Title: Why Dont People Always Help Others in Need
1Why Dont People Always Help Others in Need?
- Diffusion of responsibility
- presence of others leads to decreased help
response - we all think someone else will help, so we dont
2Why Dont People Always Help Others in Need?
- Latane studies
- several scenarios designed to measure the help
response - found that if you think youre the only one that
can hear or help, you are more likely to do so - if there are others around, you will diffuse the
responsibility to others - Kitty Genovese incident
3Social Pressure in Group Decisions
- Group polarization
- majority position stronger after a group
discussion in which a minority is arguing against
the majority point of view - Why does this occur?
- informational and normative influences
4Social Pressure in Group Decisions
- Groupthink
- group members try to maintain harmony and
unanimity in group - can lead to some better decisions and some worse
decisions than individuals
5Influence of Others Requests - Compliance
- Sales techniques and cognitive dissonance
- four-walls technique
- question customer in such a way that gets answers
consistent with the idea that they need to own
object - feeling of cognitive dissonance results if person
chooses not to buy this thing that they need
6Sales Techniques and Cognitive Dissonance
- Foot-in-the-door technique
- ask for something small at first, then hit
customer with larger request later - small request has paved the way to compliance
with the larger request - cognitive dissonance results if person has
already granted a request for one thing, then
refuses to give the larger item
7The Reciprocity Norm and Compliance
- We feel obliged to return favors, even those we
did not want in the first place - opposite of foot-in-the-door
- salesperson gives something to customer with idea
that they will feel compelled to give something
back (buying the product) - even if person did not wish for favor in the
first place
8Combining Sales Techniques
- What happens if you combine reciprocity norm with
foot-in-the-door? - Hypothesis - the 2 techniques will cancel each
other out - Bell, et. al. (1994) study
- Evidence supports hypothesis
9Preventing Reactance Against Pressure
- Psychological reactance
- if pressure is too blatant, has opposite of
intended effect - leads to salespeople using softer techniques so
that person feels they have a choice - often phrase pressure into questions
- would you please put your books and notes away
for the quiz?
10Obedience
- Obedience
- compliance of person is due to perceived
authority of asker - request is perceived as a command
- Milgram interested in unquestioning obedience to
orders
11Stanley Milgrams Studies
- Basic study procedure
- teacher and learner (learner always confederate)
- watch learner being strapped into chair --
learner expresses concern over his heart
condition
12Stanley Milgrams Studies
- Teacher to another room with experimenter
- Shock generator panel 15 to 450 volts, labels
slight shock to XXX - Asked to give higher shocks for every mistake
learner makes
13Stanley Milgrams Studies
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
14Stanley Milgrams Studies
- Learner protests more and more as shock increases
- Experimenter continues to request obedience even
if teacher balks
15Obedience
- How many people would go to the highest shock
level? - 65 of the subjects went to the end, even those
that protested
16Obedience
17Explanations for Milgrams Results
- Abnormal group of subjects?
- numerous replications with variety of groups
shows no support - People in general are sadistic?
- videotapes of Milgrams subjects show extreme
distress
18Explanations for Milgrams Results
- Authority of Yale and value of science
- Experimenter self-assurance and acceptance of
responsibility - Proximity of learner and experimenter
- New situation and no model of how to behave
19Follow-Up Studies to Milgram
- Teacher chooses shock level
20Critiques of Milgram
- Although 84 later said they were glad to have
participated and fewer than 2 said they were
sorry, there are still ethical issues - Do these experiments really help us understand
real-world atrocities?
21Cooperation and Social Dilemmas
- Social dilemma
- action/inaction will benefit individual, but harm
others in the group, and cause more harm than
good to everyone if everyone takes that course - Use of games to study social dilemmas
- one-shot prisoners dilemma
- iterative prisoners dilemma
- effect of adding players
22One-Shot Prisoners Dilemma Game
- 2 prisoners must decide between silence and
confession - Both silent both get relatively short prison
sentences - Both confess both get moderate prison sentences
- One confesses confessor gets no sentence,
partner gets very long sentence - No communication between players until both have
chosen
23One-Shot Prisoners Dilemma Game
- Game in lab setting
- choice to cooperate or defect
- consequence is monetary
- highest vs. lowest individual payoff
- highest vs. lowest total payoff
24Iterative Prisoners Dilemma Game
- 2 players play same game repeatedly
- Iterative nature changes logic for players
- Rapoports Tit-for-Tat (TFT) strategy
- first time you meet new partner, cooperate
- for all other trials, do to partner what they did
to you on previous trial - cant win with TFT
- this strategy gets others to cooperate
25Iterative Prisoners Dilemma Game
- Why is TFT effective in gaining cooperation?
- its nice - cooperates from the start,
encouraging cooperation - its not exploitable - discourages defection by
reciprocating each defection - its forgiving - as soon as partner begins
cooperating, TFT reciprocates - its transparent - partner quickly learns that
best strategy is to cooperate
26Emotions and Cooperation
- Cooperation cooperation
- Failure to cooperate failure to cooperate
- Cooperation failure to cooperate
- Failure to cooperate cooperation
27Social Identity and Cooperation
- Social identity theory
- states that when youre assigned to a group, you
automatically think of that group as an in-group
for you - Sherifs camp study
- 11-12 year old boys at camp
- boys were divided into 2 groups and kept separate
from one another - each group took on characteristics of distinct
social group, with leaders, rules, norms of
behavior, and names
28Sherifs Camp Study
- Leaders proposed series of competitive
interactions - Led to 3 changes between groups and within groups
- within-group solidarity
- negative stereotyping of other group
- hostile between-group interactions
29Sherifs Camp Study
- Overcoming the strong we/they effect
- establishment of superordinate goals
- e.g., breakdown in camp water supply
- overcoming intergroup strife - research
- stereotypes are diluted when people share
individuating information
30Summary
- When we help others, when we dont
- presence of others
- diffusion of responsibility
- Group decision making
- group polarization
- groupthink
31Summary
- Compliance
- sales techniques
- Obedience
- Milgrams studies
- Cooperation
- Sherifs camp study