Social Psych Spring 2025 Exam #4

· Aggression

o Intentional behavior that strives to cause physical and/or psychological harm

Physical/verbal behavior that is intended to hurt someone

Assertive behavior

o A person is being pushy, but they don't intend to harm

Hostile aggression

o Aka reactive

o Driven by anger/negative emotions

o Stems sometimes from retaliation

o The goal is to inflict pain

Instrumental aggression

o Intent to cause harm/pain to obtain another goal

o More goal-oriented than emotion-oriented

o Example: A hitman is hired; it's their job, there's no emotion attached to it.

§ Also soldiers in war, blackmail, etc.

o Direct/overt aggression

§ Easily seen, directed towards a target

§ Can be physical or verbal

Indirect/covert aggression

§ Going behind one's back

§ Not directly observable, but still happening

§ Passive-aggression: withholding behavior

o Relational aggression

§ Purposefully undermining others' relationships to harm them

§ The target is social relationships

§ Spreading rumors, excluding, etc.

§ Peaks around adolescence

Alcohol and aggression

· Deindividuates, disinhibits; we are less self-aware and we let out our responses

· Less able to use executive functioning skills

Hormons, neurotransmitters: aggression

§ Testosterone fluctuates; after we are provoked, levels are elevated

§ Serotonin; the higher the serotonin, the lower the aggression, and vice-versa

Brain regions: aggression

§ Amygdala (emotions)

§ Prefrontal cortex (PFC); able to inhibit behaviors, help with less aggression

Genetic influences on aggression

-twins; the more genetically related, the more similar we are

-MaoA gene

MaoA gene

· An indicator that you may be predisposed to be more aggressive

· Low MaoA doesn't metabolize serotonin properly; it alters the neurotransmitter balance linked with hostile aggression

o Neurotransmitters include serotonin, dopamine, and norepinephrine

· Combined with childhood maltreatment

· In response to direct provocation

· Adverse experiences make it worse

· Hyperactive amygdala, less active PFC

· Idea of consuming alcohol (Begue et al., 2009)

o Some participants were given alcohol, while others were given a placebo

o Found that participants from both groups displayed the same level of aggression

o But when participants were told that they weren't given alcohol, they weren't as aggressive

· Environmental influences for aggression

o Adverse experiences make us more prone to aggression; uncomfortable, unpleasant experience one endures

o Example: Maltreatment

§ Also being in a hot environment where you're overheated and uncomfortable, etc.

· Free Will? (Baumeister et al., 2009)

o To what extent are our behaviors within our control?

o Intentional exclusion as aggression in the study

o Provocation vs free will IV

o 4-10 people were put into groups. People responded to prompts and told who they wanted to work with.

o One participant was told they weren't picked by anyone, so they were paired with someone else

o The pair was supposed to do a food tasting thing; the partner that the participant was assigned doesn't like spicy food, but the food that is to be tasted is spicy

o Researchers aimed to measure that the more aggressive someone was, the more hot sauce they'd use/give to their partner

o Free-will reading was used to prime people to think they're in control or not

o Found that people who had no free will gave more hot sauce

o Social rejection group was also more aggressive

o Free will group gave less hot sauce

· Cultural/subcultural influences

o Aggression varies

o "Culture of Honor"; USA, Southern states

· "Culture of Honor" (Cohen et al., 1996)

o People who grew up in these areas (USA, primarily Southern states) will be more offended by personal insults, insults towards their family, etc.; this would provoke an aggressive response

o Cohen et al., (1996): "Culture of Honor" Study #1

§ Participants had to go to a room to deliver papers, but someone was in the way. The person doing "work" was a confederate. The confederate acted annoyed when the participant came around the first time, but when they passed by a second time, they slammed the cabinet shut and insulted the participant under their breath loud enough to be heard.

§ 1. Immediate reactions to the insult

· Research assistants nearby observed facial expressions of the subjects

· Found that 85% anger > amusement (Southern subjects) vs 35% anger > amusement (Northern subjects)

§ 2. Assessments of post-encounter hostility

· A. Participants were to fill-in-the-blank of words that could be violent (Example: "_ill" and "_un" would become "kill" and "gun"); found no difference

· B. See male faces and emotions; found no difference

· C. Complete three scenarios (two neutral, one affront/meant to cause outrage)

o No difference for neutral

o 75% of neutral Southerners provided violent responses to the affront scenario vs 41% of insulted Northerners and 20% non-insulted Southerners

