• Defining Altruism
• Prosocial behavior: Any behavior that benefits others
• Helping behavior: Behavior that benefits others that is performed with the anticipation of some reward
• Focus is on the self more than on the victim
• Egoism is the dominant motive
• Donating to a charity to get a tax break
• Helping a friend so she will help you in return
• Altruism: Selfless help that is performed without the anticipation of reward
• Focus is on relieving the suffering of the victim and not consequences to the self
• Empathy is the dominant underlying motive
• Anonymous donation to charity
• Teacher in Littleton, CO Columbine shootings
• Empathy-Altruism Hypothesis
• The Empathy-Punishment Hypothesis
• A challenge to the empathy-altruism hypothesis suggests that sometimes we help to avoid some negative outcome
• For example, help so that others will not see us in a negative light
• Helping in this model occurs because we want to avoid punishment, not out of empathy for the victim
• Batson's research suggests that the empathy-altruism hypothesis is a stronger explanation for altruism
• Although some research supports the empathy-altruism hypothesis, some does not
• The best explanation for the motives behind altruism may lie between the two hypotheses
• Darley and Latane's Stage Model of Helping
• Darley and Latane developed a five-stage model for helping in emergency situations:
• Noticing the emergency
• Labeling the situation as an emergency
• Assuming responsibility to help
• Deciding what to do
• Implementing the decision to help
• At each step a decision has to be made in order to go on to the next step
• One will go to the next step only if one decides in the affirmative at a given step
• A "no" response leads to no help
• There are several factors that affect the decision making process at each step of the model
• Noticing the Emergency
• One cannot be expected to help if one is not aware of the emergency situation
• Anything that draws our attention to the emergency situation will increase the likelihood that we will notice the emergency
• Cries of help from the victim
• A loud crash
• Anything that makes the emergency stand out against the background
• We tend to attend to the most salient things in our environment. Anything that makes the emergency more conspicuous increases the chances that it will be noticed
• Labeling the Situation as an Emergency
• The next step is to correctly label the situation as an emergency
• Correct labeling is related to two main factors
• The ambiguity of the situation
• Many emergencies are unclear
• Anything that makes the emergency more clear will increase the likelihood that it will be correctly labeled (e.g., a clear plea for help)
• The presence of other bystanders to the emergency
• If there are others present, the situation may be defined as a nonemergency
• Pluralistic ignorance occurs: Passive bystanders redefine the situation as an emergency
• We rely on cues from bystanders more when the situation is ambiguous
• Assuming Responsibility I
• Assuming that the situation is labeled as an emergency, the next step is that someone has to assume responsibility for helping
• Assumption of responsibility decreases in most instances as the number of bystanders increases
• This is known as the bystander effect
• The presence of other bystanders has two effects on helping that relate to assuming responsibility:
• Fewer people help as the number of bystanders increases
• It takes longer for a person to help when there are many bystanders
• The bystander effect is reduced when the helping response is physically dangerous (e.g., intervening in a crime)
• Assuming Responsibility II
• Explanations for the Bystander Effect
• Diffusion of responsibility is the best explanation for the bystander effect
• When other bystanders are present individuals assume that someone else will help or has already helped
• An ambiguous situation enhances the bystander effect
• Pluralistic ignorance is another explanation for the bystander effect
• If other bystanders are passive, one might assume that someone has already intervened leading one not to assume responsibility
• Often all it takes is one person to start helping to get others to help
• Deciding What to Do
• If one assumes responsibility for helping, the next step involves knowing what to do in the situation
• People who feel competent or have the skills necessary to intervene are most likely to help
• Most people what to render effective help (i.e., help that actually is successful in reducing the victim's suffering)
• Knowing what to do increases the likelihood of giving effective help
• Competence affects helping in two ways
• Competence increases confidence that effective help can be given
• Competent individuals tend to feel more empathy for a victim than less competent individuals
• Many emergencies do not require special training (e.g., calling the police), yet a person may not know what to do ("brain freeze")
• Implementing the Decision to Help I
• Even if all four previous steps are overcome, a person may decide not to implement a decision to help
• Several factors contribute to a failure to implement the decision to help:
• Rewards and costs for helping
• Potential helpers may weigh the rewards and costs of helping or not helping and engage in bystander calculus
• If costs for helping outweigh rewards, no help
• If you are in a hurry (for example) you are less likely to help
• Feedback from prior helping situations
• If you are rewarded for helping before, you are more likely to help; if you were punished, less likely
• Implementing the Decision to Help I
• Mood
• Individuals in a good mood are more likely to help than individuals in a bad mood
• However, if a person has reason to believe that helping will ruin the good mood help is less likely
• Characteristics of the victim
