Social Psychology Lecture 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 responsibility Internal locus of control Empathy Empathic concern 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 characteristics Responsibility Internal control Empathy Just world belief Prosocial behaviour 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 PROSOCIAL less aggressive, more kind, thoughtful and ready to share Psychopathy Prosocial 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*** Withdrawal.48***.47***

Empathy mediates aggression (1.) SOCIAL INTELLIGENCE Bivariate 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.) Empathy Bivariate correlation Partial correlation (Social intelligence controlled) Indirect.15*-.45*** Verbal.05-40*** Physical *** Peaceful conflict resolution.80***.51*** Withdrawal.47***.18**

What causes aggression? Frustration-aggression hypothesis Blocking 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 bias Aggressive 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 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?