PSY110SOC-PSY3-FRANKLIN ENDTERM.PDF

Aggression Aggression is any behavior that hurts another, whether physically or emotionally. Thinking about this further, you likely recognize that it is not the outcome so much as the intention that is important. For example, would you consider a surgeon an aggressor if a heart transplant patient...

Aggression Aggression is any behavior that hurts another, whether physically or emotionally. Thinking about this further, you likely recognize that it is not the outcome so much as the intention that is important. For example, would you consider a surgeon an aggressor if a heart transplant patient died on the operating table despite heroic efforts to save the patient’s life? Following Krebs (1982), we define aggression as any behavior intended to harm another person (the target). Importantly, this harm must be something the target wants to avoid. Aggression should not be equated to physical violence. Aggressive actions vary widely. The intended harm may be physical, psychological, or social- ranging from homicide or battery to emotional abuse and cyberbullying, to active neglect or harming a target’s reputation. Aggression and the Motivation to Harm Human beings have a remarkable capacity to harm others-even those they love or are expected to protect. Why do people turn against others? What motivates human aggression? 1. People are instinctively aggressive. 2. People become aggressive in response to frustrating events 3. People experiencing negative emotion aggress against others 4. People learn to use aggression as a means of obtaining what they want 1. Aggression as an Instinct A deep history of psychological thought, going back at lease to Sigmund Freud, has considered aggression to be a basic human instinct- that is, an innate behavior that seems to emerge even without socialization or training. To Freud, the innate urge to destroy is as natural as our need to breathe. If our aggressive impulses are innate, that means they must be passed through our genetic code and are a result of long evolutionary processes. According to Lorenz, the aggressive instinct has evolved because it contributed to an animal’s survival. To fight for position in this hierarchy is adaptive in a Darwinian sense, for it gives the animal control over food, shelter, and other resources needed to survive as well as access to mating partners. Aggression is social. Aggression can be channeled into approved competitive activities such as athletics, academics, or business. In these activities, there are social rules to govern the expression of aggression intended to prevent competition from degenerating into destructiveness. Quite often however socially approved competition stimulates aggression. Although the propensity for aggression can be passed through human generations and aggression is common in social life, most social psychologists have not seen instinct theories of aggression as particularly useful. One reason is that generalizing findings about animal behavior to human behavior is hazardous. Moreover, cross-cultural studies suggest that human aggression lacks two characteristics that are typical of instinctive behavior in animals-universality and periodicity. Aggression is not universal in humans. It pervades some individuals and societies but is virtually absent in others. Thus, our biological makeup provides only the capacity for aggression, not an inevitable urge to aggress. 2. Frustration-Aggression Hypothesis A second possible explanation for aggressive behavior is that aggression is an internal state that is elicited by certain events. The most famous view of aggression as elicited drive is the frustration-aggression hypothesis. This hypothesis asserts that: 1. Every frustration leads to some form of aggression 2. Every aggressive act is due to some prior frustration In contrast to instinct theories, this hypothesis states that aggression is instigated by external, environmental events. In one early demonstration, researchers showed children a room full of attractive toys. They allowed some children to play with the toys immediately while others were made to wait 20 minutes. The children who waited behaved much more destructively during play, smashing the toys on the floor and against the walls. Here, aggression is a direct response to frustration- that is, to the blocking of a goal-directed activity. By blocking the children’s access to the tempting toys, the researchers frustrated them. This elicited an aggressive drive that the children expressed by destroying the toys. More recent research suggests that the link between frustration and aggression may be an important cause for the positive link between some video games and violence. More competitive games and activities tend to increase aggressive behavior, supporting the role of frustration (from losing in a competitive situation) on increasing aggression. Several decades of research have led to modifications of the original hypothesis. 1. Studies have shown that frustration does not always produce aggressive responses-frustrated individuals often restrain themselves due to fear of punishment or concerns about damaging their reputation. 