Psych 221 Lecture 11:4 PDF

Preview

Summary

Intro to social psych w/Dr. Cardenas...

Description

Psych 221 Lecture 11/4/21 Social exchange theory -what we do stems from desire to maximize rewards and minimize costs -in relationships with others, we try to maximize the ratio of social rewards to social costs -this has to do with social norms (not biological or economical) Helping can be rewarded in a number of ways (Traditional social sciences) -the norm of reciprocity increase likelihood of future help -Gain rewards social approval, recognition, gives purpose, increased feelings of self-worth -Other side is that helping can be costly physical danger, pain, time -social exchange theory true altruism does not exist…there is always a thought of a benefit, especially when they outweigh the cost -seeing people suffer can elicit a brain mechanism that makes you want to help…but it can be philosophical, it’s not true altruism because you’re STILL TRYING TO FEEL BETTER Empathy altruism hypothesis -Several motives for helping -Egoistic social reward: a benefit, praise, positive attention that may be gained from helping others -can lead to “arm races of altruisms” (Daniel Batson) -Personal distress: to help reduce OWN distress -Non-egoistic empathic concern: identifying with someone in need, including feeling and understanding what that person is experiencing accompanied by the intention to enhance the other person’s welfare -not just feeling bad, going EXTRA STEP and putting yourself into what other person is experiencing -empathy: put oneself in the shoes of another person and experience events and emotions the way that person experiences them -Empathy-altruism hypothesis when we feel empathy for a person (when we’re in that state), we are not looking at costs and benefits…we are just going to do it because it helps other people (purely altruistic) and SPLIT-SECOND DECISIONS Toi and Batson 1982 -situation a person (Carol Marcy) suffered a car accident and needs help (they believed it was a student in the class) -IV 1: Empathy manipulation: high= imagine how carol felt vs. low=try to be objective and not be concerned about how Carol felt -IV 2: Cost: high=she will be back next week (have to see her, will feel guilty if you didn’t help) vs. low=she will be studying from home (no direct contact)

Iclicker question -when should participants be more willing to help carol?  (cost and conditions) high cost, high conditions (want the bad feeling of not helping to go away) -Not sure if this is right…didn’t really understand in lecture -high cost=helping -low cost= less likely to help -(LOW empathy) Three basic motives underlying prosocial behavior -Evolutionary psychology biological adaptation -Social exchange theory maximize rewards, minimize costs -empathy altruism hypothesis powerful feelings of empathy and compassion lead to selfless giving Situational determinants of prosocial behavior -people’s help can sometimes be due to the social situation in which they find themselves The bystander effect -Kitty Genovese’s prolonged murder -March 13, 1964 -38 witnesses failed to call police -Latane and Darley (1970) found that in terms of receiving help, there is no safety in numbers -the greater number of bystanders who witness and emergency, the less likely anyone is to help the victim known as the bystander effect -likelihood of person seeking help for someone in need increases if there are less people Darley and Latane decision tree 1. Notice the event 2. Interpret event as an emergency 3. Assume responsibility 4. Know appropriate form of assistance 5. Deciding to implement the help Clicker question What situation shows higher help? (priest study) not being in a hurry Noticing an event -Darley and Batson (1973) -they showed that something as trivial as being in a hurry can make more of a difference than what kind of a person someone is -if you’re in a hurry you’re more likely to MISS SOMETHING going on

Interpreting the event as an emergency -To help, the bystander must interpret the event as an emergency where help is needed -if they assume nothing is wrong, they will not help (ambiguous situation) -when other bystanders are present, people are more likely to assume that is not an emergency -Pluralistic ignorance: the case in which people think that everyone else is interpreting a situation in a certain way, when in fact they should not bystanders assuming that nothing is wrong in an emergency because no one else looks concerned -“smoke in the room study” : people by themselves sought help, people with others who didn’t react did not seek help Assuming responsibility -sometimes it is obvious that an emergency is occurring -EX: (not ambiguous) when kitty yelled “he’s stabbing me” -even if we interpret an event as an emergency, we have to decide that it is our responsibility to do something about it -Diffusion of responsibility the phenomenon whereby each bystander’s sense of responsibility to help decreases as the number of witnesses increases Knowing how to help -suppose that on a hot summer day, you see a woman collapse in the street. No one else seems to be helping, so you have to decide what to do. -what should you do? Heart attack? Heatstroke? Should you call someone? -if you don’t know what to do, you probably won’t be able to help…but you can call EMS Deciding to implement the help -even if you know what kind of help is appropriate, there are still reasons why you might not intervene -might not be qualified -might be afraid of: making a fool of yourself, doing the wrong thing, placing yourself in danger -Steblay, 1987 small town is more likely than urban towns to help if there is an emergency Environment: rural versus urban -factors?  more likely to know each other, emergencies/tragedies are less frequent, loyalty to community...