PSYCH 109_Chapter 12 HELPING_PPT.pdf

PRESENTED BY:
HELPING
Chapter 12:

WHY DO WE HELP?
WHEN WILL WE HELP?
WHO WILL HELP?
HOW CAN WE INCREASE HELPING?
TOPIC OUTLINE
Today's Discussion

2000 trees form the Garden of the Righteous
These “righteous Gentiles” knew that if the refugees
were discovered, Nazi policy dictated that host and
refugee would suffer a common fate. Many did (Hellman,
1980; Wiesel, 1985)
One hero who did not survive was Jane Haining
In April 1944, Haining accused a cook of eating sparse
food rations intended for her girls.
A few weeks later, she was sent to Auschwitz, where
she suffered the same fate as millions of Jews.
Altruism is selfishness in reverse. An altruistic person is concerned
and helpful even when no benefits are offered or expected in return

WHY DO WE HELP?
Social Exchange and Social Norms
One explanation assumes that human
interactions are guided by “social economics.”
We exchange not only material goods and
money but also social goods—love, services,
information, status (Foa & Foa, 1975).
Social-Exchange Theory (The theory that human
interactions are transactions that aim to maximize one’s
rewards and minimize one’s costs.)

Increasing Positive Emotion
External Reward
We give to get
Internal Reward
Focused on increasing positive emotions.
Rewards that motivate helping may be external or
internal.
Reducing Negative Emotion
The benefits of helping also include reducing or
avoiding negative emotions.
Near someone in distress, we may feel distress.

Guilt
Distress is not the only negative emotion we act to reduce.
Throughout recorded history, guilt has been a painful emotion
that people avoid and seek to relieve (Ty et al., 2017).
Exceptions to the Feel-Bad/Do-Good scenario
Among well-socialized adults, should we always expect to find the “feel-bad/do-
good” phenomenon? No. One negative mood, anger, produces anything but
compassion. Another exception is profound grief. People who suffer the loss of a
spouse or a child, whether through death or separation, often undergo a period of
intense self-preoccupation, which restrains giving to others (Aderman & Berkowitz,
1983; Gibbons & Wicklund, 1982).

Feel Good, Do Good
So, are happy people unhelpful? Quite the contrary. There
are few more consistent findings in psychology: Happy
people are helpful people. This effect occurs with both
children and adults, regardless of whether the good mood
comes from a success, from thinking happy thoughts, or
from any of several other positive experiences (Salovey et
al., 1991).
In Opole, Poland, Dariusz Dolinski and Richard Nawrat
(1998) found that a positive mood of relief can dramatically
boost helping.

WHY DO WE HELP?
Social Norms
Often, we help others not because we have
calculated consciously that such behavior is
in our self-interest but because of a subtler
form of self-interest: because something tells
us we ought to.

The Reciprocity Norm
One universal moral code is a reciprocity norm: To
those who help us, we should return help, not harm
(Gouldner, 1960).
We “invest” in others and expect dividends.
The Social-Responsibility Norm
The social-responsibility norm decrees that people
should help those who need help, without regard to
future exchanges (Berkowitz, 1972; Schwartz,
1975).
If a person on crutches drops a book, you honor the
social responsibility norm as you pick it up.

Gender and Receiving Help
If, indeed, perception of another’s need strongly determines one’s
willingness to help, will women receive more help than men? That is
indeed the case.
Alice Eagly and Maureen Crowley (1986) located 35 studies that
compared help received by male or female victims. ((Virtually all the
studies involved short-term encounters with strangers in need—the
very situations in which people expect males to be chivalrous, note
Eagly and Crowley.))
Women offered help equally to males and females, whereas men
offered more help when the persons in need were females.
Women not only receive more offers of help in certain situations but
also seek more help (Addis & Mahalik, 2003).
They more often welcome help from friends. Arie Nadler (1991), a
Tel Aviv University expert on help-seeking, attributes this to gender
differences in individualism versus collectivism—women are more
collectivistic and thus more willing to ask others to help.

