ALTRUISM

Submitted by: Curtis Lang (282782) Submitted to: Timothy y!hy"# ro$essor Moti%ating &umans# 'irst (ear Seminar# sy!ho"ogy ()*+*,8) -ate: Mar!h 7# 2)))

Abstra!t Altruism is defined as behaviour intended to benefit others without obvious benefit in return (Brammer, 1985). Evolutionary theories regarding relatedness, re i!ro al altruism, and the mani!ulation of others for !ersonal benefits e"!lain hel!ing behaviours for the !er!etuation of our s!e ies. Altruisti a ts an be determined through early so iali#ation by means of television and adult role models. $nternal mediators su h as em!athy, norms, and emotions an in rease the li%elihood of altruisti a ts, while grou! si#e, lo ation, and re!utation or a!!earan e an limit and onstrain a !erson&s hel!ing behaviour.

A'()*$+, Altruism is a fas inating sub-e t of study for many of today&s s ientists. Altruism is defined as . behaviour intended to benefit others without obvious benefit in return. (Brammer, 1985). (he term .altruism. was dis overed by an early /ren h so iologist by the name of Auguste 0omte (1198 2 1851) (3is!e, 1918). 3hether or not a !erson will a t altruisti ally is affe ted by the evolutionary develo!ment of altruism, early so iali#ation, internal mediators and so ial onstraints. Altruism affe ts many !arts of !eo!le&s lives in our so iety, but is there any advantage that altruisti a ts give the human ra e4 Evolutionary (heories 5arwin (the father of evolution) develo!ed ideas about altruism and its onne tion with his theories about the survival of the fittest. 6e believed that altruism ould be e"!lained through evolutionary theories involving relatedness, re i!ro al altruism, and the mani!ulation of others to behave altruisti ally towards you. (he advantage to hel!ing, 5arwin believed, has always been the assured ontinuation of the human ra e.

)elatedness was one of 5arwin&s theories with regards to the evolution of altruism. )elatedness an be understood to refer to . the altruism between any relatives that an be favoured by sele tion. (5arwin, 1811). (he idea behind this theory is that through natural sele tion of altruisti emotions and a ts, and 5arwin&s on e!t of .survival of the fittest,. we as humans, to be the fittest of our s!e ies, have develo!ed within our genes the ability to hel! others without e"!e tation of !ayba %. (his hel!ing behaviour gives those members of our s!e ies who have the ability to be altruisti , an advantage. (his advantage to survival is due to the fa t that when we hel! others who are in need, su h as young and elderly within our s!e ies, we give them a better han e of surviving. (he in reased han e of survival for an individual means a greater han e of survival for the s!e ies and then enables us to !ass down our genes to our hildren so they an then ontinue to !reserve the human ra e(5arwin, 1811). (he on ern for others in our s!e ies may even start to be s!read by the !eo!le we hel! be ause of the aid they re eived. )e i!ro al altruism was another one of 5arwin&s idea&s on erning the role of altruism in the survival of our s!e ies. )e i!ro al altruism states that be ause !eo!le have evolved altruisti ally, they have an advantage whi h when used will s!read and ome ba % to hel! them at a later date (5arwin, 1811). (his means that humans have evolved to be altruisti to others so that if they were to hel! someone one day, the same !erson ould ome ba % to hel! them in return for the hel! he7she re eived earlier. /or this theory to wor%, the !erson who was hel!ed must either be a!able of re ogni#ing the individual who hel!ed them or .must be able to dis riminate in favour of other re i!ro ators in some way. in order to be able to return the hel! (5arwin, 1811). A good e"am!le of this re i!ro al altruism is the human s!e ies and the ba teria in our digestive tra t whi h does not %ill us. (he ba teria need us to feed them so they an survive and then the ba teria brea%s down our food, in return we ontinue to feed them. (his be omes a mutual relationshi! where both organisms benefit. 'ife is not always that way, however, many organisms will try to benefit without giving hel! in return, as will be dis ussed later. (he final theory !ro!osed by 5arwin that tries to e"!lain why the human s!e ies has evolved to be altruisti states that we mani!ulating others to behave altruisti ally towards us. A ording to this theory, an outside organism mani!ulates a host organism to a t altruisti ally for the benefit of the mani!ulating organism (5arwin, 1811). (his theory !ro!oses the idea that we do not a t altruisti ally to survive as a s!e ies, but rather we are oer ed into doing something hel!ful for another without reali#ing the other organisms motives. $n doing this we wor% altruisti ally for the benefit of others, without any %nowledge of the altruisti a t (5arwin, 1811). An e"am!le of this evolutionary theory is male fireflies being lured by the false flashes of .femmes fatales., who end u! eating them after they have been su essfully lured to them ('loyd, 1915). 8ot everyone, however, believes that evolutionary develo!ment has led our s!e ies to be altruisti . A lot of resear h has su!!orted the idea that altruism is a learned behaviour. (he Effe ts of +o iali#ation on Altruism (he so iali#ation theory of altruism states that we learn hel!ing behaviours through means su h as television and adult role models. $n re ent years television has be ome a to!i of debate on erning whether or not television instills ertain traits in our hildren by means of the so iali#ation !ro ess. +u h debates be ome im!ortant when you ta%e in to a ount that in

