From The Student Room
TSR Wiki > Study Help > Subjects and Revision > Revision Notes > Psychology > Pro and Anti Social Behaviour (A Level Psychology)
Pro and Anti Social Behaviour
Altruism
- Benefits recipient at expense of actor.
- Egoistic is opposite.
Empathy-altruism hypothesis
BATSON (1991)
- Under certain circumstances, our motives for helping are altruistic.
- Concern is for other person, want to minimise their distress.
- Made possible by empathy – imagine other’s distress, more likely to help.
- Higher empathy = higher likelihood of helping.
EXPT
- Pp’s could help or escape.
- Watched SAME sex confederate being wired up to receive shocks.
- During expt, confederate told of childhood trauma involving shocks.
- Pp’s asked if they would swap places.
- Varying conditions – some had to stay on until end, others could leave early on.
- If altruism existed, pp’s would help regardless of the situation.
- Another variation – pp’s told confederate had similar attitudes (or different).
- Similar, empathy
- Different, empathy
- Results support hypothesis.
- 18% helped in easy escape.
- Rose to 90% if attitudes were similar.
EVALUATION
- +Lots of experimental support.
- -Cialdini disagreed.
- -Lab experiments – lacks ecological validity.
- -Lack of social norms in lab.
- -Individual differences.
Negative-state relief model
If we do something wrong, we feel guilty.
Guilt = negative state that we want to reduce.
CIALDINI (1987)
- Empathy = sadness.
- Helping to relieve this = selfish!
- Most likely when rewards are high and costs are low.
- 1973 – negative mood improved by engaging in pro-social behaviour OR receiving rewards.
- Producing feelings of guilt in pp’s led them to engage in pro-social acts.
- Offer praise or money, reduced levels.
- Conclusion – overcome negative mood that arises when we empathise.
EVALUATION
- +Large amount of experimental support.
- -Some studies do not support model.
- -Lab experiments – lack ecological validity.
- Both models are supported by experimental evidence.
- Neither one is wrong or entirely correct.
Limitations of studying pro-social behaviour
- Do participants see through experiment? Believe in experiment?
- Cultural differences.
- A lot of work is not ecologically valid.
Bystander Intervention
DECISION MODEL – Latane and Darley (1970)
Explains why bystanders at emergencies may or may not help.
- NOTICE the situation.
- INTERPRET it as an emergency.
- ACCEPT some personal responsibility.
- CONSIDER best form of intervention.
- DECIDE how to implement intervention.
Problems
- Might not notice!
- Might not interpret it as an emergency.
- Might decide intervention isn’t necessary.
- Lack skills for effective intervention.
- Might decide against intervention.
Empirical support for stages
- Darley + Batson
- More students helped if early for lecture.
- Clark + Word (1972)
- If participants saw emergency, more likely to help than if they heard it.
- Latane + Darley (1968)
- Pp’s in separate rooms discussing personal problems via intercoms.
- Groups of 2, 3 or 6.
- Only one real pp.
- One confederate simulated epileptic attack.
- DV – how quickly pp reported incident.
- More in group – took much longer!
- 4.Cramer et al. (1988)
- Bystanders trained in first aid more likely to help.
- 5.Piliavin et al. (1969)
- Decision related to many variables – mood, gender.
EVALUATION
- -Sees behaviour as rational, we actually act impulsively.
- -Does not look at situations where cost of helping is low.
- -Does not make reference to factors that motivate us.
Arousal: Cost-reward model
Piliavin et al (1981)
Stage 1 – PHYSIOLOGICAL
- Heart rate drops = warning.
- Pause to see what’s going on.
- Arousal = unpleasant.
- Higher arousal = higher chance of intervention.
Stage 2 – LABELLING
- Label sensations in different ways.
- Common label = personal distress – more likely to intervene.
Stage 3
We calculate costs and rewards of helping.
- Effort, time, risk of harm, or
- Social approval, self esteem.
Greater costs = less likely to intervene.
Empirical Support
Sagi + Hoffman (1976)
- Feeling distress may be innate – babies cry when another cries.
Piliavin et al. (1969)
- Men more likely to help.
- This is because costs of helping are low, costs of not helping high. (a man’s role)
Subway Samaritan – confederate collapsed on NY subway. More people in carriage = more likely help was forthcoming. Confederate appeared blind, help was quicker and more likely than when he appeared drunk – deservingness was a factor.
EVALUATION
- +Introduces physiological dimension.
- +Idea of cost-benefit analysis.
- -Too mechanical?
- -No room for altruism.
Cultural Differences
- Individualism – need for individual achievement and independence.
- Collectivism – need for interdependence
Miller (1994)
- Compared 2 cultures.
