criticisms of the negative state relief model

Category: Education,
Words: 3375 | Published: 12.30.19 | Views: 322 | Download now

Homework and study suggestions

Get essay

On a gloomy, the negative-state relief model is rather limited. First, it suggests that empathy only brings about altruistic behavior for the selfish purpose that it makes us feel a lot better, therefore it will not allow for unselfish motives. Second, research within the effects of feeling on supporting have made the change findings i actually. e. individuals are more likely to support when they are within a good disposition. For example , Grande (1990) identified that nice odours generated better moods and increase helping.

Third, the model is limited, because it only applies to mild negative emotions. According to the model, extreme negative thoughts should not lead to helping behaviour. Overall Evaluation In analysis, both ideas may in reality be proper. Some people may be truly charitable, whereas others only seem to be altruistic tend to be actually motivated by egoistic goals. Bystander Behaviour The Decision Model (Latene and Darley (1970))

Cat Genovese was stabbed to death in New York since she delivered home via work.

Thirty-nine witnesses heard or perhaps observed her ordeal, although none of them of which intervened. This situatio shocked America and prompted psychologists Latene and Darley (1968) to review situational factors that affect bystander involvement in more detail. Latene and Darley (1970) put forward a five-stage version called the decision model to example why bystanders at emergencies at times do and frequently do not give help.

In stage 1 the bystander must 1st notice the event, in stage two they have to interpret the event as an emergency (perhaps taking a look at the behaviour of others on order to attain this), in stage several they must acknowledge some personal responsibility to intervene (the person may possibly avoid taking responsibility by assuming that others will i. elizabeth. diffusion of responsibility), in stage four they must consider what is the best type of intervention, and then in stage 5 they have to implement all their decision. At each stage of this model, experts may make a choice that prevents helping.

For instance , when seeing others whom are not supporting, they may dismiss the situation as not being an emergency (stage 2), they may feel that the presence of others makes their very own intervention unnecessary (stage 3), they may make a decision that they lack the necessary expertise for successful intervention (stage 4) or they may decide that it is against their interests (e. g. it may be dangerous) to get involved (stage 5). Latene and Darley determined two psychological processes to explain the cultural inhibition effect (i. at the. not helping). The to begin these is usually diffusion of responsibility.

In the event one person exists at an crisis, they have 100% responsibility to assist. However , in the event that an emergency can be witnessed by simply more than one person, the less the individual responsibility there is for any one individual bystander. This diffusion of responsibility clarifies the inhibition of assisting behaviour in stage three or more. The second method identified is pluralistic lack of knowledge, which is targeted on what happens whenever we look to additional bystanders to be able to decide whether help in required. If other folks are not aiding, we may conclude that it is not an emergency so do nothing.

Actual emergencies may well fail to bring about help since bystanders lessen each other folks behaviour. This kind of pluralistic lack of knowledge explains the inhibition of helping conduct in stage 2 . Proof that supports the Decision Style In support for the decision model, the predicted behaviours are maintained research studies. Support for Stage 1 of the Decision Model: Darley and Batson (1973) confirmed that learners who were hurrying to a lecture were less likely to help a person moaning and a lot of said it was because that they had not seen. Support pertaining to Stage two of the Decision Model:

Darley et al (1973) located that bystanders who stood face to face with other bystanders were more likely to help in an emergency than patients who was back to back. That they concluded that the effects of pluralistic lack of knowledge were more robust when inside the back to back state as bystanders were unable to view each other folks facial expressions, so had been deprived of important interpretative cues. This therefore helps the idea of pluralistic ignorance, since it shows that functioning to different bystanders in order to decide whether help is necessary or not in an urgent situation.

Support for Stage 3 from the Decision Style: Darley and Latene (1968) carried out research in which learners in individual rooms reviewed personal challenges via and intercom. Individuals were resulted in believe they were either by itself with one more participant or part of an organization (although just one real individual was included, other efforts were strapping recordings). Through the discussion, among the participants stimulated an epileptic attack. The dependant adjustable was whether and how quickly participants reported the incident to the experimenter.

