AltruismHelping Behavior

1
Altruism/Helping Behavior
2
Helping behavior
I. Diffusion of Responsibility (Latane Darley)
A. Steps leading to intervention
B. Experiments
II. Arousal reduction model (Piliavin Piliavin)
A. Arousal reduction combined with cost/
benefit
B. Experimental support (New York subway)
III. Comparing the two models (Darley, Tager,
Lewis)
3
Helping behavior
I. Diffusion of Responsibility (Latane Darley)
A. Steps leading to intervention
B. Experiments
II. Arousal reduction model (Piliavin Piliavin)
A. Arousal reduction combined with cost/
benefit
B. Experimental support (New York subway)
III. Comparing the two models (Darley, Tager,
Lewis)
4
Helping behavior
I. Diffusion of Responsibility (Latane Darley)
A. Steps leading to intervention
B. Experiments
II. Arousal reduction model (Piliavin Piliavin)
A. Arousal reduction combined with cost/
benefit
B. Experimental support (New York subway)
III. Comparing the two models (Darley, Tager,
Lewis)
5
Steps leading to intervention

• Awareness
• Definition of emergency
• Personal responsibility
• Decide how to intervene
• Carry out intervention

6
Helping behavior
I. Diffusion of Responsibility (Latane Darley)
A. Steps leading to intervention
B. Experiments
II. Arousal reduction model (Piliavin Piliavin)
A. Arousal reduction combined with cost/
benefit
B. Experimental support (New York subway)
III. Comparing the two models (Darley, Tager,
Lewis)
7
Latane and Darley experiments

• Epileptic seizure
• Smoke-filled room
• Lady in distress

8
Epileptic seizure
Number of other people who (subjects
believed) of subjects could help who
sought help 0 1 4
Group size (subjects believe) 2 3
6
9
Epileptic seizure
Number of other people who (subjects
believed) of subjects could help who
sought help 0 85 1 4
Group size (subjects believe) 2 3
6
10
Epileptic seizure
Number of other people who (subjects
believed) of subjects could help who
sought help 0 85 1 62 4
Group size (subjects believe) 2 3
6
11
Epileptic seizure
Number of other people who (subjects
believed) of subjects could help who
sought help 0 85 1 62 4 31
Group size (subjects believe) 2 3
6
12
Smoke-filled room andLady in distress

• Smoke-filled room
• Alone/With two other naïve subjects/With two
  confederates
• Lady in distress
• Alone/With 1 naïve subject/With a passive
  confederate/With a close friend
• RESULTS
• The more people, the less likely for subjects to
  help, the longer to respond

13
Helping behavior
I. Diffusion of Responsibility (Latane Darley)
A. Steps leading to intervention
B. Experiments
II. Arousal reduction model (Piliavin Piliavin)
A. Arousal reduction combined with cost/
benefit
B. Experimental support (New York subway)
III. Comparing the two models (Darley, Tager,
Lewis)
14
Helping behavior
I. Diffusion of Responsibility (Latane Darley)
A. Steps leading to intervention
B. Experiments
II. Arousal reduction model (Piliavin Piliavin)
A. Arousal reduction combined with cost/
benefit
B. Experimental support (New York subway)
III. Comparing the two models (Darley, Tager,
Lewis)
15
Arousal Reduction

• Witnessing an emergency creates arousal
• The more severe the emergency, the greater the
  arousal
• Arousal is unpleasant
• Individuals motivated to reduce arousal

16
Bystander will choose response which most rapidly
reduces arousal

• Direct intervention
• Indirect intervention
• Leaving scene with no intervention
• Staying at scene with no intervention
• CHOICE OF ACTION DEPENDS ON REWARDS VERSUS COSTS
  FOR HELPING OR NOT HELPING

17
Costs/Benefits of Helping or Not
Helping Not Helping
Lose time Injury Legal liability Worsen situation
Guilt Social disapproval legal liability

Costs
Benefits
Self-praise Reward Social approval
Avoid risk of injury Avoid risks of helping
18
Helping behavior
I. Diffusion of Responsibility (Latane Darley)
A. Steps leading to intervention
B. Experiments
II. Arousal reduction model (Piliavin Piliavin)
A. Arousal reduction combined with cost/
benefit
B. Experimental support (New York subway)
III. Comparing the two models (Darley, Tager,
Lewis)
19
New York Subway Experiment

• Teams of 4 traveling on NY subways
  (Victim/model/2 observers)
• Recorded number of people in car, gender, race,
  etc.
• Victim always male, either white or
  African-American/sometimes with a cane, sometimes
  drunk
• Victim collapses/model helps after 70 seconds
  How long to help?

20
Subway experiment results

• No Diffusion of Responsibility effect
• Almost 100 of the time someone helps, often
  before the model could help Why no diffusion of
  responsibility effect?
• What are the differences between the two
  different experiments?

21
Helping behavior
I. Diffusion of Responsibility (Latane Darley)
A. Steps leading to intervention
B. Experiments
II. Arousal reduction model (Piliavin Piliavin)
A. Arousal reduction combined with cost/
benefit
B. Experimental support (New York subway)
III. Comparing the two models (Darley, Tager,
Lewis)
22
Darley, Tager, and Lewis

• Subject hears crash and scream for help from next
  room
• Condtions
• Alone
• Pairs of subjects/face-to-face
• Pairs of subjects/back to back

23
Darley, Tager, and Lewis

• Subject hears crash and scream for help from next
  room
• Condtions Helping
• Alone 90
• Pairs of subjects/face-to-face
• Pairs of subjects/back to back

24
Darley, Tager, and Lewis

• Subject hears crash and scream for help from next
  room
• Condtions Helping
• Alone 90
• Pairs of subjects/face-to-face 80
• Pairs of subjects/back to back

25
Darley, Tager, and Lewis

• Subject hears crash and scream for help from next
  room
• Condtions Helping
• Alone 90
• Pairs of subjects/face-to-face 80
• Pairs of subjects/back to back 20

26
Pantin and Carver

• Subjects watch 3 first aid films (Training
  condition) or watch no films (No Training
  condition)
• Subjects either Alone or with 4 others
  (confederates)
• One of the confederates starts choking on some
  food
• How quickly or slowly in seconds will subject
  help? WHY?

27
Pantin and Carver results
Training No Training
Alone With 4 others