Transcript Altruism and Aggression

Altruism and Aggression
Social
Psychology 2120
Guest Lecturer:
Francine Karmali
Today’s Lecture

PART 1: ALTRUISM

Altruism Defined

Why do we help?

When do we help?

Whom do we help?

Break

PART 2: AGGRESSION

Aggression Defined

Aggression from Within

Aggression from Situation

Aggression from Society
PART 1:
ALTRUISM
ALTRUISM Defined



Prosocial behaviour 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.”
Altruism
WHY DO WE HELP?
Why do we Help?

*Social Exchange Theory: “minimax” strategy

unconscious weighing of costs and rewards
…is there really such thing as pure Altruism?


Egoism?
But can’t prove or disprove Egoism – circular argument
Why do we Help?

Daniel Batson (1991) argues that pure altruism (only goal is to help the other person) does exist and
is most likely to happen when we feel:

Empathy


The ability to experience events and emotions the way another person experiences them.
Empathy-altruism hypothesis

The idea that when we feel empathy for a person we will attempt to help him or her regardless of
what we have to gain.

help sustained longer
Why do we help?


Social Norms (expectations)
“we ought to”

Reciprocity norm
•

You help because:
•
They already help you
•
You’re hoping they’ll help you in the future
Social-responsibility norm
•
help those who can’t help themselves
•
no expectation of reward
The Reciprocity Norm
(Whatley et al., 1999)
•
Favor:
•
•
“I was hungry so I got some M&Ms from upstairs and I though you might want some too.
No Favor:
•
•
D.V
•
•
“I’m hungry, I hope I’ll get a change to get a bite to eat before work.”
“The other participant wanted me to give this to you. I think it is some kind of charity thing or
something.”
Private vs. Public
The Reciprocity Norm
(Whatley et al., 1999)
Why do we help?

Evolutionary Psychology

Kin Selection – Help your kin = Help your genes

Reciprocity Norm- Help strangers = Help your resources = Help your survival

our ability to learn and follow social norms is genetically based – they have survival
advantages.
Why do we help?

Social Exchange Theory – “minimax” strategy

Empathy-altruism hypothesis – empathy increases altruistic helping

Social Norms – the “oughts” of society

Evolution – helping increases survival
Altruism
WHEN DO WE HELP?
When do we help?


Time pressure – Darley and Batson (1973)
moderated by importance
Darley and Batson
(1978)

I.V. #1 = Time Pressure (hurry vs. no hurry)


I.V. #2 = Importance (important vs. not important)


ppts. Told: they must either hurry to be on time for the next part of the experiment or that
they were early and could take their time.
Told: next part of the experiment was either very important, or 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)
When do we help?
Kitty Genovese Case
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.

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 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
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
Religion and prosocial
behaviour?
•
Sasaki, Kim, Mojaverian, & Kelley (2013)
•
IV 1:
•
•
Religion prime - prime vs. no prime
IV 2:
•
•
DRD4 gene -susceptibility variant vs. non-susceptibility variant
DV:
•
Prosocial behaviour: Willingness to help a charity (choice of 36 charities for environmental
causes).
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
Altruism
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)
is our help biased?

Frey and Gaertner
(1986)
White participants were led to believe that another fictitious participant requested help
on the experimental task, either because

I.V. #1 = Attributions –

internal/dispositional attribution (the fictitious participant did not put in effort )
VS.


external/situational attribution (The task was very difficult)
I.V. #2 = Race of fictitious participant

(Black vs. White)
Who agrees to help the fictitious participant?



White:
Results
(Frey and Gaertner, 1986)

Internal – 73%

External – 100%
Black:

Internal- 33%

External – 93%
Attribution biases on
helping is much more
pronounced when the
fictitious participant is
Break – 15 minutes
PART 2:
AGGRESSION


Today’s
Lecture
Altruism Defined

Why do we help?
PART 1: ALTRUISM

When do we help?

Whom do we help?

Break!

PART 2: AGGRESSION

Aggression Defined

Aggression from Within

Aggression from Situation

AGGRESSION
Defined
Aggression: physical or verbal behaviour
intended to hurt someone.

