1. SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY to help or not to help others

2. LO #3: Distinguish between pro-social behavior and altruism.

3. Pro-social Behavior Behavior that benefits another person or has positive social consequences (Staub, 1978). Only outcome (not motivation) is relevant so this definition has been criticized as being too vague.

4. Altruism When one person helps another person for no reward, and even at some cost to oneself.

5. Pro-social Behavior or Altruism? 1. Your company builds houses for low- income families. 2. You donate your time to Habitat for Humanity to help build a house for someone in your community. 3. You donate money to the children’s hospital to help children with cancer. 4. You donate money to the homeless because your brother is homeless.

6. Answers 1. pro-social 2. altruism 3. altruism 4. altruism

7. LO #4: Contrast two theories explaining altruism. Two types (explanations) for Altruism: 1. Biological Altruism - based on evolutionary explanations 2. Psychological Altruism - based on cognitive psychology

8. 2 Evolutionary Theories Theory #1- Kin Selection Theory: predicts that the degree of altruism depends on the number of genes shared by the helper and helpee. Explanation: There is a greater chance the helper’s genes will be passed on.

9. Evaluation of Kin Selection Theory Animal research confirms this theory. It does not explain why some people help complete strangers. It cannot be tested under controlled conditions. This theory relies on the idea that genes directly cause behavior. This is not yet adequately supported.

10. Theory #2 Reciprocal Altruism Theory (Trivers, 1971) Based on the more modern idea that it may be beneficial to an animal’s survival to behave altruistically if there is an expectation that the favor will be returned in the future.

11. Research on Reciprocal Altruism Prisoner’s Dilemma Game Study (Axelrod & Hamilton,1981): The game is based on a hypothetical situation where two criminals have been arrested for a serious crime. They are interrogated separately. If neither confesses they each get only one year in prison. If one confesses and then testifies against the other, the confessor will get parole and the other a life sentence. If both confess they each get 20 years.

12. METHODS Based on the prisoner’s dilemma game, two individuals are rewarded if both “defect” (do not confess), If they both “cooperate” (confess) then neither gets a big payoff. If one “cooperates” then they get something more than the other.

13. Results When players play only one round then they are more likely to “defect” to increase their chances of getting a reward (to “survive”). BUT, when players play several rounds then they eventually begin to respond by mimicking their opponent’s last move. This may be because they learn their helping behavior will be reciprocated.

14. Evaluation of Theory Again, it is questionable whether animal behavior can be generalized to humans, specifically because humans are more influenced by culture and have conscious thoughts. It does not explain certain types of altruism like adoption that does not benefit our kin or occur with an expectation of reciprocation.

15. Psychological Altruism Two Theories based on thinking behind altruistic acts: #1: Negative-state relief theory #2 Empathy-altruism model

16. #1: Negative-state relief theory Egoistic motives lead us to help others in bad circumstances in order to reduce the distress we experience from watching the bad situation. This model also explains why people walk away from bad situations (to reduce distress) – Schaller & Cialdini (1988) Evaluation of the Model: Explains some behavior, it does not accurately predict how a person will behave in any given situation.

17. #2 Empathy-altruism model When people see someone suffering they will experience one of two emotions. #1 personal distress (anxiety, fear) which leads to egoistic helping. This involves weighing the costs and benefits of helping in making your decision. #2 empathetic concern (sympathy, compassion, tenderness) which leads to altruistic behavior. In this case, you will help regardless of what you will personally gain because easing the person’s suffering is the ultimate goal. Batson (1981)

18. Carol, the Distressed Student Study (Batson, 1981) Students were asked to listen to an interview of a student named Carol. She talks about how she is worried about her studies because of a recent car accident that broke her legs. Students are asked to get together with Carol and share notes. -Some groups were told to focus on Carol’s feelings and some were told not to. (high/low empathy) -Some groups were told she would return to their psychology class (meaning they would have to face her) and another group was told she would finish the class at home. (high vs. low cost)

19. FINDINGS The high-empathy group was almost equally likely to help Carol in either situation. The low empathy group was only willing to help if there was a high cost (Carol was coming back to class, so they would have to face her). This confirms that helping behavior based on empathy is unselfish.

20. Evaluation of the Model The research consistently supports the model. Only short-term altruism has been tested in research. Personality factors have not been taken into account. This model makes it easy to predict behavior. It is difficult to measure levels of empathy in certain situations. Does not answer the question whether empathy is biological or learned.

21. Imitation Promotes Helping Behavior (VanBaaren et al. 2004) In this lab experiment, some of the participants were told that a confederate would imitate his/her body language during a conversation. This is called nonverbal synchronization. Participants who were imitated were more likely to help the confederate when he/she dropped some pens on the floor than those who were not. This shows an increase in helping behavior when people are imitated. Is this due to mirror neurons?