· Cohen et al., (1996) study 2: Post-insult cortisol and testosterone levels

o Found that Southern participants had elevated cortisol levels; it was a lot higher than Northern counterparts. Northern participants' levels stayed generally the same.

o Testosterone: Southern and Northern were both elevated, but Southern was a bit more

· Cohen et al., (1996) study 3: Chicken

o A confederate was hired to block the hallway as participants passed through

o Participants yielded and moved out of the way

o Found that Southerners who were insulted left less room

o Southerners who weren't un-insulted left more room

o Northerners didn't have much difference

o Culture of honor/respect; when a boundary of respect has been crossed, people feel angry, no more mutual respect

§ Meier and Hinsz (2004)

· Aggression in groups

· Participants are provoked and primed to be aggressive

· Individual vs group

· When it was a group against a group, they gave the other group the most hot sauce

· Seems that groups make the more extreme decision; group polarization

o Frustration-aggression theory

§ Frustration increases the chance of an aggressive response

· Berkowitz

o Frustration leads to anger (emotional readiness to aggress)

o Most likely to last out with hostile aggression in the presence of aggressive cues (things we link to aggressive behavior)

o Berkowitz electric shock study

§ Found that people tended to be aggressive after being provoked

§ If people were in the room with a gun, they tended to give more shocks, as well as longer shocks

§ Idea that aggressive cue can prime us to be aggressive; weapons effect

o Proximity to goal

§ Almost reaching your goal, but something disrupts the process

§ Individual responsible for frustration:

· Size/strength of person, their ability to retaliate

o May lead to displacement of aggression to another, "safer" target

· Perceived intention (was it on purpose?) and control (can they control it?) over circumstances

§ Harris (1974)

· People who were closer to the front of the line were more frustrated/angry when the confederate cut in front of them

o Dill and Anderson (1995) § Origami swans

§ Control (researcher slowed steps), justified frustration (researcher had a good excuse not to stop), unjustified frustration (researcher had a poor excuse)

§ Found that the control and justified tended to give good ratings of the researcher, while unjustified did not; intent to harm through bad ratings

· Social cognitive learning theory

o Observational learning

o Aggression learned from observation/imitation of aggressive models

o Bandura (1961, 1963, 1965)

§ Bobo Doll experiment; kids watched model behavior aggressively

§ Kids modeled what they saw and beat the doll

§ Kids in control group didn't do this

§ Vicarious reinforcement/punishment

· If model was rewarded, kids modeled

· If model was punished, kids didn't follow

· Aggression in media

o Concern that kids can learn aggression

§ Hypotheses: social learning, desensitization, arousal/priming of hostile emotions

· Instinct theories (aggression)

o Freud, Lorenz

o Aggressive drive is instinctive in all humans

o "Hydraulic theory" of aggression; it builds up over time

o Catharsis: "letting off steam", releasing anger to feel better

· Journal article: "Does venting anger feed or extinguish the flame?" (Bushman 2002)

o Does catharsis work? Or do we think more about anger?

o Found that catharsis doesn't help as much as we think it does

· How to effectively reduce aggression?

o Reducing perceived rewards for aggression; programs for bystanders to reinforce prosocial behaviors instead

o Punishments for aggression that are moderate/immediate, because aggressive punishments may cause someone to be more aggressive instead

§ Observational learning, insufficient justification effect

o Modeling on non-aggressive behaviors

o Attribution retraining; kids/teens think about why behaviors have occurred

§ Hostile attribution bias = people assume actions are intended to hurt them

o Build empathy/perspective-taking skills

o Communication, problem-solving skills training

· Prosocial behavior

o Any action intended to benefit others

o May be motivated by altruism or egoism

· Altruism

o Selfless concern for others' welfare

o Intrinsic motivation to help, even at the cost to the self

o Motive to increase another's welfare with conscious regard to one's self-interest

· Egoism

o Motive to increase one's own welfare; helping behavior provides tangible or intangible benefits to the helper

o "fulfilling an obligation"

o "I want to feel good about myself"

· Is there "pure altruism"?

o Abe Lincoln

§ Skeptic of pure altruism; he thought some level of the self was always behind it

§ Lincoln saved piglets; said he did it so he wouldn't think about it later

o Social exchange theory/model

§ Says no to "pure altruism"

§ All helping is motivated by the desire to maximize rewards, minimize costs to the self

o Empathy-Altruism hypothesis

§ Says yes to "pure altruism"

§ When we feel empathy for a person, we will be motivated to help that person for altruistic reasons

· "Carol" study (Toi and Baison, 1982)

o Participants in lab, listen to excerpts from a campus radio program

o Participants were given different instructions; one group was told to concentrate on objective information, while the other group was told to focus on feelings and emotions of the person

o Participants were given a note from Carol; Carol asked for a favor to meet with her, asked for notes from the participant

§ The notes were for a specific class that Carol has, meaning if you had that class and Carol was returning, you would have to see her often; what are the mental consequences if you don't help Carol?

