Piliavin by

Piliavin by https://padlet.com/panze_h_04/u71fxfs4z6ap Describe Piliavin's "Cost-Reward Model for Helping Behaviour". en-us 2017-01-18 08:01:32 UTC 2025-11-19 12:24:59 UTC hello@padlet.com Soph https://padlet.com/panze_h_04/u71fxfs4z6ap/wish/147796027 Also called the: "arousal cost-reward model", this model assumes that when one individual (bystander) witnesses aonther enduring distress, this bystander will find the situation PHSYIOLOGICALLY arousing. This physiological arousal creates a sense of unpleasant emotion for the bystander and therefore to reduce this, they will intervene and help the distressed individual.
If an individual sees an event to have low net costs, they are more likely to intervene. Costs can be put in two categories; Costs of helping and costs of not helping.

Costs of helping - effort, embarrassment and possible physical harm
Costs of not helping - self blame and guilt.

If an individual sees the event to have an abundance of rewards, they will be more likely to intervene and help.

Rewards of helping - praise from self, onlookers and the victim
Rewards of not helping - not incurring the costs and getting on with ones own business.

]]> 2017-01-18 13:28:18 UTC https://padlet.com/panze_h_04/u71fxfs4z6ap/wish/147796027 Cost Reward Model-Zuz https://padlet.com/panze_h_04/u71fxfs4z6ap/wish/147811361 Piliavin et al. developed a model to explain their results. Called the Arousal: Cost – Reward Model

According to this model we are motivated to help people not by altruism (acting in the interest of others) but as a way of reducing unpleasant feelings of arousal.

Piliavin et al. go on to argue that the chosen response depends on a cost-reward analysis by the individual. These include:
Costs of helping, such as effort, embarrassment and possible physical harm;
Cost of not helping, such as self-blame and perceived censure from others;
Rewards of helping, such as praise from self, onlookers and the victim;
Rewards of not helping, such as getting on with one’s own business and not incurring the possible costs of helping.

According to Piliavin et al. the results of their field experiment can be explained using their Arousal: Cost – Reward Model. For example:

The drunk is helped less often because the perceived cost is greater - helping a drunk is likely to cause disgust, embarrassment or harm. The cost of not helping is less because nobody will blame another for not helping a drunk because he is perceived as partly responsible for his own victimisation.

Women help less often than men because the cost to them in terms of effort and danger is greater and, since it may not be seen as a woman’s role to offer assistance under these circumstances, the cost of not helping is less.

Diffusion of responsibility is not found in the cane-carrying situation because the cost of not helping is high and the cost of helping is low. ]]> 2017-01-18 14:15:20 UTC https://padlet.com/panze_h_04/u71fxfs4z6ap/wish/147811361 XOXO, Carlinha https://padlet.com/panze_h_04/u71fxfs4z6ap/wish/147821973 This theory suggests that the helping behaviour is driven by the need to relieve oneself from the emotional arousal brought about by situations in which help is needed.

COST- the cost part of this theory refers to why a person wouldn't help out a person in need. An example could be if someone was bleeding and needed help a person could pass by and think to himself that if he helps this person blood got potentially get on his shirt and ruin it so he'll just let someone else help out the bleeding person bc for him the cost is too high. Basically the cost is just something bad that may happen to the person as a result of helping out.

Reward- the reward part of this theory basically is just what the person would benefit from helping out. for example one might help out so he or she may look like a hero

]]> 2017-01-18 14:42:25 UTC https://padlet.com/panze_h_04/u71fxfs4z6ap/wish/147821973 Yasmeen ❤️👑 Queen tayeb_y_218 https://padlet.com/panze_h_04/u71fxfs4z6ap/wish/147895076 The Cost Reward model is a model constructed by Piliavain, where he deduces an explanation for his results. This model can also be referred to as the "arousal cost - reward model" .
Emotional "arousal" is stiumulated when bystanders observe an emergency. This arousal may be precieved as fear, disgust or sympathy.

The cost-reward analysis involves weighing up the costs and rewards of helping and not helping.

Overall it's worth acknowledging that this model

]]> 2017-01-18 17:54:43 UTC https://padlet.com/panze_h_04/u71fxfs4z6ap/wish/147895076 Alex https://padlet.com/panze_h_04/u71fxfs4z6ap/wish/147952332 ....Arousal cost-reward model explains the decisions that bystanders make when either intervening in an incident, for example a drunk or an ill man/woman. It tends to show that bystanders would most likely want to get rid of the arousal in these situations so they intervene and not because of their altruistic behaviour, showing they're selfless people carrying out an unselfish act to help others.
1 - Physiological arousal is the overall important motive, which is in need to reduce the arousal that has been created by witnessing another human being in distress.
2 - Labelling the type of arousal. (E.g. Personal stress or empathetic concern for the victim)
3 - Evaluating the consequences of helping, considering the costs of helping and the benefits of helping. Costs of helping: Effort, time consumption or potential harm.
Benefits of helping: social approval, higher self-esteem and good feeling.

