PSY220 - 2. altruism and Aggression Flashcards
Why do people help?: Learning
Reinforced to help others in past
Helping behaviour rewarded, selfish behaviour punished
Through modelling
Not altruistic, simply because they learned to help
Whether altruistic behaviour is motivated by good motivation is beside the point
Prosocial behaviour (altruism vs. non altruism) vs. altruistism
Is there such thing as “true” altruism?
Helping with no expectation of reward
Selfish gene hypothesis: goal in life is to propagate gene
Are we capable of helping strangers? – moral code
Acts that are disguised as altruism for selfishness: charity
Hedonic rewards: good feeling when we help someone – powerful reinforcer
We want to obtain good feeling
Why do people help?: Arousal
State of wanting to do something next
Arousal is ambiguous: often need to interpret what that is
Positive (excitement, sexual arousal)/Negative (fear, anxiety, anger)
Similar, overlapping physiological symptoms
When ppl attribute arousal to that person’s distress
Help the person reduce their own distress
Not truly altruistic approach
Behaviourism
Helping is the by-product of individual’s conditioning history. “altruism” vs. “prosocial behavior”
Arousal model
cost-reward model (Dovidio et al., 1991; Piliavin et al., 1981).
- Seeing distress of another person activates arousal
- arousal is attributed to the other person’s distress – unpleasant
- person is motivated to reduce the unpleasantness (by helping)
Cialdini et al. (1987) “negative state relief model”
Near someone in distress, we feel in distress
1.arousal, 2. labelling arousal with particular emotion, 3. label that’s generated is cued by situational features
(earthquake)
could be triggered by my distress or other’s suffering
empathy: arousal interpreted as own distress – egoism – make me happier, not you
Cialdini et al. (1987) “negative state relief model”
ppl less likely to help someone if immediately before receive praise/money/if people led to believe that helping does not improve mood
Ppl provide help only to alleviate their own distress
Batson (1991) “empathy-altruism hypothesis”
- negative state relief does occur, but 2.so can perspective-taking - “empathic concern”, 3. individual differences: subset of subjects, receiving rewards before helping opportunity did not diminish their likelihood of helping
Batson (1991) “empathy-altruism hypothesis”
Primary goal of improving other’s welfare as opposed to own
Perspective-taking: critical building block of empathy – necessary for true altruistic behaviour
Some do it more readily – relies on the stable individual differences
Helps facilitate empathic concern, sympathy, compassion
Without this, impossible to feel empathy
Batson (1981)
upcoming study involves people’s task performance under unpleasant conditions
Lots drawn – you win, other “subject” gets hooked up
After receiving several “trial” shocks, squirms with pain + tells experimenter about frightening childhood experience -It’s more unpleasant for her due to trauma than for the average person, but she’s willing to go on.
trade places with the other subject?
Batson (1981)
All subjects then learned that Elaine agreed to complete all 10 trials, and they were given the chance to help her by trading places after the second trial. easy-escape condition, subjects who did not help would not have to watch Elaine take any more shocks; in the difficult-escape condition they would
Batson (1981)
high in empathy – same regardless of easy/difficult escape
will help even if they have alternatives
low in empathy – only acted in difficult escape, only when they are forced to, when there is an escape they take it
Regardless of whether it was easy or hard to escape watching Elaine suffer, the empathic group wanted to help and said they would take her place.
Batson (1981)
Low empathy group most likely helped only because they’d feel bad having to sit through eight more shocks….to prevent feeling guilty
combo of high empathy + EASY ESCAPE that reflects true altruistic motivation
no p-t: personal distress - reduce own stress
p-t: empathy – reduce other’s stress
Cialdini’s new tack: “Oneness”
Become fused when other person is suffering
Extent to which they are fused in identity means they are helping to help themselves
Natural human connection – might seem altruistic
Understanding mechanism – lead to more altruism
Provide info on antisocial behaviour
society depends so much on credit + reward system
We need to figure out why ppl help so we can determine proper rewards or non rewards
Answering this question is a building block for society
Guilt
Are eagerness to do good after doing bad reflect our need to reduce private guilt and to restore our shaken self image in our desire to reclaim A positive public image
Inner rewards of altruism helps offset negative moods
Feel good – do good
Happy people are helpful people
Having positive thoughts leads having positive associations of being helpful
kin protection
Genes dispose us to care for relatives
Genetic egoism fosters parental altruism
kin selection: idea that evolution has selected altruism toward ones close relatives to enhance the survival of mutually shared genes
biologically biased to be more helpful to those who look similar to us and who live near us
predisposes ethnic in group favoritism – root of countless historical and contemporary conflicts noted that construction is the enemy of civilization
BYSTANDER INACTION
Kitty: stabbed + sexually assaulted near her apartment
Lights were on + 38 ppl witnessed it + didn’t interfere
Ppl didn’t even call the police
Controversial – facts not clear
Latane & Darley study
Each subject taken into a small room, wanted other ppl to have it over the intercom
Assigned to speak with 1 other person, 2 others ppl, or 5 other ppl
One of them starts wheezing
What they did, influenced by group size
Latane & Darley study
By themselves, they got help immediately
In larger groups are slower and less likely to intervene
the larger the “group,” the less likely subjects were to go and help. When group size was 6, only 38% helped.
When will they help: Noticing
First you have to notice when someone needs help
Often we don’t even notice
In the study it was hard not to notice, this isn’t the case in everyday life
When will they help: interpreting
Properly interpret what they see/hear – play fighting or hurt
Whether or not ppl need help is ambigious
We look to other’s reactions for clues how to respond – leaves groups paralyzed
Pluralistic ignorance: everyone else is taking non action as a cue that no one needs help
When will they help: interpreting
Illusion of transparency: tendency to overestimate others ability to read our internal states
Often we appear quite effectively to keep our cool
Group members, by serving as nonresponsive models, influencing each other’s interpretation of the situation
Bystander effect: finding that a person is less likely to provide help when there are other bystanders
As # of ppl known to be aware of an emergency increases, any given person becomes less likely to help
When will they help: Taking Responsibility
All think that someone else would help
believe they were the only listener, 85% left the room to seek help
Those who believed for others also overheard the victim, only 31% went for help
When will they help: Taking Responsibility
They believed in emergency occurred but were undecided whether to act, Participants invariably denied the influence of the group
Diffusion of responisbility: under conditions of anonimity + no personal connections
More likely to help: Established groups, closer personal connections, groups where there are clear roles Compassion fatigue + sensory overload from encountering so many people in need further restraint helping in large cities across the world
When will they help: Taking Responsibility
bigger and more densely populated the city the less likely people were to help
In large cities gonna bystanders are more often strangers
cultures marked by amicable and agreeable were more helpful
Nations have often been bystanders to catastrophes even genocide
When will they help: Determining correct course of action
Help if clear on what to do
Someone with training knows how to help
Ppl who know cpr are more likely to help
When will they help: Social Awkwardness
social pressures not to stand out + embarrass yourself
because so many things have to be going right, it’s surprising anyone helps
all the effects are in the aggregate – all are susceptible to individual differences
Helping when someone else does
glimpse of extra ordinary human kindness and charity often trigger elevation: distinctive feeling in the chest of warmth and expansion that may provoke chills, tears and throat clenching and that often inspires people to become more self giving
role of time pressure/”cognitive load” (lots on your mind, little time to do it in)
Mind is operating on multiple tasks simultaneously
limits to what we can accomplish
When we’re at that limit is when something is gonna suffer (texting + driving)
person not in a hurry may stop and offered to help a person and the stress, in a hurry is likely to keep going
In their hurry, they never fully take time to grasp the situation
Hurry, preoccupied, rushing to meet a deadline
The Good Samaritan Study (Darley & Batson)
On the way, all subjects passed man slumped groaning
Good Sam
Ahead of schedule 63%
On-time 45%
Behind 10%
Similarity to the victim
Similarity is conducive to liking + liking is conducive to helping, we are more empathetic + helpful toward those similar to us
dress and beliefs, birthday, a first name, or a fingerprint pattern leads people to respond more to our request for help
social responsibility norm
People are supposed to help others who are needy or dependent on them)
norm can be abused in the case of overhelping
ppl should help those who need help without regard to future exchanges
Western societies apply social responsibility norm selectively to those whose need appears not to be due to their own negligence
social responsibility norm
political conservatives the norm seems to be give people what they deserve
If we attribute the need to an uncontrollable predicament we help
If we attribute the need to the person’s choices, fairness does not require us to help
equity / reciprocity norm
People will help those who have helped them.