EVOLUTIONARY
PSYCHOLOGY
Life’s essence is gene survival.
When our ancestors died, their genes lived on, predisposing us to behave in
ways that will spread them into the future. Mechanisms for overcoming
selfishness (Nowak & Highfield, 2011; Pfaff, 2014), including the following:
Kin selection: If you carry my genes, I’ll favor you.
Direct reciprocity: We scratch each other’s backs.
Indirect reciprocity: I’ll scratch your back, you scratch someone’s, and
someone will
scratch mine.
Group selection: Back-scratching groups survive.

KIN SELECTION
The idea that evolution has selected altruism toward one’s close relatives to
enhance the survival of mutually shared genes.
The kin selection principle implies that nature (as well as culture) programs
us to care about close relatives.
Example: Carlos Rogers of the Toronto Raptors NBA basketball team
volunteered to end his career and donate a kidney to his sister (who died before
she could receive it), people applauded his self-sacrificial love

Reciprocity
-The giver expects later to be
the getter.
Two forms of Reciprocity:
Direct reciprocity- individuals help others, expecting that
those they help will, in turn, help them when the need arises.
For example, if you assist a friend with moving to a new
house, you might expect them to help you in a similar way
when you need it.
Indirect reciprocity- involves helping or cooperating with
someone, not because you expect a direct benefit from
them, but because you hope to establish a positive
reputation within a larger social group.

GROUP SELECTION
Groups of mutually supportive altruists outlast groups of non-altruists (Krebs, 1998;
McAndrew, 2002; Wilson, 2015). This idea implies that there can be an advantage to
altruism at the group level, even if it comes at a cost to individuals within the group.
Example: Social insects like bees and ants work sacrificially for
the survival of their colonies, which can be seen as an example
of group selection in action.

GROUP SELECTION
There is also an ingroup loyalty, where they may sacrifice for the benefit of their own
group or community. This is a kin to employees in a corporation competing with each
other but also cooperating to ensure the success of the company as a whole. Ingroup
loyalty can be seen as a form of group-level cooperation and altruism.
Donald Campbell (1975a,b) offered another basis for
unreciprocated altruism: Ethical and religious rules that
encourage individuals to balance their self-interest with
concern for the group. For example, moral commandments
such as "love your neighbor as yourself" promote prosocial
behaviors that contribute to the survival and cohesion of the
community. These rules act as "brakes" on purely self-
interested behavio

It emphasizes self-interest,
suggesting that
individuals help others
with the expectation of
receiving something in
return or avoiding
negative consequences.
Comparing Theories of
Altruism
Social-Exchange Social Norms Evolutionary
People help others
because societal norms
and expectations dictate
that helping
behavior is appropriate
and praiseworthy.
Helping behaviors can
enhance the survival and
reproduction of genes.

WHY DO WE HELP?
Genuine Altruism
Refers to a type of helping behavior where individuals selflessly assist
others without any expectation of personal gain or reciprocity. In genuine
altruism, the primary motivation is the well-being of the recipient, and the
helper doesn't seek external rewards, such as recognition, material
benefits, or even a "feel-good" emotion.

Genuine Altruism
Batson theorized that our willingness to help is influenced by both
self-serving and selfless considerations.
Holland, Michigan, has a corporation with
several thousand employees
that, for most of the last half-century,
annually gave away 10% of its pretax profits
with one stipulation: The gift was always
anonymous. In nearby Kalamazoo,
anonymous donors in 2005 pledged to
provide Michigan public university or
community college costs ranging from 65 to
100% depending on length of residence for
all the city’s public school graduates.
Example:
Abraham Lincoln noticed a sow making a terrible
noise. Her piglets had gotten into a marshy pond
and were in danger of drowning. Lincoln called the
coach to a halt, jumped out, ran back, and lifted the
little pigs to safety. Upon his return, his companion
remarked, “Now, Abe, where does selfishness
come in on this little episode?” Lincoln replied,
“Why, bless your soul, Ed, that was the very
essence of selfishness. I should have had no peace
of mind all day had I gone and left that suffering
old sow worrying over those pigs. I did it to get
peace of mind, don’t you see?”

