Aggression and Prosocial Behaviour

Question 1

Aggression

Answer 1

• Any form of behaviour intended to harm another living being who is motivated to avoid such treatment (Baron, 1977)
• Intention to harm
• Not accidental
• Awareness of adverse effects
• Unwanted by targets

Question 2

Violence

Answer 2

Aggression that aims at extreme harm (physical or psychological)

Question 3

Forms of aggression

Answer 3

• Buss, 1961:
  
  • ​Physical (e.g. hitting) vs verbal (e.g. slurs)
  • Active vs passive (e.g. refusing to talk to a person)
  • Direct (e.g. face-to-face) vs indirect (no direct contact, involves a third person e.g. negative rumours)
• Dodge and Coie, 1987:
  
  • Proactive (instrumental, planned, organised) vs reactive (uncontrolled, impulsive, emotions-driven)
  • Proximate (aim: cause immediate harm) vs ultimate (aim: obtain something from the harm)

Question 4

Measures of aggression

Answer 4

• ‘Simulated’ situations (in the ’60s and ’70s)
• Observation
• Self reported measures
  
  • Willingness of being aggressive

Question 5

Biological explanations of aggression

Answer 5

• Aggression is an instinct (Riopelle, 1987)
  
  • It can be controlled and can adapt to the situation
  • It is elicited by specific stimuli or situations
• Aggression can be used to “protect” the species and survival of genes
• May emerge in threatening situations
• Insufficient to explain aggressive behaviour → look to social explanations

Question 6

Social explanations of aggression

Answer 6

• Frustration-aggresion hypothesis (Dollard et al., 1939)
• Excitation transfer (Zillman, 1983)
• Cognitive neoassociation theory (Berkowitz, 1989-1993)
• Social learning theory (Bandura, 1973; Miles & Carey, 1997)
• Script theory (Huesmann, 1986)

Question 7

Frustration-aggression hypothesis

Answer 7

• Dollard et al., 1939
• Aggression as a way to reduce/eliminate frustration
• Target can be anyone (related or unrelated to the cause of frustration)
• Inhibiting factors: fear of punishment
• Criticism: vague definition of frustration. Also, frustration does not inevitably result in aggression.
• Buss, 1963 - experimental example:
  
  • Participants had tasks to accomplish e.g. win money and would depending on the condition they were in, they would either win or fail at their goal
  • Findings showed that participants who had experienced failure in meeting their goal were more likely to engage in aggressive behaviour than those who did not

Question 8

Excitation transfer

Answer 8

• Zillman, 1983
• Transfer from an arousal emerging in a situation to another situation with the likelihood of eliciting an aggressive behaviour
• Explains why innocent targets might be subjected to aggression (as opposed to frustration-aggression hypothesis that was just limited to its observation of this)

Question 9

Cognitive neoassociation theory

Answer 9

• Berkowitz, 1989-1993
• Unpleasant experiences (even related to environment and situations) elicit negative affects that, in turn, activated aggressive associations.
• Unlike frustration-aggression and excitation theories, this theory is not based on emotions but rather on the way we process things in our mind.
• Berkowitz and Lepage, 1967 - guns experiment:
  
  • Participants had a task to complete and got feedback on it from a confederate group, using electric shocks. Two conditions: angered condition (received lots of shcoks), non-angered condition (received little to no shocks)
  • Then roles got reversed and participants had to evaluate confederates task performance by administering electric shocks.
  • Some participants were primed with the presence of a gun in the room (object associated with negative affect) and told that it belonged to the confederate team-mate, others were not and others were in a room with a random object.
  • Findings showed that in the angered condition, the gun prime caused the participants to be more aggressive and administer more shocks (regardless of whether or not they were told it belonged to the confederate), but in the non-angered condition, the prime had no effect. → seeing a gun activates something aggressive in our mind

Question 10

Social learning theory

Answer 10

• Bandura, 1973; Miles & Carey, 1997
• Learning by direct experiences: A behaviour is learned and maintain by rewards and punishments
• Learning by vicarious experiences: Models and imitations
• Bobo Doll Experiment (Bandura, Ross, & Ross, 1961)
  
