ProSocial and AntiSocial Behaviour

Attraction: refers to the positive feelings and evaluations we have towards other people

It is influenced by several factors, including:

  • Familiarity

We prefer people who are familiar.

Westgate Study: Students in residence asked to name their three closest friends. Results (% close friends by neighbour type)

  • Next door neighbours 41%

  • 2 doors apart 22%

  • Opposite hallways 10%

A psychology professor manipulated how often their research assistants attended a weekly undergraduate seminar meeting

Repeated exposure enhances chances of liking

 

  • Similarity

We prefer people who are similar to us

Shared attributes validate our own ideas and attitudes

  • Shared attributes imply additional favourable information about the other person

  • Physical attractiveness

We are attracted to people we find physically attractive

The Halo effect: this cognitive bias occurs when we attribute positive qualities like intelligence, kindness, success, and even morality to physically attractive individuals 

  • Reciprocity

We prefer people who are reciprocate liking

  • Knowing that you are liked boosts your self esteem

  • If we believe or know someone likes us, we expect that person to treat us well

  • Believing someone likes us changes the way we treat them

Self disclosure

The sharing of intimate information and feelings with another person

Why does self disclosure  facilitate a deep connection

  • It signals to ourselves and the other person that we like them

  • When someone discloses to us, it signals that they like and trust us

  • Self d leads to reciprocal disclosure

Social exchange

A relationship as a cost benefit calculation

How do people feel about their relationships will depend on their perceptions of:

Rewards: what am I getting out of this relationship?

Costs: what is the relationship costing me?

Comparison level: expectations about the ratio of cost to rewards that I deserve

  • Based on relationship history

Prosocial behaviour

Any action that benefits another person

New Yorker apathy

  • The death of Catherine "kitty" Genovese

What might explain why no one called for help?

Bystander effect: A person who witnesses someone else in need is less likely to help when other bystanders are present

Diffusion of responsibility: Feeling less responsible because other people are able to help

 

Latane and darley study:

When participants believed they were the only ones who could hear the seizure victim, they intervened 85% of the time. However, when they thought there were more witnesses (and presumably more people to help), the intervention rate dropped dramatically to only 31%. In fact, if there were more people, the time it took for someone to help was much longer.

Key finding: with more people present, participants were less willing to help

Pluralistic ignorance: assuming that nothing is wrong because no one else looks concerned

 

Helping decision Tree

Notice the event- Define as emergency- assume responsibility- help!

 

Prejudice:

A negative attitude towards a group of people

  • The 3 components of attitude are beliefs, emotions, actions

Beliefs: stereotypes about a group

Emotions: feelings about a group

Actions: discriminatory behaviour towards a group

Scapegoat theory: prejudice is the result of displaced frustration and or fear

What are some examples of things that cause anger, or fear?

  • Job loss

  • Pandemics

  • Terrorism

  • Economic downturns

Intergroup contact: personal contact between members of different groups

  • Intergroup contact reduces prejudice

However the conditions under which intergroup contact takes place have to be right

Robbers Cave experiment:

In the summer of 1953, Muzafern Sheirf

  • Split the boys into 2 groups Rattlers, eagles

Creating prejudice:

Stage 1: Only do activities with own group (increasing ingroup identity)

Stage 2: Engage in competitive sports with prizes for winning team (competing for scarce resources)

Competition creates, end of stage 2

The boys started to show some animosity

The boys had a strong preference to be friends with people from their own group

Stage 3: mere contact

The two groups were given opportunities to spend time together in an effort to reduce prejudice

  • Arranged lunchtime seating assignments so that boys from each team were intermixed

  • The boys attended movies together

Stage 4: positive contact

Equal status between the groups: the boys should feel like both groups have equal status when interacting

Common goals (superordinate goals) the boys should feel that they are working toward common goals when interacting

End of stage 4: after positive contact

  • Hostility between groups declined

  • New friendships formed

  • Ingroup identification was difficult eliminate entirely

Friendships after positive contact:

  • Friendships between groups were formed

  • People still preferred their original group

Key findings: when contact between groups is cooperative, and done on equal footing, you tend to see a reduction in prejudice

 

The power of friendship:

Why does friendship reduce prejudiced?

Exposure to individuating information: details about a person that help you recognize their unique individuality

Recognition of commonalities: similarities between you and the other person