Aggression and Prosocial Behaviour Social Psychology 2120 Guest Lecturer: Francine Karmali

Aggression and Prosocial Aggression and Prosocial BehaviourBehaviour

Social Social Psychology 2120 Psychology 2120 Guest Lecturer: Guest Lecturer:

Francine Francine KarmaliKarmali

Today’s LectureToday’s Lecture• PART 1: AGGRESSIONPART 1: AGGRESSION

– Aggression DefinedAggression Defined– Aggression from WithinAggression from Within– Aggression from SituationAggression from Situation– Aggression from SocietyAggression from Society

• BreakBreak• PART 2: PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOURPART 2: PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOUR

– Altruism DefinedAltruism Defined– Why do we help?Why do we help?– When do we help?When do we help?– Whom do we help? Whom do we help? – Consequences of helpingConsequences of helping

PART 1: PART 1: AGGRESSIONAGGRESSION

AGGRESSION DefinedAGGRESSION Defined

• AggressionAggression: physical or verbal behaviour : physical or verbal behaviour intended to hurt someone.intended to hurt someone.

• Perpetrator has to believe behaviour will harm Perpetrator has to believe behaviour will harm (not accidents).(not accidents).

• Target must be motivated to avoid the harm Target must be motivated to avoid the harm (not your dentist).(not your dentist).

AGGRESSION DefinedAGGRESSION Defined Hostile AggressionHostile Aggression: :

aggression driven by anger and aggression driven by anger and performed as an end in itself. performed as an end in itself. (Aggressive Goal)(Aggressive Goal)

aka- “affective”, “impulsive”, or “reactive” aka- “affective”, “impulsive”, or “reactive” aggressionaggression

impulsive (thoughtless)impulsive (thoughtless) emotional (anger)emotional (anger)

AGGRESSION DefinedAGGRESSION Defined Instrumental AggressionInstrumental Aggression: :

aggression that is a means to some aggression that is a means to some other end. (Non-aggressive Goal)other end. (Non-aggressive Goal)

proactive rather then reactiveproactive rather then reactive


• Proximal vs Ultimate goalsProximal vs Ultimate goals• HostileHostile

– Proximate = HarmProximate = Harm– Ultimate = HarmUltimate = Harm

• Instrumental Instrumental – Proximate = HarmProximate = Harm– Ultimate = Non-HarmUltimate = Non-Harm

• Robbery vs. Physical assault Robbery vs. Physical assault


• ViolenceViolence– extreme form of aggressionextreme form of aggression– goal = extreme harm (death)goal = extreme harm (death)– all violence is aggressionall violence is aggression– not all aggression is violentnot all aggression is violent

• ex. child pushingex. child pushing

– *Can be hostile or instrumental*Can be hostile or instrumental

Hostile or Instrumental Aggression?

• Bill spreads a nasty roomer about George. – intend to harm?– Ultimate goal of the harm? What was Bill trying to

achieve? • To impress Amanda with a “bad boy” image

(Instrumental)• Harm - Anger - George stole Bill’s girl! (Hostile)

• What about this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_Z4qd7m1BY

9

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_Z4qd7m1BY

Summary - Aggression termsSummary - Aggression terms

– Aggression - intent to harmAggression - intent to harm– Hostile - ultimate aggressive goalHostile - ultimate aggressive goal– Instrumental - ultimate non aggressive goalInstrumental - ultimate non aggressive goal– Violence - extreme harmViolence - extreme harm

Aggression

• Where does Aggression come from? What drives it?

11

12

Nurture Nature

SituationX

Person

Aggression

Biological factors

Environmental factors

Where does Aggression come from?

WithinOutside/Society

13

Nurture Nature

SituationX

Person

Aggression

Biological factors

Environmental factors

Where does Aggression come from?

