InThinking Revision Sites

INTHINKING REVISION SITES

Own your learning

Why not also try our independent learning self-study & revision websites for students?

We currenly offer the following DP Sites: Biology, Chemistry, English A Lang & Lit, Maths A&A, Maths A&I, Physics, Spanish B

"The site is great for revising the basic understandings of each topic quickly. Especially since you are able to test yourself at the end of each page and easily see where yo need to improve."

"It is life saving... I am passing IB because of this site!"

Basic (limited access) subscriptions are FREE. Check them out at:

www.StudyIB.net

Checking understanding: Prosocial behaviour

  • /
  • Student resources/
  • Human relationships/
  • Critical thinking activities/
  • Checking understanding: Prosocial behaviour

The following worksheet checks your understanding of altruism and prosocial behaviour.  Try to answer the questions first before checking the answers that are provided in the "hidden boxes."

Checking for understanding

 1. What are the limitations of biological arguments for altruism?

Biological arguments are reductionist. In addition, there is no experimental evidence to support the claims. The theories are also not testable.  The idea that the reason a person helps kin is to "pass on their genes" may make sense in an evolutionary framework, but it is not possible to test the theory.  Finally, much of the biological research is done with animals.  This makes assumptions that since there is a genetic similarity with animals this means that we can explain human behaviour in a similar manner to animal behaviour.  This is a problematic assumption and ignores the role of conscious thought and culture in human behaviour.

2.  What does Bartal et al’s study on empathy and rats teach us about the nature of altruism?

Bartal et al found that a rat would help a rat of another species - that is, a rat that was genetically dissimilar - if they had spent time together.  They also found that when a rat was raised with another species that was not genetically similar, the rat not only helped this other species, but he would not help his own species.  This indicates that it is the social environment that may play a more important role in helping behaviour than genetic similarity.

3. What is meant by inclusive fitness?

Inclusive fitness is the idea that by helping out someone in your gene pool, this increases the overall probability that the genes in your gene pool will be passed down to the next generation.

4.  Why is anecdotal evidence problematic in the study of altruism?

Anecdotal data is usually dependent on someone’s memory - leading to the potential of memory distortion.  In addition, anecdotal data is difficult to verify for accuracy.  Finally, anecdotal data cannot be replicated, meaning that it is not reliable.  This means that anecdotal data lacks validity, accuracy, reliability, and, often, objectivity. However, it does give us evidence that such events happen and are part of human behaviour.

5.  How did Batson attempt to discount the role of “negative state” in altruism?

Batson attempted to discount the role of negative state in altruism by testing more than one IV in his experiment.  In this experiment, the participants were either in a high empathy or low empathy condition.  But in each condition, he also had participants allocated to either an easy escape (low negative state) and a no escape (high negative state) condition.  In this way, he could control for the role of negative state in the empathy condition.

6. What are the problems with Warneken et al’s (2007) research using chimps to argue that helping behaviour is hardwired?

The chimps were all habituated - that is, they were used to people.  They had also been trained.  So, although the situations may be seen as unique, they resembled past training experiences and the animals continued to receive rewards. It is difficult to say whether this is representative of helping behaviour in humans.

7.  What are the methodological issues with studying altruism?

Altruism cannot be truly studied under experimental conditions.  The concept of altruism is also debated in its actual meaning.

Key studies in psychology: Piliavin et al. (1969)

Questions

1. What ethical concerns would you have about this study?

There are several ethical concerns with the Piliavin study.  First, informed consent was not gained from those in the experiment.  It is in a public space, so this is not technically required.  The participants were deceived, and this could have been stressful for them, believing that someone was in need of help.  They were not able to withdraw from the experiment and there was no debriefing.

2. What is a field experiment?  What are the strengths and limitations of using a field experiment in this study?

A field experiment is done under naturalistic conditions.  The researcher manipulates an IV and measures a DV, but it is not possible to control extraneous variables to the same extent as under lab conditions. The strength is that it has high ecological validity; the limitation is that it is difficult to control variables and establish a cause and effect relationship.

3. What do the findings teach us about bystanderism?  Why do you think that the results here are so different from other studies of bystanderism?

The findings show that diffusion of responsibility may not have a significant effect in real life.  This is very different from the study by Latane and Darley where the participants were alone in a cubicle but knew that others might help.  The lab condition was highly controlled, but with low ecological validity.  In addition, this study seems to support the social exchange theory, that people actually consciously weigh the costs before helping.