Скачать презентацию Aggression and Prosocial Behaviour Social Psychology 2120 Guest Скачать презентацию Aggression and Prosocial Behaviour Social Psychology 2120 Guest

421e9159d21c0d37c5abd2a661b9bb48.ppt

  • Количество слайдов: 88

Aggression and Prosocial Behaviour Social Psychology 2120 Guest Lecturer: Francine Karmali Aggression and Prosocial Behaviour Social Psychology 2120 Guest Lecturer: Francine Karmali

Today’s Lecture • PART 1: AGGRESSION – Aggression Defined – Aggression from Within – Today’s Lecture • PART 1: AGGRESSION – Aggression Defined – Aggression from Within – Aggression from Situation – Aggression from Society • Break • PART 2: PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOUR – Altruism Defined – Why do we help? – When do we help? – Whom do we help? – Consequences of helping

PART 1: AGGRESSION PART 1: AGGRESSION

AGGRESSION Defined • Aggression: physical or verbal behaviour intended to hurt someone. • Perpetrator AGGRESSION Defined • Aggression: physical or verbal behaviour intended to hurt someone. • Perpetrator has to believe behaviour will harm (not accidents). • Target must be motivated to avoid the harm (not your dentist).

AGGRESSION Defined Hostile Aggression: aggression driven by anger and performed as an end in AGGRESSION Defined Hostile Aggression: aggression driven by anger and performed as an end in itself. (Aggressive Goal) n n aka- “affective”, “impulsive”, or “reactive” aggression impulsive (thoughtless) emotional (anger)

AGGRESSION Defined n Instrumental Aggression: aggression that is a means to some other end. AGGRESSION Defined n Instrumental Aggression: aggression that is a means to some other end. (Nonaggressive Goal) n proactive rather then reactive

AGGRESSION Defined • Proximal vs Ultimate goals • Hostile – Proximate = Harm – AGGRESSION Defined • Proximal vs Ultimate goals • Hostile – Proximate = Harm – Ultimate = Harm • Instrumental – Proximate = Harm – Ultimate = Non-Harm • Robbery vs. Physical assault

AGGRESSION Defined • Violence – extreme form of aggression – goal = extreme harm AGGRESSION Defined • Violence – extreme form of aggression – goal = extreme harm (death) – all violence is aggression – not all aggression is violent • ex. child pushing – *Can be hostile or instrumental

Hostile or Instrumental Aggression? • Bill spreads a nasty roomer about George. – intend Hostile or Instrumental Aggression? • Bill spreads a nasty roomer about George. – intend to harm? – Ultimate goal of the harm? What was Bill trying to achieve? • To impress Amanda with a “bad boy” image (Instrumental) • Harm - Anger - George stole Bill’s girl! (Hostile) • What about this? https: //www. youtube. com/watch? v=S_Z 4 qd 7 m 1 BY 9

Summary - Aggression terms – Aggression - intent to harm – Hostile - ultimate Summary - Aggression terms – Aggression - intent to harm – Hostile - ultimate aggressive goal – Instrumental - ultimate non aggressive goal – Violence - extreme harm

Aggression • Where does Aggression come from? What drives it? 11 Aggression • Where does Aggression come from? What drives it? 11

Where does Aggression come from? Outside/Society Within Nurture Environmental factors Nature Biological factors Situation Where does Aggression come from? Outside/Society Within Nurture Environmental factors Nature Biological factors Situation X Person Aggression 12

Where does Aggression come from? Outside/Society Within Nurture Nature Environmental factors Biological factors Situation Where does Aggression come from? Outside/Society Within Nurture Nature Environmental factors Biological factors Situation X Person STRONG SITUATION Aggression 13

Aggression FROM WITHIN? Aggression FROM WITHIN?

Aggression from Within • Evolutionary theory – aggression is adaptive (resources, mate access, defense, Aggression from Within • Evolutionary theory – aggression is adaptive (resources, mate access, defense, rivals, jealousy) • innate aggression -> psychological mechanism to improve chances of passing on genes. • However: – Also alternative explanations: » Ex. “Roughhousing” among Young Girls vs. Boy at play 15

Aggression from Within • Neural: – Amygdala associated with aggression – Prefrontal cortex 25% Aggression from Within • Neural: – Amygdala associated with aggression – Prefrontal cortex 25% smaller among antisocial • Genetic make-up - temperament influences sensitivity to aggression cues.

