Group Processes: Influence in Social Groups PDF

Group Processes: Influence in Social Groups Hammad Zahid Muharram, M.Psi., Psikolog  Resources Aronson, E., Wilson, T. D., Sommers, S. R., Gould, E. P., & Lewis, N., Jr. (2023). Social Psychology (11th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Pearson. Branscombe, Nyla R, Baron, Robe...

Group Processes: Influence in Social Groups Hammad Zahid Muharram, M.Psi., Psikolog  Resources Aronson, E., Wilson, T. D., Sommers, S. R., Gould, E. P., & Lewis, N., Jr. (2023). Social Psychology (11th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Pearson. Branscombe, Nyla R, Baron, Robert A. (2017). Social Psychology (14th Edition). England: Pearson Education Limited. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, F. P. (2014). Joining Together: Group Theory and Group Skills. Boston, Mass.: Allyn and Bacon.  Table of contents 01 02 Groups: Their Key Group Formation and Components Dynamics 03 04 Individual Behavior in a Leadership in Group Group Setting  01 Groups: Their Key Components Sebagai bagian dari mamalia, bagaimana dengan manusia??  Definititon of Group Dua orang atau lebih yang berinteraksi dan saling bergantung dalam arti bahwa kebutuhan dan tujuan mereka menyebabkan mereka saling mempengaruhi satu sama lain (Cartwright & Zander, 1968; Lewin, 1948; J. C. Turner, 1982) Dua orang atau lebih yang berinteraksi dan saling mempengaruhi satu sama lain (Shaw, 1981), menganggap diri mereka sebagai 'kita' (Myers, 2016) Ketika dua atau lebih individu berinteraksi satu sama lain atau disatukan oleh nasib yang sama (Heinzen & Goodfriend, 2019) Orang-orang yang menganggap diri mereka sebagai bagian dari unit koheren yang mereka anggap berbeda dari kelompok lain (Dasgupta, Banaji, & Abelson, 1999; Haslam, 2004).  Composition of Group Roles Cohesiveness Hierarchies in The Rules of Groups Differentiation The Game The Force that of Functions Binds Within Groups Status Norms  Characteristic of a Group It is a collection of two or more individuals. It lasts for a reasonable period of time. It has a definite structure consisting of values, goals and role assignments. It has its own standard and norms of behaviour. It performs some specific functions. It provides motivation and satisfaction of needs of the members. It has its goals and objectives. There is some interaction among group members. There is a feeling of belongingness in the members of the group. The members of a group are interdependent.  Group Composition & Structure Group composition merujuk pada Struktur dalam kelompok karakteristik atau ciri-ciri individu yang Peran membentuk suatu kelompok. Ini mencakup Norma latar belakang, keterampilan, Status pengalaman, dan sifat kepribadian anggota kelompok. Komposisi kelompok Fungsi sangat mempengaruhi dinamika kelompok, Hirearki termasuk bagaimana anggota berinteraksi, Ukuran (Size) bekerja sama, dan mencapai tujuan Kohesivitas bersama. Aspeknya: Keanekaragaman, Performance, Homogenitas vs Heterogenitas 02 Group Formation and Dynamics  Group Formation The Functional Perspective à menunjukkan bahwa kelompok terbentuk karena mereka melayani fungsi yang berguna atau memenuhi kebutuhan bagi anggotanya (Mackie & Goethals, 1987). Sebagai contoh, polisi dan tentara. The Interpersonal Attraction Perspective à kelompok terbentuk karena para anggotanya menyukai satu sama lain dan ingin menghabiskan waktu bersama. Sebagai contoh: ? Group Dynamics Forming à Pada tahap ini, anggota grup pertama kali bertemu dan mulai berinteraksi. Mereka masih cenderung berhati-hati, menyesuaikan diri dengan lingkungan grup, dan mencoba memahami peran masing-masing. Storming à Pada tahap ini, konflik mulai muncul ketika anggota grup mulai menguji batasan dan berhadapan dengan perbedaan pendapat. Norming à Anggota grup menyepakati cara terbaik untuk bekerja bersama, dan norma atau aturan kelompok mulai terbentuk. Performing à Anggota bekerja sama dengan lancar, berfokus pada penyelesaian tugas, dan dapat mengatasi masalah dengan efektif. Adjourning à Tahap terakhir, sebelum berpisah ada rasa bangga atas pencapaian atau kesedihan karena perpisahan. Stages of Group Development  Types of Group Sumner's Classification à In-group (We-group) & Out-group (Other- group) Cooley's Classification à Primary, secondary, tertiary group. ----------- Organized vs Spontaneous Groups; Formal vs Informal Groups Creative Groups vs Action Groups; Support Groups vs Ad-Hoc Groups Task-Oriented Groups vs. Leadership-Centric Groups Learning Groups vs. Advisory Groups Virtual Groups vs Reality Groups  03 Individual Behavior in a Group Setting  Social Facilitation Efek positif atau negatif, dari kehadiran orang lain terhadap performa  Social Loafing Kecenderungan untuk mengerahkan lebih sedikit upaya saat mengerjakan tugas kelompok, pada situasi tidak dapat dipantaunya kontribusi individu Ketika kontribusi tidak dapat dipantau secara individual, orang cenderung bekerja kurang keras dan mengandalkan upaya orang lain untuk menyelesaikan pekerjaan Social loafers = free riders atau “slackers” - orang yang mendapatkan lebih banyak manfaat dari kelompok daripada yang mereka kontribusikan kepada kelompok Social loafers dapat diprediksi dari: (1) Situasional, (2) Kepribadian, dan (3) Pengaruh Budaya  Deindividuation Keadaan psikologis yang ditandai dengan berkurangnya kesadaran diri, yang disebabkan oleh kondisi eksternal dan rasa individualitas di dalam kelompok Seseorang akan merasa kurang bertanggung jawab atas tindakan mereka, ketika mereka menyadari bahwa ada kemungkinan yang lebih kecil bahwa mereka dapat disalahkan atas perilaku mereka Terkadang ada norma-norma dari kelompok tertentu bertentangan dengan norma- norma kelompok lain atau masyarakat luas. Ketika anggota kelompok ini berkumpul dan tidak terpisahkan, mereka menjadi lebih mungkin untuk bertindak sesuai dengan norma kelompok daripada norma masyarakat. Dengan demikian, deindividuasi juga meningkatkan kepatuhan terhadap norma-norma kelompok setempat.  Process Loss: When Group Interactions Inhibit Good Problem Solving → Kelompok bisa saja tidak berusaha mencari tahu siapa Group Decisions: anggota yang paling kompeten dan malah mengandalkan seseorang yang Are Two (or mendominasi. More) Heads Groupthink: Many Heads, One Mind → Better Than Proses keputusan di mana menjaga kekompakan dan solidaritas kelompok lebih One? penting daripada mempertimbangkan fakta realistis Group Think  Group Polarization Fenomena di mana anggota suatu kelompok cenderung membuat keputusan atau mengambil posisi yang lebih ekstrem setelah berdiskusi secara kelompok dibandingkan dengan posisi awal mereka secara individu. Kenapa kita memiliki komitmen untuk terlibat di dalam kelompok?  OPTIMAL DISTINCTIVENESS THEORY: BEING SPECIAL MATTERS Kita dapat secara bersamaan mencapai keuntungan dari dipandang sebagai individu yang unik dan penting, serta berada dalam kelompok à caranya being an identifiable member of a small and elite group Dengan cara ini, kita tidak menjadi “terlalu” berbeda (yang dapat berarti isolasi sosial atau stigma) atau “terlalu” anonim (kehilangan individualitas kita)  Initiation Effect Difficult to get into groups are more appealing à The harder a group is to join, the more we want to join Some groups are more prestigious and elite—and harder to get into → gives us the feeling of being special Terjadi disonansi kognitif: ketika pikiran dan perilaku kita tidak selaras, kita akan meyakini yang dianggap lebih baik → upaya kita untuk mendapatkan keanggotaan dalam suatu kelompok meyakinkan diri kita bahwa kelompok tersebut luar biasa, worth to join!  Hazing Effect Fenomena di mana individu atau kelompok melakukan tindakan atau ritual tertentu yang melibatkan pelecehan fisik atau psikologis terhadap anggota baru dalam sebuah kelompok sebagai syarat untuk diterima atau diintegrasikan dalam kelompok tersebut. Tujuan dari hazing, menurut para pelaku, adalah untuk membangun solidaritas kelompok atau “menguji” komitmen anggota baru. Karakteristik: 1) Ada ritual tertentu; 2) Ada tekanan kelompok; 3) Upaya melibatkan tindakan kekerasan; 4) Sebagai syarat penerimaan sosial; 5) Menjaga tradisi Maltreatment Effect Dampak atau efek negatif yang ditimbulkan oleh penganiayaan (maltreatment), Stockholm Syndrome baik secara fisik, emosional, psikologis, atau melalui Kondisi psikologis di mana korban penelantaran, terhadap penculikan, penyanderaan, atau individu, terutama anak-anak. situasi penganiayaan lainnya mulai Dampaknya: Trauma, mengembangkan ikatan emosional Penurunan Keberhargaan Diri, atau rasa simpati terhadap pelaku Agresi, Isolasi Diri, Memicu atau penculik mereka. Perilaku Berisiko, Transgenerational Trauma 04 Leadership in Group  Quick questions! Mengapa hanya ada beberapa orang yang menjadi pemimpin? Apakah beberapa orang memang terlahir menjadi pemimpin? Kapan pemimpin muncul di dalam sebuah kelompok? Bagaimana pemimpin mempengaruhi kepuasan anggota kelompok dengan kinerja mereka?  