Term
| What is Prosocial Behaviour? |
|
Definition
| Acting to benefit others (p. 495). Any behavior that is good for other people. People are constantly prosocial. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Acting to benefit another, and sometimes used only to refer to behaviours that carry a cost to the individual.
e.g. diving under a burning vehicle to save a child, paying money to charity which would put you in financial strain |
|
|
Term
| Why has altruism evolved? |
|
Definition
| Tribes who where altruistic tended to survive better and where able to reproduce to pass on their genes. |
|
|
Term
| What is the Kin-selection hypothesis? |
|
Definition
Altruistic behaviour evolved because it promoted the survival of our kin
- When we first evolved, we were in kin groups. Groups with people who had Altruistic survived more than groups with people who had a selfish gene. These genes are then passed on to the next generation. |
|
|
Term
| What is Reciprocal Altruism? |
|
Definition
People perform altruistic behaviours because they expect the favour to be returned
- Keeps social obligations and bonds going |
|
|
Term
| What is Indirect Reciprocity? |
|
Definition
People who act according to the reciprocity principle gain a good reputation, so become more accepted in the social network, and have more chance of successfully rearing offspring.
- Men and woman both value kindness and intelligence in order to be part of a community |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
- Murdered in 1964 in her apartment block in NY
- You could see into other people’s windows
- Neighbour eventually called police half an hour after the attack had finished
- When the police investigated what had happened, they found out that 38 people had witnessed the attack for half an hour |
|
|
Term
| What is the Bystander effect? |
|
Definition
A social psychological phenomenon in which individuals are less likely to offer help to a victim when other people are present.
Latané and Darley – proposed situational model: that helping occurs or doesn’t occur primarily because of the characteristics of the situation, not the personal characteristics of the individuals involved. |
|
|
Term
| Diffusion of Responsibility |
|
Definition
Diffusion of responsibility is the core of the bystander effect.
- Suggested that the more people present, the less likely it is an individual will help (p. 497).
- People knew others were witnessing the event (why should I do anything – someone else will) |
|
|
Term
| Situational and personal features associated with helping (or not) |
|
Definition
Similarity to person in need and belief they “deserve” help
- When we see people who are similar to us, it is more likely we will help them
- When you see someone unlike us, we have a disconnection between us
- We tend to believe everything a person does is due to their own making (
- Not recognise that this may have occurred due to uncontrollable external factors |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
A type of uncertainty of meaning in which several interpretations are plausible.
Kitty was killed by a man, so could people have just thought this was a lovers’ quarrel? |
|
|
Term
| METHOD Shotland and Shaw (1976) Study |
|
Definition
- Got a man and a woman to have a fight, and watched if people would stop and help
- In one scenario, it was evident that the people were strangers, and in the other scenario the people were a couple
- People more likely to intervene in a fight between male and female strangers than a married couple.
- Women in stranger situation perceived to want to help more.
- If relationship between two unknown, assumed to be intimately involved. |
|
|
Term
Feeling Personally Responsible - Moriarty (1975) Study
METHOD |
|
Definition
- Involved people at a beach with a radio, or at a restaurant with their bag.
- They would ask the person next to them to take care of their bag while they went to the bathroom, and in the second scenario the person just walked away and left their things
- Somebody then came to steal the bag and the radio |
|
|
Term
| Feeling Personally Responsible - Moriarty (1975) Study RESULTS |
|
Definition
- When the person had been specifically asked, they all intervened
- However, when nobody had been appointed, they tended not to intervene
- When they are not personally responsible, may just convince self that the person who is taking belongings is doing it for a good reason. |
|
|
Term
| METHOD - Darley and Latane’s (1968) Study |
|
Definition
- Participants thought they were involved in a study of campus life but, instead, were exposed to an ‘emergency’ with a varying number of bystanders
- Participants went into a private cubicle and were told that they could all hear one another, although only on student would be able to speak during any two-minute period
- When all had spoken, the cycle would start again
- They were also told that the experimented would not be listening
- Participants were led to believe that either found, one or no other students were listening
- There was only one true participant at the time
- The crisis came after one (pre-recorded) voice confessed to having seizures in stressful situations. The person subsequently seemed to be having a seizure and asked for help. |
|
|
Term
| RESULTS - Darley and Latane’s (1968) Study |
|
Definition
- Their response depended greatly on the perceived number of bystanders
- The great majority went to get help when they thought they were the only one aware of the problem, but they helped less often the more bystanders they thought were aware of the problem
- 85% helped within the first minute when they thought they were the only ones listening, 65% when there was one bystander, 25% when they thought there were four bystanders
- At the end of four minutes, all in the smallest group helped, as did 85% of those in the mid-sized group, but only 60% in the largest group |
|
|
