antisocial and prosocial

antisocial behaviour

behaviour that violates the social norms, rules or laws of a community in which an individual resides eg aggression

aggression

any intentional behaviour aimed at inflicting physical or psychological harm to another living being

INTENTION TO HARM MUCH BE PRESENT eg dentist or surgeon isn’t aggressive

aggression can it be done to inanimate objects?

only directed to living beings, venting anger to a wall is not aggression unless done to hurt or intimidate others

proactive aggression

premeditated means to some desired end (eg reward) - controlled and instrumental not accompanied by aggressive affect eg anger

. eg assassin

reactive aggression

driven by emotional arousal, anger. primary goal is infliction of harm on provoking stimulus. eg henry cheated on me so i hit him

direct aggression

aggression enacted against target with a purpose

1. physical aggression - hit and punch them or kill….

2. verbal aggression - eg slurs or yelling

indirect aggression

aggression that is not enacted against target directly but still intend to harm (secretly…)

1. relational aggression - damaging their reputation and status eg gossiping

2. object directed aggression - damaging objects that hold meaning to a person eg i put glitter in henry’s room and clothes cause im angry

passive aggression

aggression that is enacted through being non responsive or withholding positive behaviour eg silent treatment

• people normally use this, then indirect and lastly direct aggression

freud propose what about aggression

it is innate

what did modern psycodynamic theorist say about aggression

it is a behavioural protection triggered when frustrated or upset, no need to teach this. (innate)

developmental evidence of aggression being inherent

infants display aggression before they even observe aggression in others and parents have to teach them not to be aggressive

• genetic disposition in twin studies too

catharsis hypothesis

engaging in aggression or venting reduces aggrieved drive

catharsis and aggression Bushman

• Ps received harsh criticism from other Ps in report (not real)

• 1 condition: punching bag + think about mean Ps Cathartic rumination

• 2 condition: Cathartic distraction punishing bag + think about being fit

• 3 condition: nothing

• then allowed to give loud noise blast to other Ps (not real)

• Cathartic rumination most aggression (noise blast) little noise blast for condition 2 and none in control

evolutionary approach to aggression

adaptive trait and behavioural tendencies that facilitate survival and reproduction

eg external threats like fighting predator, fight or flight

trait aggressiveness

propensity to engage in aggression hold hostile cognitions and express anger (they are more aggressive than average person)

• tend to thing more hostile intent even when there is none

• strong negative relation with agreeableness

the dark triad

• narcissism

• machiavellianism

• psychopathy

machiavellianism

• manipulative, exploitative in the interest of personal gain

• disregard morality, deceitful and deceptive

• mistrustful

Narcissism

• inflated, grandiose view of self

• fantasies of dominance, success admiration

• sense of entitlement and superiority

• lack of empathy

psychopathy

• most malevolent of all dark triad trait

• antisocial nature, engagement in antisocial behaviour

• impulsive and callousness/remorselessness

• lack of empathy

• disregard morality

cognitive neoassociation theory

1. aversive stimuli eg deadline, dangerous animal, loud noise or high temp

2. negative effect

3. choose either fight (angry thoughts+physiological (aggression)) or flight (fearful thoughts motor + physiological response (avoidant))

deindividuation general concept

people refrain from exercising antisocial behaviours because we are identifiable

• being i. groups or crowds relax restraints where less identifiable

deindividuation

process people lose their sense of socialised individual identity eg behaving unusual from the usual for that person

• in crowds

• wearing anonymous clothes

• in dark or anonymous environments

now don’t feel scared of being evaluated and will behave antisocially BUT only if the group favours that thing eg hoodie is socially accepted and is anonymous

caveats of deindividuation

can promote positive outcomes eg helping after flood

group norms and antisocial behaviours

can be enacted to conform to group norms eg bullying cause friends do it or milgram (will shock Ps if audience favours that behaviour)

social learning theory and antisocial behaviours

aggression and other antisocial behaviour can be developed through observational learning

bobo doll study

1. modelling - aggressive, non aggressive and control

2. aggression arousal phase - allowed to played and then taken away (aggressive cause no toys)

