1. Social responsibility 8.1
HUMAN RELATIONSHIPS
Social responsibility 8.1

2. Social responsibility
Learning outcomes
Evaluate psychological research (through theories and studies) relevant to the study of human relationships
Distinguish between altruism and pro-social behaviour
Evaluate research investigating altruism
Explain cross-cultural differences in pro-social behaviour
Evaluate research investigating bystanderism

3. Help or not to help… An example from the USA

4. Terms – you have to know
Pro-social behaviour – is when a behaviour that benefits another person or has positive consequences (focus on the outcome not the motivation)
Helping behavior – is when a behaviour intends to help or benefit another person (is planned)
Altruism – is when one helps another person for no reward, EVEN at some cost to oneself
Example of altruistic behaviour:
Activity: come up with one example for each

5. Psychological research on altruism
Biological altruism (evolutionary)
Psychological altruism (mostly cognitive)

6. Biological altruism

7. Biological altruism – what could be advantageous to the group a person belongs to rather than the individual alone
Kin Selection theory: the closer/ more related the greater the chance of altruistic behaviour
Dawkins (1976) proposed the "selfish gene theory" explains why individuals are willing to sacrifice themselves to protect the lives of their kin
- but does not explain why one help strangers… and genes does not directly cause a behaviour (more complex than that)

8. Reciprocal altrusim theory
By Trivers (1971)
”you scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours”
Meaning that one help (even strangers) with the expectation that the favour will be returned in the future
Be a thinker on p. 260
– part of politics?
"prisoner's dilemma"
– game by Axelrod and Hamilton

9. Evaluation of the evolutionary theories
Some studies show that one is more likely to help a relative than a stranger (Sime 1983 – fleeing from burning buildings and Madsen et al study)
Animals – generalise?
Culture – does it differ?
Adoption – without sharing the genes

10. Psychological explanations of altruism

11. Psychological Explanations of Altruism
Lerner and Lichtman (1968) carried out an experiment similar to Milgram’s
Worked in pairs
One was confederate (played along)
One learner one teacher
Drew from a hat “random” (but not really)
Confederate acted distressed – the true participant (most of the time) took over the role
How can this be explained?

12. 1. The negative-state relief model
Schaller and Cialdini (1988) proposed the negative-state relief model – we help so we feel better (reduce the distress) or we walk away

13. 2. The empathy- altruism model
The empathy- altruism model by Batson et al. (1981) consists of two emotions: personal distress (egoistic behavior) and empathetic concern (altruistic behaviour) read about Carol p. 261
Is empathy biological or learned? Read the study y Van Baaren on p. 262 and link it to the biological level of analysis – Ask Aleksandra 

14. Are YOU really caring ?( CAS)
P. 261
John Rabe: a good Nazi? P. 263

15. Pro-social behaviour and the bystander effect
Kitty Genovese:

16. Diffusion of responsibility
Who should help – you? Me? Someone else…
(e.g. Kitty Genovese)
Latané and Darley (1968) conducted a laboratory experiment with students to measure the likelihood of helping in the presence of others (interview over an intercom)
Five other, two and alone
Results: one: 85%, two: 65%
And five: 31% rushed to help

17. Pluralistic ignorance
People often look to others how to behave (informational social influence)
So if others do not react in an emergency, then they might not react either (e.g. Kitty Genovese)
Latané and Darley (1969) tested this in an experiment
Waiting room – heard a female experimenter fall and cry out
Help depended on if they were alone in the room or with a confederate
These notions are supported by evidence that participants on their own are more likely to react to smoke filling a room or someone having an epileptic seizure than if they are in company (Latané & Darley, 1968). Smoke filled room:

18. Evaluation:
This model gives good reasons why bystanders may not intervene but does not explain the motives of people who do help.
Factors other than the presence of other people inhibit helping behaviour (Piliavin et al., 1981).

19. Social Exchange Theory
Subjective cost-benefit analysis
We are more likely to help when we feel that the benefits of helping outweigh the potential costs

20. Social Exchange Theory

21. The arousal-cost-reward model of pro-social behaviour
Piliavin et al. developed this model to explain why people do and do not help in emergency situations.
They argue that the observation of an emergency situation creates an emotional arousal in bystanders.  This arousal may be perceived as fear, disgust or sympathy, depending on aspects of the situation. 

