Welcome to lesson fourteen. Now we’re going to discuss
helping and cooperation.
Let’s begin by moving to slide two. Here you see a lot of images Kitty
Genovese. I’m sure most of you have heard this story at one time or
another. Essentially this woman was stabbed to death in front of her
home, in the middle of the courtyard, with many apartment buildings
surrounding it. The night that she was stabbed, she was attacked and
many people in the apartments above turned on their lights, looked down,
saw this woman being attacked and screaming and no one did anything. The
attacker fled, she continued to be bleeding and laying there in pain,
could not move, continued to scream, the attacker returned, stabbed her
for a second time, this time resulting in her death. Again a few lights
came on, people looked down into the courtyard, saw the woman being
attacked and no one did anything. This is what prompted most of the work
on helping and cooperation in social psychology. When news of this first
hit papers, the entire country presumed that people who live in cities
were somehow mean and heartless and didn’t care for each other and had
this happened in their town, certainly someone would have done
something. What they found is that the neighbors saw other neighbors
looking and assumed well look at all these other people, I’m sure
someone’s already called the police, therefore it’s not my place to do
so. We’re going to talk about this case more, but you should know the
history of it and read your book carefully about this account.
Let’s move to slide three and discuss social learning theory. Social
learning theory says that we do things that we’re rewarded for doing, so
we’re more likely to help when helping is rewarded. You know that putting a
reward for an item that’s been lost typically increases the likelihood
that the item will be found. Also to the extent that there is a norm of
social responsibility, a norm of reciprocity or a norm of equity,
helping is more likely.
Let’s talk about a study in slide four. Rushton & Campbell in ’77 did a
study that has been replicated since on blood donation. What they had
was participants completed a questionnaire designed to measure
personality traits completely unrelated to blood donation or helping.
Then as they left, they passed a table seeking people to sign up to give
blood at a later date. In some of the conditions, there was a model
standing outside a confederate working for the experiment who also left
the experiment, went to the table and signed up to give blood. In other
cases there was no model and people were randomly assigned to see the
model or not. If you look at this graph you will see that the number of
participants who signed up was higher when there was a model than when
there wasn’t. So you think well perhaps because the model was there,
this induces some sort of social pressure, other people are doing it, I
should do it, too. But then they also looked at how many people showed
up to actually donate blood at a later date and they found that those
who had signed up in front of the model were more likely to give blood
than people who signed up of their own accord without any social
pressure. Therefore it helps not only in the presence of others, but
also a behavior later when you have committed in the presence of others.
Let’s move on to slide five. Moss & Page in 1972 did a study on
learning. The participants walked down the sidewalk and encountered
someone who needs help. They were asked for instructions or directions
to go to a particular location. After the participant helped they are
either thanked or insulted for helping. Thanks a lot, for example.
They’re either rewarded or punished for helping. A few blocks later, a
participant will encounter a woman who’s dropped her purse. They then
try to determine who will return the bag. What they found is that those
who had been thanked earlier were more likely to return the bag than
those who had been punished and told thanks a lot. Those people are more
likely to walk right past the bag, not pick it up and try to give it
back to the confederate who had dropped it.
Let’s move up to six. The steps to helping. So how do we help, what is the
cognitive process. First you have to notice that there’s something going
on. You have to see the purse dropped, you have to see the purse on the
ground, you have to take some notice. Then you have to interpret the
situation. Is it really a situation that involves help, does it need
help? Is there help to be done? Next is, is it my place to help;
responsibility. What extent is it to make sure that this person gets the
help they need? If you decide that yes it is your responsibility, this
next thing you need to decide is how are you going to help, what are you
going to do, what are the behaviors required and then evaluate. Can you
do it. For example, if you come across someone who clearly is having a
heart attack and may need to be elevated or to be given aspirin or just
have an ambulance called, you may have to decide whether or not you are
most capable of doing that. For example, if you don’t have a cell phone
and there’s no pay phone around and the answer is to call for help, then
really you can’t do that, so helping may not occur. And finally if you
decide that that is something you can do, you do have your cell phone
with you and can make the call, you will proceed to help. At any of
those stages after noticing that something has happened, diffusion of
responsibility can take hold and this is what happened in Kitty
Genovese's case. Clearly people
saw that something was happening, they were looking out their windows
down at the victim. They interpreted the situation as help, she was
screaming, there was clearly someone stabbing her. Then when it came to
responsibility, they looked around and saw that there were clearly other
people who probably knew her or would be more responsible for her.
People on that side of the street, people on the first floor, someone
else is surely going to be responsible. Therefore they didn’t even
proceed to the next step.
Let’s move on to seven. In slide six we discussed helping as though it
was a very cognitive process. One that you thought about, you decide
whether or not you’re going to help in stages, however, sometimes we help
without deliberation, so it’s called emotional helping. There’s no
steps, we just do it. When we help like this, we assume that it’s based
on biology, that is there’s a biological basis and for evolutionary
reasons, we help, to help our species survive. However, this doesn’t
explain why we help animals and so the theory is lacking and so perhaps
we go through the steps but very quickly in some cases.
