Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
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