§ Found that people if people were to see Carol in class, empathy didn't matter as much; they were more motivated to help her

§ When it was told Carol wouldn't return to class, high empathy students were way more likely/motivated to help

· When do we help?

o Observing prosocial behavior

§ Looking at helping behaviors

§ Someone models behavior in front of you

· Study: Researchers and a car that was pulled over

o Researchers had a car pulled over on the side of the roadside to see how many people would help

o Perhaps more people would help if they saw others helping?

§ Researchers then staged a pulled over car with someone helping them; served as a model

§ Then, there was another car pulled over after that; when drivers saw the second car, they were more like to help

· "Slacktivism"

o Doing the bare minimum to tell yourself you've done something prosocial

o Token support: public (everyone sees you) vs private (you know you did it, but others don't)

· "Poppy study" (Kristofferson et al., 2014)

o Veterans' support

o Participants were offered to either wear a poppy on their clothes (public support) or receive one in an envelope (private support)

o Found that private support group was more likely to donate to more money than the public support group. This was probably because the public was already displaying their support by wearing the poppy.

· "Petition study"

o Sign petition in front of the room or in a ballot box

o Or sign an attendance sheet

o Private support: agreed to volunteer to stuff envelopes for campaign; more likely to see themselves as supporting the cause

· "Licensing effects"

o Idea that when we've "done the right thing" we feel that we have a right to slack off, etc.

Impression management

· "Feel Good-Do Good Hypothesis" (Isen and Levin, 1972)

o When we are in a good mood, we can do good things

o Leaving coins in a payphone for the next caller

o A helping scenario was staged

o Study found that the people in the condition where there was a coin left behind for them was more likely to help the confederate who dropped papers nearby

· Negative State-Relief Hypothesis

o Certain bad moods may be likely to help us do something good

o Guilt

· Harris et al., (1975): Guilt and church

o Collected donations from people before and after they went to a church for confession

o Found that the people entering the church donated more money, likely because of the guilt they were feeling

· Thomspon et al., (1980): Grief and "Feel bad to do good"

o Researchers asked participants to immerse themselves in a hypothetical experience (scenario: their friend is terminally ill)

o 1. Focus on what you'd lose by losing your friend vs 2. Focus on what your friend is going through as they struggle; empathy-aroused

o Participants were given a chance to be prosocial

o Found that in study 1, 25% participants stayed to help with the prosocial task

o Study 2: 83% of participants stayed to help; empathy changes willingness to help

o Kin selection

§ You are more likely to help your family members

§ From Bio Anth: by helping your family survive, your genes are still getting passed on

o Social responsibility norm

§ Expectation that people will help those who are unable to help themselves

§ Cultural universal

§ Seeing a clear struggle, being inclined to help

§ Example: Helping and elderly women cross the street with her groceries.

o Reciprocity norm

§ Direct: help when helped; transactional

§ Indirect: no expectation that the person you help will return the favor

§ Gain the reputation that you're a helpful person, then people will be more likely to help you

o Signaling theory

§ Behaving generously implies other favorable characteristics

§ Contributing to "public good" shows that someone possesses resources and is willing to share

· Similar to halo effects we have discussed before

§ Van Vugt and Iredale (2013): Signaling generosity

· Participants played a game; three groups

o Control: no witnesses

o Group 1: male witness

o Group 2: female witness

· Found that the female witness group gave more donations; participants in these groups rated the woman as attractive, and were likely to donate more. They were also way more likely to sign up for other volunteer opportunities

· Norm of fairness (Equity Theory)

o Motive to preserve/increase equity in social relations

o Creates public good dilemmas

§ Public good dilemmas

· Enhancing people's confidence that public goods will be distributed fairly among contributors tends to increase contributions

· Example: Token of appreciation that shows you're a donor. It can restore a feeling of equity.

· Whom: characteristics of receipts of prosocial behavior

o Attributions are made for the situation

§ We are most likely to help when the situation is not in one's control, and less likely to help/be less motivated when someone brought a situation upon themselves

· Example: Giving your friend notes when they're sick vs when they decided to skip.