2. Aggression can occur without prior frustration. The ruthless businessperson or scientist may attempt to sabotage competitors due to the desire for wealth and fame, even though the competitors have not blocked their goal-directed activity. The frustration-aggression hypothesis implies that the nature of the frustration influences the intensity of the resulting aggression. Two factors that intensify aggression are the strength and the arbitrariness of frustration. · Strength of Frustration - the more we desire a goal and the closer we are to achieving it, the more frustrated and aroused we become if blocked. · Arbitrariness of Frustration - people are also apt to feel more hostile when they believe the frustration is arbitrary, unprovoked, or illegitimate than when they attribute it to a reasonable, accidental, or legitimate cause. 3. Aversive Emotional Arousal Research suggests that negative experiences tied to something other than frustration may also cause aggression. Legitimate actions by others and unavoidable accidents can trigger aggressive reactions. Physical pain, such as stubbing one’s toe, and verbal and physical attacks could arouse us and elicit an aggressive response. Accidents, attacks, and insults tend to increase aggression because they all arouse aversive affect-negative emotion that people seek to reduce or eliminate. For example: one of the reasons violence is higher in the summer months is because the higher the temperatures produce discomfort and people look for a way to discharge this aversive affect. 4. Social Learning and Aggression Social Learning Theories provide a fourth explanation for aggressive behavior. Two processes by which aggression can be learned are imitation and reinforcement. Imitation - Many people learn their aggressive behaviors by observing others commit aggressive acts and then enacting these same behaviors themselves. Many children learn aggressive behavior from their parents. Growing up in a family in which some members abuse others teaches the child that not only is it acceptable to engage in physical and psychological aggression but that occupants of certain roles are appropriate targets for aggression. Reinforcement - A social learning theory account for aggression suggests such responses are acquired and maintained through experiences of reinforcement and reward. Characteristics of Targets that Influence Aggression Whether aggression occurs, however, also depends on the characteristics of the target- the person whom the aggressive behavior is directed. 1. Gender and Race - Aggression does not occur at random. If it did, we would observe aggressive behaviors by all kinds of people. In fact, aggression is patterned. These patterns suggest that the display of aggression is channeled by social beliefs and norms. 2. Attributions for the aggressor’s attack - Direct attack, both verbal and physical, often produce an aggressive reaction. Nevertheless, we withhold retaliation when we perceive that an attack was not intentional. We are unlikely to respond aggressively, for example, to a man crashing his grocery cart into our car in the parking lot if we realize he was trying to save a child from an oncoming car. However, to redirect aggression, we must first realize the man’s intention. We are much more likely to aggress, and to aggress more strongly, following harm when we attribute the attack to the actor’s intentions rather than to accidental or legitimate external pressures. 3. Retaliatory capacity - One of the qualities of the target that one considers in calculating the costs of aggression-and therefore whether to behave aggressively-is the likelihood of retaliation. These findings help explain why anonymous cyber-bullying is described as more severe than non anonymous forms of bullying. Situational Impacts on Aggression A number of specific characteristics of situations make aggression more likely. 1. Potential Rewards · material benefits · social approval - although aggression is generally condemned, virtually every society has norms that approve aggression against particular targets in particular circumstances. · attention - aggressive behavior is reinforced by peers or other people. 2. Presence of Models - A model’s aggressive behavior in a specific situation may encourage others to behave in similar ways. 3. Norms - This norm “An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth” justifies retaliation for attacks. 4. Stress - Social stressors such as chronic unemployment and the experience of discrimination are related to aggression because of their effects on frustration and negative affect like anger and fear. 5. Aggressive Cues - Situations that produce aggression often start out in ways that are ambiguous to those involved in them. Is that joke an insult? Is the conversation between your boyfriend and a woman innocent? Reducing Aggressive Behavior Aggressive behavior is often costly to individuals and the groups and society to which they belong. Given the problems associated with aggressive behavior, reducing aggression has been an important topic of research. 1. Reducing Frustration - frustration is central to aggression, we might be able to reduce aggressive behavior by reducing the frequency or strength of frustration. A major source of frustration in American society, for example, is inadequate resources. Studies comparing crime rates across different cities and nations find that economic deprivation is the best predictor for crime. Many cases of robbery, assault, and murder are motivated simply by a desire for money. Frustration and therefore aggression can be reduced if everyone had access to life’s necessities. 