Discuss Factors That Facilitate or Impede Helping Behaviour

Discuss cyphers that facilitate or shut down attentioning doings In this essay we volition discuss what defines behavior/ comp 1nt behaviour, the social, environ manpowertal and biological influences that bear upon a soulfulnesss behaviour, pro-social behaviour, and the different factors that impede destiny behaviour. Also Latane and Darleys 1968 1980 experiments and studies that were conducted to understand human behaviour will be discussed, as well as the Kitty Genovese incident, in order to research into wherefore help was non shown when in that respect were so m any populate around.Behaviour sess be define as the actions or reactions of an object or organism, usually in relation to the environment. Behaviour usher place happen consciously or subconsciously, overt or covert, and give the bounce alike be voluntary or involuntary to humans. Human behaviour can be common, unusual, accep shelve or unacceptable. dowery behaviour refers to voluntary actions in scat to help former(a)s. It is a subcategory of pro-social behaviour intentional act that helps or upbeats approximately other singular or group of individuals. This can be demonstrated by sharing, comforting, rescuing and helping.Altruistic behaviour is a subcategory of helping behaviour, which refers to pro-social behaviour that is carried out with the desire to benefit another without expectation of obtaining external or internal reward. According to the guess of universal egoism, people ar essentially selfish and self-sacrifice is an impossibility, (Dovidio 1995, as cited in pull in 2001. ) tho certain kinds of casual helping (McGuire, 1994) or low- woo altruism (Brown, 1986) seem to be fairly common, such(prenominal) as giving a stranger directions or telling them the time.Pro-social behaviour can be defined as behaviour that has positive social consequences and contributes to the somatic or psychological well being of another soul. It is thought that consanguine Selec tion is a genetic response to supporting the broader gene pool. sociable conditioning can also have been a cause and pro-social p bents pass off to pro-social children. The reciprocity norm is when help is given to those who have given help to us in the past or where people help others, conditioned that one day they whitethorn want psyche to help them in the same unselfish way of life.This can tint peoples way of helping others. As well as the social exchange conjecture where human interactions argon transactions that aim to maximize ones reward and minimize ones cost. Also the social state norm is when we should help others who really enquire it, without regard to future exchanges. It moldiness be remembered that a persons mood influences whether they would help a person in need. People who atomic number 18 in a tidy mood are much believably to do good, compared with people who are feeling b slightedful.But if helping is likely to spoil our good mood, we might not help (Isen, 1984. ) Although if the bad mood is guilt and helping can rid that, we might help. Also people in small towns are more likely to help than those squashed together in cities. Humans assessment the suitability of behaviour using social norms and adjust behaviour by way of social control. In biology, psychology and sociology, social behaviour is either behaviour directed towards society or taking place in between members of the same species.Social influences are considered the most likely factor for an individual to engage in helping behaviour. Social influences can be defined as the sum of all things that may change or affect a persons behaviour, thoughts, feelings or actions. Studies on social influences might centre on ways in which behaviour of individuals or a whole group is influenced by outside factors, a persons outlook or simply how they appear. An example of these influences was demonstrated by Piliavin et al, 1969, when educatee experimenters would pretend t o collapse in a subway compartment.They would fall to the tarradiddle and wait to see if theyd be helped. There were two conditions some would be carrying a cane (known as the lame condition), and others would wear a jacket which smelled very strongly of alcohol and carried a bottle in a brown paper bag (known as the drunk condition. ) They arrange that help was offered much less often in the drunk than in the lame condition. This shows that the importance of difference is a social influence that determines whether a person helps a victim.Therefore the greater the victims injury, distress or disfigurement, or the more we disapprove of them or their undesirable behaviour, the more likely we are to distinguish them as being different from ourselves. This makes it less likely that we would offer help. Helping behaviour can also be effected by environmental factors, for instance different areas (rural or urban areas), culture differences, simple factors such as the time of day and al so time whether a person is busy, running late or heading somewhere.In order to see how the cost of time would affect helping behaviour Darley and Batson, 1973 (as cited in Gross, 2001) created an experiment called, If you need help avoid a late Samaritan. This involved participants who were students at a theological seminary, who were instructed to present a talk in a nigh building. The students were halved one half was told to speak about The Good Samaritan spell the other half were told to speak about jobs most enjoyed by seminary students. Then for separately one student was told either a. He was ahead of schedule and had plenty of time, b. He was right on schedule, or . He was late. On the way to their talk, each student passed a man slumped in a doorway, coughing and groaning. The percentages oblation help were 63, 45 and ten for conditions a, b and c. Ironically, the results showed that on several occasion the late students who were giving a talk about The Good Samarita n literally stepped over the victim. This study shows that the cost of time is an important influence on whether an individual chooses to help. Also many studies have found that people tend to help others during daylight when there is no threat to their safety compared with nighttime time.Also