AS Psychology The Core studies - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Loading...

PPT – AS Psychology The Core studies PowerPoint presentation | free to download - id: 252ade-ZTUzN



Loading


The Adobe Flash plugin is needed to view this content

Get the plugin now

View by Category
About This Presentation
Title:

AS Psychology The Core studies

Description:

The Social Learning approach ... The time required (we may be late for work) The loss of resources (damage to clothes) ... validity. Read .. the study ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:203
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 42
Provided by: pet89
Category:

less

Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: AS Psychology The Core studies


1
AS PsychologyThe Core studies
  • The Social Approach

2
Pro-social (Altruistic) behaviour
  • Altruism has been defined as behaviour intended
    to help others having NO benefit to ourselves

3
Is ALTRUISM possible?
  • Freud the ID?
  • the ID operates on the pleasure principle!
  • Can helping behaviour be motivated by our desire
    for pleasure?

4
Is ALTRUISM possible?
  • The behaviourists reinforcement?
  • All behaviour is reinforced (shaped) by pleasure?
  • Can we feel pleasure when we help others?

5
Is ALTRUISM possible?
  • The Social Learning approach
  • We learn to be unselfish and to help others by
    watching others helping
  • (and by being rewarded when we copy)

6
The GOOD SAMARITAN
  • The questions
  • Why do we sometimes help others?
  • When may we not help others?
  • What triggered psychological research?

7
The Strange case of Kitty Genovese
  • Latane Darley (1964)
  • 38 witnesses no-one helped!
  • WHY the unresponsive bystander?
  • Diffusion of responsibility?

8
Latane Darley The 5 steps to helping behaviour
  • We must notice the event
  • We must interpret the event as an emergency
  • We must assume personal responsibility
  • We must choose a way to help
  • We must implement the decision
  • A negative response at any of these 5 stages
    means that the bystander will fail to intervene

9
Step 1 - Noticing the event
  • If we do not NOTICE we will not help

10
Step 2 - Defining the event as an emergency
  • In the sad case of Jamie Bulger many witnesses
    failed to intervene
  • They did not interpret the event as an emergency
  • Would you intervene in a lovers quarrel?
  • Not according to Shotland Straw (1976)

11
Step 3 - Assuming personal responsibility
  • If others are present you may assume THEY will
    help
  • This may lead to
  • Diffusion of Responsibility
  • Which may be why no one helped Kitty Genovese

12
Step 4 - Choose a way to help
  • This involves making a decision and perhaps
    weighing up..
  • Costs vs Benefits of helping

13
Step 5 - Implement the decision
  • Am I competent to help?
  • Is there anyone else around who may be more
    competent?
  • Might I do more harm than good?

14
The problem with this model
  • It explains .
  • Why people DO NOT HELP
  • NOT WHEN WHY THEY DO

15
Pause for thought
  • When do we help others
  • When are we less likely to help others?
  • (helping situations)

16
When DO people HELP and WHY
  • Piliavin Rodin Pilavin (1968)
  • (A Field Experiment)
  • Good Samaritanism on the New York Subway
  • tested .

17
The cost / benefit theory
  • That when confronted with an emergency
  • We balance
  • The possible costs against the possible benefits

18
The possible costs of helping
  • The effort (may be physically demanding)
  • The time required (we may be late for work)
  • The loss of resources (damage to clothes)
  • The risk of harm (we may get injured)
  • Negative emotional response (we may feel sick)

19
The possible costs for NOT HELPING
  • We may feel ashamed (I should have helped)
  • Something bad will be our fault (The victim may
    die)

20
The possible rewards for helping
  • Social approval (thanks from victim)
  • Self- esteem (feeling good about oneself)
  • Positive emotional response (feelings of elation
    and gladness)

21
The result of our analysis
  • If the rewards for helping outweigh the costs of
    not helping .. we are likely to act in a
    pro-social manner (help)

22
The study .
  • Piliavin Rodin Piliavin
  • A Field Experiment
  • Good Samaritanism on the New York Subway

23
The Field Experiment ..
  • The method (Field Experiment)
  • The location
  • The New York Subway (underground train)

24
The Field experiment ..
  • When and where?
  • (103 experimental trials took place)
  • Between 11.00am and 3.00pm over a period of two
    months in 1968
  • On trains between 59th 125th street
  • No stops, journey time 8 minutes

25
The field experiment...
  • The participants ?
  • Estimated as 4450 travellers on the trains
  • 45 black and 55 white
  • Average number in a carriage was 43
  • Average no in the critical area was 8.5

26
The field experiment .
  • What was done by whom ?
  • Teams of 4 student experimenters(two male / two
    female)
  • Male actors (victim and model)
  • Females were observers

27
The field experiment .
  • What did they do?
  • 70 seconds after train left station the
  • VICTIM pretended to collapse.
  • Waited for help .
  • If no-one helped the model helped the VICTIM
    off at the next stop

28
The field experiment .
Experiment Carriage layout
29
The field experiment ...
  • This was an experiment
  • What were the IVs (independent variables)

30
The field experiment .
  • The experimental conditions
  • IV Victims were either black or white and aged
    26 - 35
  • IV Victims carried bottle smelled of
    alcohol (drunk condition)
  • or Carried a cane (lame condition)
  • The models were all white aged 24 - 29

31
The field experiment ...
  • The observers recorded the race, age, sex, and
    location of helper passengers
  • Who helped in which condition?
  • Also who said what and who moved away

32
The field experiment.
  • On 62 of 65 trials the cane victim was helped
    immediately
  • On 19 out of 38 trials the drunk victim was
    helped immediately
  • of 81 trials once ONE person helped others did so
    too

33
The field experiment .
  • What sort of people helped.?
  • Males more than females
  • More same race helpers in drunk condition

34
The field experiment .
  • How many people LEFT the critical area
  • 21 of 103 trials 34 people moved away
  • more in the drunk condition
  • There was no diffusion of responsibility
  • Note people could not get away

35
The field experiment ..
  • Conclusion (1)
  • The diffusion of responsibility hypothesis not
    supported
  • The more people there were the more they helped

36
The field experiment .
  • Conclusion (2)
  • The emergency created a state of emotional
    arousal
  • arousal heightened by
  • empathy with victim
  • being close to situation
  • length of time of emergency

37
The field experiment .
  • This arousal state will be interpreted as
  • fear, sympathy or disgust
  • Can be reduced by
  • moving away
  • helping
  • deciding the victim is undeserving of help

38
The field experiment .
  • Piliavin et al give a TWO factor model of helping
    behaviour
  • Factor 1 The level of emotional arousal
    (empathy)
  • Factor 2 The result of a cost benefit analysis
  • Thus low empathy high cost may predict NO
    helping

39
The field experiment ..
  • Characteristics and situation of the victim may
    contribute to the our decision as to whether we
    help

40
The field experiment
  • Was it ethical?
  • Did it have ecological validity

41
Piliavin, Rodin and Piliavin
  • Read .. the study
About PowerShow.com