  • 3 conditions: aggressive model, non-aggressive model and no model at all
  • Children who observed the aggressive model made far more imitative aggressive responses than those who were in the non-aggressive or control groups.
• Vicarious reinforcement: Not only do we watch what people do, but also what happens when they do things. We are more likely to imitate behavior that is rewarded and refrain from behavior that is punished. → Bandura, 1965

Question 11

Script theory

Answer 11

• Huesmann, 1986
• Associated with social learning theory
• Observing aggression leads to learn and internalized aggressive scripts
• Scripts guide behaviour
• Scripts are sets of associated concepts in memory
• Scripts becomes chronically accessible and generalized to situations
• Johnson et al., 2002 - longitudinal study of impacts of violent TV shows on aggression showed that longer daily exposure to violent shows in teenage participants led to more aggressive behaviour in adulthood.
  
  • This was especially true for men with a prior history of aggression - possibly because TV would show more aggressive behaviours coming from men than women
  • This study is based on self-report measures of aggression
• Greitmeyer, 2014 - experimental study of video games and aggression (violent videogame vs neutral videogame).
  
  • Participants’s self-perception of aggressive videogames decreased when playing video games.
  • Playing violent videogames increased the likelihood of “aggressive” behaviour (operationalised by likelihood of giving spicy food to someone who does not like spicy food)

Question 12

Personal variables of aggression

Answer 12

• Traits
  
  • Some people tend to be more aggressive than others (Rowell et al., 1997)
  • Personal traits are related to aggression: self-esteem, frustration tolerance, narcissism (Bushman & Baumeister, 1998)
• Gender
  
  • Men have been often found to be more aggressive than women
  • Gender differences depend on the type of aggression considered (e.g. more direct vs. indirect; physical vs. verbal)
• Beliefs/values/attitudes
  
  • Positive attitudes toward violence are often linked to aggression
  • Acceptance/condemnation of aggression

Question 13

Situational variables of aggression

Answer 13

• Aversive situations
  
  • Frustration
  • Interpersonal provocation (Geen, 2001)
• Environment
  
  • Crowding
  • Discomfort (hot temperature, unpleasant odours, loud noise)
• Primes/cues
  
  • Exposure to mass media (e.g., videogames)
  • Exposure to objects (e.g., weapons)

Question 14

General aggression model (GAM)

Answer 14

• Anderson and Bushman, 2002
• Integrates all theories and factors that affect aggression
• It takes in consideration “proximate” and “ultimate” goals of aggression as well as all the aggression forms

Question 15

Prosocial behaviour

Answer 15

• Actions defined by society as beneficial to other people and that is not driven by professional motivations. It may be driven by more egoistic or altruistic motivations.
• DIFFERENT TO helping behaviour → relates to a duty rather than a voluntary action
• Altruism is the next level up from prosocial behaviour in that it cannot be driven by egoistic motivations: behaviours carried out to benefit others without anticipation of external rewards. Emphatic motivation is necessary.

Question 16

When do people help?

Answer 16

• Decision Model of Bystander Intervention (Latané & Darley, 1970)
• Cost-reward analysis (Piliavin et al., 1981)
• People are more willing to help if the situation is perceived as an emergency than when it is not (Shotland & Huston, 1979) and when there are cues of danger (e.g., screaming).

Question 17

Why do people help?

Answer 17

• Evolutionary/Biological Theories (Barrett et al., 2002; Sober & Wilson, 1999)
• Social Learning (Grusec et al., 2002)
• Social and Personal Standards (Dovidio, 1984; Omoto & Snyder, 1995)
• Emotions (Baston, 1991; Cialdini et al., 1997; Davis, 1994)

Question 18

Bystander effect

Answer 18

• Latané & Darley, 1968
• A lone bystander is more likely to help than any of several bystanders
• Cause:
  
  • Why is not one helping? There must be a reason → fear of social blunders
  • No one is helping so the situation is probably not that serious → social influence
  • If one is alone, the whole responsibility lies on him whereas when there are several people, responsibility is shared
• Moderators:
  
