1 / 9

TYPES OF HELPING

TYPES OF HELPING. EXAMPLES: SHORT-TERM, DIRECT , BEHAVIORAL, DANGER PRESENT Prevent other’s drowning Stopping a shoplifter SHORT-TERM, INDIRECT , BEHAVIORAL Call 911 DIRECT RESPONSE WITHOUT DANGER Giving up seats on a bus Picking up dropped goods. LONG VERSUS SHORT-TERM HELPING

alma
Télécharger la présentation

TYPES OF HELPING

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. TYPES OF HELPING • EXAMPLES: • SHORT-TERM, DIRECT, BEHAVIORAL, DANGER PRESENT • Prevent other’s drowning • Stopping a shoplifter • SHORT-TERM, INDIRECT, BEHAVIORAL • Call 911 • DIRECT RESPONSE WITHOUT DANGER • Giving up seats on a bus • Picking up dropped goods LONG VERSUS SHORT-TERM HELPING DIRECT VERSUS INDIRECT (COSTS) BEHAVIORAL, EMOTIONAL, OR INFORMATIONAL

  2. D) RESPONSE TO A DIRECT REQUEST • Give some spare change • Let someone use your phone • Give directions • E) RETURNING LOST ARTICLES • Letters • Wallet • Money • F) LONG-TERM HELPING • Listen to a friend in need • Letting an elderly parent live with you • Reading to a child • Working on a help/hot line • Care for someone with a terminal disease • DONATIONS • Money, clothes, food, blood, organs, time Examples cont…

  3. Latane and Darley’s model of Emergency Intervention (1970) What are the cognitive steps an individual must progress through before offering help in and emergency? No 1. Notice the emergency Don’t Help Yes No 2. Define the emergency Don’t Help Yes 3. Take responsibility No Don’t Help Yes No 4. Decide on a way to help Don’t Help Yes 5. Implement a chosen way to help Don’t Help No Yes HELP

  4. “Pluralistic Ignorance” – Social Comparison Alone Three Naïve Subjects Two Passive Subjects 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 Cumulative Proportion Reporting Smoke (%) 1 2 3 4 5 6 Time from Start of Smoke Infusion (minutes)

  5. Cumulative Percentages of Subjects Responding in Different Conditions to Smoke Pouring into the Room What effect does the presence of other people have on our response to a possible emergency??? In this study by Latane and Darley (1970) subjects sat in a room either alone with two other subjects, or with two passive confederates. As they completed questionnaires, smoke began pouring into the room through an air vent. The researchers measured how quickly subjects sought help or reported the emergency. *** As the previous graph shows, single subjects were much more likely to seek help, and they responded to the possible emergency more quickly.

  6. “Diffusion of Responsibility” – Others Can Help 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 Cumulative Proportion Helping (%) Subject & Victim Subject, Victim & Stranger Subject, Victim & 4 Strangers 60 120 180 240 Time from Beginning of Fit (Seconds)

  7. Cumulative Percentages of Subjects Responding to an Epileptic Fit Under Different Conditions Does the bystander effect occur in an unambiguous emergency involving a suffering human victim? Latane and Daley (1970) had subjects communicate via a microphone with another student in a nearby room. Subjects believed there were no, one, or four other people listening in on the conversation. Partway through the experiment, the other student seemed to experience an epileptic seizure. The researchers observed how quickly subjects helped the victim ***As the previous graph shows, subjects were more likely to help the victim of the seizure when they were the only person participating in the conversation. All subjects who believed that they were alone when they heard the seizure aided the victim within three minutes; however, not all subjects in the other two situations aided the victims.

  8. Nonarousal Placebo Arousal Placebo 260 240 220 200 180 160 140 120 100 100 80 60 40 Time Elapsed Before Intervention (Seconds) Unambiguous Emergency (with screams) Ambiguous emergency (without screams)

  9. Misattribution of arousal and speed of helping in ambiguous or unambiguous emergencies How do attributions of arousal affect our behavior in emergency situations? In Gaertner and Dovidio’s (1997) experiement, subjects sat in a room and heard what sounded like a stack of chairs falling on a woman in the next room. Sometimes the emergency was unambiguous (the woman screamed), and sometimes it was ambiguous (no scream). Subjects had earlier taken a pill (a placebo); some were told that it might increase their heart rate, and some were not. Gaertner and Dovidio measured how quickly subjects responded to the possible emergency in the next room. ***As the previous graph shows, subjects responded more slowly to the ambiguous emergency. Furthermore, subjects exposed to the ambiguous emergency responded even less quickly when they could misattribute their arousal to the pill.

More Related