Helping and Harming Lecture Notes PDF

Helping and harming Simon Laham: [email protected] 1 General overview Lecture a. Helping Individu helps Individu Part 1. Definitions and basics al al Part 2. Why? Lecture b. Harming/ aggression...

Helping and harming Simon Laham: [email protected] 1 General overview Lecture a. Helping Individu helps Individu Part 1. Definitions and basics al al Part 2. Why? Lecture b. Harming/ aggression harm Individu Individu s al al Lecture a. Helping Overview and objectives Definitions When do people help? Recipient characteristics Helper Recipie Helper characteristics nt Situation/context characteristics Contex t Egoism vs altruism Increasing helping But what kind? Helping and cooperation Prosocial behaviour: behaviour intended to help someone else Help: making it easier for someone to do something by offering services or resources Altruism: prosocial behaviour without any prospect of personal rewards for the helper (or with clear costs to the helper) Cf. egoism: behaviour motivated by the desire to obtain personal rewards Including positive feelings about having helped Cf. cooperation: two or more people working together toward a common goal that will benefit all involved When do people help? When do people help? Need Helper needs to perceive that the recipient needs help This is facilitated by attention and hindered by distraction Ambiguity of the situation often makes this unclear Often look to others’ reactions as a way to reduce ambiguity Latané & Darley (1968) ‘Smoke filled room’ When alone, 75% of people act; when with two confederates (who don’t act) only 10% of participants act https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGmiBr8es9g Recipient attributes Identity of recipient Ingroup vs outgroup Identifiability of recipient Identifiable victim effect: tendency to offer greater help to specific, identifiable victims than to anonymous, statistical victims Small, Loewenstein & Slovic (2007) Helper attributes Individual differences E.g., agreeableness… Is helping on my mind? Accessibility of prosocial thoughts Greitemeyer & Osswald (2010) Play prosocial or neutral video game Report prosocial thoughts Pick up pencils? Situational and social factors (I) Do I need to help? Role of others: social inhibition of helping Bystander effect (Darley & Latané, 1968) Participants believe they are participating in a discussion about college life (via intercom) With 1 other, 2 other or 5 other people Hear a group member have a ‘seizure’ Presence of (more) bystanders decreases likelihood of an individual helping Diffusion of responsibility: presence of others diminishes each individual’s feeling of responsibility for action Situational and social factors (II) Is help expected? Norm of privacy Shotland & Straw (1976) Stage a physical attack between man (aggressor) and woman (victim) I don’t know I don’t know why I ever you married you 65% intervened to 19% intervened to help help Situational and social factors (III) Do I have the time? Darley and Batson (1973) ‘Good Samaritan’ study Seminary students Prepare a talk: jobs or ‘Good Samaritan’ ‘Hurry’ condition: hurry vs ‘intermediate hurry’ vs control Control: 63% Intermediate: 45% Hurry: 10% Overview and objectives Definitions When do people help? Recipient characteristics Helper Recipie Helper characteristics nt Situation/context characteristics Contex t Egoism vs altruism Increasing helping But what kind? Why do people help? Is all helping selfish? Why do we help others? Helping others feels good ‘Warm glow of giving’ (Dunn et al, 2008) Spending money on others makes one happier than spending on the self Do we help others only to feel good about ourselves? Are we all egoists? The egoist If helping is about making myself feel better, I should help more when I’m feeling bad (in order to relieve negative states) Negative-state relief model (Schaller & Cialdini, 1988) Most people don’t like watching others suffer Helping is aimed at reducing this aversive state Evidence for egoism Cialdini, Darby & Vincent (1973) Induce negative state Causing or witnessing suffering Remove negative state (i.e., relief) or not E.g., by praise, financial incentive Offer chance to help another person Helping was greater in people who experienced a negative state which was not removed prior to helping opportunity Harris et al. (1971) Solicit donations pre or post confession Pre > post The altruist Do people help regardless of personal rewards and costs? Empathy-altruism model (Batson et al., 1981) When seeing someone suffer: Personal distress: shock, alarm, shame, fear, guilt Escape or… Helping if no other way of reducing aversive state (e.g., via escape) Egoistic helping Empathic concern: compassion, concern, warmth Helping (even if one could easily avoid/escape from the situation) Altruistic helping The altruist Batson et al (1981) Participants watch Elaine the learner Empathy vs not Escape: easy vs. difficult Helping: taking Elaine’s place Those who feel empathy help regardless of whether there is an easy alternative way of reducing aversive states Overview and objectives Definitions When do people help? Recipient