atp social 9: helping others tom farsides helping others

ATP Social 9: Helping Others Tom Farsides

Helping others


Three true stories: One

In 1964, in the Queens district of New York City, Kitty Genovese was sexually assaulted and stabbed eight times. Overall the attack lasted 45 minutes, but in fact there were three separate attacks. The killer was scared off twice by Kitty's screams and struggles ("Oh my God, he stabbed me! Please help me! Please help me!"), and by the voices and lights of the 38 people who watched from their windows. As no-one intervened, however, he returned each time to attack again. No-one even called the police during the attack. One man phoned the police after Kitty was murdered, but he would not leave his name as he didn't want to get involved.


Three true stories: Two

Joe Delaney, a Kansas City Chiefs football player, saw people standing around a huge water-filled hole. Three boys had waded in , unaware that a short way out the bottom dropped off. Suddenly they were in over their heads and thrashing and screaming for help. As Joe alone dashed for the pond, a little boy asked, "Can you swim?" "I can't swim good," Joe answered, "but I've got to save those kids. If I don't come up, get somebody." One boy struggled back to safety. Later the other two - and Joe Delaney - were hauled out by rescuers, dead.


Three true stories: Three

During the second world war the SS Dorchester was torpedoed by the Nazi submarine U-456. There were four chaplains on board: Methodist George Fox; Rabbi Alexander Goode; Catholic John Washington; and Reformed Church minister Clark Poling. As the four chaplains arrived on the dark and steeply sloping deck they began to guide other men to their boat stations. They distributed life jackets and coaxed men over the side. In the icy, oil-smeared water, Pvt. William Bednar heard the chaplains preaching courage and found the strength to swim out until he reached a life-raft. Still on board, Grady Clark watched in awe as the chaplains handed out the last life jackets and then gave away their own. As Clark slipped into the waters he saw the chaplains standing - their arms linked-praying, in Latin, Hebrew, and English. Other men, now serene, joined them in a huddle as the Dorchester slid beneath the sea.


Lecture contents

A reminder of evolutionary psychology.

Helping from an evolutionary perspective.

The altruism question.

A sequential decision-making framework for helping.

The effect of standards (models and norms).

Individual (personality) differences.


Evolutionary psychology: A reminder

“If a specific social behaviour enhances reproductive success, the genetic underpinnings of that behaviour are more likely to be passed on to subsequent generations”

(Brehm et al., 2002, p. 347)

“If...” (i) This does not mean that alternative behaviours may not also be

successful. (ii) Specific behaviours are fit for specific environments.

“...the genetic underpinnings of that behaviour...” (i) If any.


Evolution and helping

Helping is typically more costly than non-helping. Non-helping more ‘fit’ and so should become increasingly

prevalent in subsequent generations.

How then can evolutionary theory explain helping? (i) Claim that helping has no genetic basis. (ii) Deny that helping is necessarily more costly than non-helping.

– Kinship selection.

– Reciprocal altruism.

– Group selection.


Burnstein et al. (1994)

Preferential helping of relatives in trouble


As you sow, so shall your genes reap

Kinship selection Just discussed.

Reciprocal altruism Helping someone increases our probability of being helped back

when needed.

Group selection Helping the group may be repaid by virtue of receiving the benefits

of being a group member.


Baston (1991)

The empathy-altruism hypothesis

Psychological (motivational) altruism


The empathy-altruism paradigm and predictions

Empathicconcern

Low HighEasy Escape HelpEase of

escape Hard Help Help


Batson et al. (1981)

Empathy-induced altruism


Reward-seeking egoistic alternatives

Negative state relief model (Cialdini et al., 1987) High empathy increases sadness that can be relieved by obtaining

the rewards of helping Will only help others when doing so is necessary and effective for

reducing negative personal affect, e.g., sadness.

Empathic joy (Smith et al. 1989) High empathy makes possible obtaining personal satisfaction

when the needy other’s welfare is improved. Will only help others when doing so is necessary and effective for

increasing positive personal affect, e.g., joy.


Latané & Darley (1970)Five steps to emergency-intervention


Step 1: Noticing

Piliavin et al. (1976) More help when dramatic event witnessed rather than just

aftermath of it.