2. Catharsis - Many people believe that letting off steam is better than “bottling up” hostility. Catharsis is the notion that one can reduce aggressive arousal by performing aggressive acts. The catharsis hypothesis states that we can purge ourselves of hostile emotions by experiencing these emotions while active aggressively. But for catharsis to occur, the aggressive act must be directed at the source of the frustration and not someone else. We also must feel that the aggression we display will be viewed as acceptable by others, and we cannot feel guilty about it afterward. In part because of these strict conditions, studies show that catharsis and venting are generally ineffective ways of reducing anger or related aggression. 3. Punishment - it is often used to control aggression because of a widely held belief that punishment is an effective deterrent. Threats can indeed be effective in eliminating aggression, but only under certain narrowly defined conditions. For threats to inhibit aggression, the anticipated punishment must be great and the probability that it will occur very high. 4. Nonaggressive Models -may reduce aggression. Mahatma Gandhi used pacifist tactics that have since been imitated by protesters around the world. Parents and peers also serve as positive models. Parents who use non punitive child-rearing practices and who serve as non violent models help socialize children to be nonviolent adults. Altruism and Prosocial Behavior Everyday life is filled with smaller tales of people helping others in need. Individuals help others in many ways. They may give someone a ride, help change a flat tire, donate blood, make contributions to charity, return a lost item, assist victims of accidents, and so on. But of course, the mere fact that someone needs help does not mean others will rush to give aid. Humans are capable of vastly different responses to persons in need. A challenge for social psychologists is to explain variations in helping behavior. When will people help others, when will they refuse to, and why? Key Concepts Prosocial behavior - is a broad category of actions considered beneficial to others and as having positive social consequences. Helping - is prosocial behavior that has the consequence of providing some benefit to or improving the well-being of another person. Altruism - helping that is intended to provide aid to someone else without expectation of any reward and that comes at a cost to the helper. Philanthropy - charitable giving. Volunteering - freely giving time for the benefit of another person, group, or organization. Motivation to Help Egoism - one view of human nature regards us all as fundamentally selfish beings, concerned primarily with our own gratification. Helping behavior motivated by self-gratification is called egoism. Theorists believe individuals will generally not give help unless they think the rewards will outweigh the costs. The rewards that motivate potential helpers are many and varied. They may include such things as gratitude from the victim, admiration and approval from others, financial rewards and prizes, and recognition for efforts. Altruism and Empathetic Concern - People often react to distress of others on an emotional level and offer help in response. The term empathy refers to the vicarious experience of an emotion that is congruent with-or possibly identical to-the emotion that another person is experiencing. Characteristic of the Needy that Foster Helping Social psychologists’ understanding of prosocial behavior focuses not only on those who help and why, but also who is likely to be the recipient of generosity. When in need, some people have a much better chance of receiving help than others do, as our willingness to help others depends on a variety of factors. Acquaintanceship and Liking - We are especially inclined to help people whom we know and to whom we feel close. In helping others we tend to give aid first to needy family members, then to friends and neighbors, and last to strangers. Research suggests this tendency stems, in part, from an increased ability to empathize with those we know well. We are better able to take their perspective and vicariously experience their emotional distress. Relationships also increase helping because they involve relatively stronger normative obligations and greater costs if we fail to help. Even a brief acquaintanceship is sufficient to make us more likely to help someone. We are also more likely to help someone we like than to help someone we do not like. Similarity - In general, we are more likely to help others who are similar to ourselves than to help others who are dissimilar. Privileging similar others, we are more likely to help those who resemble us in race, attitudes, political ideologies, and even mode of dress. Much of the effect of similarity is a product of perceived group membership. Deservingness - Potential helpers respond more favorably when a person’s need is caused by circumstances beyond their control. Such people are true “innocent victims” who deserve help. In contrast, needs caused by a person’s own actions, misdeeds, or failings elicit little desire to help. Situational Influences The Presence of Others - Others can suppress our likelihood of helping in emergency situations.  