Psychophysiology of Aggression • Testosterone and Serotonin • Bidirectionally related to aggression – Increase Psychophysiology of Aggression • Testosterone and Serotonin • Bidirectionally related to aggression – Increase in T -> increase in aggression – Increase in aggression -> Increase in T • Bidirectionally related to aggression – Decrease in S -> increase in aggression – Increase in aggression -> decrease in S 17

Psychophysiology of Aggression • Biology x Situation – Amygdala – Testosterone • Status-relevant interactions Psychophysiology of Aggression • Biology x Situation – Amygdala – Testosterone • Status-relevant interactions – unstable hierarchy 18

Aggression from Within • Physical Arousal – intensifies emotions including anger • Other aversive Aggression from Within • Physical Arousal – intensifies emotions including anger • Other aversive incidents: – Heat (influences arousal) – Pain (physical and psychological) • increases the likelihood of aggression

Aggression FROM OUTSIDE (THE SITUATION) Aggression FROM OUTSIDE (THE SITUATION)

Aggression from Outside • Frustration – Have you ever hit a machine that won’t Aggression from Outside • Frustration – Have you ever hit a machine that won’t cooperate with you? Vending machine, computer, etc. • Frustration-aggression theory – by means of producing anger, frustration can trigger aggression.

Aggression from Outside • Frustration- Anger Link • increases: – stronger expectations of achieving Aggression from Outside • Frustration- Anger Link • increases: – stronger expectations of achieving a goal • closer to the goal • surprise frustration • decreases: • understandable, legitimate, unintentional 22

Unexpected or Understandable Frustration? Frustrations Anger X Aggression Example: Expectations: Traffic on the 401 Unexpected or Understandable Frustration? Frustrations Anger X Aggression Example: Expectations: Traffic on the 401 vs 407 23

Aggression from Outside • Groups: amplify aggression – Through Deindividuation – When someone else Aggression from Outside • Groups: amplify aggression – Through Deindividuation – When someone else aggresses (set norm) or aggression is salient – (Loss of individual (self) identity, gained anonymity) • loss of self-awareness • loss of personal responsibility

Jeffe et al. (1981) • Those who made decisions of how much to shock Jeffe et al. (1981) • Those who made decisions of how much to shock in a group administered more intense shocks than those who made shock decisions on their own.

Aggressive Driving Behaviour • Can be facilitated by the anonymous nature of our vehicles. Aggressive Driving Behaviour • Can be facilitated by the anonymous nature of our vehicles. • Ellison-Potter, Bell, & Deffenbacher (2001) • that people who were in a driving simulator and were presented with frustrating events while driving • I. V. #1: – anonymous vs. identifiable condition • D. V. - aggressive driving

Ellison-Potter, Bell, & Deffenbacher (2001) Ellison-Potter, Bell, & Deffenbacher (2001)

Ellison-Potter, Bell, & Deffenbacher (2001) • I. V. #1: – anonymous vs. identifiable condition Ellison-Potter, Bell, & Deffenbacher (2001) • I. V. #1: – anonymous vs. identifiable condition • I. V. #2: – aggressive stimuli vs. non-aggressive stimuli • Results: interaction only on “pedestrians killed” 28

Ellison-Potter, Bell, & Deffenbacher (2001) 29 Ellison-Potter, Bell, & Deffenbacher (2001) 29

Aggression from Outside • 1) Frustration • through anger • 2) Groups • though Aggression from Outside • 1) Frustration • through anger • 2) Groups • though intragroup processes such as Deindividuation • anonymity • 3) Social Exclusion 30

Social Exclusion, Control, & Aggression • Rejection, Ostracism • Social exclusion Aggression – frustration Social Exclusion, Control, & Aggression • Rejection, Ostracism • Social exclusion Aggression – frustration – pain - neuro same as physical pain • “sticks and stones will break my bones, but words will never hurt me. ” • evolution - a form of “social death” – 4 basic needs- belong, control, self-esteem, meaningful existence 31

