Chapter 10 - Prosocial Behavior
Prosocial behavior: behavior of helping others in need
kitty genovese
march 13, 1964 (3:20am)
stayed at bar till closing, left and got attacked in the parking lot
gets stabbed and runs away, gets to phone booth and calls for help, more running, made it to her apartment, he caught up, and killed (and worse) her
whole thing happens over 45 minutes, why did no one help?
police interviews:
at least 38 residents reported hearing screams but not wanting to help
promoted social psych researchers (latane and darley)
latané and darley’s 5 Step Model
notice the event
if you don’t know it’s happening, you won’t help
darley and batson (1973) “good samaritan study”
IV #1: salience of the parable of the good samaritan (yes, no)
half the participants were told to give a speech to a group of people on the bible parable, half were told to give a speech on job offers
IV #2: time pressure (early, on time, late)
1/3rd told they had lots of time before speech, 1/3rd were told they were “on time,” and 1/3rd were told they were late
Participants had to walk through an alley to get to their speech rooms
in the alley, a confederate was placed to act as though he was in pain/crisis and needed help
DV: % who helped sick confederate
Results:
63% early, 45% on time, 10% late
time pressure = blinders
salience: no effect
if you don’t notice (see/hear) the event, help isn’t given
Interpret as emergency
does this person actually need help?
ex. girls screaming in happiness, if not paying attention, it could be interpreter as danger
ex. person face down on the ground at mercer, do they need help? big night out or seizure?
ex. couple arguing, go close the door and keep screaming, roommates were just listening, until she says get your hands off of me and there’s a large thump, roommates call the cops, but regret not calling sooner
Latané and Darley (1968), “smoke filled room study”
many confederates, one participant, while room fills with smoke
half the confederates acted panicked, half acted calm
DV: how often did the participant panic
Assume Responsibility
you have to feel like you can help
bystander effect: people are less likely to help as more bystanders appear
diffusion of responsibility: ratio of witnesses to responsibility (if its just me, its up to me ; if there are 10 people, at least one of them will do it, so i won’t)
Decide if you are able to help
skills, abilities, resources (someone is drowning, but I can’t swim?, someone has a heart attack, but I don’t know CPR?, driving on i75, and someone is broken down on the side of the road, I’m no mechanic?, you got your purse stolen, but I can’t run I’m fat?)
Decide to intervene
even if you have the skills you might decide not to help. why? danger to myself.
costs: get beaten/stabbed, fall through ice, late for work, embarrassment if wrong (heart attack, give cpr, they were just napping; smoky room, panic, indoor bbq)
alcohol: gets rid of inhibitions, more likely to help
Personality
certain personalities make people more or less likely to help
maria: woman in restaurant with friends witnesses a very frail old woman falling straight back in her chair onto the floor
maria immediately runs over to check on/help her, son of old woman starts laughing
belief in a just world: belief that the world is a just place, good things to good people, bad to bad people (karma/justice)
more likely to help
empathy: the ability to create emotional connections with others
more likely to help
norm of social responsibility: some were just raised this way and internalized (either helping or ignoring)
locus of control: to what extent do you think that you are responsible for your own life outcomes?
internal: life outcomes are due to my choices
will i pass this test? if i study. will i make the team? if i practice
external: life outcomes are due to other factors (fate, luck, other’s actions, etx.)
internal more likely to help (external, whatever was meant to happen will happen)
ego centrism: the ability to look to situations from another perspective and understand it
low = more likely to help
high = less likely to help
Prosocial Behavior - Factors Affecting Who Gets Help
Mood: good = more likely to help, bad = less likely to help
mood maintenance model: people will help if they think it will maintain their good mood, or help their bad mood
victim characteristics
victim responsibility: alcoholic (they did it to themselves) vs. mugging victim (they were helpless)
physical attractiveness: more attractive, more likely to get help, and vice versa
similarity: same race, same school, same age, etc. = more likely to help
Asking for Help
Direct Request: passive waiting/hoping
Implied Dependence/AdmittingNeed
men, elderly, low SES less likely to ask for help
Being Helped: temporary hit to self esteem, increased self help in the future (learn from their mistake)
Theories of Prosocial Behavior (all 3 describe empathy)
Empathy Altruism Hypothese (Batson)
Form empathic connection with victim (causing distress to witness, causing victim to want to help)
Negative State Relief Model (cialdini)
victim distressed, witness distressed, witness helps victim to resolve distress (you’re making me feel bad, and i want you to stop so i’ll fix your problem)
Empathetic Joy Hypothesis (smith et al.)
“helper’s high” (if i help you, you experience joy, empathic connection lets me share in your joy)
neutral → positive