Leadership Style in Group Transactional Leaders → Leaders who set clear, short-term goals and reward people who meet them Transformational Leaders → Leaders who inspire followers to focus on common, long-term goals Task Oriented Leaders → Leaders who are concerned more with getting the job done Relationship Oriented Leaders → Leaders who are concerned more with workers’ feelings and relationships  Contingency Theory of Leadership Teori kepemimpinan kontingensi adalah gagasan bahwa tidak ada satu gaya kepemimpinan yang terbaik; tipe orang, lingkungan, dan situasi yang berbeda membutuhkan tipe pemimpin yang berbeda. Teori kepemimpinan kontingensi selaras dengan persamaan awal Lewin yang memandang perilaku sebagai produk dari kepribadian individu dan lingkungan atau situasi sosialnya: Situasi yang berbeda membutuhkan jenis pemimpin yang berbeda (Heinzen, 2019) Contingency Theory of Leadership Menurut Fred Fiedler, efektivitas kepemimpinan dipengaruhi oleh dua faktor utama: gaya kepemimpinan (berorientasi tugas atau berorientasi hubungan) dan tingkat kendali situasional. Pemimpin yang berorientasi pada tugas cenderung lebih efektif dalam situasi yang sangat terkendali atau sangat tidak terkendali, sedangkan pemimpin yang berorientasi pada hubungan lebih efektif dalam situasi yang moderat. Hersey-Blanchard Situational Path-Goal Theory Pemimpin harus menyesuaikan gaya kepemimpinan mereka Berfokus pada bagaimana pemimpin dengan tingkat kematangan mempengaruhi kinerja, kepuasan, dan pengikut. Maturitas ini mencakup motivasi bawahan. Pemimpin harus kompetensi (kemampuan) dan menyesuaikan gaya mereka komitmen (keinginan) bawahan berdasarkan karakteristik pengikut dalam melakukan tugas tertentu. dan situasi kerja. Ada empat gaya Ada empat gaya kepemimpinan kepemimpinan yang dapat dalam teori ini, yaitu: telling digunakan: directive, supportive, (memberi instruksi), selling (membujuk), participating partisipatif, dan orientasi pada (berpartisipasi), dan delegating pencapaian. (melimpahkan wewenang).  Refleksi dari Simulasi Pemilihan KaBEM Visi, Misi, Nilai, dan Budaya à Pertimbangannya apakah top-down atau bottom- up? Menjawab masalah/memetakan asset/membangun gagasan/menghadirkan kesan/mengikuti tahun sebelumnya? Apa fungsi BEM? Penyampaian oleh Representatif à Teknik persuasi? Cara penyampaian? Poin- poin yang penting terhighlight? Jawaban normatif lebih disukai? Program Kerja à Siapa yang mengerjakan? Bagaimana mekanisme reward? Keuangannya dari mana? Gaya kepemimpinan dan situasi kelompok à Karakter pemimpin? Apakah sesuai dengan kebutuhan? Bagaimana kelompok yang lebih kecil mengakomodasi banyak pihak? Dukungan pada pemimpin? Keseriusan dalam proses belajar? Social loafers? Dinamika kelompok besar?  Thanks! Do you have any questions? CREDITS: This presentation template was created by Slidesgo, and includes icons by Flaticon, infographics & images by Freepik and content by Swetha Tandri Please keep this slide for attribution INTERGROUP RELATIONS: STEREOTYPES, PREJUDICE & DISCRIMINATION #KTPS 2024  INTRODUCTION Stereotypes, prejudice, and discrimination are sometimes used to describe the combined effects of all three, but they do not have to occur together. However, each term refers to different definition.  PREJUDICE STEREOTYPES DISCRIMINATION STEREOTYPES A belief that all members of a group have the same characteristics → generalization A way of categorizing people Refers to how we think (the cognitive component) Describes group members in terms of their perceived physical characteristics, personality traits, behaviors (such as foods they eat), and so on It involves thinking about a person not as an individual, but as a member of a group, and projecting your beliefs about the group onto that person.  