Expectation that people will help, not hurt those who have helped them
equity / reciprocity norm
Reciprocity within social networks helps define the social capital – support of connections, information flow, trust + cooperative actions – that keeps the community healthy
When ppl cannot reciprocate, they may feel threatened and demeaned by accepting aid
Gilbert & Silvera (1996):
candidate would be evaluated on the basis of his performance on a job aptitude test
chance to provide hints to candidate on test
informed that employer would see these hints along with results of test
High ability + high likeability: no need for help
Low likeability + high ability: help is used as sabotage (overhelping)
Indicating that this person needs a lot of help
WHO HELPS?: Demographics
Higher population density a better predictor of non-helping than raw population
Gender
dangerous situations men more often help
safer situations, women slightly more likely to help
More women rate helping others in difficulty as essential
Women have been as likely as or more likely than men to risk death
Faced with a friends problems, women respond with greater empathy and spend more time helping
The Norm of Reciprocity
Vs.
The Norm of Justice
Most of the time, they overlap, but they can conflict.
Norm of reciprocity are not being met – navigate tension between these norms
Cultural differences. Miller & Bersoff, 1994
helped spontaneously vs. someone who engaged in reciprocal helping.
Hindu Indian students: Reciprocal helping seen as equally helpful.
American students: rh seen as less helpful than spontaneous helping
Cultural differences. Miller & Bersoff, 1994
Indian Ps viewed reciprocity as a moral obligation
Most American students viewed reciprocity as personal choice.
In a collectivistic context, there is more requirement to help
Regardless of intentions, behaviour must be progroup
Someone who helps but didn’t have to are praise worthy in western societies
Whom do we help?: Attractiveness
Benson et al. (1976) planted objects at large airport (completed grad school app) Attractiveness varied.
DV: Researchers checked their mail to see who sent the stuff back.
Results: Attractive photo led to significantly more returns than unattractive photo.
Whom do we help?: Likeability
Magic induced a “halo effect” but it wore off.
Likeability associated with him transferred to other HIV patients
Whom do we help?: Similarity
A host of similarity dimensions, including nationality, attitudes, and dress…people more likely to help if they know the victim is similar.
Whom do we help?: Closeness
higher the genetic closeness higher the likelihood of help
Propagating as many of your genes as possible, more you share, the more you want to save them
Emotional closeness + culture must also be a factor
Teaching moral inclusion
Moral exclusion: perception of certain individuals or groups as outside boundary within which you apply moral values + rules of fairness
inclusion: regarding others as within your circle of moral concern
Counter natural in group bias by broadening the range of people’s well-being concerns us
AGGRESSION
Aggression: physical/verbal behaviour intended to hurt someone
Hostile aggression: aggression driven by anger + performed as an end in itself
Most murders – impulsive, emotional outbursts
Instrumental aggression
means to a desired end (personal gain, attention, or even self-defense). Assumption: If aggressor believes there is an easier way to obtain goal, aggression would not occur.
