Download Aggression and prosocial behavior

PSYC 2120 Social Psychology, Guest Lecturer: Francine Karmali
Aggression and prosocial behavior
2120 section M and O: Notes and reminders
• Grades for Exam 2 posted online mid next week
• Elysia’s Office hours Wednesdays 1pm-2pm, or email to book
an appointment
• Participation credits
– cancel? Go to confirmation email - “cancel this booking”
2
Today’s Lecture
1: Aggression
• Part 2: Prosocial Behavior
 Aggression Defined
– Prosocial Behavior Defined
– Why do we help?
– When do we help?
– Effects of helping
 Part
 Aggression from Within
 Situational Aggression
 Social Exclusion
3
Part 1:
AGGRESSION
4
Aggression Defined
• Aggression: physical or verbal behavior intended to hurt
someone
– Perpetrator has to believe their behavior will harm (no accidents).
– Target must be motivated to avoid the harm (not your dentist).
5
5
Aggression Defined
• Hostile Aggression: is driven by anger and performed as an end
in itself (aggressive goal).
– Aka – “affective”, “impulsive”, or “reactive” aggression
6
Aggression Defined
• Instrumental Aggression: is aggression performed as a means
to some other end.
– Tool to get non-aggressive goal
– Proactive rather than reactive
7
Aggression Defined
 Proximal
vs Ultimate Goals
 Hostile:
○ Proximate goal = Harm
○ Ultimate goal = Harm
 Instrumental:
○ Proximal goal = Harm
○ Ultimate goal = Non-harm
8
Aggression Defined
Violence:
 Extreme form of aggression
 Proximal goal = extreme harm (i.e, death)
 Ultimate goal = harm or non-harm
○ Can be hostile or instrumental

9
Aggression? Hostile or Instrumental?

Bills spreads a hurtful rumor about George
 Intend to harm? (proximal goal)
 Target motivated to avoid?
 What was Bills trying to achieve? (ultimate goal)
○ Retaliation - George body checked Bill in hockey
practice = Hostile aggression
○ Attempt to persuade others for votes - Bill and George
are both running for student council = Instrumental
aggression
10
Aggression
FROM WITHIN
11
Aggression from within
• Evolutionary Theory:
– Aggression is adaptive
• Resources, mate access, defense
• Biological factors:
– Neural – Amygdala, Prefrontal cortex
– Genetics – sensitivity to environment
– Biochemical – Testosterone, Serotonin
12
Aggression from within
• Biology X Situation
– Neural mechanisms
– Status-relevant interactions
– Unstable hierarchy
13
Aggression
SITUATIONAL AGGRESSION
14
Aggression from the outside

Frustration:
 occurs when there is a perception that our
attainment of a goal is blocked.

Frustration-Aggression Hypothesis:
 By producing anger, frustration can trigger
aggressive behavior.
15
Frustration - Anger - Aggression Link
X
Anger
Frustrations
X
Aggression
16
Aggression from the outside

Frustration-Anger link
 Increases
○ Strong expectation of achieving goal
 Close to the goal
 Surprise goal block
 Decreases
○ Understandable, legitimate
○ Unintentional frustration
17
Unexpected
Frustration?
Frustrations
Anger
Aggression
Example: Expectations: Traffic on the 401 vs 407
18
Unexpected or
Understandable
Frustration?
Frustrations
Anger
?
Aggression
19
Unexpected or
Understandable
Frustration?
Frustrations
Anger
Anonymity
Aggression
20
Aggressive driving behavior
• Can be facilitated by the anonymous nature of our vehicles
• Ellison-Potter, Bell, & Deffenbacher (2001)
– Participants were seated in a driving simulator and were presented
with frustrating events while driving.
– I.V. #1: Anonymous vs. Identifiable
– D.V.: Aggressive driving
21
Ellison-Potter et al., 2001
2.00
75
Speed
70
Red lights run
1.50
1.00
65
0.50
0.00
60
Anonymous
Anonymous
Identifiable
Identifiable
0.20
2.50
Collisions
2.00
1.50
pedestrians
killed
0.15
0.10
1.00
0.05
0.50
0.00
0.00
Anonymous
Identifiable
Anonymous
Identifiable
22
Situational Aggression
• Anonymity in groups increases aggression
– Through deindividuation
• Loss of individual/self identity
• Loss personal responsibility
23
Ellison-Potter et al., 2001

