Class Notes (837,194)
Canada (510,160)
Psychology (5,220)
PSYCH 2C03 (188)
Lecture

social psych lec 9.docx

9 Pages
135 Views
Unlock Document

Department
Psychology
Course
PSYCH 2C03
Professor
Jennifer Ostovich
Semester
Fall

Description
Prosocial Behaviour Evolutionary perspective Why from an evolutionary perspective why you would help some one else, when on your own time you should be helping yourself Prosocial behaviour can be called altruism? Special word, talking about help given to someone else for no reward or recognition, no beneficial outcome, When we help someone else we are helping ourselves, helping others is "selfish"  Quotes by Ralph Waldo Emerson  We are going to find in this lecture that Emerson was right Overview  What is prosocial behaviour? Positive consequences social,  What is altruism? Helping someone with nothing in return, very specifically implies there is nothing in exchange for the helping  Outline  Evolutionary models  Social Evolutionary perspective  Big questions  How could prosocial behaviour have evolved  A couple of answers  Kin selection  We help people we are related to, we should help them we have copies of their genes, we are more likely to help those of our genes than not, especially under dangerous circumstances  Reciprocation of prosocial behaviours  We can help people in our small groups, we think we evolved in our small groups  Helping someone in our small groups (kin rather than non kin) will increase survival between you and others (like feeding and taking care of them when they are sick) Kin selection  Basic idea, simply a vessel for genes, genese make us do stuff "genes made me do it"  Some sort of consciousness that will benefit them maximally  Inclusive fitness,  Our selfish genes protecting themselves!  Ex. Mommy lion carrying baby lion, she would never carry anothers babies, she will only help those that are related from a kin selection perspective  Whose genes should we preserve?  Relatedness  The more genes we share the more helpful we should be to this person  If you jump in front of a tiger and save 3 family members (50% related to you)  Males are far more valuable than females because they can have more babies, So they can potentially make more copies of your genes than a female, an older female is reproductively useless (metepaus) older females are not worth saving  If your too young to reproduce there may not be reasons to save you  If you live long enough to reproduce there is no point in saving you  Ex. 10 vs 18 girl save 18 year old girl because she can start reproducing  This is all unconscious knowledge  Does the average person behave as though they know this?  12:00 we have an implicit understanding that the more related they are to us the more same genes they have as us, so they will be able to reproduce offspring of same genes  Carnegie foundation  Awards prizes for prosocial behaviour  One thing they do not consider for a reward is if someone does something heroic who is related to you, they award people who save people that are not related to them  10 years ago, fire in warehouse, lived cats with her kittens, cat went back and forth 4-5 times and she died from the fire, she saved many copies of her genes but its also a selfish thing  It is in their genes to make them do this to help their genes survive  Burnstein, crandall and kitayama  Effects of kinship on helping  Subjects would read many stories in which someone needs help and they have to choose between 1 of the 3 recipients  You circle the person you save and you cross out the people you don’t and you do this based on kinship  IV: type of scenario  Everyday  Grocery store  Life or death  Trapped in burning building and you can only save one of the  IV: Kinship  DV: Ss indicate targets they are most and least likely to help  Likelihood of helping index  17:00s --it is much more likely that you will save someone who is more related to you in a life or death situation, steep significant slope  We have to save lot of people with copies of our genes  This is a biological imperative (biology forcing you to do something)  We save someone who is more related to us, and in life or death situations we significantly will most likely save people who are more close to us .50% rather than .25% related to us  Effects of age of target on helping  Burnstein et al also tested this  Responses about age is now being looked at  They found younger people get the helped and older people getting help there was not a significant difference  Most interesting: they looked at helping in a specific life or death situation in which helping someone may not completely save them  Horrible famine, give them some of their food, you don’t know if this is going to help  Infants don’t get help--giving them extra food wont save them  Give 10-18 year olds food, they will be able to survive and reproduce successfully  No significant different between saving 10 and 18 year olds but 10 and 18 year old are saved significant more than 1year olds and 45-75 year olds  27:20s helping people that are not related to us who would we choose? We would know older and very young people are frail, so we might have an emotional response with people in between the data 10-20 year olds Reciprocations  Reciprocal altruism perspective  Why not call it reciprocal prosociality(?) (prof's suggestion)  Ex. Ground squirrel warning others that there is a predator, he is risking his life to save a lot of other ground squirrels, because the next time it will not be you and you will be able to escape, squirrels who participate in this, are going to be able to survive and every once in a while you die, but that's the cost  Helping in big cities vs small towns  Small towns will show helping of non-kins than big city people  Lost letters  Small towns: stap envoplopes and lay them around, we get a larger proportion of these letters back than large cities  Surveys  wrong numbers  Call wrong number ran out of money, would ask someone for a dime, more small city people would be helpful  Why? They are more identifiable and more reciprocated in smaller cities  Its not that you are going to be personally identified each time it is just that it creates a sense of we are a community that help one another, you keep that idea goes so that everyone feels a normative pressure to be helpful and reciprocate back Up to this point is the evolutionary perspective Prosocial behaviour Social psychology explanations  Social Exchange Theory  Underlines debate nicely  Says that if we get ourselves into a situation where some one needs help we will do something called a  Cost -benefit analysis  Help only if it will get you more than you give  Do the cons out way the pros?  Do the pros out way the cons?  No one is really conscious of weighing out these things  Allen (1971) NY subway exp  Iv: cost of helping  DV: % Ss helping (by correcting scary Muscle guy)  Scary muscle guy is a confederate--big and scary looking  Gets on subway in NY and finds a male, stretches out his feet and pulls out a muscle magazine  Confederate 2 trips over confederate 1(scary muscle man)  Confederate 1 reactions: no reaction, insults (raises cost), or he threatens (raises cost more)confederate 2  Confederate 3 asked is this train going uptown or downtown, confederate gives wrong answer, is the guy beside him going to help?  50% help  Insult, 30% help with direction  Threat: 15%  Conclusion: So we see that as the cost goes up the chance that we will help decreases  Random assignment with who the confederate sits beside therefore there will be no biased on the subject not knowing the right decision The Altruism Debate: Does "pure" altrusim exist? Empathy-altruism model  "Pure altruism" exists!  Insists that altruism exists,  Defined as: a motivational state with the ultimate goal of increasing someone else's welfare--- he just talks about increasing someone else's welfare not anything about our own  Occurs when people help because they empathize with the sufferer  Emotional reaction to someone in need and makes you want to help them  Focused on someone else's suffering(empathy) if you feel this empathy you will help them for no self gain at all Negative-state relief model  No pure altruism!  He thinks no such thing as altruism  We expect helping that person will make us feel good  We help others to make ourselves feel better  Sometimes we don’t feel great and you hold the door for someone can make you feel better  If there's an easier way to feel better, then we won't help  Ex. Going home to eat icecream will help make us feel better instead of helping someone Empathy altruism research  Eisenber and Miller (1987) review article  Looked at every article they could find and looked at effect empathy has on helping  We induce empathy in our subjects by asking them to think about how a person in need must be feeling, tel
More Less

Related notes for PSYCH 2C03

Log In


OR

Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


OR

By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.


Submit