- Hindu + United States
- (Collectivist + individualist)
- Hindus = duty-based
- Americans = option orientated.
Tower et al. (1997)
- British + Russian participants.
Equity or equality?
- You get what you work for, or
- Everyone gets equal.
Expected British = equity (with all). Russian = equality (with friend).
Predictions supported.
Gender Differences (Helping)
- Eisenberg et al. – girls are more likely to help.
- Eagly – men more predisposed to occupations where risk taking is the norm.
Gender Differences (Seeking help)
- In most cultures, women seek more help.
Moghaddam (1998)
- Women can present themselves as being in need.
- Men want to appear tough and independent.
Urban-rural Differences
Korte + Kerr
- People in rural areas of USA more likely to help caller who had dialled wrong number.
Explanations of media influences on pro-social behaviour
Exposure to pro-social messages
Panic about children seeing violence on TV
HOWEVER
Also see a large amount of pro-social behaviour.
Liebert and Poulous (1975)
- US Broadcasting
- 11 altruistic, 6 sympathetic acts per hour.
- BUT these behaviours frequently appeared in context of anti-social.
- A02 – numerous studies found that pro-social messages DO influence behaviour and values of children. (Hearold 1986) (Mares 1996)
- BUT – numerous studies found that children fail to generalise from on screen to new situations.
SLT – Bandura (1965)
- Observe behaviour.
- Imitate behaviour. (if expectation of rewards is greater than punishment)
- This process works in same way for media.
- A02 – Advert breaks – loss of story
- Filmed models less impact than real life models.
- Effect of viewing pro-social relatively short lived.
- Relies on children NOTICING and REMEMBERING act or message.
- Anti-social = high impact
- Pro-social = subtle and abstract
Developmental trends
Eisenberg (1990)
- Pro-social reliant on pro-social skills – empathy, moral reasoning, perspective taking
- These skills develop through to adolescence.
- A02 – imitating pro-social behaviours, young children may have different motives to older.
- Midlarsky + Hannah (1985) Younger – egocentric motives (want reward or avoid punishment)
- Roker et al (1998) Older – altruistic motives (understand underlying principle)
St. Helena Study
Charlton et al (1995)
Rare opportunity – real life effects of TV – most research done in lab.
[[]]
- Before – observations, info from teachers
- After – viewing sampled – content analysis
Main finding
- TV does not affect how a child behaves in society in adverse ways.
- Why? Powerful family controls. Close community.
- Charlton tried to explain anti-social behaviour in Westernised communities
- Lower family controls
- Working parents = unsupervised children
- Communities not so close
MARES (1996)
39 different studies.
Altruism
- Children viewing explicit altruistic behaviour tended to behave more altruistically than those viewing neutral or anti-social.
- Moderate/large effect size.
Self-control
- Children viewing models with self-control tended to show more control in their own behaviour, particularly when compared to those who saw a model behaving anti-socially.
- Moderate effect size.
Positive interaction
- Children viewing positive interactions tended to act more positively in their own interactions compared with those viewing neutral or anti-social.
- Moderate effect size.
Anti-stereotyping
- Children viewing counter-stereotypical portrayals of gender, ethnicity, showed less evidence of prejudice and stereotyping.
- Moderate effect size.
Explanations of media influences on anti-social behaviour
Arousal
- May be carried over into new situation.
- Zillmann + Bryant (1984) – viewing high levels of violent pornography caused individuals to react aggressively when put in a frustrating experience.
- Link between TV violence and emotional arousal not that strong though (1994)
Desensitisation
- Decrease in sensitivity (not being disturbed by violent behaviour)
- Watching violent programmes may desensitise viewers to actual violence.
- Less likely to be restrained by social norms.
- However, Belson (1978) found exposing teenage boys to violent programmes did not desensitise them.
Zombie Effect
- Gauntlett (1995)
- Widespread exposure to TV can make you ‘mindless.’
- Unable to distinguish fantasy from reality.
- Little supporting evidence.
- Buckingham (1996) – children made clear distinction between fantasy and reality.
Cultivation
- Mass media can construct a false version of reality. (Gerbner et al 1986)
- This can change viewers’ perception of the world.
- High violence rates lead to exaggerated fears of a threatening world.
BUT were these attitudes already there?
Imitation
- We may imitate media violence.
- e.g. James Bulger murdered by 2 lads – imitated horror from film Child’s Play 3.
BUT cannot prove viewing violence directly causes a re-enactment of that act.
Catharsis
- Release of tension and anxiety.
- Feshbach + Singer (1971) – boys who watched violent films behaved less aggressively.
- Images of violence serve as a release for pent-up aggression.
CONCLUSION
- Results are inconclusive.
- Research not a waste of time.
Comments