Social Exclusion, Control, & Aggression • Social exclusion strive for control – loss of Social Exclusion, Control, & Aggression • Social exclusion strive for control – loss of control • sense of control restored through aggression since: – Aggression increases feelings of personal power or general control • Would restoring control reduce aggression after ostracism? 32

Warburton, Williams, & Cairns (2006) n Procedure: n Taste preferences experiment n Triangular formation Warburton, Williams, & Cairns (2006) n Procedure: n Taste preferences experiment n Triangular formation with two other ostensible participants, who were actually confederates. n I. V #1: Ball toss game n Ostracism (ball tossed 3 times in 4 minutes) n Inclusion (ball tossed 1/3 times in 4 minutes) 33

Warburton, Williams, & Cairns (2006) n Procedure continued: n Aversive sounds- chalk squeaking on Warburton, Williams, & Cairns (2006) n Procedure continued: n Aversive sounds- chalk squeaking on blackboard, high pitched screams, etc. n I. V #2: Control restoration n Diminished Control (random) n Restored Control (sound onset controlled) n Favour: please package the food sample (hat randomly assigned category 5: Hot and Spicy n D. V: “All quantities of the sample food are useful. From the larger sample provided, put into the cup as much or as little of the food sample as you want to. ” 34 34

Warburton et al. , (2006) 35 35 Warburton et al. , (2006) 35 35

Aggression FROM LEARNING Aggression FROM LEARNING

Aggression From Social Learning • Learned Aggression – When aggression is rewarded – from Aggression From Social Learning • Learned Aggression – When aggression is rewarded – from direct experience or observation • Media aggression exposure - significant correlation between media consumption and aggression. • experimental studies confirm a casual relationship • Rewarding aggression – Instrumental aggression – at least gets attention • Modelling aggression (imitating)- Albert Bandura’s Social Learning Theory (1963)(https: //www. youtube. com/watch? v=zer. CK 0 l. Rjp 8) • Aggressive cues – releasing anger

Social Cognitive accounts for Aggression • It’s the thought that counts! – Associative learning Social Cognitive accounts for Aggression • It’s the thought that counts! – Associative learning – Cognitive scripts – Priming objects associated with aggression -> Aggression 38

GUN PRIMES- Berkowitz and Le. Page (1967) • Participants were given shocks and then GUN PRIMES- Berkowitz and Le. Page (1967) • Participants were given shocks and then given a chance to shock back. • Some participants gave their retaliatory shocks with a gun sitting on a near by table, while others gave shocks without aggressive cues near by.

In Summary 1. Aggression can be facilitated by internal factors (genes, neural mechanisms, chemicals, In Summary 1. Aggression can be facilitated by internal factors (genes, neural mechanisms, chemicals, arousal) 2. Aggression can be facilitated by situational factors (frustrating events, groups, social exclusion) 3. Aggression can be facilitated by societal factors (media, rewarding, modelling, aggressive cues)

Break – 15 minutes Break – 15 minutes

Today’s Lecture • PART 1: AGGRESSION – Aggression Defined – Aggression from Within – Today’s Lecture • PART 1: AGGRESSION – Aggression Defined – Aggression from Within – Aggression from Situation – Aggression from Society • Break • PART 2: PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOUR – Terms Defined – Why do we help? – When do we help? – Whom do we help? – Consequences of helping

PART 2: Prosocial Behaviour PART 2: Prosocial Behaviour

Prosocial vs Altruism • Prosocial Behaviour: – behaviour that benefits another person • Helping Prosocial vs Altruism • Prosocial Behaviour: – behaviour that benefits another person • Helping • Giving • Sharing • Cooperating

Prosocial vs Altruism n Altruism: n “a motive to increase another’s welfare without conscious Prosocial vs Altruism n Altruism: n “a motive to increase another’s welfare without conscious regard for one’s selfinterest. ” n Drives: All altruistic behaviour is prosocial behaviour, but n Helping not all prosocial n Giving behaviour is altruistic n Sharing behaviour n Cooperating

Prosocial vs Altruism • Prosocial Behaviour: behaviour that benefits another person • Altruism: “a Prosocial vs Altruism • Prosocial Behaviour: behaviour that benefits another person • Altruism: “a motive to increase another’s welfare without conscious regard for one’s self-interest. ” • Prosocial behaviour --> behaviour • Altruism --> motivation • Altruistic behaviour --> behaviour • Prosocial behaviour --> reward, no reward • Altruism --> no reward

PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR WHY DO WE HELP? PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR WHY DO WE HELP?

