Unit 2: Self and OthersArea of Study 1: Interpersonal and Group Behaviour

What is an attitude??

Write your own definition.

Compare your definition to the definition below:An attitude is an evaluation that a person makes

about an object, a person, group, event or issue. Or about anything!!

What is your attitude towards:

• Homework• Three day weekends• VCE• The AFL grandfinal• Your best friend• The person sitting on your right• Your teachers (be nice!)

Strong, Weak, Accessible

• Attitudes can be strong or weak. A strong attitude is more likely to be long-lasting, character defining and influence your behaviour.

• A weak attitude may not be long lasting and is less likely to effect your behaviour.

• An attitude is said to be accessible if you use if often. An accessible attitude may further be strong or weak.

How did you form these attitudes? • Most likely explanation is from life experience. • Forming attitudes is a continual process occurring

throughout our lives• Attitudes can be modified when new experiences

interact with already existing attitudes• There are many ways an attitude can be

influenced- by parents, teachers, peers, the media etc

• Try to identify where some of the attitudes you have already identified have come from. Have any of these attitudes changed over time? Who may have influenced the change?

Did you know that it is likely that the attitudes you form now will stay with you into adulthood?

The Tri-component Model of Attitudes• There are three parts to every attitude:

1) Affective component- the feelings and emotions associated with the attitude2) Behavioural component- the actions and behaviours that you do to express the attitude3) Cognitive component- the beliefs and thoughts that you have associated with the attitude

The tri-component model argues that an attitude has all three of the above. If one is missing, it is not an

attitude. Try to identify the affective, behavioural and cognitive

components of the attitudes already explored.

Attitudes and Advertising• Out attitude towards a particular product will

determine whether or not we purchase the product. If you have a favourable attitude towards a product you are more likely to purchase it.

• Advertising companies will attempt to change peoples attitudes in favour of you purchasing a product

• They may act to influence or change the affective, cognitive or behavioural component of your attitude towards their product.

Attitudes and Advertising• Changing behaviour- coupons, price reductions,

free samples• Changing cognitions- change beliefs about a

brand, make the item more important, add beliefs

• Changing Affective response- tie positive emotions to the brand or item; may use humour, fear, childhood memories; may use colour and music to evoke emotion

The Tri-component Model of Attitudes• In general, all three of the components of an

attitude will be consistent. • For example, if you do not like vegetables you

will get upset when you are given them (affective), you will avoid eating them (behavioural) and you will believe that they are not necessary and you can get your vitamins from other foods (cognitive).

• Another example my best friend really likes chocolate. She feels happy when she sees it (affective), she eats it regularly (behavioural) and she believes that a small amount is not bad for her health (cognitive).

Cognitive Dissonance • But are your feelings and beliefs always

consistent with your actions? • When any one of the three components of an

attitude is not consistent with the other two components, we experience discomfort. We know that there are inconsistencies in our attitude. This discomfort is known as cognitive dissonance.

Lets experience some cognitive dissonance... • Rate each of the 5 statements below on a 5

point Likert scale with 1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree• Global warming is a serious problem and is

having disastrous effects on our planet. • We as a society are too reliant on fossil

fuels. • Every human has the right to shelter and

food• No child should die of preventable

diseases. • We have a large impact on the natural

environment and should protect our native plants and animals.

1) Do you choose to walk or take public transport whenever possible to reduce carbon gas emission? Do you take shorter showers, turn your heater down and turn off you appliances at the power-point when you have finished using them?

2) Do you have solar panels at home to reduce the amount of electricity you need that is produced from coal? Will you buy a hybrid for your first car?

3) Do you donate food and clothes to local charity organisations?

4) Have you ever considered sponsoring a child in a third world country? Do you donate money to organisations that vaccinate children against preventable diseases?

5) Do you plant native plants in your garden at home to provide food and shelter to native animals? Do you donate time or money to organisations that rehabilitate land?

Too what extent do you display the above behaviours? Do your beliefs (cognitions) and emotions match your behaviour? How do you feel if they don’t? This is cognitive dissonance.

How do we deal with cognitive dissonance?

• Ignore the cognitive dissonance (but this can be difficult)

• Change your attitude by changing your cognitions or behaviour

• Studies have found that people will often change their cognitions to fit with the behavioural and affective components of an attitude.

