Five Steps to Helping

1. Notice, 2. Interpret, 3. Responsibility,

4. What to do, 5. Do it

Darley and Batson

(Good Samaritan)

Ps asked to give talk: Samaritan/Jobs

1. Ahead of time

2. On time

3. Late.

= Topic: Weak. TIME PRESSURE

5 Things that Inhibit Helping

1. Urban Overload: not notice

2. Audience Inhibition: what if

3. Pluralistic Ignorance: they know

4. Diffusion of Responsibility: not me

5. Residential Mobility: loyalty

Bystander Effect

More people, less likely that anyone will help

e.g. Kitty Genovese

Garcia et al

(Implicit Bystander Effect)

Ps who imagined having dinner with large group of people were willing to donate less to charity

Altruism

Prosocial - helping others even at own cost

Kin Selection

Evolutionary theory that people who help family are selected for. 

Preserve own genes in life/death situations

Norm of Reciprocity

Expect others to help you back in the future

Group Selection

Controversial idea: prefer to help those with whom we live

Social Exchange Theory

Idea that most altruism is based on self interest

Empathy

Ability to imagine oneself in another's sitch.

Empathy-Altruism Hypothesis

(Batson)

The more empathy, you have Empathetic Concern, more willing to perform altruism

3 Explanations of Helping

1. Evolutionary: helping genetically similar ppl.

2. Social Exchange: rewards outweigh cost for self

3. Empathy-Altruism: empathy prompts altruism

Differences in Helping

1. Personal: altruistic personality

2. Gender: males - heroic, females - longterm

3. Cultural: in-group / out-group

Communal Relationship

Primary concern is other person

e.g. Mother and child

Exchange Relationship

Input = Output

Overjustification Effect

If too many external reasons/requirements,

lowers personal interest in helping

Religious Individuals

More likely to help in general,

but not more likely in private

Who Do We Help

1. Attractive People ("safer")

2. Those who "deserve" it (e.g. kids)

3. People similar to us (in-group)

Rewards for Prosocial Behavior

1. Gene pool survives

2. Feel good

3. Maximize future rewards (exchange)

4. Good reputation/image

Social Cognition

How ppl. think about self and social world

How people use social info to make decisions

Schemas

Mental structures, themes/subjects

Influence thinking/what people notice

Korsakov's Syndrome

Damaged hippocampus, no new memories

Accessibility / Priming

(Schemas)

A: How easy it is to bring schema to mind

P: Recent events increase accessibility of schema

Self-Fulfilling Prophecy

About others: you think X - you act as if X was true - they react to you - you interpret behavior as proof of X

Reign of Error

Where people cite the course of events as proof that they were always correct

Judgemental Heuristics

1. Availiability Heuristic

2. Representativeness Heuristic

Base Rate Information

Info. about how likely sth. is

Basic / logical

Counterfactual Thinking

Changing the past in the mind

Overconfidence Barrier

People have too much confidence in own judgments

Availability Heuristic

People make judgment depending on how easily they can bring sth. to mind

Representativeness Heuristic

Classifying sth. according to how similar it is to a typical case

Encoding / Decoding

E: Emit nonverbal behavior

D: Interpret behavior

6 Major Emotions

Angry, Sad, Happy, Fearful, Disgusted, Surprised

Affect Blend

Face shows multiple emotions

Display Rules

Cultural, which nonverbal behaviors are appropriate to express 

Emblems

Nonverbals that are widely understood in a culture, e.g. hand gestures

Implicit Personality Theory

Grouping personality traits together due to schema

e.g. kind = generous = good

Attribution

Explain cause of behavior.

Internal: the self/individual

External: environment/situation

Covariation Model

Notice different factors: 

1. Consensus

2. Distinctiveness

3. Consistency

Consensus

Do other people behave like that too

High - others do that too

Low - others don't do that

Distinctiveness

Does the person behave like this to similar things

High - this is the single case

Low - they do this with other things

Consistency

Do they do this to this thing always

High - yes, always

Low - not always

Internal Attribution

Low consensus

Low distinctiveness

High consistency

External Attribution

High consensus

High distinctiveness

High consistency

Peculiar Case

Low/High Consensus

Low/High Distinctiveness

Low Consistency

Fundamental Attribution Error

(FAE)

Overestimate internal factors

Underestimate situation

Perceptual Salience

Seeming importance of info. that is easily seen

Two-Step Process of Attribution

1. Make internal attribution

2. Correct for external factors

Self-Serving Attribution

Success - credit internal

Failure - credit external

Make excuses for self

Detecting Deception

Words, face - controllable 

Body, voice - uncontrollable

Eberhardt et al

(Priming / Racial)

1. Primed black/white face, recognize blurry pics

2. Primed crime pic, focus on W/B face

3. Primed neutral pic, focus on W/B face

4. Like 2, not students but police

5. Police