personal factors are very strong influences on helping behaviour. The table below shows the costs of helping/ not helping in emergencies/ non-emergencies, and the likeliness/ type of interjection, as predicted by the arousal-cost-reward model (based on Piliavin et al, 1969. ) cost of helping/not helping and likely outcome Examples Costs of helping are low Youre unlikely to be injured yourself the victim is however shocked. Costs of helping are extravagantly Youd feel guilty other people would blame you. Likelihood of intervention very high and direct Costs of helping are high You dont like the sight of blood youre unsure what to do. Costs of helping are high Its an emergency the victi m could die. Likelihood of intervention fairly high but indirect Call for ambulance/police or ask another bystander to assist Or redefine the position leave out the victim and/ or leave the scene Costs of helping are high This drunk could turn violent or throw up over me Costs of helping are low Whod blame me for not helping? Likelihood of intervention very low Bystander may well turn away, change seats, walk away etc. Costs of helping are low It wouldnt hurt to help this wile man cross the road. Costs of helping are low He seems capable of looking after himself theres very fine traffic on the road. Likelihood of intervention fairly high Bystanders will vary, according to individual differences and how they perceive the norms operating in the particular situation. biological influences are factors concerning human instincts such as self preservation and survival. These influences are difficult to ignore because human instinct is to keep a person safe and out of harms way.Th erefore there is more likeliness of helping a victim if there is no threat to the confederates safety. But safety cannot be guaranteed and results in individuals not helping. Campbell and Church, 1969, as cited in Gross 2001, believed that punishment is a stronger influence on behaviour compared with Skinners belief that reinforcement is a stronger influence. In edge 1964, Kitty Genovese was attacked in a Queenss park lot at 3am. Thirty eight people were report who watched from their windows, while she was beaten and stabbed to death over a half hour period.Not one bystander called the police until the attacker had fled. This incident raised much concern into why nobody helped. This led Latane and Darley, together with findings from their laboratory studies, to introduce the concept of the refractory bystander or bystander apathy to represent peoples typically separated attitude towards others in need of help. The American media thought it was remarkable that out of the thirty eight witnesses not one did anything to help, Latane and Darley believed that it was precisely because there were so many, Kitty Genovese was not helped.In result to this incident Latane and Darley researched into how the number of bystanders would affect helping behaviour. They found that 90% of the time, a lone bystander was more likely to help than when many people were around. One study was confederates would drop pencils or coins in an elevator and would see if people would help them pick it up. The results were, if further one person was in the elevator, the confederate received help 40% of the time. Only this figure dropped to 20% when six other people were in the elevator. The question Why does more people = less help? is answered with triple factors.The first factor is noticing. Another of Latane and Darleys studies shows that any given bystander is less likely to notice the incident as the number of bystanders increase. For example, their 1970 experiment was having men fill out a survey by themselves or in a group. Whilst they completed their survey, smoke would start pouring into the room through and through a vent. After four minutes of smoke, 75% of musical themes who were alone report the smoke to the researcher, while unless 12% of the subjects in the group reported it. This supports there theory of more people = less help. The second factor is interpretation.This means the more people that are around, the less likely any will interpret the situation as an emergency. In the smoke experiment, alone 3 of 8 groups reported the smoke. Humans use other peoples behaviour to help measure what the reality of the situation is. The tierce factor is responsibility. In 1968, Latane and Darley produced another study. Subjects were told they were supposed to discuss problems with University Life. Each subject was put into separate rooms and was told to talk over the intercom. They were also told that no one would be listening to their conversations.Du ring the discussion, one of the subjects began having an epileptic fit and pleaded for help. When the subjects believed they were the only other person in the discussion, 85% left the room to help. However when subjects believed that there were four other people having the discussion, only 31% went to help. This over again supports the notion of more people = less help. As cited in R. Gross 2001, Psychology, The Science of Mind and Behaviour, according to Latane and Darleys 1970 decision model, before someone helps another, that person must * Notice that something is wrong, * Define it as a situation requiring help, Decide whether to take personal responsibility, * Decide what kind of help to give, * weapon the decision to intervene. This symbolizes a logical sequence of steps, showing that a prohibit response at any one step means that the bystander wont intervene. (See appendix 1 for Decision Model. ) In conclusion, helping in the form of pro-social behaviour has been studied largely in the form of bystander intervention. The reach of Kitty Genovese, together with early laboratory experiments by Latane and Darley supports the notions that when there are more people around, help is less likely to be given.Also that there are many influences that affect helping behaviour, whether it is biological, environmental or social. Nevertheless, altruism is definitely not impossible and humans are not fundamentally selfish. Future research should look into whether gender affects helping behaviour or age, for example, is an adult between 21-30 more prone to help someone quite than a teenager.