Why do we help? • Evolutionary Psychology – The “Selfish Gene” – Helping has Why do we help? • Evolutionary Psychology – The “Selfish Gene” – Helping has survival advantages – Kin Selection – Help your kin = Help your genes • Cinderella effect • Who would you save from a burning building?

Who would you save? 80 Likelihood of 60 running into a 40 burning building Who would you save? 80 Likelihood of 60 running into a 40 burning building 20 0 . 5 . 25 . 125 (first None (parents, siblings, children) (grandparents) cousins) (attractive strangers) Degree of relatedness (Burnstein, Crandall, & Kitayama, 1994) 49 49

Why do we help? • Evolutionary Psychology – The “Selfish Gene” – Helping has Why do we help? • Evolutionary Psychology – The “Selfish Gene” – Helping has survival advantages – Kin Selection – Help your kin = Help your genes – Reciprocity - Help strangers = Help your resources = Help your survival

Why do we Help? • Social Exchange Theory – “minimax” strategy – unconscious weighing Why do we Help? • Social Exchange Theory – “minimax” strategy – unconscious weighing of costs and rewards – Benefits • decreased stress, social approval, reciprocated (an investment)

Corporate “Marketing Philanthropy” • • • Positive publicity Reputation (build or repair) Build employee Corporate “Marketing Philanthropy” • • • Positive publicity Reputation (build or repair) Build employee moral n Ronald Mc. Donald Housing n only 20% of the charity is funded by Mc. Donalds

Corporate “Strategic Philanthropy” • Overlap between contribution and economic gain • Safeco Insurance (expand Corporate “Strategic Philanthropy” • Overlap between contribution and economic gain • Safeco Insurance (expand affordable housing) home insurance sales increased by up to 40% • Apple (donate mac computer to schools) Porter & Kramer, 2002, Harvard Business Review -

Why do we Help? • Social Exchange Theory “minimax” strategy – unconscious weighing of Why do we Help? • Social Exchange Theory “minimax” strategy – unconscious weighing of costs and rewards …is there really such thing as pure Altruism? http: //www. youtube. com/watch? v=e 9 Jc. X 2 X 7 Xn. M

Why do we Help? • • • Empathy-Altruism Hypothesis Daniel Batson (1991) Empathy – Why do we Help? • • • Empathy-Altruism Hypothesis Daniel Batson (1991) Empathy – The ability to experience events and emotions the way another person experiences them

Why do we Help? • • • Empathy-Altruism Hypothesis Daniel Batson (1991) When we Why do we Help? • • • Empathy-Altruism Hypothesis Daniel Batson (1991) When we feel empathy for a person we will attempt to help them regardless of what we have to gain. – Help motivated by empathy lasts longer than when there is no empathy (help for some other reason, i. e. , rewards)

Why do we help? • Social Norms (expectations) – “we ought to” • Social-responsibility Why do we help? • Social Norms (expectations) – “we ought to” • Social-responsibility norm – help those who can’t help themselves • Reciprocity norm – You help because: » They already helped you

The Reciprocity Norm (Whatley et al. , 1999) • Are people driven to help The Reciprocity Norm (Whatley et al. , 1999) • Are people driven to help those who have helped them? • Prodecure: rate art with a confederate and during the break. . . • I. V. #1: – Favour: • “I was hungry so I got some M&Ms from upstairs and I though you might want some too. – No Favour: • “I’m hungry, I hope I’ll get a change to get a bite to eat before work. ” 58

The Reciprocity Norm (Whatley et al. , 1999) • I. V. #1: – Favour: The Reciprocity Norm (Whatley et al. , 1999) • I. V. #1: – Favour: • “I was hungry so I got some M&Ms from upstairs and I though you might want some too. – No Favour: • “I’m hungry, I hope I’ll get a change to get a bite to eat before work. ” • D. V – “The other participant wanted me to give this to you. I think it is some kind of charity thing or something. ” • I. V. #2: Private vs. Public 59