WHY DOES IT EXIST? Our culture reinforces Categorizing people into Spending time with similar stereotypes and teaches groups is a human instinct others is comforting and them to the next that benefits survival validating generation We inherited the “Birds of a feather Perceptions of basic human flock together” different groups are tendency to simplify transmitted from one the world → Ingroup generation to the HEURISTICS heterogeneity vs next → SLT outgroup It’s easy, efficient! homogeneity Parents, the media, and self-fulfilling prophecies  EXAMPLES OF TYPES OF STEREOTYPES Gender Age stereotype stereotype ?? ?? Racial stereotype Singlism ?? ?? cek pp.214-215 Branscome & Baron (2023)  POSITIVE STEREOTYPES POSITIVE STEREOTYPES = GOOD? Not all stereotypes are Beliefs about a group that are negative in a favorable direction Contoh: Positive stereotypes still lead - Perempuan → to negative outcomes keibuan If group members don’t live - Mahasiswa psikologi up to these roles, they can be judged particularly harshly! → pendengar yang Contoh ??? baik - Pemuka agama → jujur PREJUDICE Stereotypes will morph into evaluations, judgments, and feelings about groups that are very damaging Emotion-centered judgments or evaluations about people based on their perceived membership in a particular group Refers to our feelings (the affective component) Negative emotional responses or dislike based on group membership Negative judgment of a group and its individual members  HOW PREJUDICE IS FORMED? Prejudice seems to be targeted toward conflict over groups perceived as threats to getting or keeping the resources we decide we limited resources want Montreal landlords’ study (Hilton, Potvin, & Sachdev, 1989): cek Realistic conflict theory → Heinzen & Goodfriend (2019) p. prejudice results from the 585-586 justifications we create to Contoh lain: imigran vs job, determine that our ingroup penjajah vs rempah-rempah, should receive an unfair amount african-american vs crime, of limited resources (Sherif, asian-american vs 1966a; Sherif & Sherif, 1969) high-pays/status jobs  HOW PREJUDICE IS FORMED? Our evaluations and judgments emotional of outgroups are not logical; they reactions are based on irrational reactions toward others Jewish → wealth → envy, fear of losing resources African-Americans → criminals → fear  HOW PREJUDICE IS FORMED? emotional reactions Stereotype content model (Fiske et al., 2007) CEK Aronson et al. (2019), p.409!!  HOW PREJUDICE IS FORMED? Scapegoat theory → prejudice is the frustration result of one group blaming another innocent group for its problems (Allport, 1954; Joly, 2016) Frustration-aggression theory → Economic frustration → Hovland & individuals’ frustration builds a Sears (1940) physical and psychological tension that they feel must be let out, frequently in the form of aggression toward “weaker” targets  HOW PREJUDICE IS FORMED? People in the “us” category are the need for high viewed in more favorable terms, self-esteem while those in the “them” category are perceived more negatively Social identity theory → prejudice Perceiving a threat to our group can against particular groups provides lead us to identify more with our a mental and emotional shortcut ingroup that allows us to maintain a positive view of our self and our ingroups Threat of immigrants → Caricati (2018) Part of our self-esteem is derived from our social group memberships Rocky IV’ study → (Branscome & Wann, 1994) (Tajfel & Turner, 1986)  PREJUDICE & PERSONALITY AUTHORITARIANISM SOCIAL DOMINANCE Prefer to submit to authorities ORIENTATION (when they are perceived as Associated with people who have legitimate), discipline those who a preference for structured defy authority, and conform to social hierarchies. conventional beliefs. High scores in social dominance Higher scores in orientation are positively authoritarianism are positively correlated with a variety of correlated with prejudice of outgroup prejudices. various types—but the most People high in SDO want their common measurement of own ingroups to hold the most authoritarianism has been social power and are against criticized. social equality. RELIGIOSITY & PREJUDICE Anti-semitism, anti-catholic, anti-muslim Batson, Schoenrade, and Ventis (1993) showed that higher religious involvement was correlated with several forms of prejudice. - Religious people are prejudiced - Intrinsic vs extrinsic religiosity ??? - Extrinsic religiosity is correlated with various forms of prejudice, such as racism (Herek, 1987) and gives religion a bad name Donahue (1985) HAS PREJUDICE DECREASED OVERTIME? OLD-FASHIONED MODERN-SYMBOLIC PREJUDICE PREJUDICE ?  