reaction paper to altruism

The research design in the articles by Batson et al, Darley & Latane, and Darley & Batson appears to be relying heavily on the assumption that the subjects truly believe the scenario that is being played out. The validity of the research hinges significantly on the acting abilities of the experimenter and the degree to which he/she convinces the subject that there is a true emergency that requires intervention from a helper. The research validity also requires that the experimenters accurately determine when the subjects have suspected the scenario not to be a genuine emergency. Whether the experiment involves an epileptic fit, a “victim” in an alleyway, or the observation of electric shock being administered to others, the subject must be in complete belief and not wrestling with the concept that the scenario is staged in some way. One could argue that astute subjects, particularly psychology students, may be able to recognize the possibility that they are being tested and perhaps welcome the concept and play along. The researchers utilized various evidence to determine the subject’s belief in the genuine nature of the emergency, and for the most part relied on self-report after the experiment was concluded. In experiments that involved measuring the time to respond, perhaps the subject wrestled with the possibility of deception partly due to the research setting they were in. In real life emergencies, certainly subjects would wrestle with the same questions about deception, but may react differently given the nature of the danger that may be involved in any naturally occurring situation. Experimental settings may induce an additional sense of safety and security for providing the help response.
The studies were conducted between 1968 and 1988, and one could argue that perhaps our culture has shifted to a more or less altruistic nature. In the US, an aging group of “baby boomers” brings a new demographic to the culture where a large portion of the