HUMAN
RELATIONSHIPS
Social responsibility
8.1
Social responsibility
• Learning outcomes
1. 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 altruism
4. Explain cross-cultural differences in pro-social
behaviour
5. Evaluate research investigating bystanderism
Help or not to help…
• An example from the USA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIvGIwLcIuw
Terms – you have to know
• 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
• Example of altruistic behaviour:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9JcX2X7XnM
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
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gyesol8PLKE
• 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
• Be a thinker on p. 260
– part of politics?
• "prisoner's dilemma"
– game by Axelrod and Hamilton
Evaluation of the evolutionary
theories
• Some studies show that one is more likely to
help a relative than a stranger (Sime 1983 –
fleeing from burning buildings and Madsen et al.
2007 study)
• Animals – generalise?
• Culture – does it differ?
• Adoption – without sharing the genes
Psychological explanations
of altruism
Psychological Explanations of
Altruism
• Lerner and Lichtman (1968) carried out an
experiment similar to Milgram’s
 Worked in pairs
 One was confederate (played along)
 One learner one teacher
 Drew from a hat “random” (but not really)
 Confederate acted distressed – the true
participant (most of the time) took over the role
• How can this be explained?
1. The negative-state relief model
• Schaller and Cialdini (1988) proposed the
negative-state relief model – we help so we
feel better (reduce the distress) or we walk away
2. The empathy- altruism model
• The empathy- altruism model by Batson et al.
(1981) consists of two emotions: personal
distress (egoistic behavior) and empathetic
concern (altruistic behaviour) read about Carol
p. 261
• Is empathy biological or learned? Read the study y Van Baaren on
p. 262 and link it to the biological level of analysis – Ask Aleksandra

Are YOU really caring ?( CAS)
• P. 261
• John Rabe: a good Nazi? P. 263
Pro-social behaviour and the
bystander effect
• Kitty Genovese:
Http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JozmWS6xYEw
&feature=related
Diffusion of responsibility
• Who should help – you? Me? Someone else…
• (e.g. Kitty Genovese)
• Latané and Darley (1968) conducted a
laboratory experiment with students to measure
the likelihood of helping in the presence of
others (interview over an intercom)
Five other, two and alone
Results: one: 85%, two: 65%
And five: 31% rushed to help
Pluralistic ignorance
• People often look to others how to behave (informational
social influence)
• So if others do not react in an emergency, then they
might not react either (e.g. Kitty Genovese)
• Latané and Darley (1969) tested this in an experiment
Waiting room – heard a female experimenter fall and cry out
Help depended on if they were alone in the room or with a
confederate
These notions are supported by evidence that participants on
their own are more likely to react to smoke filling a room or
someone having an epileptic seizure than if they are in company
(Latané & Darley, 1968). Smoke filled room:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KE5YwN4NW5o
Evaluation:
This model gives good reasons why bystanders may
not intervene but does not explain the motives of
people who do help.
•
• Factors other than the presence of other people
inhibit helping behaviour (Piliavin et al., 1981).
Social Exchange Theory
• Subjective cost-benefit analysis
• We are more likely to help when we feel that the
benefits of helping outweigh the potential costs
Social Exchange Theory
The arousal-cost-reward model of
pro-social behaviour
• Piliavin et al. developed this model to explain
why people do and do not help in emergency
situations.
• They argue that the observation of an
emergency situation creates an emotional
arousal in bystanders. This arousal may be
perceived as fear, disgust or sympathy,
depending on aspects of the situation.
Piliavin et al. go on to argue that the
chosen response depends on a costreward analysis by the individual.
These include:
1. Costs of helping, such as effort, embarrassment and
possible physical harm.
2. Cost of not helping, such as self-blame and perceived
censure from others;
3. Rewards of helping, such as praise from self,
onlookers and the victim;
4. Rewards of not helping, such as getting on with one’s
own business and not incurring the possible costs of
helping.
Therefore according to this model we are motivated to help
people not by altruism (acting in the interest of others) but
as a way of reducing unpleasant feelings of arousal.
task
• Read Piliavin’s research on p. 266 (same one as
you studied in MYP5) and answer “ be a critical
thinker” on p. 267
Social norms in pro-social
behaviour
Social norms in pro-social
behaviour
• Parents who have exemplified norms of
concerns for others (Oliner and Oliner 1988)
• Religion might make a difference (Colasanto
1989)
• Social norms might contradict each other: help
but not interfere with private matters… can
you think of any examples?
• Study by Shotland and Straw (1976) a staged
attack by a man on a woman (p.268)
Social norms in pro-social
behaviour
• Beaman 1978 studied if helping behaviour can
be learned.
• Some students watched a film about helping
• 2 weeks later each student was observed in an
emergency situation
• 43% helped in the
experimental condition(seen the film)
• vs. 25 % who had not (control)
Cross-cultural research on pro-social
behaviour
Last part of 8.1
Culture play a role on pro-social
behaviour
• Whiting (1979) studied 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?
Cultural differences
• It has been suggested that there are two reasons for cultural
differences in altruism (Eisenberg & Mussen, 1989):
1. Industrial societies place value on competition and personal
success.
2. Co-operation at the home in non-industrial societies promotes
altruism.
• Within many cultures across the world, rural areas seem to have
higher incidences of altruistic behaviours than urban areas.
However, moving from the city to the country may lead to a person
becoming more altruistic, perhaps because they have fewer factors
demanding their time (Milgram, 1970).
Problems with cross-cultural research include:
• Few studies follow the same method in each culture.
• What is meant by 'help' differs across cultures, as do the motives for
giving help
Social identity theory
• Helps to explain how we determine whether to
help someone or not – we tend to help more to
those who are similar to us (Katz 1981)
• 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
(Bond & Leung 1988)
Levine et al. 1990: helpfulness
towards strangers was assessed
Who and where?
In 36 cities across the US
And 23 large cities around the world
• Independent field experiments were used
• Explain the experimental design & mention +
and -
Levine et al. 1990: helpfulness
towards strangers was assessed
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 you 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
(defining, observing and interpreting)
• Do “be an enquirer” on p. 270
Most Honest Cities: The Reader’s Digest
“Lost Wallet” Test
• What are the most (and least) honest cities in the world?
Reader's Digest conducted a global, social experiment to
find out.
• Our reporters "lost" 192 wallets in cities around the
world.
• In each, we put a name with a cellphone number, a
family photo, coupons, and business cards, plus the
equivalent of $50. We "dropped" 12 wallets in each of
the 16 cities we selected, leaving them in parks, near
shopping malls, and on sidewalks. Then we watched to
see what would happen.
•
Read more: http://www.rd.com/slideshows/most-honest-cities-lostwallet-test/#ixzz2gNgaSpUy
• http://www.ibtimes.com/most-honest-cities-world-lost-walletexperiment-infographic-1411124
THE END OF 8.1!