Genuine Altruism
When we feel securely attached to
someone,we also feel empathy (Mario
Mikulincer 2005).
Example: Loving parents suffer when
their children suffer and rejoice over
their children’s joys.
When we value another’s
welfare, perceive the person as in
need, and take the person’s
perspective, we feel empathic
concern (Batson et al., 2007).
To separate egoistic distress reduction from empathy-
based altruism, Batson’s research group conducted studies
that aroused empathy. Then the researchers noted whether
the aroused people would reduce their own distress by
escaping the situation, or whether they would go out of their
way to aid the person.
The results were consistent: With their empathy aroused,
people usually helped, but some also observe the woman’s
suffering. Nevertheless, their empathy aroused.
Genuine “empathy-induced altruism is
part of human nature”

In this sector, we can learn how to
identify circumstances that prompt
people to help, or not to help.
Explain how and why helping is
influenced by the number and
behavior of other bystanders, by
mood states, and by traits and
values.

CASE OF KITTY GENOVESE
.On March 13, 1964, 28-year-old bar manager Kitty
Genovese was attacked by a man with a knife as she
returned from work to her Queens, New York ,apartment
house at 3:00 a.m. Her screams of terror and pleas for help
—“Oh my God, he stabbed me! Please help me! Please help
me!”—aroused some of her neighbors. Some supposedly
came to their windows and caught fleeting glimpses as the
attacker left and then returned to attack again. Not until
her attacker departed for the second time did anyone call
the police. Soon after, Kitty Genovese died.

As the number of bystanders at an emergency increases,
any given bystander is (1) less likely to notice the
incident, (2) less likely to interpret it as an emergency,
and (3) less likely to assume responsibility. Experiments
on helping behavior pose an ethical dilemma but fulfill
the researcher's mandate to enhance human life by
uncovering important influences on behavior.
NUMBER OF
BYSTANDERS

BYSTANDER EFFECT
> the finding that a person is less likely to provide help when there
are other bystanders.
Factors that influence the bystander effect are the ff.
Noticing
Interpreting
Assuming
Responsibility
Revisiting Research
Ethics
1.
2.
3.
4.

NOTICING
Noticing the incident; they conduct an experiment to find out, Latané
and Darley (1968) had Columbia University men fill out a
questionnaire in a room, either by themselves or with two strangers.
While they were working (and being observed through a one-way
mirror), there was a staged emergency: Smoke poured into the room
through a wall vent. Solitary students, who often glanced idly about
the room while working noticed the smoke almost immediately—
usually in less than 5 seconds. Those in groups kept their eyes on
their work. It typically took them about 20 seconds to notice the
smoke.

INTERPRETING
interpret as an emergency; once we notice an ambiguous
event, we must interpret it. Another experiment conducted,
the Smoke-Filled-Room Experiment, smoke pouring into the
testing room was much more likely to be reported by
individuals working alone than by three person groups.
illusion of transparency—a tendency to overestimate others’
ability to “read” our internal states.
“pluralistic ignorance”—ignorance that others are thinking and
feeling what we are.

ASSUMING
RESPONSIBILITY
To put it simply, this phenomenon is when an individual
does not take action because a large group of other
people are present. As the size of the group increases,
it’s generally less likely that an individual will take any
action. The diffusion of responsibility is most common in
larger groups, when nobody has been appointed as the
leader, and when the individual does not feel personally
responsible for the experience.

REVISITING
RESEARCH ETHICS
These principles are in place to protect the participant,
protect the researcher, and protect the reputation of the
field of psychology. The social psychologist has a
twofold ethical obligation: to protect the participants and
to enhance human welfare by discovering influences upon
human behavior.

Helping When Someone Else Does
Los Angeles drivers were more likely to offer help
to a female driver with a flat tire if a quarter mile
earlier they had witnessed someone helping
another woman change a tire (Bryan & Test, 1967).
British adults were more willing to donate blood if
they were approached after observing someone
else consent to donating (Rushton & Campbell,
1977).
Example:
1.
2.

