social psychology lecture 3 prosocial behaviour and aggression jane clarbour (spring 2002)
Post on 20-Dec-2015
218 views
TRANSCRIPT
Social PsychologyLecture 3
Prosocial Behaviour and Aggression
Jane Clarbour
(Spring 2002)
Objectives
• Understand what is meant by ‘prosocial’ and ‘aggressive’ behaviour
• Describe the main characteristics of both the prosocial and aggressive personality
• Discuss the elements of the process leading to the activation of prosocial behaviour
• Explain how the norm of reciprocity applies to prosocial and aggressive behaviour
Prosocial behaviour
• Defined as… ‘voluntary behavior intended to benefit another regardless of motive’ (Eisenberg, 1988)
– Considerate of other people’s feelings– Helpful to others– Kind – Generous
Prosocial behaviour as
Helpful behaviour
1. Egoistic motivation– Ultimate goal to benefit oneself
2. Altruistic motivation– Ultimate goal to benefit others
Example: Live Aid concert promotes performers sales and benefits those in need
Prosocial behaviour as
Reciprocal exchange• Favoured by natural selection process if:
– Follows reciprocity norms (tit-for-tat)– Costs to helper are less than advantages
• Limited to particular circumstances– Trust between helper and helped– Stability of group membership– Longevity of the group– Recognisability of group members
Characteristics of the prosocial personality
Obligation to help
and
Understanding of the needs of others
Social responsibilityInternal locus of control
Empathy
Empathicconcern
Personal distress
Norm of social responsibility
• Moral obligation
• Belief in a just world
• Interpersonal guilt
• Diffusion of social responsibility– Bystander apathy
Model of prosocial behaviour
Prosocial motivation
Prosocial characteristicsResponsibilityInternal control
Empathy
Just world belief
Prosocialbehaviour
Devaluation of victims
satisfaction
Remove injustice completely
Injustice continues
(Bierhoff, 2001)
Activation of prosocial behaviour
Process model of altruism
Attention
Motivation
Evaluation
Defence
Behaviour(Schwartz & Howard, 1981)
Process model of altruism
Attention
• Awareness that others need help• Recognition of other’s distress
• Selection of effective altruistic action
• Self-attribution of competence
Process model of altruism Motivation
• Motivation for action• Construction of a personal norm on basis
of social responsibility norms• Generation of feelings of moral obligation• Need for approval• Desire for reward
Process model of altruism Evaluation
• Assessment of potential costs/benefits
• Social costs• Physical costs• Self-concept costs• Moral costs
Process model of altruism
Defence
• Denial of responsibility– Priority to self-interest– Refute responsibility for others as an
‘unjust demand– Conflict of responsibility with other
obligations– Lack of resources or ability to intervene
Weakness of process model
• Doesn’t account for individual differences in:– Perspective taking ability– Sensitivity to interpersonal problems– Consequential decision-making ability for
self and for others– Social understanding of how one feels and
acts is influenced by how others feel and act
Aggressive behaviour
• Defined as… • ‘ behaviour that is intended to harm
others’ (Eisenberg, 1988)
– Hostile or physical aggression– Direct verbal aggression– Indirect aggression
Prosocial behaviour mediates aggression?
LOW PROSOCIAL
more aggressive, less kind, thoughtful
or ready to share
HIGH PROSOCIALless aggressive, more
kind, thoughtfuland ready to share
PsychopathyProsocial behaviour
Eron & Huesman (1984)
Eisenberg (1988)
Aggressive, manipulative, domineering
Obedient, compliant, helpful and cooperative
Hart et al (1997)
Emotional strengths and difficulties
Examples of items from SDQ (Goodman, 1997)
Emotional Difficulties
•Often fights and is manipulative
•Disobedient
•Lies and cheats
•Takes things from others
•Hyperactive
•Poor friendships
Emotional Strengths
•Nice to people & cares about their feelings
•Willingness to share
•Helpful if someone is hurt or ill
•Kind to younger children
•Volunteers to help others
Developmental model of aggressive behaviour
Physical
Indirect
Direct verbal
(Bjorkqvist and Osterman, 2000)
Gender differences
• Males more physically aggressive
• No sex differences in verbal aggression
• Females more indirectly aggressive– Girls more socially skilled– Girls better at conflict resolution– Girls mature socially faster
Relationship between empathy and social intelligence with aggression (Bjorkqvist et al (2000)
Social Intelligence
Empathy
Aggressive strategy
Indirect .55*** .15*
Verbal .39** .05
Physical .22** -.04
Peaceful conflict resolution .80*** .80***
Withdrawal .48*** .47***
Empathy mediates aggression
(1.) SOCIAL INTELLIGENCEBivariate correlation
Partial correlation
(Empathy controlled)
Indirect .55*** .65***
Verbal .39** .54***
Physical .22** .38***
Peaceful conflict resolution
.80*** .51***
Withdrawal .48*** .23***
Empathy mediates aggression
(2.) EmpathyBivariate correlation
Partial correlation
(Social intelligence controlled)
Indirect .15* -.45***
Verbal .05 -40***
Physical -.04 -.32***
Peaceful conflict resolution
.80*** .51***
Withdrawal .47*** .18**
What causes aggression?
Frustration-aggression hypothesisBlocking of goals catharsis
• Asserts that aggression is always the product of frustration.
• Frustration will always elicit the drive to attack others.
– Aggression as dominant response– Frustration creates readiness for aggression– Frustration induced arousal
Cue-arousal theory (Berkowitz, 1960’s)
Frustration
Arousal
Interpretation of cue
Response
Classical conditioning
Social Information Processing model
of aggression (Dodge, 1986)
• Encoding– Perception of cues– Attention to cues
• Interpretation– Integration of
memory/goals/new data
• Response search– Generation of potential
responses
• Evaluation• Behaviour
Attribution biasAggressive boys over attribute
hostility in others
Impulsive boys have problems in assessing alternative problems
Whether an act is labelled aggressive is affected by PERCEPTIONS of:
• The harm taking place• The harm being avoidable or foreseeable
(Source: PsychNow!)
Perception of aggressive acts
Was there an
Intention to harm?
Yes
No
Could this situation have
been avoided?
Did harm come to a person or
thing?
Yes
No No
Yes
Reciprocal aggression
• Norm of reciprocity (tit-for-tat)– Justification for retaliation
• Initiator is perceived as aggressive, unfair, hostile
• Retaliatory attack is perceived as acting defensively and fairly
Summary
• Social intelligence is required for aggressive as well as peaceful conflict resolution
• Empathy mitigates aggression
Discussion points…
• What role does empathy play as a mediator of both prosocial and aggressive behaviour?
• To what extent can aggressive and prosocial behaviour be explained by similar models for action?