  • Relationship: If the bystanders and victims are friends, or at least acquaintance, the bystander effect is reduced (Christy & Voigt, 1994)
  • Group membership: Victims are more likely to be helped by members of the same group (Levine & Crowther, 2008)

Question 19

Bystander effect experimental examples

Answer 19

• Latane and Darley, 1970:
  
  • Participants were in a room, either alone, in a group or in a passive confederate. Then smoke would get in the room which triggered the fire emergency sign.
  • ​Findings showed participants alone were more likely to report the smoke than participants who were with strangers, especially if these strangers were not intervening.
• Latane and Darlin, 1968: a lady in distress
  
  • Participants in a room and they hear a female falling. They are either alone, in a group or in a passive confederate.
  • Findings showed participants alone were more willing to help than when they were in pairs. Less help if the confederate was passive.

Question 20

Cost-reward model

Answer 20

• Piliavin et al., 1981
• This model suggests that observing an emergency elicits arousal in the bystander. In order to cope with this arousal the bystander consider costs and benefits of helping and not helping.
• Goes a step further than bystander effect model by explaining the process.
• Costs:
  • Lost of time, danger → less help
  • Shame, blame → more help
• Reward:
  
  • Keeping time → less help
  • Self-esteem, honour → more help
• This model, however, does not explain the impulsive helping, that is an immediate, non-deliberative, not based on decision making form of helping

Question 21

Evolutionary theories of prosocial behaviour

Answer 21

• Individuals have an innate predisposition to act pro-socially
• Kin selection: “What matters in evolution is not individual fitness but inclusive fitness, namely the successful transmission of genes to the next generation” (Hamilton, 1964).
  
  • Humans are more inclined to help relatives than unrelated others
  • In life-or-death situations: higher helping of healthy than sick people (Burnstein et al., 1994)
• Mutualism/reciprocal altruism: Cooperation implies a benefit for everyone and individuals derive some benefit from helping unrelated others if the favour is repaid (Trivers, 1971).
  
  • Reciprocal altruism may have evolved for the beneficial outcome of helping someone and being helped in return.

Question 22

Social learning

Answer 22

• Prosocial behaviour is not innate, it is learned (see Eisenberg et al., 1999).
  
  • Telling children to help others increase their prosocial behaviours willingness (Grusec et al., 1978)
• Reinforcement of helping behaviours via rewards (Grusec, 1991)
• Exposure to helping behaviours and role model (Rushton, 1976) → Learning by vicarious experiences
• Bryan and Test, 1967 - modelling effect example:
  
  • Participant drives down a road and depending on condition, will see a car breaking down and people stopping to help.
  • Then participants see someone with a broken car on the road.
  • Findings showed that participants were more likely to help when they had seen the first car being helped.

Question 23

Mass media and prosocial behaviour

Answer 23

• Greitmeyer and Osswald, 2009
• Bystanders’ behaviours can be affected by situational cues such as exposure to mass media.
• Findings showed that exposure to prosocial video games made participants more likely to help the researcher, to assist in following experiment and to intervene in a harassment situation

Question 24

Social and personal standards

Answer 24

• Dovidio, 1984; Omoto & Snyder, 1995
• Norms provide the script for prosocial behaviours specifying what should be done and when.
• Often such norms are learned from social modelling and reinforcements.
• Example of common norms:
  
  • Reciprocity: You should help people who helped you and expect the same (Gouldner, 1960).
  • Social responsibility: “if someone depends on you for help, then help”.
  • Personal norms: internalized norms that are socially learned but vary among individuals.

Question 25

Emotions

Answer 25

• Empathy-altruism hypothesis (Batson, 1991)
  
  • Empathy increases helping behaviour
• Mood
  
  • Good mood makes us more prosocial in order to maintain the good mood (Wegener & Patty, 1994) and to focus on positive activities and recall of positive experiences (Isen et al., 1978).
  • Bad mood is associated with less helping behaviours, possibly due to focus on own problems (Weyant, 1978).
  • However negative-state relief hypothesis (Cialdini et al., 1973) states that adults are more likely to help if they feel bad because, by helping others, they can reward themselves and feel better.