Question:

a.That

descriptive norm influence is

similar to modeling
b.That injunctive norm use may backfire
c.The impact of norm salience
mm-dd-yy

|1

Helping behavior

Kees Keizer
K.E.Keizer@rug.nl
09-12-07

Helping strangers

(Levine, 1994, 2003)

Dispositional or situational?

mm-dd-yy

|
10

Learning to Help: Instilled Beliefs

Students

who have studied economics, and learned the

principle of self-interest are:
less likely to contribute to charities
(Frank, Gilovich, & Regan, 1993)

more likely to exploit a partner in a bargaining game

(Maxwell & Ames, 1981)

more likely to negotiate for a lopsided payment

(Kahneman et al., 1986).

11 of 76

Dispositional or situational?
(Bateson & Darley, 1973)

Princeton

Theological seminar

Questionnaire on religiosity.
Give presentation in other building
Good Samaritan
Jobs

No hurry / sufficient time but go directly/

late- hurry
Unconscious person
Percentage

helped?

in alleyway

Dispositional or situational?
(Bateson & Darley, 1973)

No hurry
63%
Sufficient time but go directly 45%
Late- hurry 10%
Religiousity or

Situational

nature of story: No effect!!

factor!

Psychological research on
altruism

Altruism is when one helps another person for no reward,

and even at some cost to oneself.
Evolutionary explanations of altruism:
Kin selection theory (degree of altruism depends on the
number of shared genes)
Reciprocal altruism theory (Trivers, 1971)
Expecting reciprocity

But what if there is no/ slim chance of future

encounters?

mm-dd-yy

|
14

Psychological research on
altruism
The

negative-state relief model (Schaller &

Cialdini,1988)

Help to reduce distress evoked by observing negative

situation (egoistic)

The

empathy-altruism model (Batson et al., 1981)

2 reactions: Personal distress -> egosistic helping

Empathic concerns -> alturistic helping

mm-dd-yy

|
15

Study: Batson (1981)

- Participants view Elaine receiving a series of painful shocks
(they stop after two)
- Elaine states that she had a bad experience with electric
shocks; experimenter suggests that they stopElaine says NO
- Asks participants if they wanted to trade places?
But 4 conditions
(1) Participants learned they were very
similar (high empathy)
(2) Participants learned they were
dissimilar (low empathy)
(3) Must continue to watch Elaine getting
shocked (difficult escape)
(4) Do not have to watch Elaine getting
shocked (easy escape)
16 of 76

Batsons Study: The Setup

Easy Escape
High Empathy
Asked
To Trade
Places
With
Elaine

Hard Escape

Easy Escape
Low Empathy
Hard Escape
17 of 76

Results from Batsons Study

18 of 76

BUT.Cialdini et. al.

Egoistic

Account

People help others to help themselves

Cialdinis Negative State Relief Model
Argues that empathic people help to reduce their
own negative emotions
Replicated (1987) Batsons studywith a twist!

19 of 76

Cialdini et al.s Replication of

Batson
Same as

Batson et al. experiment

Except before participants were asked to

change places, their mood was increased
Logic being that if mood increased, then wouldnt
need to use help as means to restore mood

Results?

Results of Cialdini et al.s

Replication
High empathy
participants responded
the same as low empathy
participants
Thus, evidence that
participants in Batsons
study helped for
egoistical purposes!

The victim: Lost Letter

400

letters
Adressed to:

personal letter
medical research associates
friends of the Communist Party
friends of Nazi Party

How many returned?

(Milgram, 1977)

Lost Letter
Return

(Milgram, 1977)

rate:

personal letter
71%
medical research associates
72%
friends of the Communist Party
friends of Nazi Party

Lost Letter
Return

(Milgram, 1977)

rate:

personal letter
71%
medical research associates
72%
friends of the Communist Party
25%
friends of Nazi Party
25%

<opened?>

Lost Letter

(Milgram, 1977)

How many of the returned letters were

opened?
40% of the letters to the Communist Party,
32% of the Nazi Party,
25% of the Medical Research letters, and
10% of the personal letters

Situational: the presence of

others

Smoke room

Smoke in waiting room

How many report?

3 condition
pers alone,
2 confederates
3 subjects

(Latan and Darley, 1968)

Smoke room

(Latan and Darley, 1968)

3 condition
pers alone,

75%

2 confederates

10%

3 subjects

38%

Situational Factors: the presence

of others
Bystander effect:

the tendency of a bystander to be less likely to

help in an emergency if there are other onlookers
present
Opposite

of intuition --> more people around the

safer it should be

Possible Explanations for the

Bystander Effect
Diffusion of responsibility

the tendency for each group member to dilute

personal responsibility for acting by spreading it
among all other group members
Example: Bystanders to an emergency may assume
someone else will call the police.

Bystanders As Sources of
Information
Pluralistic

Ignorance

the phenomenon that occurs when

bystanders to an emergency give misleading
cues to others that no help is needed
<clip>

mm-dd-yy

|
32

With people you know

(Rutowski, et al.,

1983)

Participants

seated in separate adjacent

rooms
Sound of falling ladder
Screams: Oh my god, my ankle..,
Conditions: Group of acquaintances
(cohesive) or strangers
the others will help
Strangers: free-rider effect
Cohesive: Norm activation
mm-dd-yy

|
33

With people you know

(Rutowski, et al.,

1983)

Result:
%

of people helping 3 times as high in

the cohesive group

mm-dd-yy

|
34

mm-dd-yy

|
35

Victim in/out-group
Less helpful towards

out-group

members
Dutch television

program
Dropped groceries
Victim: plain clothes/ burka

mm-dd-yy

|
36

mm-dd-yy

|
37

Hedonic focus
Goal

framing
Hedonic/ gain/ normative goals
Relation

between wanting
cigarette and influence Hedonic goal &
Normative goal?

Wanting up hedonic up, gain down,

normative down?
mm-dd-yy

| 38

Correlational
Hedonic: Cookie
Gain:

Chance to win 10E

Normative: 1E to charity
+ Behaviour choice questionnaire

mm-dd-yy

| 39

Experimental
Before

and after smoking

(between subject)

Behaviour

choice
questionnaire

mm-dd-yy

| 40

Experimental

(sticky goal?)

Before

and after smoking

(between subject)
- Behaviour choice
questionnaire

After

smoking: Hedonic goes down

again and the normative goes
up!!

(Compliance:

56% vs 81%)
mm-dd-yy

| 41

The normative route

mm-dd-yy

|
42

Respect cues

Confederate:
Control
Picks-up own
litter

Sweeping

mm-dd-yy | 43

Tipping
Tipping?
Conditions:

No text (1.01 Euro)

He who writes reads twice (1.02
Euro)
A good turn never goes amiss (1.34
Euro)
%

and amount was (sign) higher in

condition with altruism text.
mm-dd-yy

|
44

Music
We

are the world

Help
Ein BiSchen Frieden
More

pro-social behavior in
dictator game/ picking-up
pencils

Via

empathy & accessibility

to pro-social thought
mm-dd-yy

|
45

Focus on receiving /
giving
Willingness

to donate
Focus on receiving / giving

mm-dd-yy

|
46

Our role as caregiver

mm-dd-yy

|
47

mm-dd-yy

|
48

Summary

ICS
Groninge
n

Discussion: Egoistic vs altruistic

Dispositional vs situational
Empathy
Similarity
Out-group vs ingroup

The presence of others

Bystander effect
Via the strengthening and weakening of norms
49

mm-dd-yy

|
50

mm-dd-yy

| 51

mm-dd-yy | 52

Thank you for your attention

K.E.Keizer@rug.nl