• Females are more likely to get help than males from male helpers
• Males and females are equally likely to be helped by a female helper
• Physically attractive people are more likely to get help
• Judgments about how much the victim deserves help (Just World Hypothesis)
• Did the victim contribute to his/her problem? If so, less help (more later)
• Implementing the Decision to Help III
• Race of the victim
• The bystander effect is stronger for black than white victims
• A white helper will help a low status black person more than a high status one
• A review of the literature on the relationship between race and helping leads to three conclusions:
• A bias exists against black victims, but it is not extreme
• Whites and blacks discriminate against victims of the opposite race at about the same rates
• Whites discriminate against black victims under remote conditions (e.g., plea for help over the phone) v. face-to-face situations
• Attributions About the Victim and Helping I
• The attributions one makes about a person in need of help affects whether help is given
• Attributing a victim's plight to internal, controllable factors generates negative affect and little inclination to help
• If attribution is to external, uncontrollable forces, help is more likely
• Perceptions of controllability are associated with positive (uncontrollable) or negative (controllable) affect which mediates helping
• Individuals prone to making internal attributions for need for help tend to experience anger and are less likely to help
• Attributions About the Victim and Helping II
• The Role of Political Ideology
• Politically conservative individuals tend to attribute the causes for a victim's plight (e.g., poverty, homelessness) internally
• Less sympathy is generated for the victim and consequently less help is given
• Tendency to hold a belief in a just world (everyone gets what they deserve and deserves what they get)
• Politically liberal individuals are more likely to make external attributions (e.g., to society) for a victim's plight
• More sympathy is aroused and more helping occurs
• Less of a tendency toward just world thinking
• Rescuers of Jews from the Nazis I
• Two large studies of rescuers have been conducted (Tec, 1986; Oliner and Oliner, 1988)
• Tec's study was done in Poland
• Oliner and Oliner's study in Western and Eastern Europe
• Only a small number of individuals emerged as rescuers, especially in Poland. There were two impediment to helping in Poland:
• Centuries-old antisemitism
• Nazi stranglehold on Poland (fewer Jews were killed in countries where Nazi rule was weaker)
• Tec defines two forms of altruism:
• Normative altruism: Altruism that is supported and encouraged by cultural norms
• Autonomous altruism: Individually-based altruism that is not supported, and may even be discouraged, by cultural norms
• Rescuers of Jews from the Nazis II
• Characteristics of Rescuers (Tec, 1986)
• Inability to blend in with the environment
• High level of independence and self-reliance
• Tendency to pursue own goal despite what others think
• Enduring, strong commitment to helping the needy even before the war
• Matter-of-fact attitude toward helping
• Denial that rescue effort was heroic
• Unplanned beginning to the rescue
• Universalistic view of the needy.
• Ability to put aside characteristics of those in need and any biases or prejudices
• Rescuers of Jews from the Nazis III
• Factors Affecting the Decision to Rescue (Oliner & Oliner, 1988)
• 67% waited to be asked by a victim or someone else
• Once a rescuer agreed to help, they rarely refused subsequent requests (foot-in-the- door effect)
• Family history stressing universal similarity of all people
• Stress on that aspect of religion that concerns helping the needy
• There was a weak relationship between religion in general and helping
• Parental attitudes in which few negative stereotypes of Jews were discussed (v. Nonrescuers)
• Rescuers helped based on ethical principles and not out of hatred of the Nazis
• Rescuers motivated by emotional empathy brought on by the pain and suffering of others
• Rescuers of Jews from the Nazis IV
• Demographics of Rescue (Tec, 1986)
• In most cases the rescuer's family supported rescue
• In most cases the person in need asked for help, rescuers rarely volunteered (15%)
• In most cases rescuers did not receive payment
• Some helpers were paid helpers and gave lower quality help to the victim than the rescuers
• Most rescuers came from the educated class and most paid helpers from the peasant class (SES was a weak predictor of rescue)
• In most cases the rescuer did not know the victim before the act of rescue
• Rescuers did not blindly follow church doctrine, but rater went according to their own interpretation of the bible
• Rescuers of Jews from the Nazis V
• Normative v. Autonomous Altruism
• Tec (1986) found that most rescuers in Poland were autonomous altruists
• Oliner and Oliner (1988) found that most rescuers in other parts of Europe were motivated normatively
• Empathy: 37%
• Normocentric: 52%
• Principle: 11%
• This difference can be traced to the differences between Poland and Western Europe in terms of attitudes toward rescue activity
• In Poland, rescue was not normative. In fact, it was anti-normative
• In Western Europe (e.g., free France) rescuing became normative or the "thing to do"
• Rescuers of Jews from the Nazis VI
• Translating Empathy into Action (Oliner & Oliner, 1988)
• Arousal of empathy or normocentric motivations was not enough to impel a person into helping.
• Oliner and Oliner identified three "catalysts" for action
• An external event that arouses empathy (e.g., seeing Jews being herded through the streets to cattle cars)
• The external event is interpreted as a normative demand to action
• The external event motivated the rescuer to behave consistently with his or her ethical principles