• Explain some ways that you might deal with any cognitive dissonance encountered on the previous slide.

The Influence of Attitudes on Interactions • When you meet someone for the first time you

make judgements about them- even after a brief meeting

• This judgment may be based on what the person looks like, how they approach you and what they say.

• Why do we do this? It is helpful to categorise people. This helps us to adjust our behaviour accordingly and know what to expect from the other person.

Stereotyping• A stereotype is a set of commonly held beliefs and

ideas about a person or group• These beliefs and ideas may or may not be true• Stereotypes can be positive or negative e.g. Boys are

good at maths (good stereotype) and girls are not (bad stereotype)

• Stereotypes ignore individual characteristics• Stereotypes help us to better understand our world and

save us work mentally. They help us to make faster decisions. They help us to better interact with other people.

• While stereotypes may be helpful, they also lead to prejudice and discrimination

Prejudice• Prejudice is a negative judgement made about a

person just because they belong to a particular group

• Often a the person holding the prejudiced attitude will not personally know any member of the group

• Often directed at minority groups • A person or group can be prejudiced against for

any reason- sex, race, age, hair colour, religion, sexual preference, looks, profession, etc.

• Can you think of some groups that may experience prejudice in our culture?

Discrimination • Prejudice involves negative ideas the thoughts.

When these negative thoughts are acted on discrimination occurs.

• Discrimination can take many forms including violence, name calling, ignoring, put-downs, segregation and exclusion.

Reducing Prejudice and Discrimination • Prejudice and discrimination can be reduced using the

following: • Inter-group Contact• Sustained Contact- when people spend time with each

other over an extended period• Mutual Interdependence- two groups are dependent on

each other in some way• Equality- both groups must have equal status and be treated

equally• Super-ordinate goals- two groups of people are required to

complete a task with each group equally important to the task

• Cognitive Interventions- changing the way that people think about others and other cultures

• No one strategy alone is adequate- they must exist in combination

• Each group has been given a scenario. Suggest activities that you may use to reduce the prejudice/discrimination in the scenario. Relate these activities to the strategies outlined on the previous slide.

Robber’s Cave Experiment• Complete a flow chart outlining the “Robbers Cave

Experiment” conducted by Sherif in 1956.

Social Influence• Social Influence- the ways in which people

change their behaviour or attitudes because of the direct or indirect influence of others. Social influence may have a positive effect, a negative effect or no effect at all on a person.

• We will be focusing on group influence- social influence exerted on a individual by a group.

Groups• What is a group? • A group is two or more people that interact, influence

each other and work towards a common goal, interest or purpose. The individuals need to feel that they are a part of the group and must interact with each other. This interaction and influence differentiates a group from a collective. A gathering of people together who have little interaction or influence on each other is known as a collective.

LA 9.1 pg 375

Status and Power• Within a group, status and power will influence

how particular group members will behave and act. • What is Status?• Status is the level of importance of a particular person

within a group as perceived by the other members of the group. It is relative and can easily change.

• What is Power?• Power is the ability of one person to influence the thoughts,

feelings and behaviours of another person or persons. • Psychologists have identified different types of power based

on the source of the power. The type of power a person will have depends on their role in the group. Often a person may use more than one type of power to influence others.

Power• People in groups have power for different reasons.

The Stanford Prison Experiment• Our status, the role we play in society and the

situation we find ourselves in all influence our thoughts, feelings and behaviour. This influence is not to be underestimated as Philip Zimbardo found out in his famous Stanford Prison Experiment. See video and textbook for more information.

• What do you think was concluded from this experiment?

Obedience• What is obedience? • Obedience is a type of compliance that occurs when a

person complies with a demand. If you are told to “clean your room” by a parent and you do then you are obeying their order. If a parent asks you “Can you please clean your room?” and you do you are complying with their request as opposed to obeying a command. • What influences people to obey a command? What factors

influence people to obey others? These questions were ask by a famous social psychologists named Stanley Milgram.

Milgram• See Milgram slideshow.

Milgram’s Results• Milgram’s

experiment was repeated with female participants (original only had males) and in different countries. The same results were obtained each time.