The studies showed that help was less likely and slower when participants believed that there is other potential helpers present, whereas most responded in the event that they presumed they were independently. This for that reason supports the concept of diffusion of responsibility, as it shows that because the number of bystanders increases, so does the period taken to respond to an emergency and the probability that help will receive decreases However , a major limit of this examine is that it lacks environmental validity because the study was obviously a laboratory try things out, therefore the study may not show how people would react in a realist situation.

Support for Level 4 with the Decision Style: Huston ainsi que al (1981) studied the functions of bystanders who helped out in dangerous emergencies. Their particular findings demonstrated that there were a strong inclination for helpers to have trained in relevant skills such as lifesaving, first aid or self defence. Thus, this supports level four of the decision unit, as it demonstrates bystanders with relevant abilities or competence are most likely to provide help to a victim. A further strength in the decision version is that this assumes there are several different main reasons why bystanders do not lend assistance.

The trial and error evidence talked about above gives substantial support for this presumption. Lastly, the choice model offers a valid explanation of for what reason bystanders occasionally fail to support. If bystanders produce a ‘no’ at any point inside the decision model, then help will not be forthcoming. Criticisms of the Decision Model On the negative side, the model assumes that we think about our actions in a rational way, while many people act impulsively when they observe someone in distress. One more limitation in the model is the fact it gives simply no detail with the processes involved in making these decisions.

For example , it seems reasonable to imagine bystanders who interpret the case as an emergency and who have also accept personal responsibility would often lend assistance to the victim. We need to well-known more regarding the processes involved when ‘yes’ decisions at steps one particular, 2 and 3 will be followed by a ‘no’ decision at measures 4 or 5. Arousal/Cost-Reward Model Piliavin et al (1981) put forward the arousal-cost reward model to explain how come people perform and do not aid in emergency conditions. They contended that when persons come across an individual in need, they work their approach through five stages before they respond or leave.

The initially requirement is perfect for the bystander to experience physical arousal. Whenever we see someone in distress, we turn into physiologically turned on. The sexual arousal levels is so we are motivated to lower it. More suitable the arousal the more likely it truly is that a bystander will help.

Physiological arousal would not automatically produce specific thoughts. Seeing another person in distress brings on either personal distress or empathetic concern. Piliavin ou al assumed that physical arousal is more likely to be branded personal distress because the bystander is sense aroused which is viewed as anxiousness i. e. distress. When folks are within a state of personal distress, they may be motivated to perform something about it, but first costs and benefits should be calculated.

The cost of assisting may include work (e. g. helping could possibly be demanding), time (e. g. helping could make us late) and risk of harm (e. g. we may get hurt) All these factors are acessed against the benefits associated with helping, such as social approval (e. g. thanks through the victim), self-esteem (e. g. feeling the particular one is a good person) and respite from a negative mental state (e. g. minimizing unpleasant arousal)

In addition to factors, the costs of certainly not helping might also be assessed. These kinds of may include disapproval (e. g. negative reactions from others), damaged self-esteem (feeling that you is not a good person) and negative psychological response (e. g. not helping could cause feelings of guilt). Data that facilitates the Arousal/Cost-Reward Model Piliavan et al’s (1969) Subway Samaritan study provides support for his proposed arousal/cost-reward model. Piliavan et ing staged occurrences in the Nyc subway, having a male sufferer staggering ahead and falling apart on the floor.

This individual either came out blind having a dark-colored cane and seemed sober, or he smelled of alcohol and carried a bottle of alcohol. Observers then registered how may passengers provided to help. They found that bystanders were much less prone to help if the victim made an appearance drunk then when he came out blind. This kind of suggests that the drunk is definitely helped much less often because the perceived expense is greater (helping a inebriated is likely to trigger disgust, shame or harm) The cost of not really helping is less because no person will fault another for not helping a drunk as they is perceived as partly in charge of his individual victimization.