The Reciprocity Norm (Whatley et al. , 1999) The Reciprocity Norm (Whatley et al. , 1999)

Why do we help? 1. Evolution – helping increases survival 2. Social Exchange Theory Why do we help? 1. Evolution – helping increases survival 2. Social Exchange Theory – “minimax” strategy 3. Empathy-altruism hypothesis – empathy increases altruistic helping 4. Social Norms – the “oughts” of society

PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOUR WHEN DO WE HELP? PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOUR WHEN DO WE HELP?

When do we help? • • Situational factors influence helping In a rush --> When do we help? • • Situational factors influence helping In a rush --> reducing helping Time pressure – Darley and Batson (1973) moderated by importance

Darley and Batson (1978) • I. V. #1 = Time Pressure (hurry vs. no Darley and Batson (1978) • I. V. #1 = Time Pressure (hurry vs. no hurry) – Ppts. told: must either 1) hurry to the next part of the experiment or 2) they can take their time. • I. V. #2 = Importance (important vs. not important) – next part of the experiment was either 1) very important, or 2) not essential. • D. V = % who stopped to help – On their way, they pass a man coughing and groaning slumped on a doorway…would participants (seminary students!) help? . . .

Darley and Batson (1978) Darley and Batson (1978)

When do we help? Kitty Genovese Case New York City, 1964 - Kitty Genovese When do we help? Kitty Genovese Case New York City, 1964 - Kitty Genovese was murdered by Winston Mosely over the course of half an hour. She was raped and stabbed repeatedly. After her assailant left, she staggered to the corner and screamed for help. Of the 38 people who heard from the nearby apartments, no one helped or called the police.

When do we help? • Bystander Effect: a person is less likely to help When do we help? • Bystander Effect: a person is less likely to help when there are other bystanders. • helping is negatively related to the number of bystanders present. • As # of bystanders helping • We are more likely to help when we are alone than when others are present! • BUT WHY? What would you do? https: //www. youtube. com/watch? v=H 7 dfk. ZKj. WSo

When do we help? Bystander Effect: –Noticing: • more people less noticing • urban When do we help? Bystander Effect: –Noticing: • more people less noticing • urban vs rural – turn inward to avoid overstimulation

When do we help? Bystander Effect: –Noticing: more people less noticing • Latane and When do we help? Bystander Effect: –Noticing: more people less noticing • Latane and Darley (1968) – smoke from vents –Interpretation • Is this an emergency? • pluralistic ignorance - our ignorance to the fact that others are feeling the way we are. • illusion of transparency - tendency to think others can “read” our thoughts and feelings.

Interpreting events as Emergencies • Fire alarm – I look at Sarah – Sarah Interpreting events as Emergencies • Fire alarm – I look at Sarah – Sarah is not panicking – I (incorrectly ) think: • A) Sarah thinks it’s no big deal (wrong - pluralistic ignorance) • B) Sarah knows I’m unsure (wrong - illusion of transparency) • Must be a false alarm - phew – But Sarah is looking at you thinking the same thing! – Informational Social Influence 70

Latane and Darley (1970) – smoke from vents people were much more likely and Latane and Darley (1970) – smoke from vents people were much more likely and faster to report the potential emergency

When do we help? Bystander Effect: –Noticing: more people less noticing • Latane and When do we help? Bystander Effect: –Noticing: more people less noticing • Latane and Darley (1968) – smoke from vents –Interpretation • • Is this an emergency? pluralistic ignorance and/or illusion of transparency = unresponsive models –Diffusion of Responsibility: • More people equals less personal responsibility

When do we help? Bystander Effect: 5 step model: – Noticing – Interpretation – When do we help? Bystander Effect: 5 step model: – Noticing – Interpretation – Take Responsibility (no diffusion) – Know what to do - someone is choking – Decide to help - assess costs of helping • risk, embarrassment, monetary. – Yes to all = helping

PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOUR SOCIAL CUES AND HELPING PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOUR SOCIAL CUES AND HELPING