Prosocial behaviors and social identity perceived, group membership

§ We are more likely to help in-groups (groups we belong to)

§ Levine et al., (2005): U.K. and soccer/football teams

· Recruited people who were Manchester fans; priming manipulation to write about their team and what's so great about it

· An accident was staged and the participant was observed; found that 80% of participants helped the confederate when they were wearing a Manchester shirt; identity influenced help

· Study #2 focused on priming Manchester fans to think about ALL football/soccer fans. They staged the same accident, and found that people helped soccer fans regardless of their shirt. Just like study #1, the confederate wearing the plain shirt was helped the least.

· Gender and prosocial behavior

o Men are more likely to be chivalrous and engage in heroic helping (more extreme situations)

§ Example: jumping into a river to save someone.

o Women are more likely to partake in long-term, nurturant helping, such as taking care of their elderly neighbors, etc.

· Culture and prosocial behavior

o Value placed on being helpful

o All cultures generally are more likely to help in-group members

o Empathy for in-group, social exchange for out-group

· Religion and prosocial behavior

o More likely to be prosocial towards those who share their beliefs

o Getting help in the church community, etc.

· Why we DON'T help

o Bystander effect

§ Idea that the more people there are around, the less likely someone will come forward to help (in emergencies)

· Why we DON'T help

o Urban vs rural environments

§ Location matters

§ Urban overload hypothesis: Milgram (1970)

· When in an urban environment, we keep to ourselves so we don't get overstimulated/overwhelmed

· Milgram found that when in a less busy environment, a person was more likely to het help

§ Population density (Levine et al., 1994)

· Latante and Darley (1970): Bystander Intervention Decision Tree

o Five steps to help:

o 1. Notice event

o 2. Interpret event as an emergency

o 3. Assume responsibility

o 4. Know how to help

o 5. Decide to implement help

· Step 1: notice the event

o Darley and Batson (1973): Seminary students

§ Variables: there was an interview where students would talk about good Samaritan (from Bible) or they would talk about jobs for seminary students

§ Other variable was time pressure

§ Staged a confederate who was down the pathway, who appeared to need help

§ Found that time pressure is what made the difference; 63% of people with no time pressure helped, while only 10% of the people with time pressure helped

· Step 2: interpret the event as an emergency

o Pluralistic ignorance is a risk when others are around

o Darley and Latante (1968): Smoky room

§ When in a room with smoke and fire and other people, participants waited to see how others would react

§ Found that when alone, participants were way more likely to leave the smoky room than when they were with a group of confederates

o Smoke-filled room video from class

§ When the participant was by herself, she left the room immediately

§ When there were confederates with another participant, the smoke was noticed by the participant but they didn't leave; she remained for a while because the other participants (confederates) weren't doing anything

· Step 3: assume responsibility

o Risk: diffusion of responsibility, which is where each bystander's sense of responsibility to help decreases as the number of witnesses increases

o Latante and Darley (1970): "A fit to be tied"

§ A confederate mentions that he was diagnosed with epilepsy, then acts like he's going to have a seizure

§ The participant's actions depended on the people around them/who was involved

§ Found that people in a group take longer to intervene

§ Individuals (who were alone with the confederate) acted almost immediately to get help

· Step 4: know how to implement help

o This may be tricky if we get stuck and don't know how exactly to aid the person

· Step 5: Decide to implement help

o Risk: social exchange concerns

o Might be hesitant if the helper would be endangered by going to the aid of someone

o We also may be stopped if we get in trouble for helping

o Example: Trying to perform CPR, but doing a poor job and harming the person more, or getting sued.

· Why are we attracted to others?

o Need for belonging and affiliation

o Ostraction; being excluded from groups

§ Being excluded is similar to physical pain and can impact mood, self-esteem, aggression, friendship-seeking, self-control

· Propinquity effect

o Proximity; the closer we are, the more likely we'll see someone and be friends with them

· Testinger, Schacter, & Back (1950)

o Physical distance

o Found that where you lived impacted who you were friends with

o People near stairwells we more likely to have friends from other floors

o Functional distance; when you're in a position where paths are more likely to cross

· Mere exposure effect

o The more exposed we are to something, the more we are inclined to like it

· Moreland and Beach (1992)

o Mere exposure in college

o Control student didn't go to class, while the other three did; they were grad students that would attend class

o Found that people tended to like the grad students who attended class more

· Reciprocal liking

o We perceive that the person likes us

o Smiling, engaging, eye contact, etc.

