1_Prosocial Behaviour

Prosocial behaviour is:

A man sexually assaulted Kitty Genovese in 1964. There were reportedly 38 witnesses in the 30-minute span in which it had occurred. Darley and Latané (1968) highlighted that all the witnesses involved would have been aware of others that were there to see it as well. What was this effect called?

According to Darley and Latané (1968), were participants more or less likely to help when the participant was alone?

According to Darley and Latané (1968), were participants more or less likely to help when there were up to four others involved that required additional help?

Was there a significant difference when it came to sex differences in the Darley and Latané (1968) study?

Was there a significant difference when it came to whether or not a bystander was medically qualified in the Darley and Latané (1968) study?

Manning (et al., 2007) criticised the Darley and Latané (1968) study. How many witnesses were there at the scene?

According to Manning (et al., 2007) did witnesses call the police after the man's initial attack (Darley and Latané, 1968)?

According to Manning (et al., 2007) did witnesses attempt to notify the police (Darley and Latané, 1968)?

Did Dickerson (2012) find there to be erroneous reporting in the Kitty Genovese case?

What do the Dickerson (2012) findings imply?

Are the Dickerson (2012) findings largely within the realm of social psychology, or out of it?

According to the Piliavin, Rodin, and Piliavin (1969) findings, did onlookers spontaneously help when a person collapsed on a train?

Did the proportion of people that helped a person who had collapsed spontaneously on a train differ significantly dependent on its cause?

Can the bystander effect explain the results found by Piliavin, Rodin, and Piliavan (1969) for prosocial behaviour on a train for someone who has spontaneously collapsed?

In discussion of the role of attribution in prosocial behaviour, how successful was the request for notes when there was no internal attribution (eg, "Someone stole my notes at lunch break")?

In discussing the role of attribution in prosocial behaviour, what are the effects of being helped when a person appears inebriated (eg, drunk) or smells of alcohol?

Between the two groups, who is more likely to be helped by bystanders in terms of prosocial behaviour: welfare recipients or the poor?

When people decide to help another person, do they go through a list of internal cognitive processes?

Piliavin (et al., 1981) incorporated a model to explain prosocial behaviour. It has (a) physical or psychological arousal, (b) the attribution of the cause of arousal, and (c) a cost-benefit analysis - or diffusion of responsibility. What is the made of the model?

According to Piliavin (et al., 1981), participants perceive a situation to be more or less costly when others are involved?

In a Darley and Latané (1968) study, participants conducted an internal cost-benefit analysis of whether or not to report a seizure. What were the arousal levels of the non-reporting participants?

In a Darley and Latané (1968) study, participants conducted an internal cost-benefit analysis of whether or not to report a seizure. What happened to the non-responding participants?

In a Darley and Latané (1968) study, participants conducted an internal cost-benefit analysis of whether or not to report a seizure. What happened to the participants that were indecisive?

A criticism of prosocial behaviour explanations in terms of its focus is that:

Do prosocial behaviour explanations account for groups or the socially-constructed natures of prosocial behaviour?

Participants' football team preferences were made salient in the Levine (et al., 2005) study. What happened when participants encountered a jogger that had hurt their ankle when running?

Participants' football team preferences were made salient in the Levine (et al., 2005) study. What happened when the jogger was dressed as a supporter of their own team?

Participants' football team preferences were made salient in the Levine (et al., 2005) study. What happened when the jogger was dressed as supporters of a different team to the participants?

Participants' football team preferences were made salient in the Levine (et al., 2005) study. What happened when the jogger was dressed without a football shirt on?

According to Levine (et al., 2005) what effect does the perception of common group perception and attitudes have on prosocial behaviour?

According to the Levine (et al., 2005) findings, do relevant group identities need to become more active or salient during specific times for prosocial behaviour to become more plausible?

What did Saucier, Miller, and Doucet (2005) find in their 31-study review of the levels of prosocial behaviour between black and white students?

Do the findings by Saucier, Miller, and Doucet (2005) highlight both racism and ingroup-outgroup mentalities?

According to the social constructionist perspective, are the descriptors of prosocial behaviour accurate? Furthermore, can they be used by anyone?

Does the overly individualistic focus on prosocial behaviour neglect localised interactional context in which attributions are made?

According to Dickerson (2012), if the attributions through explanatory talk are being used to justify certain behaviours in a certain light, can they be treated as direct or straightforward representations?

Ichheiser (1943) argued that attributions are not simply single cognitive events because they must be considered in wider social contexts. According to Cherry (1995):

Ichheiser (1943) argued that attributions are not simply single cognitive events because they must be considered in wider social contexts. Can giving money to homeless people be constructed differently depending on where you are?

Ichheiser (1943) argued that attributions are not simply single cognitive events because they must be considered in wider social contexts. Were the "good samaritans" of the 1930s really prosocial?

Foucault mentioned that psychology researchers' constructions may be upholding particular ideologies. If we construct psychology as "neutral" or "value-free", could we be subtly reinforcing and legitimising oppressive attitudes (eg, racism, sexism)?

Burr (2006) noted how psychology constructs itself as "neutral" or "value-free". For example, it highlights variables, uses scientific jargon, is written in third-person, and does not reflect on social influences in its research. Does this construction distract from the researcher's own personal interests?

Did Darley and Latané (1968) omit a crucial item of information in the Kitty Genovese case, according to Cherry (1995), in which a man was attacking a woman?

According to Cherry (1995) in regards to the Darley and Latané (1968) study on Kitty Genovese, was this a neutral thing to do?

Did Darley and Latané (1968) believe that they were contributing to research that now believes crowds facilitate antisocial behaviour?

Burr (2006) suggested two ways that psychologists can use to avoid subtly reinforcing oppressive attitudes. One of them is:

Burr (2006) suggested two ways that psychologists can use to avoid subtly reinforcing oppressive attitudes. Another way is to: