Analyzing Frustration-Aggression Theory & Social Learning: Aggression & Prejudice - Prof. , Study notes of Social Psychology

Download Analyzing Frustration-Aggression Theory & Social Learning: Aggression & Prejudice - Prof. and more Study notes Social Psychology in PDF only on Docsity! Prosocial behavior- acts performed with the goal of benefiting another person Altruism- The desire to help another person even if it involves a cost to the helper Kin selection- The idea that behaviors that help a genetic relative are favored by natural selection Norm of reciprocity-The expectation that helping others will increase the likelihood that they will help us in the future. Social exchange theory (revisited!)- The rewards of helping often outweigh the costs, so helping is in our self-interest Empathy- The ability to put oneself in the shoes of another person and to experience events and emotions (e.g., joy and sadness) the way that person experiences them. Empathy-Altruism Hypothesis- The idea that when we feel empathy for a person, we will attempt to help that person purely for altruistic reasons, regardless of what we have to gain. Altruistic personality- The qualities that cause an individual to help others in a wide variety of situations. Negative-State Relief Hypothesis- Feel Bad, Do Good The idea that people help in order to alleviate their own sadness and distress One kind of bad mood clearly leads to an increase in helping—feeling guilty. People often act on the idea that good deeds cancel out bad deeds Sometimes, negative moods make us more likely to help others: –Feeling guilt –Focusing on others –Thinking about personal values Urban Overload Hypothesis- The theory that people living in cities are constantly being bombarded with stimulation and that they keep to themselves to avoid being overwhelmed by it. Meta-analytic findings suggest that people are more likely to help in rural than urban areas, regardless of where they grew up Critical variable seems to be population density, not size Shige Oishi’s Residential Mobility H. Living for a long time in one place leads to: –greater attachment to the community, –more interdependence with neighbors, and –greater concern with one's reputation in the community. Bystander effect- The greater the number of bystanders who witness an emergency, the less likely any one of them is to help the victim. Step 1: Notice the Event Step 2: Interpreting the Event as an Emergency If people assume that nothing is wrong, they will not help. •When other bystanders are present (and inactive), people are more likely to assume that nothing is wrong Step 3: Assume Responsibility Sometimes it is obvious that an emergency is occurring, as when Kitty Genovese cried out, “Oh my God, he stabbed me! Please help me! Please help me!” Even if we interpret an event as an emergency, we have to decide that it is our responsibility—not someone else’s—to do something about it Step 4: Knowing How to Help If people don’t know what form of assistance to give, they will be unable to help. Step 5: Implementation You might not be qualified to deliver the right kind of help. •You might be afraid of: –Making a fool of yourself –Doing the wrong thing –Placing yourself in danger •Help may not be desired Pluralistic ignorance- Bystanders’ assuming that nothing is wrong in an emergency because no one else looks concerned. Diffusion of responsibility- The phenomenon whereby each bystander’s sense of responsibility to help decreases as the number of witnesses increases. EX SMOKE FILLED ROOM What else may lead to diffusion of responsibility? –Not knowing the victim –Fear of blame –Lack of leadership –Lack of previous experience with responsibility Exchange v. communal relationships (revisited!) Communal relationships are those in which people’s primary concern is with the welfare of the other person, whereas exchange relationship are government by concerns about equity that what you put into the relationship equals what you get out of it. People in communal relationships are concerned les with the benefits they receive by helping and more with simply satisfying the needs of the other person. People are more helpful to friends than strangers. Aggression- is intentional harm Instrumental aggression- Aggression as a means to some goal—the goal isn’t to cause pain Hostile (AKA emotional) aggression- Aggression as an end, not a means •Aggression that stems from feelings of anger or frustration •The goal is to cause pain Psychological aggression- gender and aggression Overt vs. relational aggression (Crick & Grotpeter, 1995) – overtly BOYS “Start fights” vs. covertly GIRLS “keep people from being in groups of friends” Culture of honor and aggression- •Honor is valued •Honor is defended •Manhood = courage, physical strength, warrior virtue •Culture of honor stems from social disparities Frustration-aggression hypothesis Situational Factors •Frustration-Aggression theory Frustration leads to aggression Closeness of goal as a factor of frustration-aggression link Aggression increases when frustration is unexpected Displaced aggression •Aggression not towards source of the frustration, but towards a different, lower status target Commons dilemma- A social dilemma in which everyone takes from a common pool of good that will replenish itself if used in modern but will disappear if overused Tit-for-tat- A means of encouraging cooperation by at first acting cooperatively but then always responding the way your opponent did (cooperatively or competitively) on