So why do people obey? • Milgram’s original experiment was modified in order to

investigate this very question. • In these modified experiments: • The experimenter was in another room or gave orders via a

phone to the teacher• The teacher had to hold the hand of the learning on the shock

plate• The experiment was moved from Yale University to a run down

office block• The Experimenter wore normal everyday clothing rather than a

lab coat• The teacher was teamed with other participants (confederates)

who obeyed the experimenter• The teacher was teamed with other participants (confederates)

who did not obey the experimenter.

Factors Influencing Obedience• From these modified experiments, several factors

have been identified that increase the chance of obedience• Social Proximity• Legitimacy of the Authority Figure• Group Pressure

Social Proximity• Milgram modified his experiment so that more

distance separated the experimenter and the teacher. When the experimenter was not in the room and gave instructions via a phone or tape recording, compliance to the full 450V fell from 65% to 20%. Compliance also decreased when the teacher was closer to the learner.

• Milgram concluded that the closer the participant to the authority figure the more likely they are to obey. The closer the participant is to the learner the less likely they are to obey.

Legitimacy of the Authority Figure• Milgram believed that the legitimacy of the

authority figure would influence obedience. In his first experiment, the experimenter was a university professor and the study took place at Yale University. Milgram modified his experimental design to test his hypothesis. He conducted the tests in a run down building external to the university and in some instances dressed as a janitor. Compliance to the 450V dropped to between 48% to 20%.

• With higher levels of authority, people are more likely to obey.

Group Pressure• Milgram also altered the number of people

present during the experiment. Milgram recruited two more teachers (confederates).

• In one situation, the confederates were trained to complain and leave the study early. When this happened, only 10% of participants delivered the full 450V shock.

• Conversely, when the confederates supported the experimenter, conformity rose to 73%.

• It thus appears that group pressure is the most influential factor in determining obedience.

What did Milgram’s study show?• Milgram’s study was able to show the how strong

social influence can be in influencing behaviour. • Milgram’s study showed the negative

consequences of obedience- or the result of social influence being abused.

• In many instances obedience is not a negative thing. It plays an important role in maintaining an fair and just society.

Conformity• Conformity refers to any behaviour that is motivated

by pressure from other members of a group. When we conform, we act in a way that is expected and excepted by the others members of a group. In some situations we conform despite a difference between our own feelings, thoughts and behaviours and the feelings, thoughts and behaviours of the group.

• Can you think of a time in which you have conformed? You may have agreed or disagreed with the conformity.

• Can you think of a time that you have been a non-conformist and not conformed to the expectations of a group?

• Social psychologist Solomon Asch was interested in researching the factors that influence conformity.

• He conducted a simple experiment that asked participants to judge line lengths.

• He asked participants: “Which of the following lines- A, B, or C- matches line X?”

• The answer appears simple- Line B. However, by changing his experimental design 70% of participants answered incorrectly. How do you think he got these results?

Solomon Asch

Asch• Asch told participants that they were

participating in a study on perception. He had to lie about the real aim of the study- conformity- as knowing the study was investigating conformity would influence people’s responses.

• The study took place with a group of 6 participants sitting around a table. Only one was a true participant however and the others were confederates. The participants were shown the line X and asked to pick the line that matched from various images one at a time taking turns. The true participant was always seated last and so heard the response of all of the other participants first.

Asch• In the first few rounds the right choice was very

obvious and all participants agreed. However, after this the confederates started answering incorrectly. Not just one of the confederates but all of them.

• In all Asch ran 12 trials. He found that 75% of the participants conformed (provided an incorrect answer to agree with the group) on at least one occasion. Approximately 33% agreed with the incorrect responses on 6 or more of the trials.

• That being said 24% of the participants did not conform on any of the trials.

Asch• When Asch asked the participants why they

conformed many said that they conformed because they felt that their judgement must have been wrong as all of the other participants made the same judgement.

• This makes sense- it is more likely that one person would be wrong than two, three, four or even five!

• Some participants said that they provided the incorrect response because they feared being the odd one out.

Factors Affecting Conformity• Through various experiments, Asch and other

social psychologists have identified a range of factors that influence conformity. These are: • Normative Influence• Culture• Informational Influence• Unanimity• Group Size• De-individuation• Social Learning Theory

Normative Influence• We want to be liked and accepted by others. The

normative influence theory states that we comply with others in order to be accepted and liked by a group. We feel that people will like us more if we agree with their thoughts, feelings and actions.