8orth Ameri a alone (1) almost every family has at least one television9 (:) in these same households, the television is turned on for an average of almost si" hours a day and, (;) television ran%s third (behind slee! and wor%) for the highest sour e of time onsum!tion ()ushton, 1981). 3ith a sour e of %nowledge that is su h an integral !art of our so iety, there is a very good han e that television might influen e our lives more om!letely then we ould ever %now. $n a series of e"!eriments, several hundred si" to nine year old girls and boys were shown s!e ially onstru ted 52minute li!s of videota!e dis!laying a model who !layed in a bowling game whi h she then won and was given gift ertifi ates. (he model in the video then donated or did not donate some of her gift ertifi ates to a harity. (he hildren were observed through a one2way mirror to see how mu h of their winnings that they would donate to a similar harity based on the li!s that they were shown. (he results showed that the hildren were strongly influen ed by what they had seen the models doing on television. 0hildren who observed a generous role model gave more, while hildren who observed a selfish role model on the ta!e tended to give less (Bryan, 1915). (elevision is a ma-or sour e of observational learning. $t an also establish norms. (elevision seems to hel! determine what !eo!le will -udge to be a!!ro!riate behaviour in a variety of situations. $t has been !roven that generosity, hel!ing, oo!eration, friendliness, adhering to rules, delaying gratifi ations, and la % of fear an all be in reased by e"!osure to television !rograms, while it a!!ears that television an lead to the develo!ment of good traits, li%e altruism, $t an !romote bad traits as well ((aylor, <e!lau, = +ears, 198>). $n ontrast to televison tea hing desired ?ualities, in re ent years it has also been found to eli it hostility and anger ((aylor, <e!lau, = +ears, 198>). (elevision is an im!ortant om!onent of the so iali#ation of behaviours su h as altruism, yet it is !arents who inevitably ma%e the de ision of whether or not to let the hildren wat h the television !rograms. Along with television, another !owerful !art of our so iali#ation !ro ess is our !arents. After all we do s!end the first 18 years of our lives (usually) with our !arents, so it must be e"!e ted that they have some %ind of influen e over our attitudes. )esear h has !roven that a !ositive relationshi! between adults and hildren 2 warmth, affe tion, nurturan e and love 2 !romotes !ositive behaviour within the hild (+taub, 1981). @n the other hand, hostility and anger between !arents and hildren has been found to be asso iated with hildren&s negative behaviour and aggression, -ust li%e so iali#ation through the television ('ef%owit#, Eron, 3alder, 6aesmann, 1911). $t is im!ortant for adults to onvey !ositive emotions and attitudes in hildren for many reasons. 3armth and affe tion an reate an atmos!here in whi h hildren are most li%ely to learn what the adults are trying to instill in them through s!ee h or e"am!le. +e ond, a warm, nurturing relationshi! with an adult is li%ely to ma%e the hild want to .be li%e. that adult, and to imitate the e"am!les !ortrayed by that adult. @ne last reason why adults should treat hildren with warmth and affe tion is be ause it is li%ely to ma%e the hildren more onfident of their abilities and a tions, and ma%e them less on erned with the !ossible negative onse?uen es of imitating a tion that ould benefit others (+taub, 1988). $n a +tudy ondu ted by Aarrow = + ott, (191:), hildren were wat hed either by warm adults or by indifferent, matter of fa t, adults. (hey wat hed the adults a t out s enes with small doll figures, where the hara ters engaged in both !ositive and negative behaviour. (he hildren observed by warm adults remembered more !ositive behaviours from the s enes, while the hildren su!ervised by indifferent adults remembered more negative, aggressive, behaviours from the s enes. )esear hers state that using negative indu tion, that is, using aggression or violen e to tea h a hild ontrol and dis i!line (+taub, 1981), ould ause a hild to grow u!

to be violent and aggressive. (ea hing !ositive indu tion, whi h means s!ending ?uality time with the hild and involving the hild in the learning !ro ess (+taub, 1981), tea hes hildren !ositive and altruisti behaviours be ause hildren learn better when they are involved. 3hile e"ternal so iali#ation a ts as a tea hing tool for altruisti a ts, many internal fa tors are also im!ortant to the !rodu tion of altruisti behaviours.

$nternal ,ediators of Altruism (here are many im!ortant mediators of altruism that are o!erating inside ourselves, su h as our em!athy, norms, and emotions. 6ow we feel about things inside ourselves influen es our altruisti a ts sometimes. /or e"am!le9 how we feel about seeing someone in !ain. Em!atheti res!onses seem to be im!ortant internal mediator of altruisti a ts. Em!athy refers to . an emotional res!onse eli ited by, and ongruent with, the !er eived welfare of someone else. ()ushton = +orrentino, 1981). @ne study done had !eo!le observe a target !erson !erforming a tas% and led them to believe that the target !erson was either re eiving ele tri sho %s or was not re eiving ele tri sho %s. )esults were onsistent with the hy!othesis that !eo!le an e"!erien e vi arious emotion as a result of !er eiving another in !ain (Berger, 19B:). 3hen the sub-e t&s !er eived the target sub-e t a!!ear to get sho %ed, then that stimuli initiated emotions su h as guilt, sadness, fear E0( and inevitably led to altruisti behaviour. +o the !revious study seems to have !roven that .em!atheti emotional res!onse an lead to motivation to hel!. (Berger, 19B:). Another internal mediator of altruism is so ietal norms. Altruisti norms are .so ial e"!e tations to !erform selflessly and to refrain from selfish a ts to benefit others. (+ hwart# = 6oward, 1981). (he normative de ision2ma%ing model of altruism e"!lains that we hel! !eo!le be ause we have so ial norms and in entives in so iety that say we should hel!. /or e"am!le, often !eo!le will reward someone for hel!ing (monetary and non2monetary) (+ hwart# = 6oward, 1981). (he normative de ision2ma%ing model is a model that tries to e"!lain the !ro esses in whi h so ietal norms affe t !eo!le&s altruisti behaviour (+ hwart# = 6oward, 1981) . (he normative model in ludes five stagesC (1) A((E8($@8 (!arti ular as!e ts of the immediate situation are attended to, resulting in !er e!tions about need, !otential a tion, and ability)9 (:) ,@($DA($@8 (this set of !er e!tions a tivates the !erson&s uni?ue internal value system, generating feelings of moral obligation to !erform or refrain from the a ts)9 (;) EDA'*A($@8 (the !otential moral and non2moral osts and benefits of engaging in s!e ifi behaviours are evaluated)9 (E) 5E/E8+E (this ste! follows if evaluation indi ates that ost and benefits are somewhat balan ed)9 and (5) BE6AD$@*) (overt hel!ing or ina tion follows from the !re eding evaluation) (+ hwart# = 6oward, 1981). (hese stages are greatly effe ted by so ial norms. /or e"am!le an elderly lady in need of hel! would be a norm motivated by a so ietal norm, in ontrast a hild molester in need would be a norm that onstrains altruisti behaviour. 3hether !eo!le hel! or not an be strongly mediated by our feelings as well. +o ial 0onstraints