These types of findings for that reason fit in with Piliavin’s proposed arousal/cost-reward model. The model offers a more full account compared to the decision type of the processes involved in determining whether to provide support. Evidence that criticizes the Arousal/Cost-Reward Model On the negative side, it is intended by the arousal/cost reward version that bystanders spend some time looking at all the factors in the situation and also other demands on the time prior to deciding how to proceed. In fact , persons faced with a sudden urgent often reply impulsively and with very little thought.

Whether or not bystanders do consider the relevant advantages and costs, it is probably unlikely that they can consider all of them. Another issue with this model is the fact it is not often the case which a bystander should experience excitement levels before assisting in an unexpected emergency. Someone with much connection with emergencies (such as a doctor responding to someone having a heart attack) may respond efficiently without turning out to be aroused. General Evaluation In evaluation, equally theories provide a significant importance to understanding bystander conduct.

Both ideas have their advantages and disadvantages and both explain for what reason bystanders may choose to help or perhaps ignore a victim in an emergency circumstance. Therefore equally theories might be important contributors in explaining this specific behaviour. There are however dissimilarities. Most importantly the arousal element of the arousal cost-reward version which makes this the inspiring factor of helping behavior. In the decision model, beahaviour is enthusiastic recognition associated with an emergency and knowledge that help is the appropriate response. Ethnic Differences in Pro-social behaviour

The majority of the research completed into pro-social behaviour was conducted in the us. It is harmful to imagine what is authentic in one lifestyle is true in other cultures, and this danger is perhaps especially superb with respect to commitment (an example of pro-social behaviour) Individualism and Collectivism It’s claimed that western nationalities, such as the ALL OF US and UK are individualistic cultures since the stress the need for independence rather than on the reliability of others (they emphasise ‘I’ rather than ‘we’).

In contrast, its argued non-western cultures just like Japan and Isreal happen to be collectivist cultures, where people share responsibilities, belongings and income (they emphasise ‘we’ rather than ‘I’). Research Facts Evidence which the individualistic strategy is certainly not dominant in all of the cultures is reported by Whiting and Whiting (1975). They measured altruism in 6 different countries and found that 100% of Kenyan kids behaved altruistically compared with 8% of American kids. The others (India, Japan, Korea and Mexico) were hidden inside the two extremes.

This demonstrates there are significant cross-cultural differences in pro-social conduct. Further facts which supports the claim (i. e. that individualistic civilizations stress the need for independence although collectivist cultures stress the need for interdependence) have been reported by Nadler (1986, 1993). He in comparison people in Israel raised communally (on a kibbutz community focused on interdependent living) with all those raised in a city. This individual found the Kibbutz had been more likely to support and look for help in evaluation to people in the city.

This kind of suggests that ‘collectivism’ leads to greater helping. This really is supported by Moghaddam et al (1993) who conducted exploration with Kibbutzim children and found that they are even more co-operative and helpful than their American and European peers. Moreover, Mann (1980) confirms these types of findings by simply indicating that Australian collectivist communities all show more definite patterns of pro-social behaviour that american individualistic societies. Lastly, Tower et ing (1997) in contrast British (individualistic) and Russian (collectivist) students.

They found the United kingdom students tended to share assets in a way that taken advantage of them, although Russians shared more in a way that benefited others. This further verifies the differences in pro-social actions in individual and collectivist societies. Yet , there are some limitations in reference to this research. Firstly, studies carried out using comparison research in two different cultures cause’s problems because psychologists usually use study methodologies made in one tradition to evaluate behaviour in another culture ( an imposed etic).

These may have different meanings inside the second lifestyle, and lead them to draw unjustifiable conclusions regarding people from that culture. Subsequently, the meaning of helping behavior is a vital concept and research studies disregard the fact that this varies across cultures. Finally, much of the research carried out on human helping behaviour on the western part of the country takes place in laboratories, while much of the exploration in non-Western cultures is definitely field analysis. Laboratory studies lack the social circumstance of aiding therefore the studies suffer from low ecological validity meaning the findings may not apply to real world pro-social actions.

