Lecture Notes – November 11th 2014
-----------Worried about Test 2?
SOS (Students Offering Support) = A tutor will take you through the material covered in Test 2
(Also get a take-home package of comprehensive notes)





When: Friday November 21st 2014 from 5:30 – 8:30pm
Where: TEL 0014
Register and Pay at york.soscampus.com
Any questions? Contact yorksoscampus@gmail.com
------------

Foot in the door technique vs. lowball technique




Lowball technique: you make one request and once that person agrees to it, that’s when you reveal the hidden costs. o Can you participate in my study (request)? Yes? Great! By the way, it will be at 7 am on a Saturday.
Foot in the door technique: you are making two separate requests. o Buy girl guide cookies (1st request), Donate $20 (2nd request).

Kitty Genovese Case: This case sparked the interest of Latane and Darley who wanted to investigate what factors influence our willingness to help or not to help.
Decision-Making Process Model (Latane and Darley; Page 616 Figure 46.3)
Notices
Incident

Yes?

Interprets
Incident as
Emergency?

Yes?

Assumes
Responsibility?

No?

No?

No?

No help

No help

No help



Yes?

Attempts to help either directly or indirectly Step 2: Your interpretation of the incident as an emergency is really important! o You are less likely to help if you do not interpret the situation as an emergency. o If the situation is vague (ambiguous), then you are less likely to help as well.
 Pluralistic Ignorance – the misperception that we have of others.
 People assume that because nobody else is helping, there is no emergency.
 You look at other people’s reactions as cues to determine whether the situation is an emergency, since no one is reacting, no help is given.





In the case of Kitty Genovese: Only one person called the police because everyone assumed somebody else was doing it.
 Pluralistic Ignorance can even happen in situations where the emergency is obvious! (Refer to Video on Moodle for illustration of a study)
 Study: There was smoke pumped into a room while a subject completed a questionnaire. o 1 person in the room condition (the subject only) – the subject told the experimenter immediately. o More than one person condition (subject + actors; actors pretended nothing was wrong) – only 1/24 told the experimenter. Step 3: Responsibility. Is it my personal responsibility to help? o If you were the only person there, who would you blame if something bad happened? You would blame yourself! o In larger groups, you are less likely to help. Why?
 Diffusion of Responsibility – Other people are equally responsible, not just me, they can help. Responsibility is spread out.
 Diffusion of responsibility contributes to the Bystander Effect.
 The Bystander Effect – a person is less likely to help when others are present than when they are alone.
 Study (Refer to Page 616 in Textbook): Actor was having an epileptic seizure. Would the subject help?
 When the subject was led to believe they were alone, 85% helped.
 As you increase the number of people who are available to help, % goes down. (See Figure 46.4 on Page 616 in Textbook).

Other Models for Factors Influencing Help/No Help
1. Evaluation Apprehension – We are anxious or apprehensive of being negatively evaluated by others.
2. The Arousal/Cost Reward Model
Witness
person in distress 






Experience unpleasant arousal



Evaluate
Cost and
Benefits



Decide whether to help In this model, people who see an emergency will experience unpleasant physiological arousal, and then weigh the cost and benefits of helping to determine whether they should help or not help.
We want to decrease that arousal to a comfortable level, so we help.
We don’t help right away until we do a reward/cost analysis. o What are all of the benefits to the victim and to myself if I help or if I don’t help? o What are all of the costs to the victim and to myself if I help or if I don’t help? 3. Textbook lists other