Emotion has a strong mediating effe t on our motivation to a t altruisti ally. $n an e"!eriment with ollege students, resear hers indu ed either !ositive, negative, or neutral moods by varying the diffi ulty of a fa%e a!titude test. Benefits for hel!ing were mani!ulated by as%ing sub-e ts to either olle t money for a worthwhile harity li%e an er, or a less worthwhile harity, li%e baseball. (hey found that !ositive mood sub-e ts volunteered more then emotionally negative, and neutral sub-e ts, but negative mood sub-e ts volunteered only more than neutral sub-e ts (3eyant, 1918). (his +tudy suggests that !eo!le with !ositive emotion (ha!!iness, e" itement, et .) are more li%ely to hel! then !eo!le with negative emotions (sadness, fear). ,any internal mediators !redi t how we will a t in a situation where an individual is in need of hel!, yet many things an onstrain the effe ts of altruism. Altruism is not only !romoted by ertain internal mediators, but it is also affe ted by so ial onstraints whi h an inhibit hel!ing behaviours. 0onstraints su h asC effe ts of grou! si#e on hel!ing9 rural and urban environments9 and, a!!earan e or re!utation of !erson in need. (he more !eo!le who observe an individual in need of hel!, the more onstrained an individual seems to be ome as a result. 3ithin so iety there e"ists rules and norms on erning the !ubli &s behaviour. 3hen !eo!le violate these norms or rules they feel ashamed and embarrassed. (he greater amount of !eo!le around when an emergen y manifests in reases !eo!le&s han es of following these norms and rules, and in turn an de rease the li%elihood of one hel!ing another (3ills, 198:). +ome norms and rules that an onstrain an individual&s altruisti a ts, and also relates to grou! si#e, are 1) being taught to mind our own business9 and :) not to stare at other !eo!le (3ills, 198:). 3hen an individual is in some form of trouble and in need of hel!, many of us will -ust turn our heads. +ometimes !eo!le don&t even reali#e that there is any trouble be ause they are too embarrassed to intervene in front of others. $f they intervene then they have to e"!lain how they %new the individual was in trouble in the first !la e, without seeming .nosey.. As well, the !resen e of others an inhibit hel!ing when an individual is fearful that their behaviour an be seen by others and evaluated negatively, ma%ing the individual a fool in the !ubli eye. <eo!le will do, or not do in this ase, almost anything to avoid loo%ing li%e a fool in today&s so iety. $t also a!!ears that on e a de ision not to hel! has been made, there is little han e that the !otential hel!ers& mind will be hanged. (his is due to the fa t that !eo!le tend to hel! right away or not at all (Be %, 199>). A study interviewed !eo!le who had intervened to hel! in a situation and found that, 9>F of the !eo!le who res!onded did so within 9> se onds after the emergen y ('antanG, = )od, 19B9). /ailing to hel! right away a!!ears to ma%e it more diffi ult for an individual to res!ond later. (his ould be due to the fa t that !eo!le don&t want to a!!ear li%e they don&t %now what to do so they -ust don&t res!ond to the !erson in need of hel! ( Be %, 199>). @n e someone has offered their hel! though, the situation is different and any a tion laun hed by others no longer has the same meaning ( Be %, 199> ). Another reason why grou! si#e affe ts an individual&s ability to rea t in a situation whi h needs hel! is be ause of so ial influen es. (his means that an individual&s de ision to hel! is influen ed by the !eo!le around him or her in an emergen y situation. $n !ubli , !eo!le generally want to a!!ear ool, alm and olle ted. $f everyone in a grou! tries to a!!ear ool, alm and olle ted, and at the same time loo% for others to define the situation re?uiring aid,

then no one will rea t to it in fear of ma%ing the wrong -udgement and loo%ing foolish. 5iffusion of res!onsibility is ommon in a grou! situation and is one idea that e"!lains why we do not end u! hel!ing in an emergen y. (he definition of diffusion of res!onsibility !ro!osesC 1) !eo!le do not a t be ause there are others around who are more a!able of hel!ing the vi tim, and who are less li%ely to ma%e the situation worse by ma%ing a mista%e ( Be %, 199>). A +tudy was done to determine the benefits of diffusing the res!onsibility to other individuals, and found that diffusing res!onsibility is used as a means of redu ing the !sy hologi al ost asso iated with non2intervention9 su h as guilt or fear ('atanG = 5arley, 191>). 3here an individual lives (rural7urban) an have a great effe t on whether or not he7she hel!s someone else. (here are three !otential e"!lanations that an be e"!lored to e"!lain why where a !erson lives affe ts their altruisti behaviourC 1) the +ituational E"!lanation9 :) the *rban <ersonality E"!lanation9 and ;) the <o!ulation Bias E"!lanation. (he +ituational E"!lanation attributes the lower levels of hel!fulness in the ity to the influen es of immediate environment fa tors (e.g., ongestion, noise levels, and high rime rates) whi h are usually more ommon in ities ()uston, = +orrentino, 1981). (he reason why these fa tors effe t the urban !o!ulation is due to the fa t that !eo!le are desensiti#ed to !eo!le needing hel! and they an&t hel! everyone in a ity. (herefore !eo!le don&t seem to rea t so strongly to emergen ies and tend to ignore them if !ossible. (his suggests that with these !arti ular environmental fa tors !resent, anyone en ountering a !erson in need of assistan e would be less hel!ful. (he *rban <ersonality E"!lanation states that living a onsiderable amount of time in a ity ma%es one less ready to res!ond to a stranger needing assistan e ( Be %, 199>). $n this theory, the onditions of living in a ity are viewed as . !rodu ing enduring habits, mannerisms and !er e!tions that ma%e the !eo!le living in ities less hel!ful.(Be %, 199>). (he . urban dwellers., in other words, have be ome desensiti#ed to all the sirens, rime, et . and they are used to not hel!ing (be ause it would be im!ossible) every individual in need. $t be omes habit, whereas rural iti#ens e"!erien e fewer emergen y situations due to rural lo ations having smaller !o!ulations and therefore are in the habit of hel!ing when they do en ounter someone in need. (he final theory su!!orting the idea that altruisti a ts an be affe ted by where you live is the <o!ulation Bias E"!lanation. (his e"!lanation argues that ity environment, or ity living, has not made ity dwellers less hel!ful, but that among the !o!ulation of !eo!le found in the ity there is a greater number of !eo!le whose !ersonality, ultural ba %ground, or !ersonal ir umstan es ma%es them less li%ely to res!ond to others who are in need of assistan e (3ills, 198:). 'arge ity !o!ulations mean that there is a greater number of !eo!le with inherent non2altruisti behaviours then would be found in rural areas, -ust due to numbers. (hese numbers are im!ortant be ause there are so few !eo!le in rural areas that you are more li%ely to onne t with an altruisti ally !rone individual, then if you were in a ity. $f you were in a ity the total amount of altruisti individuals would !robably be greater, but so would the