characteristics Helper Recipie Helper characteristics nt Situation/context characteristics Contex t Egoism vs altruism Increasing helping But what kind? Increasing helping Reduce ambiguity Teach and activate prosocial norms Infuse, don’t diffuse, responsibility Promote identification with those who need help … Receiving help Dependency-oriented vs autonomy-oriented help Dependency-oriented help: provides one with full solution (but limited knowledge/tools for future problem solving) Autonomy-related help: enables one to independently solve problems Generally, recipients prefer autonomy-related help But… Alvarez & Van Leeuwen (2011) Problem solving task Help from either professor or peer < < Autonomy vs dependency < < Overview and objectives (revisited) Definitions When do people help? Recipient characteristics Helper Recipie Helper characteristics nt Situation/context characteristics Contex t Egoism vs altruism Increasing helping But what kind? Lecture b. Harming (aggression) Overview and objectives Definitions Factors that influence aggression Culture Emotions Cues Models Reducing aggression What is aggression? Aggression: behaviour intended to harm someone else Instrumental aggression: aggression used as a means to an end Hostile aggression: aggression driven by anger (at insult, disrespect, or threats to identity/esteem) Manifestations of aggression Who aggresses? Men more than women (but there are complexities here) Aggressive cultures? Cultures of honour (Nisbett & Cohen, 1996) Norms for aggression Men should be tough, loyal and ready to fight Respond to insult and threat of material loss with aggression Enforce one's rights and protect family, home and possessions Such reputations serve as deterrents Especially likely in places in which institutions (e.g., police, government) don’t do this very well Cultures of honour Southern United States and Honour culture Cohen, Nisbett, Bowdle & Schwarz (1996) Insult and aggression in the culture of honor Staged insult – bump, “asshole” Frustration-aggression hypothesis Another possible source of aggression is lashing out in frustration Frustration: blocking of an important goal Frustration-aggression hypothesis (Dollard et al., 1939) Frustration inevitably triggers aggression Refined by Berkowitz (1989) Not goal blockage per se, but negative feelings/arousal that arise therefrom E.g., anger, irritation Cues to aggression Aspects of the environment linked to aggression can activate thoughts of aggression… Weapons effect (Anderson, Benjamin & Bartholow, 1998) Social learning Aggressive models Exposure to violent role models increases aggression Video games and violence (Anderson & Dill, 2000) Play violent or non-violent video game Assess accessibility of aggressive thoughts Aggressive behaviour Playing violent video games increases accessibility of aggressive thoughts which accounts for the effect of video gameplay on aggressive behaviour Superficial and deep Initial, automatic aggressive tendencies can be overcome by deeper processing Factors that impair deep processing increase likelihood of aggressive impulses being realized in aggressive behaviour Arousal Time pressure Alcohol Taylor, Gammon & Capasso (1976) General Aggression Model Anderson & Bushman (2002) See reading in LMS Allen et al (2018) High Neuroticism Frustration Low agreeableness Violent media Low Cues conscientiousness (weapons) … … Anger Aggressive thoughts Physiologi cal arousal … Arousal Superficial or deep Time processing pressure Alcohol Overview and objectives Definitions Factors that influence aggression Culture Emotions Cues Models Reducing aggression Reducing aggression Dealing with aggression: what works? First, what doesn’t? Catharsis/venting Katharsis: cleansing/purging Anger builds up like steam and needs release Expressing negative affect and aggressive tendencies purges one of aggressive impulses Bushman (2002) Receive negative feedback from another ‘participant’ Hit punching bag or not Those who hit punching bag: rumination or distraction So three conditions: control vs vent/rumination vs vent/distraction Competitive reaction time task with noise blast Measure of aggression – intensity of noise blast Venting by punching a bag increases aggression, especially if accompanied by rumination Dealing with aggression: what works? Promoting norms of non-aggression (changing role models) E.g., prosocial video games Minimizing cues (undermining cues) Word completion Cognitive re-appraisal e.g., M_D E.g., self-distancing (Mischkowski et al., 2012) Increase empathy Feshbach & Seymour (1982) Aggression minimizing strategies Aggression minimizing strategies Decrease accessibility of aggressive cognitions, decrease arousal, decrease negative affect Bushman: Delay, distraction, relaxation, incompatible responses Overview and objectives Definitions Factors that influence aggression Culture Emotions Cues Models Reducing aggression  Helping Need? Accessible Who? thoughts? Identifiable? Teac h Or Give ? Egoism Altruism Alone? Norms? Time?  Aggression What works? Promoting prosocial norms Minimizing cues Re-appraisal Empathy Delay, distraction, relaxation, incompatible responses