I.V. #1:
 Anonymous vs. Identifiable

I.V. #2:
 Aggressive stimuli vs. non-aggressive stimuli

Results:
 Interaction only on “pedestrians' killed”
24
Ellison-Potter et al., 2001
Pedestrians Killed
Anonymous
Identifiable
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
Aggressive Stimuli
No Aggressive Stimuli
25
Social Cognition and Aggression
• It’s the thought that counts
– Associate learning
– Associative networks include behaviors (i.e., aggression), leading to a
“readiness to aggress”
– Mere exposure (i.e., “priming”)
• Objects associated with aggression increase aggression
26
Gun Primes - Berkowitz and LePage, 1976
• Participants were given shocks
and then given the opportunity
to shock back
• Some participants gave their
retaliatory shocks with a gun
sitting on a nearby table, while
others gave shocks with a
racquet nearby.
27
Situational Aggression
•
•
•
•
•
Frustration
Anonymity
Environmental cues
Pain increases aggression
Social Exclusion  increases aggression
•
•
But why?
Pain and “social pain” are surprisingly similar to your
brain!
28
Social Exclusion and Aggression
• Rejection/Ostracism
– Psychological social pain – neuro same as physical pain
• “Sticks and stones will break my bones, but words will never hurt me”
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X7EFYwUopf8
29
Exclusion, Control, and Aggression
• Social exclusion decrease feelings of control
• Aggression increases feelings of power and control
• Would restoring control after exclusion reduce
aggression?
30
Warburton, Williams, & Cairns (2006)
• Procedure:
– Taste preferences experiment
– I.V. #1: Ball toss game with confederates
• Ostracism vs. Inclusion
Decreases feelings of control
31
Warburton, Williams, & Cairns (2006)
• Procedure (continued)
– Aversive sounds
– I.V. #2:
• Control Restoration:
– Restored Control vs. Diminished Control
Increases feelings of control
• D.V.: Aggression • “All quantities of the sample food (Hot Sauce) are useful. From the
larger sample provided, put into the cup as much or as little of the food
sample as you want to.”
32
Warburton, Williams, & Cairns (2006)
33
QUESTIONS ABOUT AGGRESSION?
34
15 minute break
35
Today’s Lecture
1: Aggression
• Part 2: Prosocial Behavior
 Aggression Defined
– Prosocial Behavior Defined
– Why do we help?
– When do we help?
– Effects of helping
 Part
 Aggression from Within
 Situational Aggression
 Social Exclusion
36
Part 2:
PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR
37
Prosocial Behavior Defined
• Prosocial Behavior:
– Behavior that benefits another person
•
•
•
•
Helping
Giving
Sharing
Cooperating
38
Prosocial Behavior Defined
• Altruism
– “A motive to increase another’s welfare without conscious regard for
one’s self-interest.”
39
Prosocial Behavior Defined
• Prosocial behavior behavior
• Altruism motive
• Altruistic behavior behavior driven by altruism
• All altruistic behavior is prosocial behavior, but not all prosocial
behavior is altruistic behavior.
40
Prosocial Behavior
WHY DO WE HELP?
41
Why do we help?
• Evolutionary Theory
– Survival of the Fittest - The “Selfish Gene.”
– Helping has survival advantages:
• Kin Selection – Help your kin = Help your genes
42
Who would you save?
Likelihood
of running
into a
burning
building
60
40
20
0
.5
.25
.125 (first
None
(parents,
siblings,
children)
(grandparents)
cousins)
(strangers)
Degree of relatedness
(Burnstein, Crandall, & Kitayama, 1994)
43
Why do we help?
• Evolutionary Theory
– The “Selfish Gene.”
– Helping has survival advantages:
• Kin Selection – Help your kin = Help your genes
• Reciprocity – Help strangers = Help your survival chances
44
Why do we help?
• Social Exchange Theory
– “minimax” strategy
– Unconscious weighing of costs and rewards
– Benefits
• Decreased stressed
• Expectations of reciprocation (an investment)
• Social approval/reputation
45
Corporate “Marketing Philanthropy”
• Strategic Philanthropy
– Positive publicity
– Reputation (build or repair)
– Build employee moral
•Ronald McDonald Housing – only 20% of the charity is funded by McDonalds
46
Corporate “Strategic Philanthropy”
• Overlap between contribution and economic gain
– Safeco Insurance – charity – donations to expand affordable housing
– home insurance sales increased by up to 40%
– Apple – charity – donations of Mac computers to school
Porter & Kramer, 2002, Harvard Business Review
47
Why do we help?
• Social Exchange Theory
– ….is there really such thing as pure altruism?
48
Why do we help?