• We are more likely to conform when we like the person/people in the group.

• Studies have found that people who care very little about what others think about them are less likely to conform.

Culture

• Asch’s experiments described previously has been replicated many times across many cultures.

• High levels of compliance were seen in countries such as China, Japan, Fiji and some African nations.

• Lower levels of compliance were seen in countries such as the USA, Canada, and Western European countries such as France and Portugal.

• Researchers have found a large difference in the conformity between collectivist cultures and individualistic cultures. Collectivist cultures work towards group goals and encourage uniformity. Individualistic cultures focus on individuality, personal achievement and independence.

Informational Influence• We conform because we believe that the

information that we have been presented with is true.

• People are more likely to conform when they feel they are incapable of making the correct decision/judgement on their own. They may be out of their area of expertise and need to rely on someone else’s judgement.

Unanimity• When the all or a majority of a group holds the

same belief, we are more likely to conform. • When just one other person disagrees, conformity

drops dramatically. Asch found that having just one of the confederates in his study provide the correct answer against the majority of the group, conformity fell to just 10%.

Group Size• Asch varied the number of

participants in his study- from a little as 1 to as many as 15. He found that as the number of participants increased, so did conformity.

• It has however been suggested by more recent research that it is not so much the size of the group that is important but the number of individuals whose judgements seem independent.

• In the larger groups, participants seemed to think that after the first 3 or 4 response the other participants were just following what the first three participants said. Therefore it appears that its the number of independent judgements that have the most impact. This is supported by the finding that the highest rates of conformity actually occur with a group size of 3 -4 .

De-individuation• De-individuation is when you lose your identity

when you are in a group. You feel anonymous within the group.

• When an individual feels as though the have no identity within the group they also feel that they are no longer personal responsible for providing a correct answer. This is the responsibility of the group.

Social Learning Theory• Social Learning Theory- all our behaviours are

learned and occur as a result of whether these behaviours were rewarded or punished in the past.

• This theory proposes that we conform because we have learnt to and that in the past conformity has been rewarded.

• Conformity has allowed us to avoid embarrassment in the past. When we have not conformed we may have experienced negative feelings by expressing an incorrect idea, displaying an inappropriate behaviour, etc

Why do we conform?• Maybe we can look at how we treat non-

conformists! How did you treat your non-conformist?

Group Behaviour- Peer Pressure• The information presented

so far focuses on the idea that we behave differently when we are in a group compared to our behaviour when we are alone.

• Peer pressure is the name given to the influence of your peer group- those the same age, gender, etc. Peer pressure mostly occurs during social activities and can be associated with misconduct and family tension. It can be real or imagined.

• Peer pressure is considered a type of conformity. It can be negative (pressure to drink, take drugs, etc) or it can be positive (pressure to attend a party that you actually have a lot of fun at, make new friends etc).

Group Behaviour- Social Loafing• Social loafing refers to the

tendency of people to make less effort when they are in a group

• The total effort of a group will not be equal to the sum of the individual efforts when alone

• There are cultural differences in social loafing however. It has been found that members of collectivist societies will put in more effort when in a group than when alone.

Pro-social and Anti-social Behaviour• Social behaviours are behaviours displayed

when we are interacting with others. • Pro-social behaviour- Behaviour that is

performed with the intention of helping someone. The soul intent of the behaviour must be to help another. We have all performed pro-social acts.

• Anti-social Behaviour- Behaviour with the intention of causing deliberate pain, discomfort or disruption (directed towards a person, group or property)

• First we will look at pro-social behaviour• What do you think influences people to act pro-

socially?

Factors we identify: • See others act prosocially• Upbringing• Personality • Media and TV• Personal gain• Moral reasons • Religion• Societal rules

• Psychologists are also interested in why we behave prosocially. Most experimental research into prosocial behaviours took place after the 1964 Kitty Genovese murder case.

The Kitty (Catherine) Genovese Murder Case• On her way home from work at 3am

Kitty was attached by a man with a knife out the front of her apartment building. Kitty screamed for help. These cries for help were heard by 38 people. Many of these people switched on their lights and watched the attack through their windows. None of them came to her aid and only one person called the police.