non2altruisti individuals, and be ause there tends to be more non2altruisti individuals in general then the han es would be greater of onne ting with them then an altruisti !erson. @ther that where a !erson lives, a more im!ortant onstraint to altruism an be affe ted by how you loo% or who you are. Altruism an even be affe ted by the way the !erson in need of hel! loo%s or be ause of their re!utation. As would be e"!e ted, it has been found that bystanders are more li%ely to hel! a !erson in need if they are neat and well dressed. $ndividuals with anes have also been found to be more li%ely to re eive hel! then would an individual arrying what a!!ears to be a bottle in a brown bag ( Be %, 199>). )e!utable a!!earing vi tims also have a better han e of getting hel!. As well as !eo!le who have ommonalities with the !erson !otentially giving the hel! (Enswiller, 5eau", = 3illits, 1911). (his is due to the .-ust world. hy!othesis whi h states that !eo!le do not hel! be ause they believe the vi tim is getting what they deserve. $f, for e"am!le, the individual en ounters a hild molester who is in need of hel!, instead of hel!ing the molester the individual would say to themselves that the molester deserves the trouble that he7she is in and by hel!ing the molester he7she would not learn from his or her .!unishment.. ,any so ial onstraints have been identified, su h as grou! si#e, urban7rural lo ation, and a!!earan e7re!utation of the vi tim. Although many more onstraints to hel!ing still e"ist, they have not been as well resear hed. $n this <a!er $ have e"!lored many things9 su h as relatedness, re i!ro al altruism, and mani!ulation of others as evolutionary theories thought to e"!lain altruism as well as television, family and other so iali#ing fa tors !romoting altruism. $nternal mediators li%e role ta%ing, em!athy and emotions whi h !romote altruism was e"amined. +o ial onstraints su h as grou! si#e, lo ation and a!!earan e7re!utation have also been e"!lored. (his e"amination has lead us to many on lusions on why we hel! others and why we do not. 6el!ing should not be seen as a hore, it should be dis over for what it really is, a onne tion to the rest of the world within ourselves to benefit the human ondition.

A"truism is defined as behaviour intended to benefit other without obvious benefit in

return. (he term .Altruism. was dis overed by an early /ren h +o iologist by the name of Auguste 0omte (1198 2 1851).

e%o"utionary theories
5arwin believed that altruism ould be e"!lained through evolutionary theories involving relatedness, re i!ro al altruism, and the mani!ulation of others to behave altruisti ally towards you Re"atedness

)elatedness an be understood in this instan e as meaning the altruism between any relatives that an be favoured by sele tion (5arwin, 1811). (he idea behind this theory is that through natural sele tion of altruisti emotions and a ts, and 5arwin&s on e!t of .survival of the fittest,. we as humans, to be the fittest of our s!e ies have develo!ed within our genes the ability to hel! others without e"!e tation Re!i.ro!a" a"truism )e i!ro al Altruism states that be ause !eo!le have evolved altruisti ally, they have an advantage whi h when used will s!read and ome ba % to hel! them some day (5arwin, 1811). mani.u"ating others to beha%e a"truisti!a""y to/ards you. (his theory e"!lains that when an outside organism mani!ulates a host organism to a t altruisti ally for the benefit of the mani!ulating organism (5arwin, 1811).

So!ia"i0ation
Te"e%ision $n a series of e"!eriments done, several hundred si" to nine year old hildren, of both female and male gender, were shown s!e ially onstru ted 52minute li!s of videota!e dis!laying of a model who !layed in a bowling game whi h she then won and was given gift ertifi ates, and then donated or did not donate some of her gift ertifi ates to a harity. (he hildren were observed through a one2way mirror to see how mu h of their winnings that they would donate to a similar harity based on the li!s that they were shown. (he results showed that the hildren were strongly influen ed by what they had seen the models doing on television. (he hildren who wat hed generosity on the ta!e gave more, while the hildren wat hing selfishness on the ta!e gave less (Bryan, 1915).

Adu"ts )esear h done has !roven to us that a !ositive relationshi! between adults and hildren 2 /armth# a$$e!tion# nurturan!e and "o%e 1 .romotes .ositi%e beha%iour /ithin the !hi"d (+taub, 1981).

@n the other hand, hosti"ity and anger bet/een .arents and !hi"dren has been $ound to be asso!iated /ith negati%e beha%iour and aggression by the !hi"dren, ('ef%owit#, Eron, 3alder, 6aesmann, 1911). $n a +tudy done, hildren were wat hed either by warm adults or by indifferent, matter of fa t, adults. (hey wat hed the adults a t out s enes with small doll figures, where the hara ters engaged in both !ositive and negative behaviour. (he hildren observing the warm adults remembered more !ositive behaviours in the s enes, while the hildren su!ervised by the indifferent adults remembered more negative, aggressive, behaviours in the s enes (Aarrow = + ott, 191:).

