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? Is our help biased? • Break! • PART 2: AGGRESSION – Aggression Defined – Aggression from Within – Aggression from Situation – Aggression from Society PART 1: ALTRUISM ALTRUISM Defined • Prosocial behavior vs. Alturism • Altruism: “a motive to increase another’s welfare without conscious regard for one’s self-interest.” • Give a Big Tip • A large Corporation gives to a Charity • Risk your life to save a stranger! 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 whet we have to gain. Why do we help? • Social Norms (expectations) – “we ought to” – Reciprocity norm – Social-responsibility norm 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 helping • Social Norms – the “oughts” of society • Evolution – helping increases survival Altruism WHEN DO WE HELP? 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. When do we help? • Bystander Effect: a person is less likely to help when there are other bystanders • We are more likely to help when we are alone than with others! • BUT WHY? What would you do? Video: http://video.msn.com/?mkt=en- us&brand=msnbc&vid=214b96c4-272d- 46c7-aba4-158d5355df71&from=00 When do we help? Bystander Effect: – Noticing: more people less noticing • Latane and Darley (1968) – smoke from vents Latane and Darley (1968) – smoke from vents people were much more likely and faster to report the potential emergency 80 70 60 Percent 50 3-person reporting 40 alone smoke 30 20 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Time in minutes 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? • Time pressure – Darley and Batson (1973) – moderated by importance (1978) Darley and Batson (1978) • I.V. #1 = Time Pressure (hurry vs. no hurry) – 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. • I.V. #2 = Importance (important vs. not important) – 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 on the stairs…when do they help?... Darley and Batson (1978) 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 the 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) Will the influence of attributions interact with (depend on) the race of the victim when influencing help? Results (Frey and Gaertner, 1986) • External (difficult task): – Black – 93% – White – 100% • Internal (lack of effort): – Black- 33% – White – 73% • Attribution biases much more pronounced when the “victim” is Black. Gaertner & Dovidio (1986) • White participants conversed over an intercom system with either: – I.V. #1 = Race of victim (Black vs. White person) – I. V. #2 = Number of Bystanders (Alone vs. 2 other participants) • Participants hear crashing chairs and the victim screaming “they’re falling on me.” • D.V. = % of participants who help? • Will the influence of numbers (bystander effect) interact with (depend on) the race of the victim? Results (Gaertner & Dovidio, 1977) • Alone: – Black-Alone- 94% – White Alone– 81% • Others: – Black Others– 38% – White others– 75% • Diffusion of responsibility was much more pronounced when the victim was Black Break – 15 minutes PART 2: AGGRESSION AGGRESSION Defined • Aggression: physical or verbal behavior 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. (Non-aggressive Goal) Aggression FROM WITHIN? Aggression from Within • Evolutionary theory – aggression is adaptive (resources, defense, sex rivals, jealousy) • Amygdala associated with aggression • Prefrontal cortex 25% smaller among antisocial • Genetic make-up influences sensitivity to aggression cues. • Testosterone and Serotonin bi-directionally related to aggression 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-aggression theory – Have you ever hit a machine that won’t cooperate with you? Vending machine, computer, etc. – by means of producing anger, frustration (blocking goal behavior) can trigger aggression. – When you expect what you don’t get… Aggression from Outside • Groups: amplify aggression – When someone else aggresses – Deindividuation (Loss of individual (self) identity, gained anonymity) • Personal responsibility diminishes – diffusion of 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. 8 Shock 7 Group decisions intensity 6 Individual decisions 5 1 2 3 4 Phase of experiement What facilitated the brawl? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9SyiQN2yu5w What facilitated the brawl? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9SyiQN2yu5w • Competition (evolutionary psychology, us vs. them) • Frustration • *Diffusion of responsibility* • Alcohol • Modeling (viewing violence) • Arousal Aggressive Driving Behavior • Is facilitated by the anonymous nature of our vehicles. • Ellison-Potter, Bell, & Deffenbacher (2001) showed that people who were in a driving simulator and were presented with frustrating events while driving were more likely to display aggressive driving behavior when in an anonymous condition than when in an identifiable condition. Ellison-Potter, Bell, & Deffenbacher (2001) 75 1.5 70 65 1 60 0.5 Anony Ident ifiab mous 0 le Anonymous Identifiable Speed Red lights run 3 0.2 2 0.1 1 0 0 Anonymous Identifiable Anonymous Identifiable Collisions pedestrians killed Aggression FROM SOCIETY Aggression From Society • Learned Aggression – Media aggression exposure – Rewarding aggression • Instrumental aggression – at least gets attention – Modeling aggression • Aggressive cues – releasing anger GUN PRIMES- Berkowitz and LePage (1967) • Participants were given 7 shocks and then given a 6 chance to shock back. 5 Participants who were given 4 7 shocks reported being 3 significantly more angry. 2 • Some participants gave 1 their retaliatory shocks with 0 a gun sitting on a near by Weapon Racquet No table, while others gave Object shocks without aggressive cues near by. Number of shocks given 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, anonymity) 3. Aggression can be facilitated by societal factors (media, rewarding, modeling, aggressive cues) Done!