HUMAN RELATIONSHIPSSocial responsibility8.11Social responsibilityLearning outcomesEvaluate psychological research (through theories and studies) relevant to the study of human relationshipsDistinguish between altruism and pro-social behaviourEvaluate research investigating altruismExplain cross-cultural differences in pro-social behaviourEvaluate research investigating bystanderism2Help or not to helpAn example from the USAhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIvGIwLcIuw

3Terms you have to knowPro-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: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9JcX2X7XnM

Activity: come up with one example for each4Psychological research on altruismBiological altruism (evolutionary)Psychological altruism (mostly cognitive)

5Biological altruism6Biological altruism what could be advantageous to the group a person belongs to rather than the individual aloneKin Selection theory: the closer/ more related the greater the chance of altruistic behaviourhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gyesol8PLKE

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)

7

Reciprocal altrusim theoryBy Trivers (1971)you scratch my back and Ill scratch yoursMeaning that one help (even strangers) with the expectation that the favour will be returned in the futureBe a thinker on p. 260 part of politics?"prisoner's dilemma" game by Axelrod and Hamilton8Evaluation of the evolutionary theoriesSome studies show that one is more likely to help a relative than a stranger (Sime 1983 fleeing from burning buildings and Madsen et al. 2007 study)Animals generalise?Culture does it differ?Adoption without sharing the genes

9Psychological explanations of altruism10Psychological Explanations of AltruismLerner and Lichtman (1968) carried out an experiment similar to MilgramsWorked in pairsOne was confederate (played along)One learner one teacherDrew from a hat random (but not really)Confederate acted distressed the true participant (most of the time) took over the roleHow can this be explained?

111. 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

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

2. The empathy- altruism model

Are YOU really caring ?( CAS)P. 261

John Rabe: a good Nazi? P. 26314Pro-social behaviour and the bystander effectKitty Genovese:Http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JozmWS6xYEw&feature=related

15Who should help you? Me? Someone else(e.g. Kitty Genovese)Latan 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 aloneResults: one: 85%, two: 65% And five: 31% rushed to help

Diffusion of responsibility

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)Latan and Darley (1969) tested this in an experimentWaiting room heard a female experimenter fall and cry outHelp 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 (Latan & Darley, 1968). Smoke filled room:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KE5YwN4NW5o

Pluralistic ignoranceThis 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).

Evaluation:

Subjective cost-benefit analysisWe are more likely to help when we feel that the benefits of helping outweigh the potential costsSocial Exchange Theory

Social Exchange TheoryPiliavin 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.

The arousal-cost-reward model of pro-social behaviour 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 ones 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.

Piliavin et al. go on to argue that the chosen response depends on a cost-reward analysis by the individual.Read Piliavins research on p. 266 (same one as you studied in MYP5) and answer be a critical thinker on p. 267task

Social norms in pro-social behaviourParents 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)Social norms in pro-social behaviour

Beaman 1978 studied if helping behaviour can be learned.Some students watched a film about helping2 weeks later each student was observed in an emergency situation43% helped in the experimental condition(seen the film) vs. 25 % who had not (control)Social norms in pro-social behaviourLast part of 8.1Cross-cultural research on pro-social behaviour27Culture play a role on pro-social behaviourWhiting (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?

28It 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 helpCultural differencesSocial identity theoryHelps 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)30Levine et al. 1990: helpfulness towards strangers was assessedWho and where?In 36 cities across the US And 23 large cities around the worldIndependent field experiments were used

Explain the experimental design & mention + and -31

Results:In the US:Small and medium-sized cities in the south east were most helpfulNorth-eastern and west coast cities the leastBest predictor: population density

Levine et al. 1990: helpfulness towards strangers was assessedResults: using the US data to compare:Latin America highestHelping 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 citys personality affects individual behaviour (what do you think Helsingborgs is?)Levine et al. 1990: helpfulness towards strangers was assessedHowever, two cities went against these tendencies. Copenhagen and Vienna, which are both fast paste and have more moneyAnd 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 liveLevine et al. 1990: helpfulness towards strangers was assessedThe methodological limitations:1-5 on p. 270 go through(defining, observing and interpreting)

Do be an enquirer on p. 270

Levine et al. 1990: helpfulness towards strangers was assessedWhat 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: http://www.rd.com/slideshows/most-honest-cities-lost-wallet-test/#ixzz2gNgaSpUyhttp://www.ibtimes.com/most-honest-cities-world-lost-wallet-experiment-infographic-1411124

Most Honest Cities: The Readers Digest Lost Wallet Test

THE END OF 8.1!

spook2a.midmelodybasstenorharpsichordharpsichordtrem strgstrem strgspizz stringspizz lopercussionhero1g.midSound Blaster AWE-32trmb1Sound Blaster AWE-32tubaSound Blaster AWE-32trmb.harm.Sound Blaster AWE-32stringsSound Blaster AWE-32bassSound Blaster AWE-32trpt hiSound Blaster AWE-32f.horn.harm.echoSound Blaster AWE-32f.horn harm.Sound Blaster AWE-32piccoloSound Blaster AWE-32percussionSound Blaster AWE-32f.horn harm.2Sound Blaster AWE-32tuba echoSound Blaster AWE-32strings 8vaSound Blaster AWE-32trmb1 echoSound Blaster AWE-32trmb harm echoSound Blaster AWE-32trpt hi echo 1997 Jonkey EnterprisesMELODYCHORDSMELODYCHORDSORGANMELODYTrancLTrance (Underscore)Copyright 1998, The Microsoft CorporationSteve BatesSynth Strings 2Voice OohsPercussive OrganFX 2 (soundtrack)Drums Lead 7 (fifths)Pad 3 (polysynth)Recorder(Multi Instr.) 14(Multi Instr.) 15Bird TweetTelephone Ring

Melody*mergedStrings*mergedGuitar*mergedPiano*mergedDrums*merged6*merged7*merged8*merged9*merged10*merged11*merged12*merged