WithinOutside/Society

STRONG SITUATION

FROM WITHIN?FROM WITHIN?AggressionAggression

Aggression from WithinAggression from Within

• Evolutionary theory Evolutionary theory – aggression is adaptive – aggression is adaptive (resources, mate access, defense, rivals, (resources, mate access, defense, rivals, jealousy)jealousy)

• innate aggression -> psychological mechanism to innate aggression -> psychological mechanism to improve chances of passing on genes. improve chances of passing on genes.

• However: However: – Also alternative explanations: Also alternative explanations:

» Ex. “Roughhousing” among Young Girls vs. Boy at playEx. “Roughhousing” among Young Girls vs. Boy at play

15


• Neural: Neural: – AmygdalaAmygdala associated with aggression associated with aggression– Prefrontal cortex Prefrontal cortex 25% smaller among antisocial 25% smaller among antisocial

• Genetic make-up - temperament Genetic make-up - temperament influences influences sensitivity to aggression cues.sensitivity to aggression cues.

Psychophysiology of Aggression

• Testosterone and SerotoninTestosterone and Serotonin

• Bidirectionally related to aggressionBidirectionally related to aggression– Increase in T -> increase in aggressionIncrease in T -> increase in aggression– Increase in aggression -> Increase in TIncrease in aggression -> Increase in T

• Bidirectionally related to aggressionBidirectionally related to aggression– Decrease in S -> increase in aggressionDecrease in S -> increase in aggression– Increase in aggression -> decrease in SIncrease in aggression -> decrease in S

17

Psychophysiology of Aggression

• Biology x SituationBiology x Situation

– AmygdalaAmygdala– TestosteroneTestosterone

• Status-relevant interactionsStatus-relevant interactions–unstable hierarchyunstable hierarchy

18


• Physical Arousal Physical Arousal – intensifies emotions – intensifies emotions including including anger anger

• Other aversive incidents: Other aversive incidents: – Heat (influences arousal)Heat (influences arousal)– Pain (physical and psychological) Pain (physical and psychological)

• increases the likelihood of aggressionincreases the likelihood of aggression

FROM OUTSIDEFROM OUTSIDE(THE SITUATION)(THE SITUATION)

AggressionAggression

Aggression from OutsideAggression from Outside

• FrustrationFrustration– Have you ever hit a machine that won’t Have you ever hit a machine that won’t cooperate with you? cooperate with you? Vending machine, computer, etc.Vending machine, computer, etc.

• Frustration-aggression theoryFrustration-aggression theory– by means of producing anger, frustration can by means of producing anger, frustration can

trigger aggression. trigger aggression.

Aggression from OutsideAggression from Outside

• Frustration- Anger Link• increases:

– stronger expectations of achieving a goal• closer to the goal • surprise frustration

• decreases: • understandable, legitimate, unintentional

22

23

Frustrations

Anger

AggressionX

Example: Expectations: Traffic on the 401 vs 407

Unexpected or Understandable Frustration?

Aggression from OutsideAggression from Outside• GroupsGroups: amplify aggression: amplify aggression

– Through Through DeindividuationDeindividuation – When someone else aggresses (set norm) or When someone else aggresses (set norm) or

aggression is salientaggression is salient– (Loss of individual (self) identity, gained (Loss of individual (self) identity, gained

anonymity)anonymity)• loss of self-awarenessloss of self-awareness• loss of personal responsibilityloss of personal responsibility

Jeffe et al. (1981)Jeffe et al. (1981)

• Those who made decisions of how much to shock in Those who made decisions of how much to shock in a group administered more intense shocks than a group administered more intense shocks than those who made shock decisions on their own. those who made shock decisions on their own.

Aggressive Driving BehaviourAggressive Driving Behaviour

• Can be facilitated by the anonymous nature of our Can be facilitated by the anonymous nature of our vehicles. vehicles.

