Social Responsibility
- Distinguish between altruism and prosocial behaviour.
- Pro-social behavior- Behavior that benefits another person or has positive social consequences. This definition is often considered too vague, because although it discusses the outcome of the behavior, it doesn’t consider the motivation of the behavior.
- Altruism- It is when one helps another person for no reward, and even at some cost to oneself.
- Contrast two theories explaining altruism in humans.
Psychological research in altruism
Psychologists argue that there are two types of altruism, biological altruism, which has its roots in evolutionary psychology, and psychological altruism, which is based more on cognitive psychology.
Evolutionary explanations of altruism
Name: The selfish gene
Researcher: Richard Dawkins
Date: 1976
Definition: proposed the selfish gene theory, arguing that there is an innate drive for the survival and propagation of one’s own genes. He assumes that genes directly cause behavior, a claim that is not yet adequately supported.
Evaluation: Limitations:
1. Doesn’t explain why people should help strangers.
2. Difficult to study because of under controlled conditions.
3. Genes cause behavior directly which is not proved.
Trivers (1971) suggested reciprocal altruism theory as an attempt to explain the evolution of altruism among individuals who are not related. The theory postulates that it may benefit an animal to behave altruistically if there is an expectation that the favor will be returned in the future. The basis of this theory is that, through mutual cooperation, both are more likely to increase their chance of survival.
Axelrod and Hamilton (1981) tested reciprocal altruism with humans, using a version of the game called the prisoner’s dilemma where players interact in pairs. Individuals A and B can choose to either “cooperate” or to “defect”. If they both cooperate, both gain some reward. If they both defect, there is no pay-off to either of them. Players’ strategies depend on each other. If two players meet each other many times, they can adjust their strategy so that it fits with their opponent’s last move. This is called the “tit-for-tat” strategy, and a player following it will initially cooperate and then respond with the same move as their opponent’s previous action. Id the opponent was cooperative, ten the player is cooperative. If the opponent was defective, the player is also defective. Axelrod and Hamilton argue that cooperation of this nature is an evolutionarily stable strategy.
In terms of evaluation of this theory, it is questionable whether animal behavior can be generalized to that of humans of other animals, and is often the product of conscious beliefs and desires. In general, humans do behave more altruistically towards their close kin than towards non-relatives. Also, we tend to help those who have helped us in the past. There are behaviors, however, like adoption, that do not benefit kin and thus cannot be explained by a purely biological
Psychologists argue that there are two types of altruism, biological altruism, which has its roots in evolutionary psychology, and psychological altruism, which is based more on cognitive psychology.
Evolutionary explanations of altruism
- Kin selection theory predicts that the degree of altruism depends on the number of genes shared by individuals.
- Dawkins (1976) proposed the selfish gene theory, arguing that there is an innate drive for the survival and propagation of one’s own genes.
- Since animals living in social groups share many genes altruistic behavior is seen as a way to guarantee the one’s own genes will be passed on the future generations.
- Although this theory is supported by extensive observations and documentation of altruistic occurrences, it does not explain why a small number of people, like Patrick Morgan, help complete stranger.
Name: The selfish gene
Researcher: Richard Dawkins
Date: 1976
Definition: proposed the selfish gene theory, arguing that there is an innate drive for the survival and propagation of one’s own genes. He assumes that genes directly cause behavior, a claim that is not yet adequately supported.
Evaluation: Limitations:
1. Doesn’t explain why people should help strangers.
2. Difficult to study because of under controlled conditions.
3. Genes cause behavior directly which is not proved.
Trivers (1971) suggested reciprocal altruism theory as an attempt to explain the evolution of altruism among individuals who are not related. The theory postulates that it may benefit an animal to behave altruistically if there is an expectation that the favor will be returned in the future. The basis of this theory is that, through mutual cooperation, both are more likely to increase their chance of survival.
Axelrod and Hamilton (1981) tested reciprocal altruism with humans, using a version of the game called the prisoner’s dilemma where players interact in pairs. Individuals A and B can choose to either “cooperate” or to “defect”. If they both cooperate, both gain some reward. If they both defect, there is no pay-off to either of them. Players’ strategies depend on each other. If two players meet each other many times, they can adjust their strategy so that it fits with their opponent’s last move. This is called the “tit-for-tat” strategy, and a player following it will initially cooperate and then respond with the same move as their opponent’s previous action. Id the opponent was cooperative, ten the player is cooperative. If the opponent was defective, the player is also defective. Axelrod and Hamilton argue that cooperation of this nature is an evolutionarily stable strategy.
In terms of evaluation of this theory, it is questionable whether animal behavior can be generalized to that of humans of other animals, and is often the product of conscious beliefs and desires. In general, humans do behave more altruistically towards their close kin than towards non-relatives. Also, we tend to help those who have helped us in the past. There are behaviors, however, like adoption, that do not benefit kin and thus cannot be explained by a purely biological
Psychological explanations of altruism
Psychological altruism is witnessed in higher-level mammals, and appears to have some conscious cognitive component, rather than the instinctual nature of biological altruism.