Time Pressures
Similarity
> a type of psychological stress that occurs when a
person has less time available (real or perceived)
than is necessary to complete a task or obtain a
result.
> is conducive to liking, and liking is conducive to
helping, we are more empathic and helpful toward
those similar to us (Miller et al., 2001). The
similarity bias applies to both dress and beliefs.

SUMMARY
When are people most likely to help? One
circumstance is when they have just observed
someone else helping.
Another circumstance that promotes helping is
having at least a little spare time; those in a hurry
are less likely to help.
We tend to help those whom we perceive as being
similar to us.

WHO WILL
HELP?
IDENTIFY SOME TRAITS
AND VALUES THAT
PREDICT HELPING.

PERSONALITY TRAITS
AND STATUS
Individual Differences
Individual differences in helpfulness
and shown that those differences
persist over time and are noticed by
one’s peers (Hampson, 1984; Penner,
2002; Rushton et al., 1981).
Network of Traits
Those with high in positive emotionality,
empathy, and self-efficacy are most likely to be
concerned and helpful (Eisenberg et al., 1991;
Krueger et al., 2001; Walker & Frimer, 2007).
Those with callous traits (psychopathy) are less
helpful and empathic (Beussink et al., 2017).
Effectsofpersonalityonaltruism
inthreeways
inthreeways
(Personalityresearchers)

PERSONALITY TRAITS
AND STATUS
Personality Influences
Those high in self-monitoring are attuned to others’ expectations and are
therefore helpful if they think helpfulness will be socially rewarded
(White & Gerstein, 1987).
People who are more sympathetic to the victims in emergency situations
respond faster when they are the only ones there, but slower when there
are other bystanders (Hortensius et al., 2016).
inthreeways
inthreeways

PERSONALITY TRAITS
AND STATUS
Less privileged people were more generous, trusting,
and helpful than more privileged people (Piff, 2014;
Stellar et al., 2012).
Statusandsocialclassalsoaffect
Statusandsocialclassalsoaffect
altruism.
altruism.

The effect of personality or gender may
depend on the situation.
In dangerous situations in which strangers need
help, men more often help (Eagly & Crowley,1986).
Recipients of the Carnegie medal for heroism in
saving human life, 91% have been men (Eagly,
2009).
GENDER

GENDER
Indiana University’s Women’s Philanthropy
Institute reports that:
Single women donate more than single men,
Men donate more if married to a woman, and
At every income level, female-headed households
donate more than male-headed households.
1.
2.
3.

RELIGIOUS
FAITH
The religiously committed have reported volunteering
more hours as tutors, relief workers, and campaigners
for social justice, than have the religiously
uncommitted (Benson et al., 1980; Hansen et al.,
1995; Penner, 2002).
Those who feel more spiritually connected to other
congregants provide more help (including giving time
or money) to family and strangers (Krause &
Hayward, 2014).

RELIGIOUS
FAITH
Worldwide surveys confirm the correlation between faith
engagement and volunteering.
Highly religious people are despite averaging lower
incomes, more likely to report having given away
money, volunteered and helped a stranger.
Highly religious people said religion is important in
their daily life and attended a service.
Less religious are all others
1.
2.
3.

HOW
CAN
WE
INCREASE
HELPING?
REDUCE AMBIGUITY,
INCREASE
RESPONSIBILITY
Helping can increase if we can prompt people
to correctly interpret an incident and to
assume responsibility.

HOW
CAN
WE
INCREASE
HELPING?
REDUCE AMBIGUITY,
INCREASE
RESPONSIBILITY
Personalized Appeal
Personal appeals for help are effective; especially if
from friends.
Leonard Jason and collaborators (1984) confirmed
that personal appeals for blood donation are much
more effective than posters and media
announcements, if the personal appeals come from
friend.