Emotional aggression
harm inflicted for its own sake. Often “hot” and impulsive…but not necessarily as in “revenge is a dish best served cold” (a la the Count of Monte Cristo).
To what extent is our level of aggression due to genetic factors?
Prediction: identical twins should be more similar in aggression
Prediction adopted children’s level of aggressiveness should resemble biological parents more
Results: Greater than zero genetic contribution, but not very impressive (Miles & Carey, 1997).
To what extent is our level of aggression due to genetic factors?
strong relationship betw testosterone level + physical violence.
Increase in testosterone in winners
Bidirectional influence: increased level = increased aggression, increased aggression = increased testosterone
To what extent is our level of aggression due to genetic factors?
low levels of serotonin + drugs that boost serotonin decrease aggression level of serotonin appears to have some a priori genetic component but it also fluctuates a lot from situation to situation.
Instinct Theory + Evolutionary Psychology
Instinctive rather than self-destructive
Builds up until it explodes
Fails to account for variation in aggressiveness
strategy for gaining resources, defence, intimidating/eliminating rivals + deterring mates from infidelity
Men have inherited from successful ancestors psychological mechanisms
Genetic Influences
Heredity influences the neural system’s sensitivity to aggressive cues
Temperament influenced by our sypathetic nervous system’s reactivity
Genes predispose some children to be more sensitive + responsive to maltreatment
Nature + nurture interact
Alcohol
Unleashes aggression when provoked
Reduces ppl’s self-awareness, focusing attention on provocation + mentality associating alcohol with aggression
Deindividuates + disinhibits
LEARNED ELEMENTS
strongly reinforced via positive reinforcement (produces rewards) or negative reinforcement (prevents undesired outcome).
Believed in 90s that swift action on all crime (zero-tolerance) reduced crime shaply
Hall’s (1998)
punishment is more likely to work at decreasing aggression if it is:
1.immediate
2.strong
3.consistent.
punishment can backfire if conditions are not met
Berkowitz (1998) argued that the certainty of punishment is more important than its severity.
Aggression as a response to frustration
Frustration aggression theory: frustration triggers a readiness to aggress
Frustration: blocking of goal
Grows when motivation is very strong, when we expected gratification and when the blocking is complete
Displacement: redirection of aggression to a target other than the source of frustration. New target is a safer more socially acceptable target
Displaced aggression is most likely when target share some similarity to the instigator and does some minor irritating act that unleashes that displaced aggression
less likely to respond aggressively if that person apologizes, except responsibility or otherwise tries to make amends
Frustration arises from gap betw expectations and attainment
Relative deprivation
Perception that one is less well-off than others to whom one compares oneself
Affluence depicted in television programs in commercials
The rewards of aggression
By experience + observing others we learned that aggression often pays
Aggression is instrumental in achieving certain rewards
Terrorist attacks, enable powerless people to garner widespread attention
Observational learning
Social learning theory: we learned social behavior by observing + imitating and by being rewarded in punished
Bandura: Bobo doll
Observing aggressive behavior had both lowered children’s inhibitions and taught them ways to agress
Bandura’s Bobo Doll study
social models have great power to teach aggression, even without any real rewards or punishments
Beyond what the model did: used a gun, creative new ways to hurt Bobo
Even models punished has very little effect on reducing subsequent child’s aggressive behaviour
Archer: Nation Homicide Rates
Both winning + losing war countries leads to an increased homicide rate
Bandura’s Bobo Doll study
nonaggression can also be successfully modeled through observational learning (Gibbons & Ebbeck, 1997).