the previous trail Integrative solutions- A solution to a conflict whereby the parties make trade- offs on issues according to their different interest; each side concedes the most on issues that are unimportant to it but important to the other side Identify and describe 3 theoretical perspectives on why people help others •Evolutionary Perspective Natural selection favors genes that promote the survival of the individual •The main mechanism by which genes get selected is survival and reproduction •Kin Selection Kin Selection/ Group Selection The idea that behaviors that help a genetic relative are favored by natural selection. People can “pass on” their genes by: 1)having children 2)Make sure their genetic relatives have children Thus natural selection should favor altruistic Thus natural selection should favor altruistic acts directed toward genetic relatives. •Reciprocity Norm is a social norm Norm of Reciprocity The expectation that helping others will increase the likelihood that they will help us in the future. •Learning Social Norms Social norms are learned—the mechanisms for learning social norms are possibly genetically- based (“hardwired”) •Social-Exchange Theory Helping can be rewarding in a number of ways: •The norm of reciprocity can increase the likelihood that someone will help us in return (i.e., investment in the future!). •Helping can also relieve personal distress that we feel when we see suffering •By helping others, we can also gain social approval from others… •By helping others, we increase or feelings of self-worth. The other side is that helping can be costly: •Physical danger •Pain •Embarrassment •Time •Empathy-Altruism Hypothesis Under some conditions, powerful feelings of empathy and compassion for the victim prompt selfless giving EX: Carol Marcy Study How does mood affect helping behavior? Feel good, do good- EX dime study and man dropping manila folder Being in a good mood can increase helping for three reasons: 1.Good moods make us look on the bright side of life. 2.Helping others can prolong our good mood. 3.Good moods increase self-attention. Negative-State Relief Hypothesis- Feel Bad, Do Good The idea that people help in order to alleviate their own sadness and distress One kind of bad mood clearly leads to an increase in helping—feeling guilty. People often act on the idea that good deeds cancel out bad deeds Sometimes, negative moods make us more likely to help others: –Feeling guilt –Focusing on others –Thinking about personal values How does residential mobility affect pro-social behavior? Shige Oishi’s Residential Mobility H. Living for a long time in one place leads to: –greater attachment to the community, –more interdependence with neighbors, and –greater concern with one's reputation in the community. What are the 5 steps to intervening/helping? Notice the event Interpret the event as an emergency Assume Responsibility Know how to Help Implement Decision. Why do we aggress according to evolutionary, biological, and psychological theories?  Darwinian and Freudian notions  Freud—Hydraulic theory of aggression  Our aggressive (and sexual) energy builds and must be released  Darwin—Evolution  Select for aggression  Recent views (Pinker)  Testosterone research Males aggress for two reasons –Establish dominance over other males –Males aggress “jealously” to ensure that their mates are not copulating with other males •Evidence? –Males are most likely to engage in violence during their peak reproductive years (teens & 20’s) –Violence usually initiated in response to self-threats (e.g., resources such as money, land, respect)  Fraternities and testosterone levels  Frustration and Frustration + cues hypotheses Situational Factors •Frustration-Aggression theory Frustration leads to aggression Closeness of goal as a factor of frustration-aggression link Aggression increases when frustration is unexpected Displaced aggression •Aggression not towards source of the frustration, but towards a different, lower status target •Dollard et al. (1939): as cotton prices went down, lynchings increased Berkowitz’s modification of frustration-aggression theory –frustration leads to anger –Anger with an aggressive cue leads to aggression –aggressive cue: object associated with aggressive responses (e.g., a gun) EX: More shocks given when gun present Guns (and other aggression-related cues) prime aggression =people will aggress  Provocation  Norm of reciprocity is strong!  We reciprocate negative behavior, especially if we take the provocation personally  Imitation/social learning theory Social learning theory—we learn to act aggressively and we learn the consequences of aggression People imitate what they see. EX: media violence What evidence do we have for and against testosterone’s causal link to aggression? Monkey Study- Chimpanzees vs Bonobos ?? Is there evidence that violent media and violent cues more generally cause aggression? If so, what is the evidence? Watching violence does increase the frequency of aggressive behavior in children. (Anderson & Dill, 2000 Study 1) •examined correlation between amount of time playing violent video games and aggressive/delinquent behavior •r = .46 – not trivial! Reviewed 54 studies with 4,200 participants •Playing violent video games resulted in •Increased aggression •Decreased helping •Increased aggressive thoughts •Increased anger •Increased arousal •Same effects for males and females, children and adults Short-term effects •Primes aggressive cognitions •Increases