Overall, this the model has shown to be an important component within the Piliavin study. Although, this model doesn't explain selfless behaviour from bystanders]]> 2017-01-18 20:50:03 UTC https://padlet.com/panze_h_04/u71fxfs4z6ap/wish/147952332 Dominic ciesc_d_218 https://padlet.com/panze_h_04/u71fxfs4z6ap/wish/147990214 The principal concept of the cost reward model is
that the decision to help is based on a cost-benefit analysis, driven by arousal.
.
Pivilian et al deduced this theory in In 1981, after conducting the good samaratins study (1969)
.
Strength:
+ • Arousal has been shown to be an important component.

Weakness
- • This model does not explain selfless behaviour. ]]> 2017-01-19 03:50:42 UTC https://padlet.com/panze_h_04/u71fxfs4z6ap/wish/147990214 https://padlet.com/panze_h_04/u71fxfs4z6ap/wish/147998360 Also known as the arousal cost model. It assumes that witnessing the need or distress of another person is physiologically arousing. One one attributes the source of one's arousal to another person's distress, the arousal is sometimes experienced as emotionally unpleasant, and one becomes motivationed to reduce it.

According to the model, a person will choose to engage in the arousal-decreasing response associated with the fewest net costs. Net costs are based on two types of rewards and costs associated with the helping situation: costs for not helping and rewards and costs for helping. Costs for not helping occur when no assistance is given and may include experiences such as feeling troubled because someone in need is continuing to suffer, or receiving criticism from others for being callous. Costs for helping are direct negative outcomes that the potential helper might experience after offering help, such as loss of time, embarrassment, or injury. Helping, however, can also be associated with positive outcomes such as praise, gratitude, and feelings of self-worth.]]> 2017-01-19 05:59:16 UTC https://padlet.com/panze_h_04/u71fxfs4z6ap/wish/147998360 Ryan https://padlet.com/panze_h_04/u71fxfs4z6ap/wish/147998384 AA]]> 2017-01-19 06:00:18 UTC https://padlet.com/panze_h_04/u71fxfs4z6ap/wish/147998384 Tiara https://padlet.com/panze_h_04/u71fxfs4z6ap/wish/148009982 Piliavin's Cost Reward Model (AKA the 'Arousal Cost Model') says that in witnssing the distress of another person, one becomes physiologically (bodily in an organic way) aroused. The arousal can manifest itself in emotional unease that the person experiencing it will seek to reduce, which can be done by following one of two responses linked to the situation. The model says a person would choose the response with the fewest 'net costs'--based on two types of costs (and rewards) associated with the situation:
-Cost for helping ( i.e. risk of personal wellbeing, embarrassment, loss of time, etc.)
-Cost for not helping (i.e. negative criticism, the person in distress remaining in distress, etc.)
If the net costs are low (and the cost of not helping outweighs the cost of helping) the person will be motivated to take action and help directly. If the opposite is true, the person will be reluctant to help despite the cost pf not helping and perhaps try aiding the distressed more indirectly (such as calling another for help, or pushing the crisis out of mind entirely)
Rewards for helping (such as self-satisfaction or relief) can also weigh in in this model, in addition to both costs, into the final decision of the bystander of whether to help or stand by.]]> 2017-01-19 08:11:50 UTC https://padlet.com/panze_h_04/u71fxfs4z6ap/wish/148009982 Kafi https://padlet.com/panze_h_04/u71fxfs4z6ap/wish/148527812
Cost-Reward Model was developed by Piliavin et al. It says that when a person observes a critical situation it would lead to the person having an emotional arousal (Physiological arousal) which would lead to the person having an unpleasant sensation/emotion. The arousal maybe of trying to be a selfless person and help others in order to reduce it (sympathy or of not getting involved (disgust). The response of the person depends on their cost-reward analysis. It suggests that the person would most likely help when there are fewer net costs. They are two types of costs and rewards:
1) costs for helping, which include embarrassment, effort and physical harm
2) costs for not helping, which include self-blame and perceived censure from others

And the positives, where it would encourage them to help:

1) Rewards for helping, praise for self, onlookers and victim

2) Rewards for not helping, getting on with one’s own business and not getting involved.

Strengths

Has a high levels of ecological validity as it was done in a real life environment (train station). Also the sample size of very large (4450 participants).

Weakness

No informed consent, as the participants weren’t aware of being in an experiment. Another thing is that it doesn’t explain the selfless behavior from the participants.

]]> 2017-01-21 18:58:19 UTC https://padlet.com/panze_h_04/u71fxfs4z6ap/wish/148527812