More likely to see prosocial behaviour
The family
Physically aggressive children tend to have physically punitive parents
Their parents modeled aggression by disciplining them was screaming, slapping and beating
Correlation between parental absence and violence holds across races, income levels, education and locations
The culture
Violent subculture of teenage gangs
In the south, men had to stand up for themselves and defend their honor in order to protect possessions, families and themselves
Confederate insulted them passing them in the hallway
The insult had a very little effect on the Northerners
Southerners reacted with anger, more physiologically aroused and gave stronger shocks to another Confederate later during the study
Aggressive acts are motivated by a variety of aversive experiences – frustration, pain, insults
Aggression is most likely when we are aroused and it seems safe and rewarding to agress
FRUSTRATION
Dollard (1939): The Frustration-Aggression Hypothesis:
- Frustration produced by interrupting a person’s progress toward an expected goal will always elicit the motive to aggress.
- All aggression is caused by frustrations
FRUSTRATION
A key component: Displacement (the inclination to aggress is deflected to a more socially acceptable substitute)
Influenced by Freud + psychoanalysis
Catharsis: take out aggression on boss
“catharsis”
Participating in aggressive sports, reduces aggressiveness on boss
- Imagined or observed aggression is actually more likely to increase physiological symptoms.
- Actual aggressive behavior can lower arousal levels, but if the aggressive intent remains, “cold-blooded”/calculated aggression (i.e., without the arousal component) can still occur, and does occur quite often.
“catharsis”
3.If aggressive behavior feels good, then that’s a reinforcer!
4.Feelings of hostility can still persist, even after you’ve finished punching the bag.
Doing nothing at all more affectively reduced aggression then did blowing off steam by hitting the bag
Expressing hostility bred more hostility
In the short run retaliation provide pleasure but in the long run negative feelings
Ruminators displaced aggressive urges and prescribed twice as much shock
The impact of arousal
excitation transfer: arousal by one stimulus can intensify someone’s emotional response to another stimulus
Burkowitz: Unpleasant emotions can lead to aggression: bad smell, noise, crowds,
Running on treadmill makes them more attracted: attribute physiological symptoms to sexual attraction
Can running on the treadmill make someone more aggressive?
influences: Pain
cruelty animals imposed on each other matched the cruelty imposed on them
Animals are not choosy about their targets
Intense heat and psychological pain – frustration
Pain heightens aggressiveness in humans
Any aversive events = emotional outburst
influences: Heat
Temporary climate variations can affect behavior
Offensive odors, cigarette smoke and air pollution have all been linked with aggressive behavior
Griffitt found that compared to student to answer questionnaires in a room with normal temperature, those who did so in an uncomfortably hot room reported feeling more tired and aggressive and expressed more hostility toward a stranger
In hot Weather, drivers without air-conditioning are more likely to honk at a stalled car
Attacks
Being attacked or insulted by someone is especially conducive to aggression
Intentional attacks breed retaliatory attacks
Arousal
Schachter and singer
A given state of bodily arousal feeds one emotion or another, depending on how the person interprets and labels the arousal
Arousal feeds emotions
Forms of arousal amplify one another
Aggression cues
Violence is more likely when aggressive cues release pent-up anger – gun
Guns prime hostile thoughts
Weapon is perceived as an instrument of violence rather than a recreational item – for hunters seeing a hunting rifle does not prime aggressive thoughts
Changes in gun laws do seem to affect murder rates
Arousal-affect model (Sapolsky, 1984; Zillman & Bryant, 1984)
Arousal + emotions are related
Both need high arousal + negative emotion = high aggession
Neutral emotion + low arousal = no effect
Neutral emotion + high arousal = some increase in aggression
Positive emotion + low arousal = less aggression
Positive emotion + high arousal = more/less aggression (not straightforward)
depends on several other variables, including personality variables
Media influences: pornography and sexual violence
Increased rates of criminal violence including sexual portion coincided with increased availability of violent + sexual material in media that started during sexual revolution in the 60s