Hostile Aggression: aggression driven by
anger and performed as an end in itself.
(Aggressive Goal)

Instrumental Aggression: aggression that
is a means to some other end. (Nonaggressive Goal)
Hostile or Instrumental Aggression?
•
Bill spreads a nasty rumour about George.
•
•
intend to harm?
goal of the harm? What was Bill trying to achieve?
•
•
•
To impress Amanda with a “bad boy” image (Instrumental)
Revenge - George stole Bill’s girl! (Hostile)
What about this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_Z4qd7m1BY
Aggression
•
Where does Aggression come from?
What drives it?
Where does Aggression come from?
Environmental
factors
Nurture
Nature
Social
Learning
Evolutionary
Situation
X
Person
Aggression
Biological
factors
Aggression from
Within
•
Evolutionary theory – aggression is adaptive (resources, mate
access, defence, rivals, jealousy)
•
•
innate aggression -> psychological mechanism to improve
chances of passing on genes.
However:
•
•
Alternative explanations
Not enough
Where does Aggression come from?
Outside/Society
Environmental
factors
Within
Nurture
Nature
Social
Learning
Evolutionary
Situation
X
Person
Aggression
Biological
factors
Aggression
FROM WITHIN?
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
•
•
Bi-directionally related to aggression
•
Increase in T -> increase in aggression
•
Increase in aggression -> Increase in T
•
Decrease in S -> increase in aggression
•
Increase in aggression -> decrease in S
T responses in status-relevant interactions. Unstable hierarchy

Aggression from
Within
Physical Arousal – stimulates and amplify
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.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZfwuCjbBDk

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
Unexpected or
Understandable
Frustration?
Frustrations
Anger
X
Aggression
Example: Expectations: Traffic on the 401 vs 407
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.
What facilitated the brawl?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZI6OkXntGLI
What facilitated the brawl?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZI6OkXntGLI

Competition (evolutionary psychology, us vs. them)

Testosterone

Frustration

Alcohol

Arousal
•
Deindividuation
•
loss of self identity
•
loss of personal responsibility
•
anonymity
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
 anonymous vs. identifiable condition
 D.V. - aggressive driving
Ellison-Potter, Bell, &
Deffenbacher (2001)
Ellison-Potter, Bell, &
Deffenbacher (2001)
•
I.V 1:
•
•
I.V 2:
•
•
•
anonymous vs. identifiable condition
aggressive stimuli vs. non-aggressive stimuli
D.V. - aggressive driving
Results: interaction only on “pedestrians killed”
Ellison-Potter, Bell, & Deffenbacher (2001)
Aggression from
Outside
•
1) Frustration
•
•
2) Groups
•
•
through anger
though intragroup processes such as Deindividuation
3) Social Exclusion
•
possibly though hostile cognitions (DeWall, Twenge, Gitter, &
Baumeister, 2009)
Aggression
FROM LEARNING
Aggression From Social Learning

Learned Aggression

Media aggression exposure - significant correlation between media consumption and
aggression.

lab 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=YclZBhn40hU)

Aggressive cues – releasing anger
GUN PRIMES- Berkowitz and LePage (1967)

Participants were given shocks
and then given a chance to shock
back. Participants who were given
7 shocks reported being
significantly more angry.

Some participants gave their
retaliatory shocks with a gun sitting
on a near by table, while others
gave shocks without aggressive
cues near by.
Cognitively activating Aggression
•
•
Objects associated with aggression ->
Aggression
Social categories?
Bargh, Chen, & Burrows (1996)
•
Procedure:
•
Participant’s completed a boring and tedious “visual computer task.” (Odd-Even task)
•
Before each trial, the computer flashed subliminal pictures of either (IV)
•
Black faces
•
White faces
•
On the 131st trial, all participants received an ostensible “data saving error” and are notified that they will have
to re-start the task
•
Hidden cameras capture participants responses to the bad news:
•
DV - Hostility rated by
•
Blind Experimenter
•
2 Blind coders (RAs)
Bargh, Chen, & Burrows (1996)
“Social behaviours
can be triggered
automatically by
features of the
environment”
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
including stereotypes)
Done!