Also, clinical studies experience high demand qualities because participants try to become they have been socialized to do so (as individuals) mainly because they realize they are being watched and evaluated. However, field tests are more difficult to control as a result confounding variables may be more likely to arise. Urban-rural differences Differences in pro-social conduct may also are present due to urban-rural differences. Study Evidence Korte et al (1981) looked at differences in assisting behaviour in two European cities and 4 small Turkish towns.

Useful assistance was examined through a various methods, including the willingness to alter money or perhaps participate in a short interview. They found helpfulness was larger for people inside the small neighborhoods than for anyone in large cities. This evidence for that reason supports the view outside the window that urban-rural differences might cause differences in pro-social behaviour. Milgram (1970) suggested the Information overload theory. This kind of suggested that individuals in metropolitan environments (such as large cities) are so familiar with urgent situations that they treat them as each day occurrences.

This kind of explains so why they are not as likely to attract interest and so folks are less likely to assist. Evaluation Korte et al’s (1981) examine has been rebuked as it is limited to Turkey. However , Steblay (1987) conducted a meta-analysis of 65 side by side comparisons between country and downtown populations extracted from all over the world. That they found that regardless of the form of help required ( nonserious ” serious) more support was are available in rural than urban areas. This confirms Korte et al’s findings. The studies support later study which suggests that population density is a better predictor of helping than population size.

Latene and Darley (1970) have recommended that this is a result of Diffusion of responsibility. They claimed that higher populations create a greater diffusion of responsibility, consequently leading to much less individual responsibility for helping. Increased populace density is shown to cause increases in aggressive behavior. Milgrams information overload theory only supplies one explanation for urban-rural differences, there is evidence that shows there are others. Such as, urban communities are more competitive and industrialised.

Overall Evaluation Overall, civilizations create the context by which pro-social actions is learned and performed. It is therefore vital to understand the cultural point of view of how come some people help more than other folks and how come some conditions are likely to get help while others lessen it. Pro-social behaviour can be helpful, however it is also important in the expansion and extension of interpersonal relationships, which is an essential message from the examine of ethnical differences. c) Media Affects on Pro- and Anti-social behaviour

Work with for: a) Outline two or more answers of multimedia influences about anti-social actions (12 marks) b) About what extent do research studies support the view the media are in charge of for anti-social behaviour (12 marks) a) Outline and evaluate one or more studies relating to media impacts on pro-social behaviour (12 marks) b) Outline and evaluate one or more studies in relation to media affects on anti-social behaviour (12 marks) The definition of media identifies any channel of communication.

Most study in this area is focused upon two types of press; television and films. Press Influences about Pro-social actions According to some researchers mass media can be great and cause pro-social actions. Explanations Cultural Learning theory Bandura’s (1965) Social learning theory can easily explain the relationship between Pro-social and media and conduct. The theory promises that we find out ways of behaving through noticing and imitating those behaviours that are prone to bring an incentive.

As a result, they may be more likely to be associated with reinforcement and so the kid is encouraged to replicate them. Bogus is also much more likely if the observer identifies with all the character on television e. g. similar in terms of age or perhaps gender or perhaps because they are respected. This justification is supported by Sprafkin et al (1975) who examined 6 year old children that have been placed in 3 different conditions. In state 1 kids watched an episode of Lassie in which a boy was seen jeopardizing his your life in order to save a puppy.

In condition a couple of children saw a different event from Lassie in which zero helping was involved. In condition a few the children viewed an show of a funny programme. Following watching the programmes, the children were in that case given the opportunity to help a few distressed pups. However , to accomplish this they had to stop playing a game in which they will could have gained a prize. The studies showed those children who watched the rescue picture spent an average of over 80 seconds assisting the puppy dogs, compared with lower than 50 secs by the kids who watched the different TV programmes.

This implies that the children copied specific acts they had seen. However , this kind of study may be criticised as it suffers from low ecological quality as the technique used was a laboratory try things out. Therefore the same findings might not apply to the actual. Anti-Stereotypes A few television programme use counter-top stereotypes to be able to down existing stereotypes, this might also be pro-social. This is maintained Johnston and Ettema (1982).


< Prev post Next post >