GUILT AND CONCERN
FOR SELF-IMAGE
Awakening people’s guilt increases their desire
to help.
A Reed College research team led by Richard
Katzev (1978) experimented with guilt induced
helping. 58% of the guilt-laden individuals offered
help.
Guilt-laden people are helpful people.

GUILT AND CONCERN
FOR SELF-IMAGE
Labeling people as helpful can strengthen a
helpful self-image.
Robert Kraut (1973) told some Connecticut
women, “You are a generous person.” Two weeks
later, these women were more willing than those
not so labeled to contribute to a different charity

HOW
CAN
WE
INCREASE
HELPING?
TEACHING MORAL INCLUSION
Five ways on how to Socialize Altruism:
1.
Moral exclusion an omitting certain people from one’s circle
of moral concern has the opposite effect. It justifies all sorts
of harm, from discrimination to genocide (Opotow, 1990;
Staub, 2005a; Tyler & Lind, 1990).
A first step toward socializing altruism is therefore to
counter the natural ingroup bias favoring kin and tribe by
personalizing and broadening the range of people whose
well-being should concern us.
One way to practice moral inclusion is to believe “all
humanity is my ingroup” (McFarland et al., 2012).
SOCIALIZATION
ALTRUISM
Moral Exclusion, the
perception of certain
individuals or groups as
outside the boundary within
which one applies moral
values and rules of fairness.
Moral inclusion is regarding
others as within one’s circle of
moral concern.

HOW
CAN
WE
INCREASE
HELPING? SOCIALIZATION
ALTRUISM
2. TEACHING MORAL INCLUSION
a behavior that when we see or read about someone
helping, we become more likely to offer assistance.
If they had earlier witnessed someone helping a woman
who’d dropped books, female shoppers in a real life
experiment then became more likely to assist someone who
had dropped a dollar (Burger et al., 2014).
Real-Life Modeling

HOW
CAN
WE
INCREASE
ALTRUISM
2. TEACHING MORAL INCLUSION
Prosocial TV models have actually had even greater effects
than antisocial models.
Lynette Friedrich and Aletha Stein (1973; Stein & Friedrich,
1972) showed preschool children Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood
episodes each day for 4 weeks as part of their nursery school
program. (Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood aimed to enhance
young children’s social and emotional development.) During
the viewing period, children from less-educated homes became
more cooperative, helpful, and likely to state their feelings.
Media Modeling

HOW
CAN
WE
INCREASE
ALTRUISM
3. LEARNING BY DOING
Staub and his students found that after children were induced
to make toys for hospitalized children or for an art teacher,
they became more helpful.
When children act helpfully, they develop helping-related
values, beliefs, and skills, notes Staub.
“service learning” and volunteer programs woven into a
school curriculum have been shown to increase later citizen
involvement, social responsibility, cooperation, and leadership
(Andersen, 1998; Putnam, 2000).
Ervin Staub (2005b, 2015) has shown that just as immoral
behavior fuels immoral attitudes, helping increases future helping.

HOW
CAN
WE
INCREASE
ALTRUISM
4. ATTRIBUTING HELPFUL BEHAVIOR TO ALTRUISTIC
MOTIVES
Overjustification Effect is the result of bribing people to do
what they already like doing; they may then see their
actions as externally controlled rather than intrinsically
appealing.
Another clue to socializing altruism comes from
research on the overjustification effect:

HOW
CAN
WE
INCREASE
ALTRUISM
5. LEARNING ABOUT ALTRUISM
Experiments with University of Montana students by Arthur
Beaman and colleagues (1978) revealed that once people
understand why the presence of bystanders inhibits
helping, they become more likely to help in group situations.
Researchers have found another way to boost
altruism, one that provides a happy chapter
conclusion.

PSYCH 109_Chapter 12 HELPING_PPT.pdf

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to PSYCH 109_Chapter 12 HELPING_PPT.pdf

Similar to PSYCH 109_Chapter 12 HELPING_PPT.pdf (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

PSYCH 109_Chapter 12 HELPING_PPT.pdf