Modeling - A key influence in helping is the presence of behavioral models-someone else who is helping. The presence of a behavioral model tends to increase helping. Audience - Others sometimes increase helping by serving as an audience. For example, people tend to give more when their donations will be public rather than private. Mood - A mood is a transitory feeling, such as being happy and elated or being frustrated and depressed. Both good and bad moods can help or hinder a person’s likelihood of helping another. When individuals are in a good mood, they are more likely to help others. The effects of a bad mood can have complex effects on helping. Costs - When making a decision to help, people usually make a calculation about the potential costs and benefits of their action. Cost calculations for helping involve both the costs to the helper and the needs of the victims. Helpers may be willing to endure higher costs to themselves if the costs to the victim of not receiving help are extremely high. Seeking and Receiving Help Help and Obligation - The person receiving help may feel obligated or indebted to the helper. Needy people sometimes experience a dilemma. Threats to Self-Esteem - The extent to which the help undermines the recipient’s self-esteem. Sometimes they think that helpers may communicate the message that those who need and accept help are inferior in status and ability because they fail to display self-reliance and achievement. Similarity of Help Provider - People who accept similar aid from helpers similar to themselves on a task central to their self-concept report lower self-esteem, less self-confidence, and more personal threat than when they accept aid from dissimilar helpers. Bystander Intervention a quick response by a person witnessing an emergency to help another who is endangered by events. Whether and how to intervene in an emergency is a complex decision because providing assistance often places the helper in considerable danger. These decisions require integration of a great deal of information about self and the environment. Latane and Darley produced a five step model of this decision-making process. If any of these steps fail, the decision making process ends and the bystander does not provide assistance. 1. The bystander must notice the situation. Some studies have manipulated how preoccupied potential helpers were, and surprisingly, those who were more caught up in their own thoughts were less likely to notice the emergency situation and, therefore, less likely to respond. 2. Once the bystander has noticed the situation, they must interpret it as an emergency. Most emergency situations are quite ambiguous, and failure to interpret them as emergencies will produce inaction among bystanders. 3. The bystander must decide that they have some personal responsibility in the situation. If bystanders interpret the situation to be “none of their business” or that it is someone else’s responsibility to intervene, they will not respond. 4. The bystander must believe that they know how to help. Sometimes, the assistance required is something very simple, like dialing 911 for assistance. Other times, the situation is more complex. 5. The bystander must make the decision to act. Even if all of the first four conditions are fulfilled, people often will hesitate to act because they are afraid of negative consequences to themselves. Typically, people engage in some kind of risk calculation before they act in emergency situations. Decisions Leading to Intervention in an Emergency Interpersonal Attraction and Relationships Interpersonal attraction is a positive attitude held by one person toward another person. Over time however, the development of this relationship involved increasing interdependence and increasing intimacy. The development and outcome of personal relationships involves several stages. Who is Available? Hundreds or thousands of persons may go to school or live or work where you do. Most of them remain strangers. Those persons with whom we come into contact, no matter how fleeting, constitute the field of available-the potential pool of friends and lovers. Three influences progressively narrow our choices: · Routine Activities - These activities provide opportunities to interact with some available but not with others. Most relationships begin in the context of routine activities. Social networks also play an important role in the development of relationships. · Proximity - We are more likely to develop a relationship with someone who is in close physical proximity to us because such relationships provide interpersonal rewards at the lowest cost. Interaction is easier with those who are close by. It costs less time and energy to interact with the person sitting next to you than someone on the other side of the room. · Familiarity - Having seen a person several times, sooner or later we will smile or nod. Repeated exposure to the same novel stimulus is sufficient to produce a positive attitude toward it; this is called the mere exposure effect. In other words, familiarity breeds liking. This effect is highly general and has been demonstrated for a wide variety of stimuli- music, art, comic strips, etc. Who is Desirable? We come into close contact with many potential partners but contact by itself does not ensure the development of a relationship. Initial attraction is influenced by social norms, physical attractiveness, and processes of interpersonal exchange. · Social Norms - each culture specifies the types of relationships that people may have. For each type, norms specify what kinds of people are allowed to have such a relationship. Example: In the US and other parts of the world there is a norm of homogamy - a norm requiring that friends, lovers, and spouses be similar in age, race, religion, and socioeconomic status. Norms influence development of relationships because we use norms to monitor our behavior. · Physical Attractiveness - Individuals also have personal preferences regarding desirability. o The matching phenomenon - is the idea that each of us looks for someone who is of approximately the same level of social desirability. o Attractiveness stereotype - the belief that “what is beautiful is good”. We assume that an attractive person possesses other desirable qualities. o Evolutionary perspective on attractiveness - men and women have an evolved disposition to mate with healthy individuals so that they will produce healthy offspring, who will in turn successfully mate and pass on their parent’s genetic code. · Interpersonal Exchange - when we initiate contact with another person. The Determinants of Liking Once two people make contact and begin to interact, several factors will determine the extent to which each person will like the other.  · Similarity - Do bird of a feather flock together? or do opposites attract? These two aphorisms about the determinants of liking are inconsistent and provide opposing predictions. A good deal of research has been devoted to finding out which one is more accurate. The evidence indicates that birds of a feather do flock together-that is we are attracted to people who are similar to ourselves. Similarity is important because: o Persons who share similar attitudes usually leads to positive outcomes. o It validates our own view of the world. o We like others who share similar attitudes because we expect that they will like us. · Shared Activities - provides opportunities for each person to experience reinforcement. As a relationship develops, the sharing of activities contributes to increased liking. Participation in novel and arousing activities rather than mundane and trivial pursuits is associated with relationship quality. What happens when a couple does not do things together? What about secret relationships? A series of studies found that participants in secret relationships reported greater burden, less satisfaction, and lower relationship quality than persons in open ones. These results strengthen the conclusion that shared activities make an important difference. The Growth of Relationships A few of our relationships grow closer. Continued growth in relationships involve three aspects: · Self-Disclosure - the act of revealing personal information about oneself to another person. It usually increases over time in a relationship. Over time, people disclose increasingly intimate details about their beliefs or behavior, including information they are less certain the other will accept. · Trust - when we trust someone, we believe that person is both honest and benevolent. We believe that the person tells us the truth or at least does not lie to us - and that their intentions towards us are positive. · Interdependence - evolves out of the process of negotiation. Each person offers various potential rewards to the partner. As the relationship develops, the exchanges stabilize. Liking versus Loving Love is more than intense liking; it is the attachment to and caring about another person. Attachment involves a powerful desire to be with and be cared about by another person. Caring involves making the satisfaction of another person’s needs as significant as the satisfaction of your own. Friendship involves several qualities, including trust, understanding, and mutual assistance. Love involves all of these plus caring (giving the utmost to and being an advocate of the other) and passion (obsessive thought, sexual desire). Breaking up Chaos theory suggests that relationships do not develop in a steady linear progression. Instead, relationships may shift suddenly or spontaneously; they may go up or down. Whether linear or not, few relationships last forever. What causes the dissolution of relationships? · Unequal outcomes and instability - The equity theory postulates that each of us compares the rewards we receive from a relationship to our costs or contributions. In general, we expect to get more out of the relationship if we put more into it. Thus, we compare our outcomes to the outcomes our partner is receiving. The theory predicts that equitable relationships (in which outcomes are equivalent) will be stable, whereas inequitable ones will be unstable. Breaking up may result if one person feels that  outcomes (rewards minus cost) are inadequate. A person may evaluate present outcomes against what could be obtained from an alternative relationship. A person may look at the outcomes the partner is experiencing and assess whether the relationship is equitable. · Differential commitment and dissolution - We often continue a relationship because we have developed an emotional commitment to the person and feel a sense of loyalty to and responsibility for that person’s welfare. Commitment (the person’s intent to remain in the relationship) is consistently related to stability. The three major predictors of lasting relationships were: greater commitment, greater love for the partner, and more positive illusions about the partner. Someone who feels a low level of emotional attachment to and concern for their partner is more likely to break up with that person. The dissolution of a relationship is often painful. But breaking up is not necessarily undesirable. It can be thought of as part of a filtering process through which people who are not suited for each other terminate their relationships. Furthermore, coping with and learning from the breakup may lead to personal growth and more successful relationships in the future. · Responses to dissatisfaction - An individual in an unsatisfactory relationship has four basic alternatives: exit - termination of relationship voice - discuss with your partner loyalty - grin and bear it neglect - stay in the relationship but not contribute much