He also kicked a trashcan and pulled the arm of the researcher as if he would drag her out of the lab. She was instructed to react calmly and asked him not to disturb the experiment. . Intervention was measured by the participant saying something to the ex-boyfriend with the goal of stopping his behavior or asking the female researcher if she needed help. If the participant did not intervene after two minutes, the second female researcher re-entered the room just as the confederate pulled the arm of his "ex", and ordered him in a harsh tone to leave the room. Then the harassed researcher apologized for the disturbance and asked the participant to continue the experiment. The participant played on for one more minute and then filled out a questionnaire on the prosocial content of the videogame. All participants were debriefed afterwards to ensure that they suffered no harm after witnessing the rather unpleasant harassment of the experimenter.

The results showed a significant correlation between the type of videogame and the frequency of helping. Only 1 out of 5 participants who played a neutral video game intervened, whereas 3 out of 5 who had played a prosocial video game intervened. From this it seems that playing a prosocial video game could prime participants for prosocial behaviour - even in a case where they could fear negative consequences. It was clear in this particular experiment that there was a positive correlation between playing a prosocial video game and subsequent prosocial behaviour.

Levine et al. (2001)

Carried out a series of field experiments in 23 large cities in which they wanted to see whether people would help in one of three non-emergency situations:

Letting a pedestrian know that he had dropped a pen.

Offering to help a man on crutches trying to pick up a pile of magazines that he had dropped.

Assisting a blind person to cross the street.

The results indicated that a city's helping rate was relatively stable across the three situations. They also found that helping across cultures was inversely related to a country's economic productivity. In Brazil they found a 93% helping rate, whereas in economically developed Malaysia, the rate dropped to only 40%.

The researchers also found support for the idea that a city's "personality" affects individual behaviour. This is known as the simpatico hypothesis - that is, people in communities where social obligations take priority over individual achievements tend to be less economically productive, but show more willingness to assist others. This trend did not hold for all the cities in the study, however. Pedestrians in the fast-paced, first-world cities of Copenhagen (Denmark) and Vienna (Austria), for example, were very kind to strangers, whereas their counterparts in slower-paced Kuala Lumpur were not helpful at all. The evidence indicates that helping tends to be less dependent on the nature of the local people than it is on the characteristics of the local environment.

Bartal

Aim: see if rats would help each other

Method: Lab experiment using rats

Results: rats would help other rats in distress out of a restrainer but would not open it for objects or food

Conclusion: altruism could be biologically wired

Smith et al

Analyzed many canadian wills