Interna" Mediators
2m.athy Em!athy refers to an emotional res!onse eli ited by, and ongruent with, the !er eived welfare of someone else ()ushton = +orrentino, 1981). A +tudy done had !eo!le observe a target !erson !erforming a tas% and led them to believe that, after a set of visual signals, the target !erson either was re eiving ele tri sho % or was not re eiving ele tri sho %. (hen the target !erson either -er%ed their arm or did not -er% their arm, de!ending on the visual signal. )esults were onsistent with the hy!othesis that !eo!le an e"!erien e vi arious emotion as a result of !er eiving another in !ain (Berger, 19B:). A"truisti! 3orms Altruisti norms are so ial e"!e tations to !erform selflessly and to refrain from selfish a ts to benefit others (+ hwart# = 6oward, 1981). (he normative de ision2ma%ing model of altruism e"!lains that we hel! !eo!le be ause we have so ial norms and in entives in so iety that say we should hel!. (+ hwart# = 6oward, 1981). The normati%e de!ision1ma4ing mode" in ludes five stages to itC (*) ATT23TI53 (!arti ular as!e ts of the immediate situation are attended to, resulting in !er e!tions about need, !otential a tion, and ability)9 (2) M5TI6ATI53 (this set of !er e!tions a tivates the !erson&s uni?ue internal value system, generating feelings of moral obligation to !erform or refrain from the a ts)9 (,) 26ALUATI53 (the !otential moral and non2moral osts and benefits of engaging in s!e ifi behaviours are evaluated)9 (7) -2'23S2 (this ste! follows if evaluation indi ates that ost and benefits are somewhat balan ed)9 and (8) 92&A6I5UR (overt hel!ing or ina tion follows from the !re eding evaluation)(+ hwart# = 6oward, 1981).

2motion $n an e"!eriment with ollege students, resear hers indu ed either !ositive or negative moods by varying the diffi ulty of a fa%e a!titude test. Benefits for hel!ing were mani!ulated by as%ing sub-e ts to either olle t money for a worthwhile harity for an er, or a less worthwhile harity, baseball. (hey found that !ositive mood sub-e ts volunteered more then emotionally negative, and neutral sub-e ts, but negative mood sub-e ts volunteered only more than neutral sub-e ts (3eyant, 1918).

So!ia" Constraints
so!ia" in$"uen!es. (his is defined, in this instan e, as an individual&s de ision to hel! being influen ed by the !eo!le around them in an emergen y situation. $n !ubli , !eo!le generally want to a!!ear ool, alm and olle ted. $f everyone in a grou! tries to a!!ear ool, alm and olle ted, and at the same time loo% for others to define the situation to be one that is in need of hel!, then as an !robably be seen, no one will rea t to it in fear of ma%ing the wrong -udgement and loo%ing foolish. di$$usion o$ res.onsibi"ity an be seen as beingC *) .eo."e do not a!t be!ause there are others around /ho .otentia""y 4no/ /hat they are doing to he". the %i!tim more e$$e!ti%e"y 2) do not /ant to ma4e the situation /orse by ma4ing a mista4e. A +tudy was done to determine what the benefits of diffusing the res!onsibility to other individuals has, and the resear hers found that diffusing res!onsibility an be viewed as a means of redu ing the !sy hologi al ost asso iated with non2intervention9 su h as guilt or fear ('atanG = 5arley, 191>). Lo!ation The Situationa" 2:."anation attributes the lower levels of hel!fulness in the ity to the influen es of immediate environment fa tors (e.g., ongestion, noise levels, and high rime rates) whi h are usually more ommon in ities $ The Urban ersona"ity 2:."anation in this theory, the onditions of living in a ity are viewed as !rodu ing enduring habits, mannerisms and !er e!tions that ma%e the !eo!le living in ities less hel!ful.

o.u"ation 9ias 2:."anation. (his e"!lanation argues that ity environment, or ity living, has not made ity dwellers less hel!ful, but that among the !o!ulation of !eo!le found in the ity there is a greater amount of !eo!le whose !ersonality, ultural ba %ground, or !ersonal ir umstan es ma%es them less li%ely to res!ond to others who are in need of assistan e. a..earan!e and re.utation !eo!le are more li%ely to hel! a !erson in need if they are neat and well dressed. $ndividuals with anes have also been found to be more li%ely to re eive hel! then would an individual arrying what a!!ears to be a bottle in a brown bag )e!utable a!!earing vi tims also have a better han e of getting hel!. <eo!le who have ommonalities with the !erson giving the hel! (Enswiller, 5eau", = 3illits, 1911). (his is due to the .;ust /or"d< hy.othesis /hi!h states that .eo."e do not he". be!ause they be"ie%e the %i!tim is getting /hat they deser%e.

Re$eren!es Be %, ). (199>). ,otivationC (heories and !rin i!als. 8ew HerseyC <renti e 6ill, $n . Brammer, '. (1985). (he hel!ing relationshi!C !rogress and s%ills. 8ew HerseyC <renti e 6ill, $n . )ushton, <, +orrentino, ). (1981). Altruism and hel!ing behavior. 8ew HerseyC 'awren e Erlbaum Asso iates. (aylor, <e!lau, = +ears. (198>). +o ial !sy hology. 8ew HerseyC <renti e 6ill, $n . 3ills, (. (198:). Basi <ro esses in hel!ing relationshi!s. 'ondonC A ademi !ress, $n . 3is!e, '. (1918). Altruism, +ym!athy, and hel!ing. 'ondonC A ademi !ress, $n .

)eturn to ourse wor% !age

5SITI62 A''2CT A3- 5 TIMISM CA3 &A62 &2L MAI3TAI3 &(SICAL A3- 2M5TI53AL &2ALT& A3- =2LL 92I3>

Bu hanan, I., = +eligman, ,. (1995, 199B). 'earned @!timism Aields 6ealth Benefits. J@82'$8EK. AvailableC htt!C77 ms e.rutgers.edu7e!stein7 ourses7abnormal7learned.htm

(his site, a !art of the Ameri an !sy hologi al Asso iation, gives information on the !ositive benefits of o!timism.

5ienstbier, ). A. (1995). (he $m!a t of 6umor on Energy, (ension, (as% 0hoi es, and AttributionsC E"!loring 6y!otheses /rom (oughness (heory. ,otivation and Emotion, 19, :552:B1.

)esear hers believed humour&s im!a t on !referen e for hallenging studying is mediated by energy rather than either tension or !ositive mood.