• Empathy-Altruism Hypothesis
– Daniel Batson (1991)
– Empathy
• The ability to experience events and emotions the way another person
experiences them.
49
Why do we help?
• Empathy-Altruism Hypothesis
– When we feel empathy for a person we will attempt to the help them
regardless of what we have to gain.
• Help motivated by empathy lasts longer than when there is not empathy
(help for some other reason, e.g., rewards)
50
Prosocial Behavior
WHEN DO WE HELP?
51
Kitty Genovese case
• New York City, 1964 – Kitty Genovese was murdered by
Winston Mosley 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.
52
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.
– We are more likely to help when we are alone than with others.
– But Why?
– What would you do?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7dfkZKjWSo
53
When do we help?
• Bystander Effect:
– Noticing
• More people less noticing
• Urban vs. rural
–Turn inward to avoid overstimulation
54
When do we help?
• Bystander Effect:
– Noticing
– Interpretation
• Is this an emergency or not?
–Informational social influence +
–Pluralistic ignorance – our ignorance to the fact that others are
feeling the same way we are.
55
Smoke from the vents
Latene and Darley (1970)
Percent
reporting
smoke
• People were more likely and faster to report the potential
emergency when alone compared to with others
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
3-person
1
2
3
4
5
alone
6
Time in minutes
56
When do we help?
• Bystander Effect:
– Noticing
– Interpretation
– Diffusion of Responsibility
• More people = less personal responsibility
57
When do we help?
• Bystander Effect: 5 Step model:
1. Noticing
2. Interpretation
3. Taking responsibility to help (no diffusion)
4. Know what to do – someone is choking
5. Decide to help – assess costs of helping
• Risk, embarrassment, monetary
Yes to all = helping
58
Social Cognition & Prosocial behavior
• Social cues primes – associative learning
– Religious primes
• Not due to increased empathy
• Not due to increased mood
• Religious and atheists alike
59
Religion primes X Gene
Sasaki, Kim, Mojaverian, & Kelley (2013)
• I.V. #1:
– Religion prime vs. Neutral prime
• I.V. # 2:
– DRD4 gene – susceptibility variant vs. non-susceptibility variant
• D.V.:
– Willingness to help a charity (choice of 36 charities for environmental
causes)
• Add me to the email list
• Request more information about the organization
• Participate in organization
60
Sasaki et al., 2013
• Prime:
– Unscramble 10 set of words to form a four word sentence
– Religion prime:
• 5 set included religion related words – God, Prophet, Sacred, Devine, Spirit
– Neutral prime:
• Included only neutral words – shoes, sky, etc.
61
Sasaki et al., 2013
62
Money and Prosocial behavior
• Vohs, Mead, & Goode, 2006
– Money – an economic concept
– Money associated with:
• self-sufficiency/ free of dependence (no help)
• “Money makes people feel self-sufficient and behave accordingly.”
• Self-sufficient behavior – work toward personal gain and being separate from
others.
63
Money and Prosocial Behavior
• Vohs et al., 2006
– I.V. #1:
• Money prime vs. No prime
– Helping D.V.s:
•
•
•
•
Exp. 1 - # of data sheets volunteered to code
Exp. 2 - # of seconds helping a peer
Exp. 3 - # of pencils gathered
Exp. 4 - $ given in donations
64
Money and prosocial behavior
Vohs et al., 2006
No Money
Prime
Money
Prime
7.2
4.5
153.0
76.0
3 (pencils gathered)
11.0
10.0
4 ($ donated)
1.18
0.76
Experiment #
1 (data sheets)
2 (seconds helping a peer)
65
Money and prosocial behavior
• So, is money really “the root of all evil?”
• Other research - participants who win more in a rigged
gambling game, donate less proportions of their winnings
compared to people who win less.
• Does money make us happy? Depends what you do with it!...
66
Consequences of prosocial behavior
Dunn, Aknin, & Norton, 2008
• Correlational Study
• 632 Americans
– Rated happiness
– Reported personal spending
– Reported prosocial spending
• Results:
– Personal spending not related to happiness
– Prosocial spending positively related to happiness
67
Consequences of prosocial behavior
Dunn, Aknin, & Norton, 2008
• Experimental Study
– I.V. #1:
• $5 vs. $20
– I.V. # 2:
• Spend on self vs. Spend on another: by 5pm
– D.V.:
• Happiness after 5pm
68
Consequences of prosocial behavior
Dunn et al., 2008
69
Next week
• March 24th, 2016
– Stereotyping, Prejudice, and Discrimination
• Chapter 12: Prejudice: Causes and Cures, pp.372-415
70