• Ellison-Potter, Bell, & Deffenbacher (2001) Ellison-Potter, Bell, & Deffenbacher (2001) • that people who were in a driving simulator and that people who were in a driving simulator and

were presented with frustrating events while were presented with frustrating events while driving driving

• I.V. #1: I.V. #1: – anonymous vs. identifiable condition anonymous vs. identifiable condition

• D.V. - aggressive drivingD.V. - aggressive driving

Ellison-Potter, Bell, & Ellison-Potter, Bell, & Deffenbacher (2001)Deffenbacher (2001)

Ellison-Potter, Bell, & Deffenbacher (2001)Ellison-Potter, Bell, & Deffenbacher (2001)

• I.V. #1: I.V. #1: – anonymous vs. identifiable condition anonymous vs. identifiable condition

• I.V. #2: I.V. #2: – aggressive stimuli vs. non-aggressive stimuliaggressive stimuli vs. non-aggressive stimuli

• Results: interaction only on “pedestrians killed”Results: interaction only on “pedestrians killed”

28

Ellison-Potter, Bell, & Deffenbacher (2001)Ellison-Potter, Bell, & Deffenbacher (2001)

29

Aggression from Outside

• 1) Frustration• through anger

• 2) Groups• though intragroup processes such as Deindividuation• anonymity

• 3) Social Exclusion

30

Social Exclusion, Control, & Aggression

• Rejection, Ostracism• Social exclusion Aggression

– frustration– pain - neuro same as physical pain

• “sticks and stones will break my bones, but words will never hurt me.”

• evolution - a form of “social death”

– 4 basic needs- belong, control, self-esteem, meaningful existence

31

• Social exclusion strive for control– loss of control

• sense of control restored through aggression since:

–Aggression increases feelings of personal power or general control

• Would restoring control reduce aggression after ostracism?

32

Social Exclusion, Control, & Aggression

33

Warburton, Williams, & Cairns (2006)

Procedure: Taste preferences experiment Triangular formation with two other ostensible

participants, who were actually confederates. I.V #1: Ball toss game

Ostracism (ball tossed 3 times in 4 minutes) Inclusion (ball tossed 1/3 times in 4 minutes)

3434

Warburton, Williams, & Cairns (2006)

Procedure continued: Aversive sounds- chalk squeaking on

blackboard, high pitched screams, etc. I.V #2: Control restoration

Diminished Control (random) Restored Control (sound onset controlled)

Favour: please package the food sample (hat - randomly assigned category 5: Hot and Spicy

D.V: “All quantities of the sample food are useful. From the larger sample provided, put into the cup as much or as little of the food sample as you want to.”

3535

Warburton et al., (2006)

FROM LEARNINGFROM LEARNINGAggressionAggression

Aggression From Social LearningAggression From Social Learning• Learned Aggression Learned Aggression

– When aggression is rewardedWhen aggression is rewarded– from direct experience or observationfrom direct experience or observation

• Media aggression exposure - significant correlation between Media aggression exposure - significant correlation between media consumption and aggression. media consumption and aggression.

• experimental studies confirm a casual relationship experimental studies confirm a casual relationship • Rewarding aggressionRewarding aggression

– Instrumental aggression – at least gets attentionInstrumental aggression – at least gets attention• Modelling aggression (imitating)- Albert Bandura’s Social Modelling aggression (imitating)- Albert Bandura’s Social

Learning Theory (1963)(Learning Theory (1963)(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zerCK0lRjp8))

• Aggressive cues – releasing angerAggressive cues – releasing anger

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zerCK0lRjp8

Social Cognitive accounts for Aggression

• It’s the thought that counts! – Associative learning– Cognitive scripts– Priming objects associated with aggression ->

Aggression

38

• Participants were given shocks Participants were given shocks and then given a chance to and then given a chance to shock back. shock back.

• Some participants gave their Some participants gave their retaliatory shocks with a gun retaliatory shocks with a gun sitting on a near by table, while sitting on a near by table, while others gave shocks without others gave shocks without aggressive cues near by. aggressive cues near by.