• In response to this case, psychologists stared to ask why no-one went to help? What might increase the likelihood that someone would help?

Pro-Social Behaviour• Under what circumstances are we more likely to

help others? • Psychologists have identified 3 major influences:

1. Situational Factors2. Social Factors3. Personal Factors

Note that these factors can increase or decrease the likelihood that someone will show prosocial helping behaviours.

Situational Factors• Two psychologists particularly interested in the

case of Kitty Genovese were Bibb Latane and John Darley. Through numerous experiments, they were able to identify three factors associated with the situation that may influence where people will choose to act pro-socially.

• These three situational factors were: • Noticing the Situation• Interpreting the Situation• The preparedness of a person to take responsibility

Noticing the Situation• In order to help a person, you would first need to

actually notice that they need help. • Research has found that you are more likely to

notice someone in need when you are on your own than when you are in a group.

Interpreting the Situation• Many situations in which a person might need

help can be ambiguous. That is, it is not entirely clear whether or not help is actually needed. For example, how would you interpret the image on the left below.

• The less ambiguous a situation is, the more likely someone will offer help.

Taking Responsibility for Helping

• Once a situation has been noticed and interpreted as one in which help is required, a person needs to make the decision that it is their responsibility to help.

• For various reasons, a person may decide it is not their responsibility to help. For example, someone is hurt at a sports match. It would be the responsibility of the first aid team to respond.

• When other people are near by we may decide not to take responsibility and leave the helping up to someone else even if they are not more qualified.

Taking Responsibility for Helping

• Many of Kitty Genovese’s murder witnesses had noticed the situation and interpreted it as one in which she needed help. They did not help however because they noticed many others also witnessing the event. They mistakenly believed that one of the other neighbours would run out to help her or call the police.

• Latane and Darley hypothesised that the presence of others would influence the likelihood that an individual will help.

• In an experiment in 1975, Latane and Darley had a confederate drop coins or pencils while in a lift. They found that when there were only 2 or 3 people in the lift, 40% of the time the confederate was helped. However, when there were more people in the lift, only 20% of the time did the confederate get any help.

• When participants were questions about there actions, they felt that when a lot of other people were around it was not their responsibility to help. Darley and Latane called this Bystander Effect.

Bystander EffectBystander Intervention is the tendency for a bystander to intervene and help another. The bystander effect describes how bystanders are less likely to help if other potential helpers are present. The more people present the less likely an individual is to help. Bystander intervention is dependent on the decision of the observer to stand up and take the initiative to help.

• Bystander effect was researched by Darley and Latane. • They placed college students in individual booths hooked up using an intercom.

The students spoke to each other but only one of the students was a real subject. One of the confederates suffered a seizure and Darley and Latane recorded how many of the students went to assist him.

• When the subject believed that they were alone with the other student, 85% left their booth to assist. However, when the participant believed that they were one of four students present, only 13% left to assist the student suffering the seizure.

• They found that the more students the subject believed were present, the less likely they were to get out of their booth and help.

• When other people are present, the onus on ourselves to personally assist has been dispersed to others. This is known as diffusion of responsibility.

Bystander Effect

Diffusion of Responsibility• The tendency for us to not help someone in need

when there are other people present because of our belief that someone else will offer assistance. The responsibility is diffused (spread) amoung the group making an individual less responsible.

• Watch Video

Social Factors• Social norms are expectations placed on us

by society. They are guided by cultural rules that define appropriate values, beliefs, attitudes and behaviours.

• Social norms influence pro-social behaviour

Reciprocity Principle• The tendency to help others if they have or will in future

help you• This principle can be quite powerful as Krishnan and

Carment (1979) discovered. They had a university student (a conferderate) offer help to another student. Later the confederate in return asked for help from the student. They found that 66% of the students offered the confederate help when the confederate had earlier offered them help. 0% of students who had not been offered help previously from the confederate helped when asked.

• This principle is evident when we help our friends. We would expect in future that they would help us out in return.

• Some people may be unable to help us in the future. In this case, we rely on the Social Responsibility Norm to guide helping behaviours.

Social Responsibility Norm• The Social Responsibility Norm states that we

should help those in need or those less fortunate than ourselves.