arousal •Increases anger •Long-term effects •Teaches people how to aggress •Teaches people that it’s ok to aggress •People develop aggressive schemas •They become desensitized to violence How can violence be reduced? Catharsis? Punishment? Cues? Role models? Catharsis Hypothesis- watch violence in order to purge aggression Catharsis? Doesn’t work! •Punishment? Not a simple solution 2. Attribution Biases 3. Social Categorization In group bias- implicit vs. elicit attitudes What is stereotype threat? Who can experience it? Under what conditions do people experience it? The apprehension experienced by members of some group that their behavior might confirm a cultural stereotype in a particular domain •Individuals do not have to believe the stereotype for it to affect performance •The apprehension affects performance—individuals “choke” under the pressure of disconfirming the stereotype EX: GOLF situation Many Black students fear that bad performance will confirm negative stereotypes about their racial group •Stereotype exists (widely known) •Person identifies with domain (usually, high-achieving) •Task/test is difficult How can multiple social identities shield people from the effect of stereotype threat? What factors influence whether people confront prejudice? •Salience of Group Identity •Knowledge of Perpetrator’s Attitudes The Inhibitory Effects of Social Cost When does the presence of others lead to social facilitation v. social loafing? Social Facilitation: When the Presence of Others Energizes Us We can understand the influence others on performance by considering three factors: 1. Arousal 2. Dominant response 3. Task difficulty Why is the presence of others (sometimes) arousing? Alert and vigilance- Because other people can be unpredictable, we are in a state of greater alertness in their presence. This alertness, or vigilance, causes mild arousal Evaluation apprehension- When other people can see how you are doing, you feel like they are evaluating you. This evaluation can cause mild arousal. Distracting- People distract us from the task at hand. Divided attention produces arousal. NOTE: Nonsocial sources of distraction, such as a flashing light, cause the same kinds of social facilitation effects as the presence of other people! How can you prevent social loafing groups? Personal effort is identifiable •The group is small (THINK: dispersion of responsibility) •There is supervision •People do not feel relaxed –(THINK: arousal) •The task is meaningful/important •The group is meaningful/important –(THINK: interdependence) –(THINK: not collective but social group) •Participate with “friends” v. strangers –(THINK: from collective to group process) •Collectivist/interdependent (v. individualistic/independent) orientation •(THINK: prime, social norms…) •Gender and cultural differences What are some of the functions of groups? Why do we join groups anyway? –Need to belong –To accomplish complex/difficult goals –Because you are born into groups! –Gain social status When is de-individuation most likely to occur? How are “crowds” wise? Given an example of “the wisdom of crowds” Group members can exchange ideas, catch each other’s errors, and reach better decisions –If members of the group have expertise or knowledge about the problem at hand –If members of the group have diverse perspectives (and those perspectives are voiced) “Wisdom of the crowd” •CONDITION 1: Independent estimates •CONDITION 2: Variations in estimates [bracket] True accrues, errors cancel When are groups likely to outperform individuals? (name at least factors) Groups are likely to outperform individuals when a task is divisible •Example: cooking –Performance is improved if one person dices, one mixes, one sets the table, one cleans up, etc. –Performance is not improved if everyone tries to dice and mix and set the table, etc. What are sources of process loss? Is diversity a “good” thing? It depends. •Diversity is hard! (Social processes & outcomes) •Diversity is useful (Cognitive processes & outcomes) Process of Loss- Any aspect of group interaction that inhibits good problem solving or decision- making Failure to share unique information –Shared information—Consensus—is persuasive –Shared information increases cohesion •Group think –People do not rely on diversity of information, opinions, or skill sets. •Group polarization –Group positions and decisions tend to be more extreme than the positions and would-be decisions of its individual members What are some of the antecedents, symptoms, and consequences of groupthink? Strategies for Avoiding Groupthink •Correct misperceptions and errors –Consult outsiders –Exercise humility •Limit premature concurrence seeking –Encourage critical analysis –Employ a “devil’s advocate” –Create subgroups (AKA recreate diversity) –Seek anonymous opinions In social dilemmas, why do people not cooperate? Why do they compete instead? Most people compete (vs. cooperate), thus behaving in line with self-interest –Both in “one-shot” and iterated versions •Why don’t people cooperate? –Greed –Fear and lack of trust EX:PRISONERS DILEMA What strategies encourage cooperation in social dilemmas? Along the same lies, what are strategies to resolve social dilemmas? Friendship and liking •Changing the norms: “Wall Street Game” v. “Community Game” •Tit-for-tat strategies: A means of encouraging cooperation by, at first, acting cooperatively but then always responding the way your opponent did (either cooperatively or competitively) on the previous trial.