OLD-FASHIONED PREJUDICE Being explicitly or overtly prejudiced toward certain groups, which are considered inappropriate by most social standards today CONTOH ??? Some people argue that old-fashioned prejudice appears to have decreased; most social psychologists would argue that while old-fashioned prejudice may have decreased, other more subtle forms have simply taken its place CONTOH: Trump win the presidency while overtly expressing negative beliefs about Muslims and Mexican immigrants—among other groups People will keep their prejudices private to avoid being labeled https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-35261 748  MODERN-SYMBOLIC PREJUDICE A form of prejudice where individuals think of themselves as valuing equality and respect for all people while they simultaneously oppose social change that would allow equality to occur.  MODERN-SYMBOLIC PREJUDICE ➔ Sears and Henry (2005): Most forms of prejudice and discrimination no longer exist or are rare. Any remaining group differences in socioeconomic outcomes or class are the result of some groups’ lack of motivation to work hard. Because those groups are unwilling to work toward goals, their continuing anger or claims of discrimination are not justified. Rather than committing to more effort, those groups seek special favors. Relative to the historical majority or group that used to be in power (such as White men), minorities have been getting more than they deserve due to these special favors. ➔ People high in modern-symbolic beliefs perceive that prejudice is no longer a problem, they resent anything that appears to “favor” DISCRIMINATION Differential (usually negative) behaviors directed toward members of different social groups Unfair behaviors toward a particular group or members of a group based on a stereotype or prejudice. Refers to our actions (the behavioral component) Favorable or unfavorable treatment of an individual because of the person's membership in a specific group DOES IT STILL EXIST? Discrimination have decreased in recent years in the United States and many other countries (Devine, Plant, & Blair, 2001; Swim & Campbell, 2001) The discrimination may be obvious or subtle CEK kasus Rebecca Hiles: https://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Wellness /woman-claims-doctors-cancer-symptom s-weight-scary/story?id=54579062 SOURCES OF DISCRIMINATION THREATENING BEING ANGERED SITUATIONS OR INSULTED Correll et al., 2002 Rogers & Prentice-Dunn, 1981 p. 411 (Aronson et al., 2019) p. 412 (Aronson et al., 2019) REDUCING S. P. D  JIGSAW CONTACT CLASSROOM SUPERORDINA FRIENDSHIP TE GOALS GUILT BY PROVIDE ASSOCIATION EVIDENCE SOCIAL LEARNING MEDIA NOT TO HATE THANKS! DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? [email protected] | +91 620 421 838 yourwebsite.com CREDITS: This presentation template was created by Slidesgo, including icons by Flaticon and infographics & images by Freepik Please keep this slide for attribution  Attraction & Intimate Relationship psikologi.unpad.ac.id  Kenapa kita membutuhkan “relasi” ❑ Manusia memiliki kebutuhan atau motivasi untuk menjalin hubungan (yang positif) dengan orang lain dalam jangka panjang (need to belong) ❑ Basic psychological needs. Happiness is feeling connected, autonomy/free, and capable/competence. ❑ Ostracism (acts of excluding or ignoring). Ostracism threatens fundamental needs (lower sense of ‘belonging’, loss of control, lower sense of meaningfulness, lower self-esteem (sociometer theory). ❑ Having a social network strongly associated with people’s psychological and physical well-being (e.g Tough et al, 2017; Huxhold et al, 2013; Cohen, 2009).  