Read Psychology for Dummies Online
Authors: Adam Cash
Tags: #Psychology, #General, #Body; Mind & Spirit, #Spirituality
Psychology for Dummies (52 page)
One of the most remarkable findings in altruism research is the idea that people are less likely to help when they’re in the presence of others than when they’re alone. This sounds kind of strange doesn’t it? I would have thought that the fear of looking cold or uncaring in front of others may encourage people to help more. The research shows otherwise. When we’re in crowds, we’re actually less likely to notice that other people need help. In New York City, for example, people are always surrounded by other people. It’s a crowded place, and most people don’t take the time to notice everything and everyone around them. It’s easier to fade into a crowd.
Strangely enough, when others are around, we are also less likely to interpret someone’s behavior as indicative of needing help. We look to others for a sign as to how we should respond in a situation, and if they don’t act alarmed, we typically won’t either. If the situation is ambiguous, not a clear-cut helping situation, our interpretation of the event in the presence of others is likely to be that intervention is not required. This is especially true if the other people are strangers.
A final problem with helping in the presence of others is called
diffusion of responsibility.
We always think someone else will do it. If no one else is around, we’ve got to help. But if others are around, we assume “they’ll do it.” What happens when everyone assumes that everyone else is going to offer assistance? Help doesn’t get offered. That’s exactly what two researchers, Latane and Darley, found in a 1968 study.
It’s not all bad news when it comes to groups though. Test in 1967 actually found that when someone in a group takes action, others are more likely to jump in. These people serve as
prosocial models
and are a strong influence on altruistic behavior. The problem is getting someone to make the first move. Until someone does, the negative forces of the bystander effect
are active. The
bystander effect
is when we don’t get involved in a situation when there are too many people standing around; we just stand there. So go ahead and be a hero. Make the first move — someone has to.
What about feelings? I’ve always wondered about the origins of the tradition of buying cigars for friends when a baby boy is born. I still don’t know where it comes from, but altruism research has shown that happy people tend to be more helpful people. Does that mean that sad people aren’t helpful at all? It actually depends on how rewarding helping others is to the person experiencing sadness. If they’re not self-absorbed and self-focused, altruistic acts can be very rewarding for those who are sad. Feeling good, doing good! Feeling bad, doing good! Sounds good, especially if I’m feeling bad.
The pious among us are often viewed as helpful. Many non-profit organizations are operated by religious organizations. But are religious people really more helpful? When people indicate that religion is very important in their lives, they have been found to give 2.5 times as much money to charity as those who indicate that religion is not very important. The verdict is in — religious individuals are definitely generous, and in at least one study, they’re more generous than non-religious individuals.
Crowley in 1986 found that women get helped more often than men, and attractive women get helped more often than unattractive women. I guess the ugly men out there are out of luck. Luckily for them, similarity to the helper seems to be a factor. Emswiller in 1971 found that the more someone looks like or dresses like us, the more likely we are to help them out. So, if that ugly guy can find another ugly guy when he needs help, all is well!
In This Chapter
Getting started
Exploring and mastering
Expanding
Experimenting
Building
Consolidating
H ave you ever wondered what it would be like to have a psychologist as a parent? What if both parents were psychologists? Would that be a good thing or a bad thing? Would the average dinner-table conversation sound something like the following dialogue?
Parent:
How was your day today?
Child:
Fine.
Parent:
Fine, huh? That’s funny; somebody doesn’t look like he had an alright day. What about it honey? How was your day, really?
Child:
I got into a fight with that big, stupid bully at school again. Well, I didn’t really get into a fight. He just took my lunch pail and threw it into the trashcan.
Parent:
How did that make you feel? Frustrated? Angry? What role did you play in the situation?
Child:
You know, just once I’d like to hear you say that you’ll do something about it or protect me somehow. Maybe you could teach me how to defend myself. I’m tired of being in therapy at the dinner table. I’m going to my room.
Parent:
Well, I guess I messed that one up. How does that make me feel?
I don’t know if having a psychologist as a parent is necessarily a good thing or a bad thing. Some people seem to think that everything the child does would be overanalyzed. In some respects, that’s not completely fair. If a parent was a pediatrician, would people expect her to leave her medical knowledge at the door and not treat her own children if they became ill? Of course not. However, anything can be overdone.
One of the largest areas of psychological study is psychological development. Although most people only think of children when they hear the term, developmental psychology covers the entire span of human life. This approach is called
lifespan psychology
— the study of human psychological development from conception to death.
Some of the areas traditionally covered in lifespan psychology are covered in other chapters in this book. Personality development, for example, is covered in Chapters 11 and 12. Self development and the development of relationships are covered in Chapter 13. Therefore, this chapter focuses on physical and motor development, cognitive development, and social development. In addition, I only cover the periods of development from conception to adolescence because these seem to be the most emphasized areas in developmental research.
The process of psychological development begins with conception. Genetic processes, which play a big part in the future development of behaviors and mental processes, originate with the union of a woman’s egg and a man’s sperm. Each coupling creates a new genetic combination called a
genotype
— the genetic makeup of each individual. Through a complex process that’s best understood by geneticists and biologists, our genes express themselves in what is called our
phenotype
— the actual manifestation of genetic codes in observable biological and psychological processes as shaped and impacted by our environment. So, I may have the genotype for being tall and muscle-bound but if I suffer from malnutrition and never lift weights, I might be letting my genotype down.
Both the sperm and the egg are specialized cells in the body that contain half of the genetic material necessary to make a whole person and are called
sex cells
because they are involved in sexual reproduction. Human beings contain 46 chromosomes. We get 23 chromosomes from our mothers and 23 from our fathers. Non-sex related cells contain a full set of genetic material with 46 chromosomes. Our chromosomes determine the unique aspects of our biological and psychological makeup. They are the genetic building blocks of our cellular construction.
The 23rd pair of chromosomes, the sex chromosomes, determines the sex of the child. Sex chromosomes can be either X chromosomes or Y chromosomes. Sperm cells can carry either an X or a Y chromosome, but an egg can only carry an X. When the sperm and the egg get together, their unique combination determines the sex of the child. Boys have a 23rd chromosome pair that contains one X and one Y (XY) chromosome. Girls have two Xs (XX). Because the mother can only give an X chromosome and the father can give either an X or a Y, the father’s sex-chromosome contribution plays the deciding role.
The role of genetics in human behavior and mental processes has been part of the decades-long debate known as the
nature versus nurture
debate. Proponents of the nature argument believe that our behavior is genetically determined. Biology is destiny, so to speak. The nurture advocates believe that the environments we grow up in determine our psychological makeup. This debate has been basically squashed in the last 25 years by the position that both biological and environmental factors are involved, with different weight being given to one or the other depending on the psychological process in question.