GUN PRIMES- Berkowitz and LePage (1967)GUN PRIMES- Berkowitz and LePage (1967)

In SummaryIn Summary1.1. Aggression can be facilitated by internal Aggression can be facilitated by internal

factors (genes, neural mechanisms, factors (genes, neural mechanisms, chemicals, arousal)chemicals, arousal)

2.2. Aggression can be facilitated by situational Aggression can be facilitated by situational factors (frustrating events, groups, social factors (frustrating events, groups, social exclusion)exclusion)

3.3. Aggression can be facilitated by societal Aggression can be facilitated by societal factors (media, rewarding, modelling, factors (media, rewarding, modelling, aggressive cues)aggressive cues)

Break – 15 minutes Break – 15 minutes

Today’s LectureToday’s Lecture• PART 1: AGGRESSIONPART 1: AGGRESSION

– Aggression DefinedAggression Defined– Aggression from WithinAggression from Within– Aggression from SituationAggression from Situation– Aggression from SocietyAggression from Society

• BreakBreak• PART 2: PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOURPART 2: PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOUR

– Terms DefinedTerms Defined– Why do we help?Why do we help?– When do we help?When do we help?– Whom do we help? Whom do we help? – Consequences of helpingConsequences of helping

PART 2: PART 2: Prosocial Prosocial BehaviourBehaviour

• Prosocial Behaviour: – behaviour that benefits another person

• Helping• Giving• Sharing • Cooperating

Prosocial vs Altruism


Altruism: “a motive to increase another’s welfare without conscious regard for one’s self-interest.”

Drives:HelpingGivingSharing Cooperating

All altruistic behaviour is prosocial behaviour, but not all prosocial behaviour is altruistic behaviour

• Prosocial Behaviour: behaviour that benefits another person• Altruism: “a motive to increase another’s welfare without

conscious regard for one’s self-interest.”


•Prosocial behaviour --> behaviour•Altruism --> motivation•Altruistic behaviour --> behaviour

•Prosocial behaviour --> reward, no reward•Altruism --> no reward

WHY DO WE HELP?WHY DO WE HELP?PROSOCIAL BEHAVIORPROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR

Why do we help?Why do we help?

• Evolutionary Psychology Evolutionary Psychology

– The “Selfish Gene”The “Selfish Gene”– Helping has survival advantagesHelping has survival advantages– Kin Selection – Help your kin = Help your genesKin Selection – Help your kin = Help your genes

• Cinderella effect Cinderella effect • Who would you save from a burning building?Who would you save from a burning building?

Who would you save?Who would you save?

4949

80808080

60606060

20202020

0000

.5.5(parents, (parents, siblings, siblings, children)children)

.5.5(parents, (parents, siblings, siblings, children)children)

Likelihood Likelihood of running of running

into a into a burning burning buildingbuilding

Likelihood Likelihood of running of running

into a into a burning burning buildingbuilding

40404040

Degree of relatednessDegree of relatednessDegree of relatednessDegree of relatedness

.25 .25 (grand-(grand-parents)parents)

.25 .25 (grand-(grand-parents)parents)

.125 .125 (first (first

cousins)cousins)

.125 .125 (first (first

cousins)cousins)

None None (attractive (attractive strangers)strangers)

None None (attractive (attractive strangers)strangers)

(Burnstein, Crandall, & Kitayama, 1994)

Why do we help?Why do we help?• Evolutionary Psychology Evolutionary Psychology

– The “Selfish Gene”The “Selfish Gene”– Helping has survival advantagesHelping has survival advantages

– Kin Selection – Help your kin = Help your genesKin Selection – Help your kin = Help your genes

– Reciprocity - Help strangers = Help your resources Reciprocity - Help strangers = Help your resources = Help your survival= Help your survival

Why do we Help?Why do we Help?