Let’s move on to slide eight. So who do we help if we manage to get
through all the steps and decide that we will, in fact, help someone. We
know that attractive others are more likely to be helped, people that we
see as being similar to us are more likely to be helped. Here’s a study
that was done. A confederate who was dressed well or dressed shabbily
was holding either a cane or a liquor bottle and is passed out, having
some sort of attack and passes out on the sidewalk in front of our
participants. Again this is a field study, the participants are not
students, they’re just people in public places who happen to encounter
our confederate. They then measured who would help this person. If the
person was well dressed and had a cane, they were more likely to be
helped. If he was well dressed and had a liquor bottle, he was equally
likely to be helped as someone who was poorly dressed with a cane.
However, if you’re poorly dressed and you’re holding a liquor bottle,
it’s very unlikely that anyone will help you. Probably because they’re
making a different attribution to what went wrong. Someone who’s well
dressed who collapses, we assume that there might be good reason to
assume that the collapse was due to the cane and even if they’re holding
a liquor bottle, they aren’t usually a drunk and so by being well dressed,
they clearly probably have someplace they need to be, someone that cares
about them and someone more likely to make an attribution that this
isn’t the way their life is. Someone who’s poorly dressed with a cane,
we’re willing to help them, we assume that something has gone wrong,
they have a cane it indicates some sort of disability or a need for help
in itself. However, if that poorly dressed person has a liquor bottle,
you may make an attribution that this person is a drunk and no matter
what we did to help, ultimately they would end up right back where they
are.
Let’s move on to slide nine. This is a similar study done by some
colleagues of Smith in 1987, contextual attractiveness with helping
effects. Here the confederate asked for directions to a thrift shop or
to a tennis club. If we have our poorly dressed person ask for
directions to the thrift shop, 60% of people stopped to help. If the
well dressed person asks for directions to the thrift shop, only about
20% will help, while the reverse is true for the tennis club. You’re
well dressed and you’re asking where the tennis club is, about 40% of
the people helped. If you’re poorly dressed and you ask where the tennis
club is, only again about 20% of people helped. That is, if you’re
helped with any help needs that you have matches the content. That is
well dressed people might be looking for the tennis club and that seems
legitimate and poorly dressed people may be in need of a thrift shop.
However, what is a poorly dressed person wanting with a tennis club and
why does the well dressed person need to go to the thrift shop. When it
doesn’t match, we’re simply more likely to keep walking.
Let’s move on to slide ten and look at yet another study. Regan in 1968
did a study in which they determined whether or not the norm or
reciprocity would be influencing helping. In this
case the participant is in the study, as they’re filling out questionnaires, they’re
randomly assigned to one of three conditions. One in which a confederate
who the participant believes is another participant in the study, gives
that person a drink. In another condition the experimenter gives the
participant a drink, or there is no drink introduced. Later the
confederate asks the participant if he would like to buy some raffle
tickets for a cause that his fraternity is supporting. What you find is
that there is a number of raffle tickets bought, so if the confederate
gave them a drink, the norm of reciprocity seems to be at work. The
person was more likely to buy not only one but closer to two raffle
tickets. This is a direct exchange relationship. Because they’ve been
given a Coke, now they feel like they should do something nice for the
confederate. However, if the experimenter was the one that gave the
person the drink or if there was no drink given, people bought one or
less than one ticket. Therefore norm of reciprocity seems to be
important. That is, even though somebody helped you, you don’t
necessarily pass it on, but rather want to pay that person back
directly.
Let’s move on to slide eleven. This slide looks at cultural differences
and who should help. In 1990 they did a survey asking who it would be
appropriate or who you should expect to help you out in different times
of need. If you have an extreme need, a moderate need or a minor need.
In the U. S., these are the red, white and blue bars. You will see that
it’s most likely that you should always ask your parents for help.
Everyone seems to agree on this 100% of people that this is appropriate,
regardless of what your need is. Friends are next; you can ask them,
especially if you have an extreme need, although the percentage drops
off quite readily to moderate in minor needs and asking a stranger is
only a 50/50 shot or less most of the time, so 60% say you can ask a
stranger if you’re in extreme need, but if it’s a minor need, only about
40% of people think that’s appropriate. Compare this to people who are
Hindu. Hindu people believe that everyone should help everyone,
therefore regardless of the type of need it is, asking parents, friends
and strangers is legitimate. The only time you see a drop off and notice
that it’s not significant, is asking a stranger for minor help.