/orty men and E1 women volunteered from a basi !sy hology ourse. +ub-e ts were then se!arated into a humour and a ontrol grou! randomly. (o bring all sub-e ts to a similar low state of arousal, they were first involved in non2stimulating ?uestionnaire a tivities. 6umour ondition sub-e ts then wat hed a videota!ed segment of a!!ro"imately 1: minutes of e" er!ts from a made for (D Bill 0osby humour routine free of aggressive ontent. +ub-e ts were then as%ed about their usual entertainment !referen es whi h dealt with their !referen e for studying .right now. (Boring vs hallenging and rela"ing vs hallenging). After that sub-e ts res!onded to a mood he %list dealing with mood fa tors of elation with .leased,. .elated,. and .over-oyed. (8owlis = Ireen, 19B5). (hayer&s (1989) 1>2item dimension of (ension and Energy were assessed as well. +ub-e ts verbal s%ill was tested by !roof2reading and finding mista%es, then by finding words with the letter .a. in them. /ollowing these tas%s they were rated on hallenge, energy and stressfulness. /inally a ?uestionnaire, that as%ed sub-e ts to identify any sus!i ions that the humour se tion had !ur!oses other then what was e"!lained to them, was given.

(o !rove the hy!othesis, two multi!le regression analysis were done. (he first studied the relative ontributions of tension and energy as it dealt with .<referen e for hallenge.. (his regression showed first that tension made no signifi ant ontribution to !referen e for hallenge, se ondly with tension !artialled out, energy ontributed noti eably to !referen e for hallenge (</0).

(he se ond multi!le regression !redi ted ontributions of energy and elation to </0. Energy made another !ositive ontribution but elation didn&t. (he analysis done above !roves that the more !ositive attributions of the 'ab tas%s by the humour ondition sub-e ts were medi ated by energy rather than either tension or !ositive mood (5ienshier, 1995).

5unavold, <. A. (1991). 6a!!iness, 6o!e, and @!timism. J@82'$8EK. AvailableC htt!C77www. sun.edu7F1Ev !sy>>h7students7ha!!y.htm

(his site, a !art of 0alifornia +tate *niversity, 8orthridge, e"!lains what ha!!iness is and what o!timism an do to enhan e your ha!!iness.

/ran is, ', ,onahan, L., = Berger, 0. (1999). A 'aughing ,atter4C (he *ses of 6umor in ,edi al $ntera tions. ,otivation and Emotion, :;, 155211E.

(his study was underta%en to develo! a model that e"amines that use of humour, both su essful and unsu essful, in medi al intera tions.

(he interviews were with :: medi al !rofessionals who wor% on a daily basis with !atients suffering sever illness.

(he interview instrument was entirely o!en2ended ?uestions relating to the !rofessional&s e"!erien es with the use of humour in medi al intera tions with !atients and other !rofessionals.

(he first se tion of the interview !rovided information on ty!es of illness and treatments, and does the -ob of reassuring and setting the tone. (he se ond se tion fo uses on !rovider use of humour9 and the third se tion, on !atient and family use of humour. /inally, se tion four is a he %list of !ur!oses of humour.

(he most interesting findings began with how !atients used humour with !roviders. (hey ame u! with two main reasonsC 1) denial or distan ing of the threat of diagnosis or im!eding treatment9 and, :) e"!ression of anger or frustration with the !roviders, treatment, or illness. (he ne"t finding was !roviders to !atient humour. <rovider use humour with !atients toC 1) build ra!!ort with !atients9 :) alming and reassuring them9 and, ;) redu ing embarrassment or dis omfort about aw%ward !ro edures or moments.

(he ne"t was !rovider to !rovider humour. 6umour was used in this way to reate amaraderie among the staff in dealing with stressful situations. /inally, there was also !atient to !atient humour whi h was used to bond !atients with similar illnesses and normali#e their e"!erien e somewhat.

Hohnson, H.I, 0rofton, A., = /einstein, +.B. (199B). Enhan ing attributional style and !ositive life events !redi t in reased ho!efulness among de!ressed !sy hiatri in !atients. ,otivation and Emotion, :>, :852:91.

)esear hers as% in this +tudyC 5oes Enhan ing Attributional +tyle and <ositive 'ife Events <redi t $n reased 6o!efulness among 5e!ressed <sy hiatri $n!atients4

<arti i!ants were only allowed to do the +tudy if they hadC 1) diagnosis with ma-or de!ressive disorder9 and, :) a non2#ero baseline res!onse to B5$, $tem : indi ating the !resen e of ho!elessness. A sam!le of 1B females and 1B males met the riteria.

(he measures used wereC 1) (he Be % 5e!ression $nventory (Be % = Beamesdorfer, 1919) has been used for the assessment of de!ression with :12items9 :) (he Be % 6o!elessness + ale (Be % et al., 191E), a :>2item true7false self2re!ort s ale, assesses ho!elessness by indi ating !arti i!ant&s negative e"!e tan ies about the future9 and, ;) (he 5ysfun tional Attitudes + ale (5A+9 3eissman, 19199 3eissman = Be %, 1918) is a E>2item ?uestionnaire that assesses dysfun tional thoughts. Also, the )evised 6assles + ale to measure negative daily life events (5e'ongis, /ol%man, = 'a#arus, 1988) and (he *!lifts + ale to measure events that ma%e them .feel good. (Lanner, 0oyne, + haefer, = 'a#arus, 1981).

/irst !arti i!ants were given a !a %age of all the studies to om!lete along with data about age, edu ation, ethni ity, gender, and !sy hiatri history. Muestionnaire !a %ages were re2 administered 5, 1> and 15 days after ; times.

(he finding indi ated that baseline enhan ing attributional style was negatively orrelated with subse?uent B6+ and B5$ s ores, and that follow2u! *+ s ores were negatively orrelated with follow2u! B5$ s ores. (he results of the tests indi ated that the de!ressed !ersons who have an enhan ing attributional style and who e"!erien e a large number of !ositive life events are more li%ely than others to be ome more ho!eful, and thereby, less de!ressed.

An im!ortant note is that only two ty!es of de!ressoty!i ognitions were assessed. (herefore, it is im!ortant for future resear h investigating whether de!ressoty!i thoughts ontribute to re overy from de!ression to assess other ty!es of de!ressoty!i thoughts.

Lui!er, 8. A., = ,artin, ). A. (1998). 'aughter and +tress in 5aily 'ifeC )elation to <ositive and 8egative Affe t. ,otivation and Emotion, ::, 1;;215;.

(his +tudy investigated the !ro!osal that in reased laughter an serve to moderate the affe tive im!a t of negative life events.

(he sam!le onsisted of 5> women and ;> males.