• Social Exchange Theory Social Exchange Theory

– ““minimax” strategyminimax” strategy– unconscious weighing of costs and rewardsunconscious weighing of costs and rewards

– BenefitsBenefits• decreased stress, social approval, reciprocated (an decreased stress, social approval, reciprocated (an

investment) investment)

Corporate “Marketing Corporate “Marketing Philanthropy”Philanthropy”

• Positive publicityPositive publicity• Reputation (build or repair)Reputation (build or repair)• Build employee moral Build employee moral

Ronald McDonald Ronald McDonald HousingHousing

only 20% of the charity only 20% of the charity is funded by is funded by McDonalds McDonalds

Corporate “Strategic Philanthropy”Corporate “Strategic Philanthropy”

• Overlap between contribution and economic Overlap between contribution and economic gaingain

• Safeco Insurance (expand affordable housing) - home insurance sales increased by up to 40%

• Apple (donate mac computer to schools)

Porter & Kramer, 2002, Harvard Business Review


• Social Exchange Theory “minimax” strategySocial Exchange Theory “minimax” strategy– unconscious weighing of costs and rewardsunconscious weighing of costs and rewards

……is there really such thing as pure Altruism?is there really such thing as pure Altruism?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9JcX2X7XnM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9JcX2X7XnM


• Empathy-Altruism HypothesisEmpathy-Altruism Hypothesis• Daniel Batson (1991) Daniel Batson (1991) • EmpathyEmpathy

– The ability to experience events and emotions the The ability to experience events and emotions the way another person experiences themway another person experiences them


• Empathy-Altruism HypothesisEmpathy-Altruism Hypothesis• Daniel Batson (1991)Daniel Batson (1991)• When we feel empathy for a person we will When we feel empathy for a person we will

attempt to help them regardless of what we attempt to help them regardless of what we have to gain.have to gain.– Help motivated by empathy lasts longer than Help motivated by empathy lasts longer than

when there is no empathy (help for some other when there is no empathy (help for some other reason, i.e., rewards)reason, i.e., rewards)

Why do we help? Why do we help?

• Social Norms (expectations)Social Norms (expectations)– “ “we ought to”we ought to”

•Social-responsibility normSocial-responsibility norm–help those who can’t help themselves help those who can’t help themselves

•Reciprocity normReciprocity norm–You help because:You help because:

»They already helped youThey already helped you

The Reciprocity Norm The Reciprocity Norm (Whatley et al., 1999)(Whatley et al., 1999)

• Are people driven to help those who have helped them?• Prodecure: rate art with a confederate and during the break...• I.V. #1:

– Favour: • “I was hungry so I got some M&Ms from upstairs and I

though you might want some too.– No Favour:

• “I’m hungry, I hope I’ll get a change to get a bite to eat before work.”

58


• I.V. #1:– Favour:

• “I was hungry so I got some M&Ms from upstairs and I though you might want some too.

– No Favour:• “I’m hungry, I hope I’ll get a change to get a bite to eat

before work.”• D.V

– “The other participant wanted me to give this to you. I think it is some kind of charity thing or something.”

• I.V. #2: Private vs. Public

59


Why do we help?Why do we help?

1.1. Evolution – helping increases survival Evolution – helping increases survival 2.2. Social Exchange Theory – “minimax” strategySocial Exchange Theory – “minimax” strategy3.3.Empathy-altruism hypothesis – empathy Empathy-altruism hypothesis – empathy increases altruistic helpingincreases altruistic helping4.4. Social Norms – the “oughts” of societySocial Norms – the “oughts” of society

WHEN DO WE HELP?WHEN DO WE HELP?PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOURPROSOCIAL BEHAVIOUR

When do we help?When do we help?