Let’s move on to slide twelve. Does helping take time? That is, does it
take cognitive effort? We know that time pressure influences helping. Darley & Batson in 1973 did a study in which theology students were
asked to participate. But these are people who are studying and
particularly studying good Samaritan stories. They were asked to
participate in an experiment. When they arrive at the lab, they’re told
one of several stories. In one, they’re told we really need your data
but the professor had to move the data collection site to another
building, so we need you to hurry over there or we really need your
data. The professor had to move the data site to another building, but
you can take your time because I believe the professor is still setting
up the experiment. In the other two conditions, they were told your data
isn’t very essential, so take your time getting there or they were told
your data’s not essential, but the professor’s been waiting for you and
you really should hurry to get to the building and meet him. Then they
measured who would
help another older man who was collapsed on the stairs strategically
between these two buildings. What they found is that even though these
are theology students who were studying the good Samaritan stories, the
time pressure influenced when they help. The only time we got a lot of
helping was when they were told to hurry but their data wasn’t
essential, then about 80% helped. When they’re told that the data is not
essential, about 70% helped. However if you’re told to hurry and that we
need your data, only about 10% of people stopped to help the elderly
man, while 50% stopped if they were told we need your data, but you can
take your time.
Let’s move on to slide thirteen. What is the impact of mood on helping?
There are two models, the negative state released model and the mood
maintenance hypothesis. The negative state release model says that you
help others to alleviate your own negative mood by helping them, this
is, you feel some sort of empathy, you see them in a bad situation, you
have empathic concern and in order to alleviate your own empathic
negative mood, you help them. This relieves your negative state. It’s a
very self-interested model. The mood maintenance model or mood
maintenance hypothesis is very similar. It says that positive moods lead
to less helping because it might bring you down. So even when you see
someone who needs help, you might not necessarily feel empathy and in fact if you’re
in a positive mood, you may decide you know if I get involved in that,
it’s going to disrupt my mood, so I’m not gonna do that. We’re not
proposing that these are conscious processes, but whether these are some
reasons that might explain why mood influences when we help and when we
do not help.
Let’s move on to slide fourteen. We are also more likely to help the
deserving. That is, we’re more likely to loan money to our friend who is
ill than to a friend who’s just lost their job or is lazy. We’re also
more likely to loan notes to a classmate if the lecture has been poor
than if the lecture has been good but the classmate was not taking good
notes.
Let’s move on to slide fifteen. We’ve talked about helping,
who we helped, who perceived help, but what about the other side, what
about being helped by others. Attribution theory plays a large role.
When people perceived help, they’re often asked why am I being helped.
If they assume that they’re being helped because something has happened
outside of them that they have no control over and they need help. For
example, a car accident or having some sort of life crisis, then they
may feel very cared about. However, we know that if people are helped
because of some sort of internal reason, for example, children who are
helped with reading, this may actually decrease their self-esteem if
they feel that their reading skills are not where they should be. We’ve
given children a video of a teacher helping one student and then not
helping another student and we asked these children to rate the student.
What we find is that people we see receiving help are typically viewed
as incompetent, which means that our attributions are in some way
correct. If we think that the person is being helped for internal
reasons, we think less of them and they tend to think less of themselves
as well.
Let’s move on to slide sixteen. Social exchange theory is another way we
can talk about receiving help. If there is equity, if you’re able to
reciprocate, then it can be a very positive experience. You help me and
then I can in turn help you. However, if I’m unable to reciprocate, this
imbalance in power can lower my self-esteem. For example, if someone
gives you a great deal of money and you know that there’s no way you
could ever pay them back, there’s an imbalance in power. It may lower
your self-esteem if you can’t provide that for yourself. You couldn’t
help yourself. Again this is very American, based on a number of American
values and the American dream, the idea that everyone should be able to
pull their own weight and being unable to do so implies some sort of
internal attribution that is negative. Reactance theory is also at play
when people receive help. Reactance theory says that we want to maximize
our personal freedom. We like to believe that we can do whatever we
want. Being obligated to others because they’ve helped us minimizes our
personal freedom, therefore we may reject help. However, when we are
receiving help, we do feel this obligation. Studies have shown welfare
families, even though receiving welfare in no way makes it likely that
you have to agree to other sorts of intrusions in your life, 70% of them
said they would not make those complaints about surprised illegal visits. They
felt obligated to allow this since they were receiving some sort of help
and 67% were so obligated to go to marriage counseling if someone in
this agency asked them to do so, even though this has nothing to do with
the welfare system and in fact wouldn’t be part of a program, they still
felt like they would feel obligated to go and would likely go.
Let’s finish with slide seventeen. Baumeister & Ilko in 1995 found that
gratitude is largely about a public display. What they do is they had
student participants write essays about a time in which someone helped
you and they coded this in to people who were directly helped, that is
someone gave you something tangible, some sort of tangible help you
needed, a loan of money, a borrowed pencil, something of that nature
versus emotional support help, so you were depressed, you needed to talk
and so you were able to do that. What they found is that if you believe
this essay would be read by someone else and evaluated, you were more
likely to say thank you, so 60% said thank you for a public, if they’re
essay was going to be public if they were receiving emotional support
and about 50% of people said thank you to someone in the essay if
they were receiving direct help. However, if the essay was private, that
is what we want you to do is go ahead and shred the essay after you’ve
written it and then we’ll have you fill out some other questionnaires so
no one will actually ever read it in terms of the content. What they
found then, as they carefully taped them back, was that no one said
thank you or very few, less than 20% said thank you, if it was private
direct help and only 30% if it was private emotional support.
This concludes lesson fourteen. Thank you.