• We are more likely to help when we believe that the person needs help because of their situation and not through their own wrong doing. We may be less likely to help when we believe they nees assistance because of their own wrong doing.

Personal Factors• Helping behaviours can be influenced by personal

factors such as empathy, mood and competence.

Empathy• Empathy- the ability to understand and

experience situations and emotions from another person’s perspective.

• Empathy increases the likelihood we will help someone in distress. The more empathy we have for someone the more likely we are to help them (empathy-altruism hypothesis)

Mood• Mood- an emotional state at a given

time and place; can be short lived and change with the situation we are in

• People in a happy mood are more likely to help others. It is suggests that this occurs because it is a way to share the happy mood.

• There has been mixed results in the research on people in bad moods. Some studies have found that people in bad moods can be just as likely to help as someone in a good mood. It appears that if the person in the bad mood focuses on the person in need they are more likely to help. If they focus on themselves however they are not likely to help.

Mood

Competence• The most influential personal factor• The ability to help when someone is in need

(can be real or perceived). • For example, if someone falls and cut their leg,

a person who has received first aid training is more likely to help than someone who has not.

Altruism• A specific kind of Pro-social behaviour in which the

motive for helping is entirely selfless. The behaviour focusses on the well-being of another with no thought to personal wellbeing.

• Altruism involves no personal gain, reward or benefit.

• Altruism can involve personal risk. • Some people believe that no prosocial behaviour

is truly altruistic; the behaviour always has an underlying selfish motivation. I wonder if they have ever heard of Mother Theresa.

Factors Influencing Reluctance to Help• Having investigated factors that influence pro-social

behaviour, psychologists also became interested in why people choose not to help someone in need. That is, why do people chose not to act pro-socially?

• Psychologists have identified several factors that may lead a person to decide not to help a person in need. These factors include the situational factors (noticing the situation, interpreting the situation and bystander effect) and personal factors (empathy, mood and competence) already discussed. In addition, psychologists have found that the presence of others will influence helping behaviour beyond just bystander effect and diffusion of responsibility.

Audience Inhibition • The reluctance to help when in front of other

people (audience) to avoid embarrassment if the person does not need/want help

• Is increased in ambiguous situations- when the actions of the person make it unclear as to whether or not they need help.

• Is reduced when less people are present • Was investigated by Darley and Latane (1968) in

their “Smoke Filled Room Experiment”

The Smoke Filled Room• Darley and Latane (1968)• Told participants they were participating in a study on

memory. Deception was necessary as if participants knew the study was on helping behaviours they would have been extra helpful

• Participants were asked to wait in the waiting room and fill out a form outlining their personal details. The independent variable was whether the participant filled the form out in an empty room or in a room with two confederates who were also filling in personal information forms

• While the participants filled out forms, smoke would enter the room through a vent.

• How do you think the participants acted in the two experimental conditions?

The Smoke Filled Room- Results• Darley and Latane found that when the participants were

alone, they all investigated the smoke and went for help.• However, when other people were present 90% stayed in

the room while it filled with smoke! They coughed, waved the smoke away, rubbed their eyes and opened the window but did not go for help.

• When the researchers asked why they didn’t go for help the participants replied that there was no fire and therefore no danger. They noted that the other participants seems calm and so there was no need to worry.

• We would undoubtable assume that the fact that there were other passive participants present had a large influence on their behaviour!

Cost Benefit Analysis• The evaluation we make about helping that weighs up

the pros and cons of a situation. The pros and cons can be personal and social.

• If the pros out-weigh the cons then we will help (pro-social). If the cons out-weigh the pros, we will not help (anti-social).

• Example: A friend asks you to come watch him play footy on Saturday. Its the last game for the season and you have been promising you will come watch a game. Your mum has been asking you all week to clean up your room. She wants it done by Sunday morning as you have family coming for lunch. You also have to go to the shops to get a new portfolio for Psychology class. Weigh up the pros and cons and decide what you will do.

Role Play• In groups devise a short role play that

demonstrates cost-benefit analysis.

Anti-Social Behaviour• Any behaviour performed with the intention

of causing pain, discomfort or disruption to an individual, group or property.