(he measures used wereC 1) Affe t $ntensity ,easure (A$,9 'arsen et al., 198B) is a E>2item true7false inventory that assesses the intensity of both !ositive and negative emotional e"!erien es9 :) (he <ositive and 8egative Affe t + ale. (he <A8A+ (3atson et al., 1988) onsists of two 1>2item s ales designed to assess res!ondents& levels of !ositive and negative affe t9 and, ;) 5aily +tress $nventory (5+$).. (he 5+$ (Brantley et al., 1981) is a 582item self2 re!ort measure that assesses a wide range of daily events that might !rove stressful or un!leasant for an individual.

/irst sub-e ts had individual sessions om!leting affe tive measures relating to *+ affe t intensity (A$,)9 and !redominant !ositive and negative affe t over the !revious month (<A8A+). +ub-e ts re orded their answers for these measures over ; days.

<arti i!ants re!orted an average of 11 in idents of laughter !er day. <ositive affe t levels were slightly higher during the morning then in the evening. ,en who re!ort more !ositive affe t during the !revious month tend to smile more.

/or those !eo!le dis!laying low levels of laughter a ross the ; days, higher levels of total daily stress are learly asso iated with in reased levels of negative emotion. @n the other hand and as !redi ted by the hy!othesis individuals dis!laying high levels of laughter did not show an in rease in their level of negative emotion as their total daily stress s ores in reased.

'ef ourt, 6. ,., = ,artin, ). A. (198B). +ense of 6umor as a ,oderator of 'ife +tressC +tudy 1. $n A.0. Iaw (Ed.), 6umor and 'ife +tressC Antidote to Adversity (!!.5:251).

(he resear hers for this study hy!othesi#ed that humour redu es the im!a t of negative life e"!erien es on moods. (he study was ondu ted with 5B sub-e ts (:9 males and :1 females), who were enrolled in a first year !sy hology lass. ,any measures about stress, humour and moods were given during wee%ly half2hour testing !eriods that ha!!ened in thEe sub-e ts lass.

(he measures of interest for this study were as followsC

'ife Events of 0ollege +tudents (+andler = 'a%ey, 198:). +ub-e ts were told to he % off the events that they e"!erien ed during the !re eding year as well as rating the effe t it had on their lives. A s ore for the negative life events were obtained for ea h !erson by using only events that had a negative effe t.

<rofile of ,ood +tates (<@,+), (, 8air, et al, 1911). <arti i!ants filled out this s ale in terms of how they had generally been feeling in the !re eding month. (his measure gives s ores on 5 negative moods (tension, de!ression, anger, fatigue, and onfusion) and one !ositive mood (vigor). + ores were given by summing u! the 5 negative mood s ores and then subtra ting the vigor s ores.

+ituational 6umor )es!onse Muestionnaire (+6)M). 5esigned to determine !eo!le&s sense of humour in terms of the fre?uen y whi h they onvey mirth in a wide variety of situations.

+ense of 6umor Muestionnaire (+6M) (+veba%, 1919). (his :12item measure gives s ores on ; sub2s alesC 1) metamessage sensitivity whi h is the degree whi h !eo!le noti e humourous stimuli in their environments9 :) !ersonal li%ing of humour whi h is the degree to whi h sub-e ts re!ort valuing humour9 and ;) on erned with the degree to whi h sub-e ts e"!ress their emotions, in luding humour.

0o!ing 6umor + ale (,artin = 'ef ourt, 198;). (his measure was designed s!e ifi ally to assess the degree that sub-e ts re!ort using humour as a means to o!e with stressful situations.

After being sub-e ted to a hierar hi al multi!le regression analysis, they found sub-e ts with high s ore on the measure of sense of humour had a wea%er relationshi! between negative life events and de!ressed moods than those with a lower sense of humour s ore. Another finding

was a negative life events in reased, low humour sub-e ts re!orted higher levels of disturbed mood than the high humour sub-e ts did. 8egative effe ts of stress were lower for !eo!le who laughed and smiled in many situations, who !la ed a high value on humour, and who made use of humour as a means of o!ing with stress than the rest of the sub-e t.

'ef ourt, 6. ,., = ,artin, ). A. (198B). +ense of 6umor as a ,oderator of 'ife +tressC +tudy :. $n A.0. Iaw (Ed.), 6umour and 'ife +tressC Antidote to Adversity (!! 51259).

(his +tudy tries to !rove that humour redu es the im!a t of negative life e"!erien es on moods. +ub-e ts were :9 male and ;; female undergraduates. +ub-e ts were first given (he 'ife Events measure, a mood s ale, and the +6)M. (he life events measure was the 'ife E"!erien es +urvey (+arason, Hohnson, = +iegel, 1918). +ub-e ts he %ed off and rated the negative or !ositive im!a t on events from the !revious year. (he negative life events by the ratings ta%en. After om!letion of the ?uestionnaire the sub-e ts were individually seated at a table with a do#en ob-e ts (old tennis shoe, drin%ing glass, et .) and were instru ted to ma%e a ;2minute omedy routine by des ribing the ob-e ts on the tale in a humourous way as !ossible. A ta!e re order was then turned on while the e"!erimenter left the room for ; minutes. (he monologues were s ored by (urner&s method for 1) the number of witty remar%s9 and :) overall wittiness on a > to ; s ale9 > 2 not humourous omments9 and, to ; 2 a regular omedy routine with total monologues dire ted towards humourous remar%s.

$ndividuals who re!orted e"!erien ing high stress during the !re eding year were somewhat better able to !rodu e humour. (his rules out the argument that high2humour sub-e ts are less affe ted by stress be ause they e"!erien ed less fre?uent negative events. +ub-e ts that were able to !rodu e humour .on demand. in an im!rom!tu omedy routine showed a lower relationshi! between life stressors and disturbed moods then those who were less able to !rodu e . omedy on demand.. +ub-e ts who were able to !rodu e a humourous monologue in the lab also tended to re!ort that they e"hibited mirth in many situations. Eviden e of stress2buffering effe t of humour was obtained for this study.

'ef ourt, 6. ,., = ,artin, ). A. (198B) +ense of 6umor as a ,oderator of 'ife +tressC +tudy ;. $n A.0. Iaw (Ed.), 6umor and 'ife +tressC Antidote to Adversity (!!. 592B;).

