Presentation on theme: "Dr Fenja Ziegler FiP Lecture 3 Pro – and Antisocial Behaviour."— Presentation transcript:
Dr Fenja Ziegler FiP Lecture 3 Pro – and Antisocial Behaviour
3 Aggression as a Human Condition Poignant examples of violence and aggression: War is characteristic of civilizations Genocide Mob violence (not authority condoned) Violent sports (e.g. boxing) Children seem to develop morals so easily How do they develop aggression and violence? Is aggressive behaviour innate or learned?
4 Types of Aggression All aggression aimed at harming others Difference in intent/ expression Instrumental aggression Motivated by achieving specific goal Physical, verbal, relational Hostile aggression No specific goal, intent is to harm Violence An extreme form of aggression
5 Aggressive Behaviour can be Learned Children observe an adult acting violently and aggressively and receive Punishment Praise No Feedback Tested 3 – 5 year old children How would children act? (Bandura et al., 1963)
6 Observing Violence leads to Violence Adults in room stocked full of toys Bobo hit, punched, kicked, shouted at, etc. Observing children Ignore other toys and behave violently in same manner towards Bobo
7 Banduras results Adult receives no feedback Child behaves violently Adult receives praise Child behaves violently Adult receives punishment Children were not violent But when they were praised for aggression later, they exhibited violent repertoire Exposure to violence on TV might breed violent behaviour But mimicking real-life adult could be different from imitating actor Preparedness to be violent towards doll But even young children know its wrong to hurt someone Might not be violent to real person, only inanimate things
8 Is violent TV related to violent behaviour? Longitudinal studies by Eron, starting in 1960s (1982, 1987) Naturalistic study 1. Television viewing habits, including amount of violence watched; attitude towards violence (does it reflect real life?) 2. Violent temperament, rated by themselves and their classmates
9 Violent TV and Behaviour: Age 8 years and 19 years old At age 8, there is a strong relationship between watching violent TV and violent behaviour Children who were judged violent by classmates had violent programmes as favourites At age 19: If rated aggressive age 8, still rated aggressive Violent TV not related to aggression But violent TV watched aged 8 related to violence aged 19!
10 Violent TV and Behaviour: Age 30 years old Those who watched violent TV and were rated as aggressive by peers were still the most aggressive And had more measurable violent behaviour: drink driving, domestic violence, harsh corporal punishemnt The more violent TV watched aged 8, the more criminal convictions aged 30! Perhaps a sensitive period between 8 – 12 years?
11 Evaluating Enrons studies Children not randomly assigned Ecological validity at the expense of experimental control Which direction is the cause-effect relation for TV violence and behaviour? In an intervention study by Enron Teaching aggressive children about the lack of realism in TV violence curbed their violent behaviour
12 Corporal punishments breeds aggression Aggression and violence pre-date TV Enron suggests that corporate punishment promotes aggression Those subjected to punishment were rated as aggressive by peers By hitting child, parent provides model for behaviour Punishment only shows what not to do It does not show how to deal with frustration, etc. appropriately
13 Aggression and violence in 21 st century Vast expansion in TV schedule and other media since studies Violent games are related to (Anderson & Bushman, 2001): Increased aggression in children, adolescents and students Decrease in pro-social behaviour Violent song lyrics and any other violent media show same relation (Anderson et al. 2003)
PE: Temperature The hotter – the more aggressive Heat: arousal, irritation, discomfort Increase in individual and group violence Not when extremely hot For affective, not instrumental aggression Unwanted, unpredictable, loud noise
Pro-Social: Whats that? Valued behaviour Helping: voluntary, intentional, may benefit Altruism: does not benefit When and when not? || Situation and personality || who do we help? || whats it feel like?
16 Altruism The empathy–altruism hypothesis Batson (1987) empathic concern personal distress Empathic joy hypothesis Smith et al. (1989) Sociobiological explanation Kin selection Reciprocal altruism Biological versus psychological altruism
When do we not help? Bystander intervention in emergency Arrived home 3:15am Parked 30 metres from flat Winston Mosley stabbed twice in back One witness shouted Mosley returned, raped, killed 30 minute attack 15 witnesses (38 admitted) 1 phone call to police After final attack Kitty Genovese ( )
Bystander Intervention: Latané & Darley, 1968 Attend to the Incident Define the Incident
Informational and Normative Deutsch & Gerard, 1955 Informational: Converge to group norm to gain information Useful heuristic Conversion public & private Normative: Gain acceptance and praise Avoid punishment and exclusion Compliance public Explicit aim for group to be accurate (increase group pressure) & ½ trials: lines disappear before judgement (increase uncertainty) –Increase in conformity
Bystander Intervention: Latané & Darley, 1968 Attend to the Incident Define the Incident Accept Personal Responsibility Decide What to Do HELPNo Help
Cost of Helping Reward - Cost Depends on personal norms Ignore Victim Directly help victim Indirectly help victim Lower Cost of Not Helping Cost of Helping Low Cost of Not Helping High
Who helps? Personality? altruistic personality; genetic; social responsibility; locus of control; dispositional empathy Competence? real and perceived; leadership State or Mood? good mood more likely; except guilt; affect-priming (good mood-prosocial); affect-as-information Personal Distress or Empathy? Empathy-altruism hypothesis; empathy-similar to us; Gender Differences? No difference in amount; but, men more likely to help women; women equal; men more likely help strangers, especially if dangerous; women more likely in everyday situations Frank de Martini Pablo Ortiz (Dwyer & Flynn, 102 Minutes)
Who gets help? Similarity more if believed/ perceived similar Group Membership More ingroup than outgroup (unless alone) e.g. sexual orientation, ethnicity Attractiveness Physical and personality (friendly) Responsibility If no fault of their own
Living in a Moral World? Human aggression is strongly influenced by environment Children show tendency to imitate aggression Can also learn to act non- aggressively Society and media have the potential to make us violent Particularly if the exposure happens at young age Why do we have a tendency to help? When are we most likely to help? When do we not help? Should we be optimistic about humanity?