• For a behaviour to be considered Anti-social it must be deliberate, voluntary and must intend to cause harm

• Anti-social behaviour is of interest to psychologists as studying it and understanding its causes can help prevent anti-social acts and the pain and suffering they cause

• At the core of many anti-social acts is aggression.

Aggression• Aggression is defined by psychologists as any

type of behaviour that intends to cause physical or psychological harm to a person, animal or object.

• The cause of aggression is something that psychologists are still trying to explain.

• There are four perspectives that we will look at. They are: • The Psychodynamic Perspective• The Ethological Perspective • The Biological Perspective• The Social Learning Perspective

The Psychodynamic Perspective of Explaining Aggression• Freud proposed aggression was an “instinct” present

from birth• This instinct resides in our subconscious• Overtime, the urge to harm ourselves or others builds up

and must be expressed. At some point our conscious mind can no longer control this urge.

• Eventually we must release this energy. Releasing the energy however does not always results in a display of aggressive behaviours. Behaviours to release this energy can include sport, computer games, reading books.

• Freud’s theory is presented here mainly for historical interest. It has no scientific support and is mostly overlooked by psychologists today.

The Ethological Perspective of Explaining Aggression• Ethology is a mix between psychology and zoology.

Ethologists study behaviour patterns of species in their natural environment. Often, observations of one species are used to make predictions about the behaviour of another species. For example, behaviour patterns found in animals may be used to explain human behaviour.

• One of the founders of Ethology was Konrad Lorenz. He studied aggression in many different species of animal and viewed aggression as instinctual.

• He believed that animals evolved to be aggressive to promote survival.

• Criticisms of his work include that is relies on generalisations from non-human species and little empirical evidence.

The Biological Perspective of Explaining Aggression• The biological perspective emphasises the role of

genetics, structures in the brain and nervous system as well as the role of hormones and chemicals in the body on aggression.

• Genetics: Some studies have found that genetics play a role in aggression making some people more likely to show aggression. The effect of the environment however appears to play a greater role.

• Brain Structure: Studies on the brain have found that the amygdala (a structure in the centre of the brain) may be partly responsible for aggression.

• Hormones: Experiments have shown that higher levels of testosterone may lead to more aggressive behaviours.

• Chemicals: In many cases, alcohol and drug use increase aggression.

The Social Learning Perspective of Explaining Aggression• The social learning perspective

emphasises the role of learning. Aggression results from watching others behave aggressively and then copying their behaviour. This is known as observational learning.

• It is not only the behaviour that a person will observe but also the consequence of the behaviour. If the consequence is positive, then we are more likely to copy the behaviour. If the consequence is negative, then we are less likely to copy the behaviour.

• The role of observational learning on aggression was investigated by psychologist Albert Bandura.

Bandura’s Bobo Doll Experiment • Aim: To investigate the effect of observational learning and

reinforcement (positive or negative) on behaviour• Participants: Pre-school aged children• Method: Participants watched a series of videos. The film featured an

adult and a blow up clown Bobo. In the film, the adult punched Bobo and knocked him down while shouting phrases such as “sockaroo”. The film however ended with one of thee scenarios:

1. the adult was rewarded with praise and lollies for hitting the doll 2. the adult was scolded and smacked for hitting the doll.3. the adult was neither rewarded or punished

o After the videos the children were allowed to play with the Bobo doll while being observed through double windows.

What behaviours do you think the children displayed? Watch Video: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-

4586465813762682933

Bandura’s Bobo Doll Experiment • Results: Children who saw the violent behaviour were

more likely to mimic the behaviour of the adult and act violently towards the Bobo doll

• Bandura later found that if the child was personally rewarded for aggressive behaviour towards the doll they would act violently even of they had seen the adult punished.

• It is however not exposure to violent behaviour that is the only cause of aggression. We see violence on TV everyday and yet most of us do not engage in such acts of violence. There are clearly many more influences on behaviour than observation of reward and punishment.

Bullying• Bullying is defined as aggressive behaviour that

involves in inappropriate use of power by one or more people over a less powerful person or group.

• Bullying is intentional and premeditated. The bullying will be repeated over time.

• Bullying can take many forms including physical assault, name calling, spreading rumours, exclusion and personal attacks on social media.

• There are many causes of bullying. See you text and the weblinks for more information