o More agreement, self-disclosure

o Greater liking, despite disagreements on important matters

o Less attention on non-reciprocating attractive focus

· Koranyi and Rothermund (2012)

o Less attention on non-reciprocating attractive focus

o Participants were able to go through dating profiles

o People completed an attention task; the face of the person they chose flashed, then there was a shape

o Idea was that if you couldn't respond fast enough to the shape, it was because you were fixated on the face

o Researchers told participants that one of the people liked them

o After participants were told they were liked back, they paid more attention to the faces

o If they were rejected, they were less likely to be fixated like they were

· Gain-loss theory of attraction

o Esteem

o We like those who we've "won over"; it's satisfying

· Aronson and Linder (1965)

o Found that the most liked conversation partner was the one who started out negative and ended up positive

o Found that the one who was most disliked was the partner who started out positive and ended up negative

§ They were more disliked than people who were negative the whole time

· Similarity

o Match between interests/experiences, attitudes, values, backgrounds, interpersonal style, personality

o Why?

§ Social validation negative inferences, and reciprocal liking

· Complementarity

o Opposites attract/opposites getting together

o Common in pop culture

o No supporting evidence from research that shows this is the case for committed, long-term relationships

o Opposites may attract if someone is looking only for a fling

· Similarity in romantic relationships

o Note: more will be added after next couple classes

o Married couples tend to have similar values, beliefs, etc.; satisfaction

o Beliefs and value can change and be similar over time if they aren't initially

· The "Marriage Shift" (Swann et al.; 1994)

o "Embracing the bitter truth" reading

o The relationship can change in light of how our partner views us

o Dating: more satisfied when partners view us over-positively

o Married: more satisfied when partners verify self-concepts

o Self-verification theory; when we're close to someone, we want them to have similar evaluations to us

· I-sharing (Pinel et al., 2006)

o Belief that two or more people share the same subjective experience

o Overlap of the "I" (as opposed to "me") self

o "I" is the person who is actively experiencing the world

o We become distressed if we don't know if others have similar beliefs; feelings of disconnect (existential isolation)

· I-sharing in the lab (Pinel et al., 2006)

o When we create a scenario for I-sharing to occur, we can override the preference for in-group members

o Pinel's research found...

§ Objectively similar vs objectively dissimilar

§ When the I-sharing moment happens in the lab, we tend to like the person we share that moment with

§ When we I-share with the out-group dissimilar, we tend to like that person more; we feel a lot more connected to them

· Reward theory of attraction

o We tend to like people that we link to positive experiences

· Social exchange theory

How people feel about a relationship

o 1. Perceptions of rewards relative to costs

o 2. Comparison level (the relationship a person expects)

o 3. Comparison level for alternative; the person's chances for having a better relationship with someone else

o Lewicki (1985): Cold vs warm researcher

§ Participants were assigned to work with either a cold experimenter or a warm, friendly one

§ They could then choose which researcher they wanted to work with; the first two people looked similar, while the third was completely different

§ Found that participants who worked with the warm experimenter chose to work with the person who closely resembled them

§ Participants who worked with the cold experimenter worked with the person who looked the most different

§ Even if they're different people, they remind us of that initial person

· Investment model

o Long-term relationships

o Commitment to relationship depends on how much is invested in the relationship and what would be lost by leaving it

· Equity theory

o We are the happiest in relationships were rewards and costs that we experience/contribute are perceived as roughly equal to rewards, costs, and contributions of the other person

· Hatfield et al., (1966)

o Participants were matched with dates and rated their partner

o Rated aptitude, personality, physical, and desire to date again

o Found that physical attractiveness was the highest predictor of dating again

· Duck (1994): "Get acquainted date"

o Rank physical attraction, similarity, and conversation quality

o Found that physical attraction was the main predictor of another date (romance)

o But similarity is important for friendships

· Self-fulfilling prophecy and attraction

o You'll behave in a certain way towards someone assuming they'll behave in a certain way

o Behaving warm/friendly to an attractive person will influence your interaction with them

· Snyder et al., (1977): Phones and attraction

o Phone conversations with young men as participants; women on the other line, but didn't know that the men were shown photos

o Men rated photos

o Found that ratings differed based on the photos the men were shown

o Rated as more attractive were more likely to be rated as warm, friendly, etc.

· Anderson and Bern (1981): Reversed roles of Snyder (1977)

o Found the same thing when women were showed photos of men

· Matching hypothesis

o People are most likely to form relationships with people of similar attractiveness

· Asset matching hypothesis

o Each person brings assets to the relationship for an equitable match