• Situational factors influence helpingSituational factors influence helping• In a rush --> reducing helpingIn a rush --> reducing helping• Time pressure – Darley and Batson (1973) Time pressure – Darley and Batson (1973) • moderated by importancemoderated by importance

Darley and Batson (1978)Darley and Batson (1978)• I.V. #1 = Time Pressure I.V. #1 = Time Pressure (hurry vs. no hurry)(hurry vs. no hurry)

– Ppts. told: must either 1) hurry to the next part of the Ppts. told: must either 1) hurry to the next part of the experiment or 2) they can take their time.experiment or 2) they can take their time.

• I.V. #2 = Importance I.V. #2 = Importance (important vs. not important) (important vs. not important) – next part of the experiment was either 1) very next part of the experiment was either 1) very

important, or 2) not essential. important, or 2) not essential. • D.V = % who stopped to helpD.V = % who stopped to help

– On their way, they pass a man coughing and groaning On their way, they pass a man coughing and groaning slumped on a doorway…slumped on a doorway…would participants (seminary would participants (seminary students!) help?...students!) help?...

Darley and Batson (1978)Darley and Batson (1978)

When do we help?When do we help?Kitty Genovese CaseKitty Genovese Case

New York City, 1964 - 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?When do we help?• Bystander EffectBystander Effect: a person is less likely to help when there are : a person is less likely to help when there are

other bystanders. other bystanders.

• helping is negatively related to the number of bystanders helping is negatively related to the number of bystanders present.present.

• As # of bystanders helping As # of bystanders helping

• We are more likely to help when we are alone than when We are more likely to help when we are alone than when others are present!others are present!

• BUT WHY?BUT WHY?What would you do? What would you do?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7dfkZKjWSo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7dfkZKjWSo


Bystander Effect: Bystander Effect: –Noticing: Noticing:

• more people more people less noticing less noticing • urban vs ruralurban vs rural

– turn inward to avoid overstimulationturn inward to avoid overstimulation


Bystander Effect: Bystander Effect: –Noticing: more people Noticing: more people less noticing less noticing

• Latane and Darley (1968) – smoke from vents Latane and Darley (1968) – smoke from vents –InterpretationInterpretation

• Is this an emergency?Is this an emergency?• pluralistic ignorancepluralistic ignorance - our ignorance to the fact that - our ignorance to the fact that

others are feeling the way we are. others are feeling the way we are. • illusion of transparencyillusion of transparency - tendency to think others can - tendency to think others can

“read” our thoughts and feelings.“read” our thoughts and feelings.

Interpreting events as Emergencies• Fire alarm

– I look at Sarah– Sarah is not panicking– I (incorrectly ) think:

• A) Sarah thinks it’s no big deal (wrong - pluralistic ignorance)

• B) Sarah knows I’m unsure (wrong - illusion of transparency)

• Must be a false alarm - phew– But Sarah is looking at you thinking the same thing!– Informational Social Influence

70

Latane and Darley (1970) – smoke from Latane and Darley (1970) – smoke from ventsvents

people were much more likely and faster to report the potential people were much more likely and faster to report the potential emergencyemergency


Bystander Effect: Bystander Effect: –Noticing: more people Noticing: more people less noticing less noticing

• Latane and Darley (1968) – smoke from vents Latane and Darley (1968) – smoke from vents –InterpretationInterpretation

• Is this an emergency?Is this an emergency?• pluralistic ignorance and/or illusion of transparency = pluralistic ignorance and/or illusion of transparency =

unresponsive modelsunresponsive models–Diffusion of Responsibility:Diffusion of Responsibility:

• More people equals less personal responsibilityMore people equals less personal responsibility


Bystander Effect: 5 step model:Bystander Effect: 5 step model:

– Noticing Noticing – InterpretationInterpretation– Take Responsibility (no diffusion)Take Responsibility (no diffusion)– Know what to do - someone is chokingKnow what to do - someone is choking– Decide to help - assess costs of helpingDecide to help - assess costs of helping

• risk, embarrassment, monetary. risk, embarrassment, monetary.