(his +tudy assumed that the sub-e ts who were best able to reate a witty monologue the film administered would be those who also ma%e use of humour in real2life stressful situations.

(he rating of humour obtained by this means would, when entered into a multi!le regression e?uation, demonstrate strong moderating effe t of the relationshi! between negative life events and urrent mood disturban es.

+ub-e ts were 1E males, and 11 females who volunteered to !arti i!ate. (hese sub-e ts had !reviously om!leted the 'ife Events of 0ollege +tudents ?uestionnaire and the !rofile of ,ood +tates as well as several humour s ales in lassroom sessions. (he film (Subincision) was then !resented and sub-e ts were as%ed to reate humourous narratives to the film. A ta!e re order was turned on as the resear hers left the room. (he re orded narratives were rated for overall humourousness on a s ale from > to ; using (urner&s (198>) s oring riteria. /ollowing the film sub-e ts were given a brief ?uestionnaire on their usual fre?uen y and ause of humour.

(here was no se" differen es un overed. (he rating of the humourousness of the narratives to the film refle t the !arti i!ants use of humour in stressful situations.

Eviden e of the stress buffering effe t of humour was obtained.

(his +tudy was a following study to the !revious study by 'ef ourt = ,artin, (198B).

Ieneral !redi tions were that humour would be !ositively asso iated with self on e!t s ores derived from s ale, and interview and greater han e of oming to terms with disability over time, that humour, self2 on e!t, vitality, and mastery would all be asso iated !ositively with the length of time that handi a!s had been endured.

+ub-e ts were 1E disabled males and 1B disabled females. Ea h sub-e t voluntarily !arti i!ated after being informed of the !ur!ose. (he level of disabilities were all severe.

(wo2hour .in home. interviews were ondu ted with sub-e ts. (he interview had two segmentsC 1) onsisting of orally given s ales9 and :) a more o!en2ended set of ?uestions. (he resear hers first used the three fa tor 'o us of 0ontrol + ale ()eid = 3are, 191E), whi h ontains measures of !ersonal and so ial system ontrol. (hese were also a measure of self2 ontrol that on erns the degree to whi h is believed to have relevan e for handi a!!ed individuals whose bodies an %ee! them from their goals ('ef ort, 198:). A shortened version of the disability +elf20on e!t + ale ('itman, 19B:) was given ne"t. (his s ale was designed to assess a disabled !ersons self2 on e!ts. /irst the s ale e"amined the disabled !ersons views of self2worth and se ondly other !eo!le&s view of the individuals self2worth. /inally, the sub-e ts were interviewed with a series of o!en2ended ?uestions based onC 1) sense of e?uality9 :) bitterness9 ;) o!enness9 E) involvement9 5) vigour9 and B) awareness. $nterviews s ores onsisted of the sum of the five !ositive ?ualities then subtra ting bitterness. (wo demogra!hi variables om!leted the data setC 1) length of time sub-e ts had endured their disabilities as om!ared with9 and :) their age.

Ditality was signifi antly related with 5isability +elf20on e!t + ale. (he relation between humour and duration of handi a! was found to be !ositive as well. (his seems to indi ate that e"!erien e with disability is asso iated with more !ositive well2being. +ub-e ts were also less li%ely to blame the so ial system for their state of being the longer they lived with their disability. 6umour was related with greater vitality and !ositive self2 on e!t, suggesting that there is a greater a e!tan e of their disabilities by those able to e"!ress humour about their disability.

)eid, ,., = As!inwall, '.(1998). +elf2affirmation redu es biased !ro essing of health2ris% information. ,otivation and Emotion, ::, 9921>;.

(his +tudy hy!othesi#ed first that e"!osure to the information that one&s behaviour may have serious health onse?uen es would !ose a threat to !ositive self2regard, and also that an o!!ortunity to affirm one&s sense of %indness would restore !ositive self2regard or boost other !sy hologi al resour es and therefore enable more o!en, less biased !ro essing of health ris% information.

+i"ty2si" women ollege students who re!orted high or low levels of daily affeine use were e"!osed to ris%2 onfirming and ris%2dis onfirming information about the lin% between affeine use and fibro ysti breast disease (/B5). +ub-e ts filled out either a ?uestionnaire about their %indness or were !ut in a no affirmation.

)esults revealed that affirmation mani!ulation made !eo!le who onsume affeine a lot more o!en, less biased of ris% related information. (his +tudy !roved that bolstering !eo!le&s self2 related resour es assists them in !ro essing useful negative information.

+eligman, ,. (1999). (he Dalue of @!timism. J@8'$8EK. AvailableC htt!C77host.mw%. o.n#7foresight2ltd7inde".htm

(his site e"!lains the value of o!timism and ways of thin%ing.

Nillmann, 5, )o %well, +, + hweit#er, L., = +undar, +. +. (199;). 5oes 6umor /a ilitate 0o!ing 3ith <hysi al 5is omfort4 ,otivation and Emotion, 11, 12:1.

(his +tudy as%ed 2 5oes 6umor /a ilitate 0o!ing 3ith <hysi al 5is omfort4

/ifty males and 5> females !arti i!ated in the investigation. (he !arti i!ants were seated at a small table with a blood2!ressure uff and a release button. (hey were then given a ?uestionnaire assessing their !ersonality traits. (hen they had their omfortability levels assessed using the blood2!ressure uffs. (hey then had the uffs determine their omfortability levels he %ed again to be sure. (hey were then given ,artin and 'ef ourt&s (198;) 0o!ing 6umour + ale. )es!ondents also indi ated their !er e!tions of how they rea ted to the !rogram on integer s ales ranging from > 2 not at all9 to 1> 2 very mu h.

(he finding show, first of all, that e"!osure to omedy is indeed a!able of elevating the threshold for !hysi al dis omfort. 0om!ared with the ontrol ondition, both subgenres of omedy, stand2u! and situation, had this effe t. Another im!ortant finding was on erning the effe t of e"!osure to tragedy on o!ing with dis omfort is that generally s!ea%ing, humour is not a uni?ue mediating ondition. 3ar! BA0L

0*)($+ 'A8I
5e!artment of <sy hology /a ulty of Arts and so ial s ien es 0arleton *niversity