Social psychologist report that doing such fictional scenes of a man overpowering and arousing a woman can distort one’s perception of how women actually respond to sexual coercion and increase men’s aggression against woman
Media influences: pornography and sexual violence
Exposure to pornography increases acceptance of the rape myth
Those exposed to sexually violent movies for three days expressed less sympathy for domestic violence victims and rated the victims injuries as less severe
Media influences: television
Woman more than men, nonwhites more than whites, retard people more than others and less educated more than highly educated
Six in 10 programs contain violence
73% of violent scenes, aggressors went unpunished
58%, the victim was not shown to experience pain
Only 5% of violence was shown to have any long-term consequences, two thirds depicted violence is funny
Televisions effects on behaviour
watched a great deal admitted to 50% more violent acts
Viewing violence at age 8 modestly predicted aggressiveness at age 19 but aggressiveness at age 8 did not predict viewing violence at age 19
Aggression followed viewing not the reverse
Where television goes, increased violence follows
Why does TV viewing affect behavior
Viewing violence disinhibits Legitimizes outburst activating violence related thoughts Media portrayals evoke imitation Modeling prosocial behavior should be socially beneficial
Desensitization
Desensitization – psychic numbness – occurs among young man who view slasher films
Social scripts
After so many action films, youngsters acquire a script that is played when they face real life conflicts
More sexual content that adolescents view the more likely they are to perceive their peers as sexually active, develop sexually permissive attitudes and to experience early intercourse
Media implants social scripts
Altered perceptions
Heavy viewers are more likely to exaggerate the frequency of violence in the world around them into fear being personally assaulted
For people who watch a lot of television, the world becomes a scary place
Media portrayals shape perceptions of reality
Cognitive priming
Watching violent videos primes networks of aggression related ideas
Television steals time from club meetings, volunteering, congregational activity, and political engagement
Effects of the games kids play
Players identify with violent character
actively rehearse violence
Engage in the whole sequence of enacting violence
engaged with continual violence
Are rewarded for effective aggression
Decreases prosocial behaviors – slower to help a person
Group influences
amplify aggressive reactions partly by diffusing responsibility
greater number of people in lynch mob, more vicious + murder + mutilation
social contagion - groups magnify aggressive tendencies much as they polarize other tendencies
Collective mentality that mobilizes a group or culture for extraordinary actions
Social learning approach
should reward cooperative, non-aggressive behavior
refrain from planting false, unreachable expectation in peoples minds because frustrated expectations + personal attacks predispose hostile aggression
Punishment is aversive stimulation, it models the behavior it seeks to prevent
Reduce TV watching and playing video games, availability of weapons such as handguns
DOES TELEVISION CAUSE VIOLENCE?
How to tease apart the direction of causality?
- Measure and statistically control for possible third variables (e.g., intelligence, physical size).
- Longitudinal designs. Viewing violence at age 8 predicted aggressiveness at age 19, but aggressiveness at age 8 did not predict viewing TV violence at age 19.
DOES TELEVISION CAUSE VIOLENCE?
3.Experiments: Bandura and Walters (1963): Replicated Bobo Doll study with children merely watching the model hitting the doll on a videotape, rather than live. Same results.
If only 1 predicts, arrow only goes in 1 direction, viewing - aggressiveness
WHY DOES EXPOSURE TO TV VIOLENCE CAUSE VIOLENCE?
1.Arousal: + arousal spills over.
Something’s making me upset
2.Disinhibition – legitimization of violence.
New cultural norm where violence isn’t seen as terrible
3.Imitation/behavioral scripts
Know how to be violent
4.Desensitization: Ppl exposed to violence, changes threshold so they get less physiological response to same amount of violence
More likely to be indifferent
WHY DOES EXPOSURE TO TV VIOLENCE CAUSE VIOLENCE?
5.Altered perceptions: Gerbner (1994) – subjects who watched more than 4 hours a day were more like than those who watched less than 2 hours a day to exaggerate the frequency of violence out there in the world and to fear being personally assaulted.
if I watch more violent content, the more I believe that the world is a violent place
6.Accessibility/priming: Certain concepts can be activated in my head that triggers behaviour unconscious
