Transcript Aggression - Social Cognition Lab

Aggression and Prosocial
Behaviour
Social
Psychology 2120
Guest Lecturer:
Francine
Karmali
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
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 itself. (Aggressive Goal)




aka- “affective”, “impulsive”, or “reactive”
aggression
impulsive (thoughtless)
emotional (anger)
AGGRESSION Defined

Instrumental Aggression: aggression
that is a means to some other end. (Nonaggressive Goal)

proactive rather then reactive
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 (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 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_Z4qd7m1BY
9
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
Where does Aggression come from?
Outside/Society
Within
Nurture
Environmental
factors
Nature
Situation
X
Person
Biological
factors
Aggression
12
Where does Aggression come from?
Outside/Society
Within
Nurture
Nature
Environmental
factors
Situation
X
Person
Biological
factors
STRONG SITUATION
Aggression
13
Aggression
FROM WITHIN?
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% smaller among antisocial
• Genetic make-up - temperament influences
sensitivity to aggression cues.
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
–unstable hierarchy
18
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
• 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 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 vs 407
23
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 in
a group administered more intense shocks than
those who made shock decisions on their own.
Group decisions
Individual decisions
Shock intensity
8.0
7.0
6.0
5.0
1
2
3
Phase of experiement
4
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)
1.50
72
70
68
66
64
62
1.00
0.50
Speed
Anonym
ous
Red lights run
Identifiable
Collisions
Anonymou
s
Identifiable
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
Anonymou
s
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
Identifiable
Anonymou
s
0.00
pedestrians killed
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)
Anonymous
Identifiable
Pedestrians Killed
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
Aggressive Stimuli
No Aggressive Stimuli
29
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
– 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 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)

Procedure:

Taste preferences experiment

Triangular formation with two other ostensible
participants, who were actually confederates.

I.V #1: Ball toss game

Ostracism (ball tossed 3 times in 4 minutes)

Inclusion (ball tossed 1/3 times in 4 minutes)
33
Warburton, Williams, & Cairns
(2006)

Procedure continued:

Aversive sounds- chalk squeaking on blackboard, high
pitched screams, etc.

I.V #2: Control restoration

Diminished Control (random)

Restored Control (sound onset controlled)

Favour: please package the food sample (hat randomly assigned category 5: Hot and Spicy

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
Aggression
FROM LEARNING
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=zerCK0lRjp8)
• Aggressive cues – releasing anger
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 LePage (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, 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
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
Prosocial vs Altruism
• Prosocial Behaviour:
– behaviour that benefits another person
• Helping
• Giving
• Sharing
• Cooperating
Prosocial vs Altruism

Altruism:
 “a motive to increase another’s welfare
without conscious regard for one’s selfinterest.”
 Drives:
All altruistic behaviour is
prosocial behaviour, but
 Helping
not all prosocial
 Giving
behaviour
is
altruistic
 Sharing
behaviour
 Cooperating
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?
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
running into a
burning
building
60
40
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 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 of costs and rewards
– Benefits
• decreased stress, social approval, reciprocated (an
investment)
Corporate “Marketing
Philanthropy”
• Positive publicity
• Reputation (build or repair)
• Build employee moral

Ronald McDonald
Housing

only 20% of the charity is
funded by McDonalds
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 costs and rewards
…is there really such thing as pure Altruism?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9JcX2X7XnM
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 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 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 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:
• “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)
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?
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 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)
Hurry
No Hurry
90
% who
helped
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Important
Not Important
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 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=H7dfkZKjWSo
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 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 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 faster to report the potential
emergency
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
– 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
Social Cues x Gene
on prosocial behaviour?
Sasaki, Kim, Mojaverian, & Kelley (2013)
• I.V. #1:
– Religion prime - prime vs. no prime
• I.V. #2:
– DRD4 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 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
Money and Helping
 Vohs
and Colleagues (Science, 2006)
 It’s the thought that counts
 Money associated with self-sufficiency
 Money primes reduce probability of
helping
Money and Helping

Vohs and Colleagues (Science, 2006)
 Money associated with self-sufficiency
 Money primes reduce probability of helping
 I.V.:
 Prime Money (i.e., scrambled sentence) vs. No
Prime (Exp. 1, 2, & 4)
 Monopoly money (Exp. 3)
 Helping DVs:
 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
Money and Pro-sociality

Vohs and Colleagues (Science, 2006)
Experiment #
No Money
Prime
Money
Prime
7.2
4.5
153.0
76.0
3 (pencils gathered)
11.0
10.0
4 ($ donated)
0.76
1.18
1 (data sheets)
2 (seconds helping a peer)
PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOUR
WHOM DO WE HELP?
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  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
(DeBruine, 2002)
– Ingroups vs. Outgroups - biased helping

We’ve looked at Prosocial behaviour as a
DV (what affects prosocial behaviour)?

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)

Experimental Study:

I.V.#1: Given $5 vs. $20

I.V.#2:Spend on Self vs.
Spend on others before 5pm

D.V. Happiness after 5pm
Can Money Buy Happiness?
Dunn, Aknin, and Norton (Science, 2008)
Can Money Buy
Happiness?Dunn, Aknin, and Norton
(Science, 2008)

Correlational Study:

632 Americans Rated happiness
Reported personal spending
Reported prosocial spending
Which predicts happiness?




Done!