22. Piliavin et al. go on to argue that the chosen response depends on a cost-reward analysis by the individual.
  These include:
Costs of helping, such as effort, embarrassment and possible physical harm.
Cost of not helping, such as self-blame and perceived censure from others;
Rewards of helping, such as praise from self, onlookers and the victim;
Rewards of not helping, such as getting on with one’s own business and not incurring the possible costs of helping. 
Therefore according to this model we are motivated to help people not by altruism (acting in the interest of others) but as a way of reducing unpleasant feelings of arousal.

23. task
Read Piliavin’s research on p. 266 (same one as you studied in MYP5) and answer “ be a critical thinker” on p. 267

24. Social norms in pro-social behaviour

25. Social norms in pro-social behaviour
Parents who have exemplified norms of concerns for others (Oliner and Oliner 1988)
Religion might make a difference (Colasanto 1989)
Social norms might contradict each other: help but not interfere with private matters… can you think of any examples?
Study by Shotland and Straw (1976) a staged attack by a man on a woman (p.268)

26. Social norms in pro-social behaviour
Beaman 1978 studied if helping behaviour can be learned.
Some students watched a film about helping
2 weeks later each student was observed in an emergency situation
43% helped in the
experimental condition(seen the film)
vs. 25 % who had not (control)

27. Cross-cultural research on pro-social behaviour
Last part of 8.1

28. Culture play a role on pro-social behaviour
Whiting (1979) studied children in six countries and their helping behaviour. Results were that Kenya, Mexico scored high compared to US that scored lowest
- why do you think?

29. Cultural differences
It has been suggested that there are two reasons for cultural differences in altruism (Eisenberg & Mussen, 1989):
Industrial societies place value on competition and personal success.
Co-operation at the home in non-industrial societies promotes altruism.
Within many cultures across the world, rural areas seem to have higher incidences of altruistic behaviours than urban areas. However, moving from the city to the country may lead to a person becoming more altruistic, perhaps because they have fewer factors demanding their time (Milgram, 1970).
Problems with cross-cultural research include:
Few studies follow the same method in each culture.
What is meant by 'help' differs across cultures, as do the motives for giving help

30. Social identity theory
Helps to explain how we determine whether to help someone or not – we tend to help more to those who are similar to us (Katz 1981)
The US were most likely to help someone from an out-group compared to Chinese and Japanese who helped the most to their in-group (Bond & Leung 1988)

31. Levine et al. 1990: helpfulness towards strangers was assessed
Who and where?
In 36 cities across the US
And 23 large cities around the world
Independent field experiments were used
Explain the experimental design & mention + and -

33. Levine et al. 1990: helpfulness towards strangers was assessed
Results:
In the US:
Small and medium-sized cities in the south east were most helpful
North-eastern and west coast cities the least
Best predictor: population density

34. Levine et al. 1990: helpfulness towards strangers was assessed
Results: using the US data to compare:
Latin America highest
Helping rates high in low economic productivity countries (less purchasing power for each citizen)
Higher in cities with slow pace of life ( walking speed)
Thought that the city’s personality affects individual behaviour (what do you think Helsingborg’s is?)

35. Levine et al. 1990: helpfulness towards strangers was assessed
However, two cities went against these tendencies. Copenhagen and Vienna, which are both fast paste and have more money
And in Kuala Lumpur (slow paste) they were not helpful at all
Conclusion: studies show that where the person was raised has less effect on helping than the place where they currently live

36. Levine et al. 1990: helpfulness towards strangers was assessed
The methodological limitations:
1-5 on p. 270 go through
(defining, observing and interpreting)
Do “be an enquirer” on p. 270

37. Most Honest Cities: The Reader’s Digest “Lost Wallet” Test
What are the most (and least) honest cities in the world? Reader's Digest conducted a global, social experiment to find out.
Our reporters "lost" 192 wallets in cities around the world.
In each, we put a name with a cellphone number, a family photo, coupons, and business cards, plus the equivalent of $50. We "dropped" 12 wallets in each of the 16 cities we selected, leaving them in parks, near shopping malls, and on sidewalks. Then we watched to see what would happen.
Read more: wallet-test/#ixzz2gNgaSpUy
experiment-infographic

40. THE END OF 8.1!