pro anti social behaviour l.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Pro & Anti Social Behaviour. PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Pro & Anti Social Behaviour.

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 18

Pro & Anti Social Behaviour. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 743 Views
  • Uploaded on

Pro & Anti Social Behaviour. PYA4. What is Pro-social behaviour?. What is Pro-Social behaviour? Any helping behaviour such as: Altruism: Helping without thought of cost or reward to yourself.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Pro & Anti Social Behaviour.' - salena


Download Now An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
what is pro social behaviour
What is Pro-social behaviour?
  • What is Pro-Social behaviour?
  • Any helping behaviour such as:
  • Altruism: Helping without thought of cost or reward to yourself.

Pro-social describes a behaviour that benefits another person. It is also called helping behaviour. As people may behave pro-socially for different reasons, social psychologists have specific terms to describe the motivation behind pro-social behaviour.

LANA CROSBIE

the empathy altruism hypothesis
The Empathy –Altruism Hypothesis.
  • Batson argued that adults moral development is similar to that of children and is linked to empathy.
  • Altruistic behaviour is motivated mainly by empathy, there are two main emotional reactions that occur when we observe someone in distress
  • Empathetic Concern- focus upon the other persons needs and motivated to reduce it.
  • Personal Distress- Concern with ones own discomfort added with the motivation to reduce it.

LANA CROSBIE

the empathy altruism hypothesis an evaluation
The Empathy –Altruism Hypothesis… An evaluation.
  • Hard to be sure that people are offering help for altruistic reasons rather than simply to avoid the disapproval of others, and to avoid the guilt associated with failing to help..
  • Read Batson et al (1981) for evidence supporting the hypothesis.

LANA CROSBIE

pro social behaviour cont
Pro social behaviour cont..

Explanations of Pro-Social Behaviour

A. Individual Decision-Making

Self-focused:

Cost-Benefit

Responsibility

Ability

Notice & Interpret

LANA CROSBIE

pro social behaviour cont6
Pro social behaviour cont..

Explanations of Pro-Social Behaviour

A. Individual Decision-Making

Other focused:

Their Need

Responsibility

Similarity

Notice & Interpret

LANA CROSBIE

pro social behaviour cont7
Pro social behaviour cont..

Explanations of Pro-Social Behaviour

A. Individual Decision-Making

Other focused:

Their Need

Responsibility

Similarity

Self focused:

Cost-Benefit

Responsibility

Ability

Notice & Interpret

LANA CROSBIE

pro social behaviour cont8
Pro social behaviour cont..

Explanations of Pro-Social Behaviour

A. Individual Decision-Making

Empathize:

Feel psychologically connected

LANA CROSBIE

pro social behaviour cont9
Pro social behaviour cont..

Explanations of Pro-Social Behaviour

A. Individual Decision-Making

Other-focused:

(+)Sympathy

(-)Anger

Self-focused:

(-)Distress

(-)Anger

(+)Shame/Guilt

Feelings of empathy

LANA CROSBIE

bystander behaviour cont
Bystander Behaviour cont..
  • Kitty Genovese- See accompanying handout for more detail.
  • The case shocked America and prompted social psychologists Latane and Darley (1968) to investigate situational factors that affect bystander intervention in more detail.

LANA CROSBIE

slide11

Latane & Darley (1968)

Procedure: Participants sat in a room completing a questionnaire.

In one condition the participant was alone, in the other there were 3 participants.

Steam which looked like smoke stared to pour into the air vent, this continued for 6 minutes.

Findings: Participants failed to report smoke even though they were bothered.

Conclusion:

Only defined as emergency if majority of bystanders agree, in another study they found that if an individual thought they were the only ones to see emergency 85% helped this dropped to 35% if they were in a group.

LANA CROSBIE

slide12

Factors affecting Bystander intervention.

  • Bystander aware he is only one there witnessing emergency.
  • Number of other bystanders
  • How close bystander is to victim (proximity)

LANA CROSBIE

slide13

Irving Piliavin (1969)

  • Devised experiments where different factors were changed I.e. race, gender, drunk, apparently hurt etc.
  • Method: Field experiment.
  • Sample: Opportunity.
  • Procedure: The ‘victim’ collapsed in a New York subway between 11am & 3pm.
  • Two observers noted information such as characteristics of participants.
  • Results. Cane victim helped immediately
  • Drunk victim helped by someone of own race.
  • As soon as one person helped everyone moved.
  • Conclusions: Little evidence of Pluralistic ignorance.
  • More help for cane than drunk victim, could be explained with equity.

LANA CROSBIE

bystander decision model
Bystander Decision Model

Latane & Darley (1970)

  • Do I help (Yes)
  • Is this an emergency
  • Do I accept responsibility (Yes)
  • How can I help? (Yes)
  • What should I do?
  • If at any point the bystander cannot answer yes he walks away from the situation.

LANA CROSBIE

bystander decision model evaluation
Bystander Decision Model...evaluation.
  • Several reasons why bystanders do not lend assistance- experimental evidence supports this.
  • Gives a valid explanation of why bystanders sometimes fail to help.
  • Does not provide detailed account of the processes involved in decision making.
  • Too much emphasis on influence of emotional factors.

LANA CROSBIE

cultural differences in pro social behaviour
Cultural Differences in Pro-social Behaviour.
  • National differences-100% Kenyan children behave more altruistically compared to 8% of American children. (Whiting & Whiting 1975)
  • Gender differences-Men are more likely to help in dangerous situations than women. (Eagly & Crowley 1986)
  • Individualist vs. Collectivist societies. Children raised in Kibbutz were more likely to seek help on an anagram than those raised in individualist societies. (Nadler 1986)

LANA CROSBIE

cultural differences in pro social behaviour17
Cultural Differences in Pro-social Behaviour.
  • Cultural differences in pro-social behaviour occur for many reasons including the following:
  • Social Norms & Social learning- People are more helpful in rural areas as this appears to be the norm for that society.
  • Childrearing practices- Children learn from their parents Rosenhgan (1970) found helpfulness is learned from parents.

LANA CROSBIE

media influences on pro anti social behaviour
Media influences on Pro & Anti social behaviour.

(-)Observational learning

(-)Arousal

(-) Field experiments on media violence.

(-)Correlations on media violence.

(-) Dishinibition

(+)Catharsis

(+)Inoculation

LANA CROSBIE