3. delayed imitation - BOBO doll and other toys, modelled behaviours had huge increase in aggression differences.

violent media affects for increasing aggression

• social learning

• excitation transfer - physiological arousal from violent media transfers to other domains

• priming aggression - social scripts regarding role of aggression in solving problems, hostile world view eg maybe the game is the irl and the world is EVIL

desensitisation

reduction of arousal to a stimulus that occurs with repeated exposure

evidence against violent media increasing aggression

• only small psychological arousal but not actual aggression

• no relationship in some studies

• depends on individual consumer - more aggressive ppl more affected by violent media

pro social behaviour

any behaviour performed with goal of helping another regardless of motive behind behaviour

evolutional approach prosocial

it is favoured by natural selection that’s why we help others eg co operation

norm of reciprocity

helping others increases the likelihood others will help us (increase survival)

kin selection

more likely to give help to blood relative than strangers even when costly

social exchange theory prosocial

helping can be rewarding but costly so we weight up the costs and benefits when deciding to help

agreeableness

big five personality trait

• cooperative, sympathy and generous

• facilitate behaviours that foster harmonies and likeability

dispositional empathy

stable trait tendency to experience empathy under any circumstances

1. empathetic concern

2. perspective taking

3. personal distress

dispositional empathy

predicts range of prosocial behaviour

alturism

• empathy produces this, high vs low predicts this

• any behaviour performed with sold purpose of helping with no reward expectation (even is costly)

mood

good mood more prosocial behaviour, bad mood less prosocial

BUT sometimes bad mood more prosocial? to improve mood

social norm prosocial

people engage in more prosocial behaviour if it is perceived as norm in group

deindividuation prosocial

if people deindividuation into group associated with prosocial groups

eg dressed as nurses (anonymous) but are prosocial cause this uniform is prosocial

social learning theory prosocial

people imitate prosocial behaviours modelled previously

eg man helps women on side of road if they drive past a man doing it too

violent media and prosocial

some say lowered prosocial but some found no relation

prosocial media

more cohesive than violent media

• increase’s prosocial behaviour

violent media with prosocial elements

the goal of violent means is to do something prosocial eg save character or world

• increased prosocial

recipient characteristics

• similarity - more similar more likely to help

• attractiveness - pretty increases likelihood to help

• attribution of responsibility - is the person needed help responsible for the problem? if not more likely to help

t the case of kitty genovese

attacked publicly but no one helped and attacker knew that

bystander effects

individuals less likely to help in an emergency situation when they are with others than alone

smoke filled room study

• Ps did questionnaire and suddenly smoke pour into room

• alone, with 2 out Ps or 2 confederates

• alone most likely to take action, then naively but least likely to confederates

Pluralistic ignorance

bystanders assume nothing is wrong in an emergency because no one else looks concerned

diffusion of responsibility

bystanders sense of responsibility to help decreases as number of bystanders increase

audience inhibition

bystanders afraid to help because scared of being judged

the model of bystander effect

1. noticing an event - barriers? distracted

2. interpreting the event as an emergency - barriers? don’t know if this is normal? pluralistic ignorance

3. assuming responsibility- barriers? diffusion of responsibility “someone else will help”

4. knowing how to help - barriers? don’t know how

5. deciding to help - barriers? audience inhibition “i’m over reacting”

HELP ONLY GIVEN IF ALL STAGES PASSED

the aggregate bystander effect philpot

• analyse CCTV and see if ppl would help victims

• 9/10 times helped AND more bystander more help

classic bystander effect

more bystander less likely to intervene INDIVIDUAL LEVEL but some people are interveners (intervene no matter what)

Aggregate bystander effects

GROUP LEVEL more ppl around more likelihood of an intervener there.