Prosocial Behavior Notes

Madsen et al. (2007):

Aim: To investigate whether kin selection influences altruistic behavior in humans.

Method:

• Laboratory experiment with a repeated measures design. British participants (UK) and Zulu participants (South Africa).
• Participants provided a list of family members with varying genetic relatedness (e.g., parents, siblings, cousins).
• They were asked to adopt a painful physical position (similar to a wall sit) for as long as possible.
• For every 20 seconds they endured, a small amount of money (UK) or food hampers (Zulu) was donated to the specific family member.
• Five trials were conducted with 15-minute breaks in between, where participants held the position for:
  • Themselves
  • Parents or Siblings
  • Grandparents, Aunts, Uncles, Nieces, Nephews
  • Cousins
  • A local charity

Findings:

• The time spent in the painful position increased with the coefficient of genetic relatedness (participants endured more pain for closer relatives).
• This effect was found in both British and Zulu participants, suggesting that kin selection is a universal factor in altruistic behavior.
• However, kinship is not the only determinant of altruism—other social and cultural factors also play a role.

Conclusion:

• The study provides experimental evidence for kin selection theory, supporting the idea that people are more altruistic toward closer genetic relatives.

Evaluation:

• Controlled for confounding variables: Participants did not live with the recipients, ensuring results were based on genetic relatedness rather than daily interactions.
• Supports the idea that kin selection is a universal human behavior.
• Participants experienced physical discomfort (although they could stop at any time).
• The study does not rule out other influences on altruism, such as social norms or reciprocity.

Piliavin et al. (1969)

Aim: To investigate how situational factors, such as the type of victim and group size, influence helping behavior in an emergency situation.

Method:

• Opportunity sample of New York subway passengers (unaware they were part of a study)
• Conducted between 11 a.m. and 3 p.m. on a non-stop 7.5-minute subway journey.
• Participants witnessed one of two scenarios:
  • A man with a cane who appeared ill collapsing to the floor.
  • A man who appeared drunk collapsing to the floor.
• The "victims" (confederates) collapsed 70 seconds after departure and remained on the floor until helped.
• If no one helped, a "model-helper" would intervene after 70 seconds.
• Two female observers recorded:
  • Frequency and speed of helping.
  • Sex of the helper.
  • Verbal comments and any movement away from the victim.

Findings:

• Overall helping rates were high:
  • 78% of victims received spontaneous help.
  • 60% of cases involved more than one helper.
• Victim condition influenced response time:
  • Ill victim (cane): Helped in 62 out of 65 trials (95%), median response time 5 seconds.
  • Drunk victim: Helped in 19 out of 38 trials (50%), median response time 109 seconds.
• Gender differences in helping:
  • 90% of helpers were male.
• Group size did not lead to diffusion of responsibility:
  • Larger groups led to faster helping times, contradicting previous research.
• Race of the victim had no significant effect on helping behavior.
• More verbal comments were made when the victim was drunk or when help was delayed.

Conclusion:

• Helping behavior is influenced by perceived costs and benefits rather than diffusion of responsibility.
• People are less likely to help when the perceived cost is higher (e.g. helping a drunk person may be seen as riskier).
• The Arousal-Cost-Reward Model suggests that helping behavior is motivated by the desire to reduce negative emotions rather than pure empathy.

Evaluation:

• Conducted in a real-world setting, increasing generalizability and ecological validity.
• Less control over extraneous variables compared to a lab experiment.
• Measuring "time taken to help" as an indicator of decision-making may be an oversimplification.
• Lack of informed consent as participants did not know they were in a study.
• They were misled into believing the emergency was real.
• There was no debriefing.