– Yes to all = helpingYes to all = helping

SOCIAL CUES AND HELPINGSOCIAL CUES AND HELPINGPROSOCIAL BEHAVIOURPROSOCIAL BEHAVIOUR

Social Cues x Gene on prosocial behaviour?

Sasaki, Kim, Mojaverian, & Kelley (2013)

• I.V. #1: – Religion prime - prime vs. no prime

• I.V. #2: – DRD4 gene -susceptibility variant vs. non-susceptibility

variant

• D.V.: – Prosocial behaviour: Willingness to help a charity (choice

of 36 charities for environmental causes).

75

Sasaki, Kim, Mojaverian, & Kelley (2013)• 10 sets: Unscramble words to form a four word

sentence/phrase• Religious Prime: 5 sets included religious relevant words

(God, Prophet, Sacred, Devine, Spirit)– “felt she eradicate spirit the” --> “she felt the spirit”

• Neutral Prime: – shoes, sky, holiday, worried

• Prosocial behviour: – add me to the email list– request more information about the organization– participate in organization projects

76

77

Money and Helping

Vohs and Colleagues (Science, 2006) It’s the thought that counts

Money associated with self-sufficiency

Money primes reduce probability of helping

Money and Helping Vohs and Colleagues (Science, 2006)

Money associated with self-sufficiency Money primes reduce probability of helping I.V.:

Prime Money (i.e., scrambled sentence) vs. No Prime (Exp. 1, 2, & 4)

Monopoly money (Exp. 3) Helping DVs:

Exp. 1- # of data sheets volunteered to code Exp. 2-# of seconds helping a peer Exp. 3-# of pencils gathered Exp. 4- $ given in donations

Money and Pro-sociality Vohs and Colleagues (Science, 2006)

Experiment # No Money Prime

Money Prime

1 (data sheets) 7.2 4.5

2 (seconds helping a peer)

153.0 76.0

3 (pencils gathered) 11.0 10.0

4 ($ donated) 0.76 1.18

WHOM DO WE HELP?WHOM DO WE HELP?PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOURPROSOCIAL BEHAVIOUR

Whom do we help?Whom do we help?• Attributions of responsibility: WHAT’S THE Attributions of responsibility: WHAT’S THE

REASON?REASON? Internal Internal disposition disposition

vs. vs. External External situation situation

– Has the person created their own problem or are they Has the person created their own problem or are they a victim of a bad situation? a victim of a bad situation?

Whom do we help?Whom do we help?

• Attached and/or Identified (increases Attached and/or Identified (increases empathy)empathy)

• Similarity Similarity – Similarity Similarity Liking Liking Helping Helping

• i.e., faces of fictional participants who were morphed i.e., faces of fictional participants who were morphed to match real participant’s facial features were more to match real participant’s facial features were more trusted and participants were more generous to them trusted and participants were more generous to them (DeBruine, 2002)(DeBruine, 2002)

– Ingroups vs. Outgroups - biased helpingIngroups vs. Outgroups - biased helping

We’ve looked at Prosocial behaviour as a DV (what affects prosocial behaviour)?

What about prosocial behaviour as an IV (what is the effect of prosocial behaviour)?CONSEQUENCES OF PROSOCIAL

BEHAVIOUR…

Can Money Buy Happiness?Dunn, Aknin, and Norton

(Science, 2008)

Experimental Study:

I.V.#1: Given $5 vs. $20 I.V.#2:Spend on Self vs.

Spend on others before 5pm D.V. Happiness after 5pm

Can Money Buy Happiness?

Dunn, Aknin, and Norton (Science, 2008)

Can Money Buy Happiness?Dunn, Aknin, and Norton

(Science, 2008)

Correlational Study: 632 Americans - Rated happiness Reported personal spending Reported prosocial spending Which predicts happiness?

Done!Done!

Documents

Aggression and Prosocial Behaviour Social Psychology 2120 Guest Lecturer: Francine Karmali