Mathews & Canon (1975) More help without stimulus-overload (cf. Milgram, 1970).

McMillen et al. (1977) More help when in an ‘externally-attentive’ good mood than in a

‘self-absorbed’ bad one.


Step 2: Interpreting

Latané & Darley (1968) Pluralistic ignorance can lead to reduced probability of an

individual helping when in the presence of others and exposed to an ambiguous need for help.

Clark & Word (1972) When the need is not ambiguous, the presence of others has no

effect on helping levels.

Staub (1974) The cues others give can reduce or increase the probability of an

individual bystander giving help.


Step 3: Taking personal responsibility

Latané & Darley (1968) The chances of any given participant helping in the “seizure

study” decreased as numbers of observers seemingly increased. Diffusion of responsibility - Taking less personal responsibility

because one believes that others will (or should) provide help.

Bickman (1971) Responsibility not diffused when co-witnesses are clearly not able

to help.

Moriarty (1975) Responsibility not diffused when specifically attached to a

bystander.


Steps 4 & 5: Choosing how to help, and Acting

Shotland & Heinold (1985) College students trained in first-aid were not more likely to help

someone with profuse arterial bleeding. They were, however, much more likely to do the right thing!

Remember: sometimes the most helpful thing one can do is not provide direct assistance (cf. overhelping, Gilbert & Silvera, 1996). Which of course adds to the ambiguity of whether and what help is

need.


Modelling helpfulness

Ruston (1975)

Actions speak louder than words - for a while

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Preachesgenerosity

Preachesselfishness

GenerousactionsSelfishactions


The altruistic personality

There are individual differences in helpfulness across situations and times. E.g. ‘Rescuers’ and 60s civil right activists were more helpful than

than non-rescuers and non-activists 20-40 years later.

Rushton et al. (1984) Genetic basis to this individual difference In terms of “behavioural tendenices” and “helping-related

emotions and reactions (such as empathy”), monozygotic twins are more similar to each other than are dizygotic twins.


Rescuers, relative to non-rescuers (Oliner & Oliner, 1988)

• Greater actual and perceived similarity to Jews.• More likely to have been directly asked to help.• Parents more caring, much less likely to use punishment,

and more likely to reason and explain.• Much more likely to strongly identify with a highly moral

(and morally acting) parent.• More dispositional empathy.• More willing to accept responsibility for own actions and

others’ welfare.• More extensivity (attachment to and empathy, concern,

and responsibility for outgroup members).• Higher self-efficacy.


Ordinary helpers, relative to non-helpers, have

More dispositional empathy Davis (1983)

Correlation between empathy and donations to a telethon.

Greater sense of responsibility Berkowitz & Daniels (1964)

People high in social responsibility more likely to help needy dependents.

‘Other-oriented empathy’/extensivity Penner et al. (1995)

Correlation between this and length of service as a volunteer.

Greater self-efficacy Rushton (1984)

Volunteers particularly high in self-efficacy.


Interaction

Staub (1974) Those high in social responsibility and other-oriented moral

reasoning were more likely to come to the aid of an ill person.

Penner et al. (1995) Those high in ‘other-oriented empathy’ and self-efficacy more

helpful than those high in one or neither characteristic.

Miller et al. (1996) (“Cold”) moral reasoning and (“hot”) empathic arousal may be

necessary for self-sacrificing prosocial action (see next slide).


Miller et al. (1996)

Interactive effects of children’s empathy and

moral reasoning


InteractionismSnyder (1992)

Strong situational cues often reduce the impact of personality. Personality flourishes when situation cues weak.

Carlo et al. (1991) Used a procedure close to Batson’s ‘Elaine’ one. Most people (78%) helped in difficult escape situation, with little difference

according to extensivity-type measure. In easy escape condition, 49% helped, with high-extensives more likely to

help than low-extensives.

Wilson (1976) In emergency situation, personality variables related to arousal,

emotionality, and risk-taking predict helping.

Batson et al. (1976) In non-emergency situations, personality variables related to cost-benefit

concerns, confidence, and self-esteem predict helping.

atp social 9: helping others tom farsides helping others

Documents

atp social

tom farsides reward

tom farsides burnstein

tom farsides batson

tom farsides baston

tom farsides step

tom farsides lecture

tom farsides latan darley