PSY 223 1nd Edition Lecture 19Outline of Last Lecture I. Prosocial behavior,a. Altruism,b. Egotistic helping,II. Motives underlying helping behavior,III. Telling the difference between egotistic and altruistic motives,Outline of Current Lecture IV. Positive moods,V. Negative moods,VI. Helping in emergencies,a. Bystander invention model,b. Classic studies,c. Other factors,Current Lecture11/5Probably altruistic and egotistic factors influence why we help othersPositive and Negative MoodsGood mood effect: the effect whereby a good mood increases helping behaviorIf got money in an experiment, then more likely to help people afterWhy?- Mood maintenance hypothesis: when in good mood, you want it to continue so you want to helppeople (because it puts you in a good mood—can help you feel even better)- Happy thoughts (seeing the bright side): when asked for help, more likely to take an optimistic view of other personThese notes represent a detailed interpretation of the professor’s lecture. GradeBuddy is best used as a supplement to your own notes, not as a substitute.- Increase self-attention: when focused on self, become more aware of what you should be doing so you are more likely to helpBut good mood effect doesn’t last longBad moods and helpingSome negative emotions do help you to be more helpful too-guilt usually leads to an increase in helping (due to balance or reciprocation)-sadness can also lead to helping under some conditionsNegative-state relief hypothesis: people help others in order to alleviate their own sadness or distress***The association between negative moods and helping is not as strong and consistent as the positive mood effect*** (Grief and depression are unlikely to lead to helping—attention is focused on self)Also if we blame others for our bad moods then less likely to help (need to feel responsible for emotions to want to help)Helping in EmergenciesThe Kitty Genovese Story—38 people heard her being murdered, no one went down to help her or calledthe policeDevelopment of the Bystander Invention Model5 step decision process:1. Noticing—when there’s so many people we may not notice if someone falls down (200 people in the room and someone faints, may not notice)2. Interpreting—interpret if it is an emergency3. Taking responsibility—even if you think it’s an emergency you may take action (thinksomeone else will do it)4. Deciding how to help5. Providing helpBystander effect: presence of others inhibiting helpingMany people witnessing an emery can lead to…- Pluralistic ignorance: happens during interpretation stage. If no one else is looking alarmed but no one is taking action, we think “well if you don’t think it’s an emergency and neither do you than it must not be an emergency”—no one seems alarm- Diffusion of responsibility: assume others can take responsibility- Audience inhibition effect: worry about how other people will view your helpingClassic studies on bystander intervention model:1. Seizure study: put people in laboratories in their own separate cubicles and told there’s other people in cubicles and you’ll talk about typical problems in college life (varied how many people they thought were in each study.) Then someone “in one of the cubicles” (it was a recording) said they were having a seizure and the more people they thought in the study, the less likely they were to run out and get help2. Woman in distress study: subject in other room hears a filing cabinet fall on someone—if there were more people in the study then less likely to help3. Smoke study—smoke comes through door, more likely to get help when alone than with other people4. Elevator study—drop pen and pick it up if it was just them and one other person in the elevatorOther situational factors in helping- Effects of urban vs. rural residence: research has demonstrated that people are more likely to help in small towns than urban areaso Why?  Stimulus overload=less likely to notice an emergency Urban=diversity=reduced perceptions of similarity=less help Feel anonymous and less accountable (and diffusion of responsibility)- Time Pressure: if under more time pressure, then less likely to helpo Good Samaritan Study: Told had to give a speech on either Good Samaritan or something else and given a time they had to rush across campus to give speech (long time or short time) Speech topic made no difference, time did  63% of those who were early (had a lot of time) helped, whereas 10% of those who were late helped (did not have a lot of