Lerner and Lichtman (1968) carried out an experiment where participants were assigned to work in pairs. For each pair, one of the participants was a confederate- that means that they were playing a role, working in conjunction with the researchers. Participants were told that one of them would be learner- who would receive electrical shocks, and the other would be the control. Participants then drew from a hat what they thought was a random number, but in fact the confederate always received the role of “learner”. When the confederate acted distressed, most of the true participants behaved altruistically and took over the role of learner.
Schaller and Cialdini (1988) proposed the negative-state relief model. They actually argue that egoistic motives lead us to help others in bad circumstances in order to reduce the distress we experience from watching the bad situation.
The empathy- altruism model of Batson et al. (1981) suggests that people can experience two types of emotions when they see someone suffering. One is personal distress (anxiety, fear), which leads to egoistic helping, and the second one empathetic concern (sympathy, compassion) which leads to altruistic behavior. Bastons findings have been replicated, so it appears that the theory of empathy-altruism is consistent with its predictions that helping behavior based on empathy is unselfish.
Limitations of Batons experiment:
Psychological altruism is witnessed in higher-level mammals, and appears to have some conscious cognitive component, rather than the instinctual nature of biological altruism.
Lerner and Lichtman (1968) carried out an experiment where participants were assigned to work in pairs. For each pair, one of the participants was a confederate- that means that they were playing a role, working in conjunction with the researchers. Participants were told that one of them would be learner- who would receive electrical shocks, and the other would be the control. Participants then drew from a hat what they thought was a random number, but in fact the confederate always received the role of “learner”. When the confederate acted distressed, most of the true participants behaved altruistically and took over the role of learner.
Schaller and Cialdini (1988) proposed the negative-state relief model. They actually argue that egoistic motives lead us to help others in bad circumstances in order to reduce the distress we experience from watching the bad situation.
The empathy- altruism model of Batson et al. (1981) suggests that people can experience two types of emotions when they see someone suffering. One is personal distress (anxiety, fear), which leads to egoistic helping, and the second one empathetic concern (sympathy, compassion) which leads to altruistic behavior. Bastons findings have been replicated, so it appears that the theory of empathy-altruism is consistent with its predictions that helping behavior based on empathy is unselfish.
Limitations of Batons experiment:
- The research has only investigated short-term altruism, and the interpretation of the results has not taken personality factors into account.
- It is also difficult to measure one’s level of empathy.
- Baston argues that empathy is an innate trait in all of us, but it is not clear why we do not experience a predictable level of empathy in a given situation.
- Using one or more research studies, explain cross-cultural differences in prosocial behaviour.
- Examine factors influencing bystanderism.
Latané and Darley suggested a term for not helping someone in need of help: bystanderism. It means that the presence of others seems to determine whether or not people will intervene.
It seems that when people assess a situation, certain factors influence whether they will help or not. Based on research, Latané and Darley found that the two most common factors are diffusion of responsibility and pluralistic ignorance.
Diffusion of responsibility: When several people watch an incident, they seem to reason that somebody else can, should, and probably will offer assistance. This could explain why people are generally more likely to help when they are the only person available to offer assistance. Believing somebody else will intervene lowers the probability of a person taking responsibility.
Plurastic ignorance: When in a group, people often look to others to know how to react – this is called informational social influence. This means that if people see that others do not react to what seems to be an emergency, then they will not react either – even though there may be a problem. This is termed plurastic ignorance. Latané and Darley concluded that in order for people to help, they need to understand clearly that help is needed. In experiments, as well as in real life, there may be ambiguity about a situation. It might be difficult to interpret what is going on, and it seems that people are less likely to intervene if they think there is a relationship between people – for example , in cases of domestic violence.
It seems that when people assess a situation, certain factors influence whether they will help or not. Based on research, Latané and Darley found that the two most common factors are diffusion of responsibility and pluralistic ignorance.
Diffusion of responsibility: When several people watch an incident, they seem to reason that somebody else can, should, and probably will offer assistance. This could explain why people are generally more likely to help when they are the only person available to offer assistance. Believing somebody else will intervene lowers the probability of a person taking responsibility.
Plurastic ignorance: When in a group, people often look to others to know how to react – this is called informational social influence. This means that if people see that others do not react to what seems to be an emergency, then they will not react either – even though there may be a problem. This is termed plurastic ignorance. Latané and Darley concluded that in order for people to help, they need to understand clearly that help is needed. In experiments, as well as in real life, there may be ambiguity about a situation. It might be difficult to interpret what is going on, and it seems that people are less likely to intervene if they think there is a relationship between people – for example , in cases of domestic violence.