Social Cues x Gene on prosocial behaviour? Sasaki, Kim, Mojaverian, & Kelley (2013) • Social Cues x Gene on prosocial behaviour? Sasaki, Kim, Mojaverian, & Kelley (2013) • I. V. #1: – Religion prime - prime vs. no prime • I. V. #2: – DRD 4 gene -susceptibility variant vs. non-susceptibility variant • D. V. : – Prosocial behaviour: Willingness to help a charity (choice of 36 charities for environmental causes). 75

Sasaki, Kim, Mojaverian, & Kelley (2013) • 10 sets: Unscramble words to form a Sasaki, Kim, Mojaverian, & Kelley (2013) • 10 sets: Unscramble words to form a four word sentence/phrase • Religious Prime: 5 sets included religious relevant words (God, Prophet, Sacred, Devine, Spirit) – “felt she eradicate spirit the” --> “she felt the spirit” • Neutral Prime: – shoes, sky, holiday, worried • Prosocial behviour: – add me to the email list – request more information about the organization – participate in organization projects 76

77 77

Money and Helping n Vohs and Colleagues (Science, 2006) n It’s the thought that Money and Helping n Vohs and Colleagues (Science, 2006) n It’s the thought that counts n Money associated with self-sufficiency n Money primes reduce probability of helping

Money and Helping n Vohs and Colleagues (Science, 2006) n Money associated with self-sufficiency Money and Helping n Vohs and Colleagues (Science, 2006) n Money associated with self-sufficiency n Money primes reduce probability of helping n I. V. : n Prime Money (i. e. , scrambled sentence) vs. No Prime (Exp. 1, 2, & 4) n Monopoly money (Exp. 3) n Helping DVs: n Exp. 1 - # of data sheets volunteered to code n Exp. 2 -# of seconds helping a peer n Exp. 3 -# of pencils gathered n Exp. 4 - $ given in donations

Money and Pro-sociality n Vohs and Colleagues (Science, 2006) Experiment # No Money Prime Money and Pro-sociality n Vohs and Colleagues (Science, 2006) Experiment # No Money Prime 7. 2 4. 5 2 (seconds helping a peer) 153. 0 76. 0 3 (pencils gathered) 11. 0 10. 0 4 ($ donated) 0. 76 1. 18 1 (data sheets)

PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOUR WHOM DO WE HELP? PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOUR WHOM DO WE HELP?

Whom do we help? • Attributions of responsibility: WHAT’S THE REASON? Internal disposition vs. Whom do we help? • Attributions of responsibility: WHAT’S THE REASON? Internal disposition vs. External situation – Has the person created their own problem or are they a victim of a bad situation?

Whom do we help? • Attached and/or Identified (increases empathy) • Similarity – Similarity Whom do we help? • Attached and/or Identified (increases empathy) • Similarity – Similarity Liking Helping • i. e. , faces of fictional participants who were morphed to match real participant’s facial features were more trusted and participants were more generous to them (De. Bruine, 2002) – Ingroups vs. Outgroups - biased helping

n We’ve looked at Prosocial behaviour as a DV (what affects prosocial behaviour)? n n We’ve looked at Prosocial behaviour as a DV (what affects prosocial behaviour)? n What about prosocial behaviour as an IV (what is the effect of prosocial behaviour)? CONSEQUENCES OF PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOUR…

Can Money Buy Happiness? Dunn, Aknin, and Norton (Science, 2008) n Experimental Study: n Can Money Buy Happiness? Dunn, Aknin, and Norton (Science, 2008) n Experimental Study: n I. V. #1: Given $5 vs. $20 n I. V. #2: Spend on Self vs. Spend on others before 5 pm n D. V. Happiness after 5 pm

Can Money Buy Happiness? Dunn, Aknin, and Norton (Science, 2008) Can Money Buy Happiness? Dunn, Aknin, and Norton (Science, 2008)

Can Money Buy Happiness? Dunn, Aknin, and Norton (Science, 2008) n Correlational Study: n Can Money Buy Happiness? Dunn, Aknin, and Norton (Science, 2008) n Correlational Study: n 632 Americans Rated happiness Reported personal spending Reported prosocial spending Which predicts happiness? n n

Done! Done!