HUMAN RELATIONSHIPSSocial responsibility

8.1

Social responsibility• Learning outcomes1. Evaluate psychological research (through

theories and studies) relevant to the study of human relationships

2. Distinguish between altruism and pro-social behaviour

3. Evaluate research investigating altruism4. Explain cross-cultural differences in pro-social

behaviour5. Evaluate research investigating bystanderism

Help or not to help…

•Kitty Genovese:Http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JozmWS6xYEw&feature=related•Another example from the USAhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIvGIwLcIuwAnd another…smoke filled room:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KE5YwN4NW5o

terms• 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

Activity: come up with one example for each

Psychological research on altruism• Biological altruism (evolutionary)• Psychological altruism (mostly cognitive)

Biological altruism

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)

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

• Come up with an example• "prisoner's dilemma" – game by Axelrod

and Hamilton

Evaluation of the evolutionary theories• Animals• Culture• Adoption

Psychological explanations of altruism

Psychological explanations of altruism• Lerner and Lichtman (1968) carried out an

experiment similar to Milgram’s• 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)

• Is empathy biological or learned? Read the study on p. 262 and link it to the biological level of analysis

Are you really caring ( CAS)• P. 261

• John Rabe: a good Nazi? P. 263

Pro-social behaviour and the bystander effect• Starting on p. 263 – 268• Two responisible for p. 263 – 265:• Two responsible for 265- 267 :the arousal-

cost-reward model of pro-social behaviour• One 267- 268: the role of social norms in

pro-social behaviourRead and present to the others – clearly and

without reading from the paper – use only key words – present Tuesday after the break.

Last part of 8.1

Cross-cultural research on pro-social behaviour

Culture play a role on pro-social behaviour• Whiting (1979) studyied 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?

Social identity theory• Helps to explain how we determine wheter

to help someone or not – we tend to help more to those who are similar to us

• 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

Levine et al. 1990: helpfulness towards strangers was assessed• In 36 cities across the US• And 23 large cities around the world• Independent field experiments were used

• Explain the experimental design + mention + and -

• 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

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 think Helsingborg’s is?)

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

Levine et al. 1990: helpfulness towards strangers was assessed

• The methodological limitations:• 1-5 on p. 270 go through

• Do “be an enquirer” on p. 270

Levine et al. 1990: helpfulness towards strangers was assessed