Pro – and Antisocial Behaviour

Click here to load reader

download Pro – and Antisocial  Behaviour

of 25

description

Pro – and Antisocial Behaviour. Dr Fenja Ziegler FiP Lecture 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) - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Transcript of Pro – and Antisocial Behaviour

Pro and Antisocial Behaviour

Dr Fenja Ziegler

FiP Lecture 3Pro and Antisocial Behaviour

23Aggression as a Human ConditionPoignant examples of violence and aggression:War is characteristic of civilizationsGenocideMob violence (not authority condoned)Violent sports (e.g. boxing)Children seem to develop morals so easilyHow do they develop aggression and violence?Is aggressive behaviour innate or learned?34Types of AggressionAll aggression aimed at harming othersDifference in intent/ expressionInstrumental aggressionMotivated by achieving specific goalPhysical, verbal, relationalHostile aggressionNo specific goal, intent is to harmViolenceAn extreme form of aggression

45Aggressive Behaviour can be LearnedChildren observe an adult acting violently and aggressively and receivePunishmentPraiseNo FeedbackTested 3 5 year old childrenHow would children act?

(Bandura et al., 1963)56Observing Violence leads to ViolenceAdults in room stocked full of toysBobo hit, punched, kicked, shouted at, etc.Observing childrenIgnore other toys and behave violently in same manner towards Bobo

67Banduras resultsAdult receives no feedbackChild behaves violentlyAdult receives praiseChild behaves violentlyAdult receives punishmentChildren were not violentBut when they were praised for aggression later, they exhibited violent repertoireExposure to violence on TV might breed violent behaviourBut mimicking real-life adult could be different from imitating actorPreparedness to be violent towards dollBut even young children know its wrong to hurt someoneMight not be violent to real person, only inanimate things78Is violent TV related to violent behaviour?Longitudinal studies by Eron, starting in 1960s (1982, 1987)Naturalistic study

Television viewing habits, including amount of violence watched; attitude towards violence (does it reflect real life?) Violent temperament, rated by themselves and their classmates89Violent TV and Behaviour: Age 8 years and 19 years oldAt age 8, there is a strong relationship between watching violent TV and violent behaviourChildren who were judged violent by classmates had violent programmes as favouritesAt age 19:If rated aggressive age 8, still rated aggressiveViolent TV not related to aggressionBut violent TV watched aged 8 related to violence aged 19!910Violent TV and Behaviour: Age 30 years oldThose who watched violent TV and were rated as aggressive by peers were still the most aggressiveAnd had more measurable violent behaviour:drink driving, domestic violence, harsh corporal punishemntThe more violent TV watched aged 8, the more criminal convictions aged 30! Perhaps a sensitive period between 8 12 years?1011Evaluating Enrons studiesChildren not randomly assignedEcological validity at the expense of experimental controlWhich direction is the cause-effect relation for TV violence and behaviour?In an intervention study by EnronTeaching aggressive children about the lack of realism in TV violence curbed their violent behaviour

1112Corporal punishments breeds aggressionAggression and violence pre-date TVEnron suggests that corporate punishment promotes aggressionThose subjected to punishment were rated as aggressive by peersBy hitting child, parent provides model for behaviourPunishment only shows what not to doIt does not show how to deal with frustration, etc. appropriately

1213Aggression and violence in 21st centuryVast expansion in TV schedule and other media since studiesViolent games are related to (Anderson & Bushman, 2001):

Increased aggression in children, adolescents and studentsDecrease in pro-social behaviourViolent song lyrics and any other violent media show same relation (Anderson et al. 2003)13

PE: TemperatureThe hotter the more aggressiveHeat: arousal, irritation, discomfortIncrease in individual and group violenceNot when extremely hotFor affective, not instrumental aggression

Unwanted, unpredictable,loud noise

14Pro-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?1516AltruismThe empathyaltruism hypothesisBatson (1987)empathic concernpersonal distressEmpathic joy hypothesisSmith et al. (1989)Sociobiological explanationKin selectionReciprocal altruismBiological versus psychological altruism16When do we not help?Bystander intervention in emergencyArrived home 3:15amParked 30 metres from flatWinston Mosley stabbed twice in backOne witness shoutedMosley returned, raped, killed30 minute attack15 witnesses (38 admitted)1 phone call to police After final attack

Kitty Genovese (1935-1964)17Bystander Intervention:Latan & Darley, 1968Attend to the IncidentDefine the Incident18Informational and NormativeDeutsch & Gerard, 1955Informational:Converge to group norm to gain informationUseful heuristicConversionpublic & privateNormative:Gain acceptance and praiseAvoid punishment and exclusionCompliancepublic

Explicit aim for group to be accurate (increase group pressure)& trials: lines disappear before judgement (increase uncertainty)Increase in conformity19Bystander Intervention:Latan & Darley, 1968Attend to the IncidentDefine the IncidentAccept Personal ResponsibilityDecide What to DoHELPNo Help20Cost of HelpingReward - Cost

Depends on personal norms

Ignore Victim

Directly help victim

Indirectly help victimLower Cost of Not HelpingCost of HelpingLowLowCost of Not HelpingHighHigh

21Who helps?Personality?altruistic personality; genetic; social responsibility; locus of control; dispositional empathyCompetence?real and perceived; leadershipState or Mood?good mood more likely; except guilt; affect-priming (good mood-prosocial); affect-as-informationPersonal 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; womenmore likely in everyday situations

Frank de Martini 11.09.2001

Pablo Ortiz 11.09.2001(Dwyer & Flynn, 102 Minutes)22Who gets help?Similaritymore if believed/ perceived similarGroup MembershipMore ingroup than outgroup (unless alone)e.g. sexual orientation, ethnicityAttractivenessPhysical and personality (friendly)ResponsibilityIf no fault of their own

23Living in a Moral World?Human aggression is strongly influenced by environmentChildren show tendency to imitate aggressionCan also learn to act non-aggressivelySociety and media have the potential to make us violentParticularly 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?

24readinga2 psychology: chapter 3