What Leads to Friendship & Attraction ❑ Proximity: Geographical nearness. Proximity (more precisely, “functional distance”) powerfully predicts liking. ❑ Physical attractiveness. Daya tarik fisik berpengaruh pada keinginan untuk menjalin hubungan pacaran dengan seseorang atau tidak. Daya tarik fisik merupakan hal yang penting bagi pria di dalam mencari pasangan, sedangkan wanita lebih memilih karakter di dalam mencari pasangan. ❑ Menurut teori evolusi, apa yang mengapa pria melihat “fisik” dan wanita melihat “karakter/sumberdaya lain” pada pria? The human preference for attractive partners in term of reproductive strategy. ”Beauty signals biologically important information: health, youth, and fertility.” Parental Investment Theory. ❑ Konsep ”attractive” terikat pada tempat dan waktu. ❑ Social Comparison. What’s attractive to you also depends on your comparison standards. Bagaimana pengaruh media? ❑ Mereka yang good looking=more attractive, more “capable”, more “rich”, more etc etc … (What is beautiful is good –stereotype) ❑ Kecenderungan pada pria dan wanita untuk memilih pasangan yang dinilai setara/sebanding dengan dirinya, dalam daya tarik atau sifat-sifat lainnya. Similarity vs complementarity ❑ Kemiripan mengembangkan perasaan suka, ketidakmiripan mengembangkan perasaan tidak suka. ❑ Complementarity, beberapa dapat berkembang ketika suatu hubungan turut berkembang. ❑ Complementary—the popularly suppose tendency, in a relationship between two people, for each to complete what is missing in the other. ❑ Pada relasi jangka panjang, misalnya pernikahan, bagaimana sebaiknya komposisi kedua hal ini?  Love (Sternberg, 1988) ❖ Intimacy. Intimacy refers to feelings of closeness, connectedness, and bondedness in loving relationships. It thus includes within its purview those feelings that give rise, essentially, to the experience of warmth in a loving relationship. ❖ Passion. Passion refers to the drives that lead to romance, physical attraction, sexual consummation, and related phenomena in loving relationships. The passion component includes within its purview those sources of motivational and other forms of arousal that lead to the experience of passion in a loving relationship. ❖ Decision/commitment. Decision/commitment refers, in the short-term, to the decision that one loves a certain other, and in the long-term, to one's commitment to maintain that love. These two aspects of the decision/commitment component do not necessarily go together, in that one can decide to love someone without being committed to the love in the long-term, or one can be committed to a relationship without acknowledging that one loves the other person in the relationship. Liking, attribution, relationship rewards ❖ Kita cenderung menyukai orang yang menyukai kita. ❖ Mengetahui bahwa seseorang menyukai kita, dapat memunculkan perasaan romantis maupun emosi resiprokal yang membuat kita ingin melakukan hal yang sama kepada orang tersebut. ❖ Jika kita dinilai positif oleh seseorang tentang sesuatu pada diri kita yang menurut kita negative, maka kita cenderung menganggap orang tersebut mengatakannya karena ketidakjujurannya, bukan karena diri kita memang positif. ❖ INGRATIATION. Kita cenderung mengatribusikan penilaian positif seseorang pada kita sebagai strategi dari orang tersebut untuk mendapatkan sesuatu dari kita. ❖ Reward theory of attraction: those who reward us, or whom we associate with rewards, we like. Kita cenderung mempertahankan relasi yang keuntungannya (reward) lebih besar daripada pengorbanan (cost) kita → bagaimana kaitannya dengan proximity, similarity, attractive people? What enables close relationship ❖ Attachment. Secure attachment vs insecure attachment (avoidant and anxious/ambivalent attachment). Apa pengaruhnya pada pembentukan relasi intim saat dewasa? ❖ Equity. Apa yang Anda dan pasangan Anda dapatkan dari sebuah hubungan harus sebanding dengan apa yang masing-masing lakukan untuk relasi tsb. Bagaimana dengan relasi KDRT atau KDP; mengapa “korban cenderung bertahan”? (see The Investment Model Theory; social comparison, sense of self, and satisfaction) ❖ Self disclosure (membuka aspek pribadi diri kepada orang lain) and disclosure reciprocity. (please see “self expansion theory”) Relationship problems Inikah masalah pada premarital relationships? Ekspresi emosi yang kurang Kekerasan dalam antar pasangan sehingga Perselingkuhan Cross-sex friendships relasi pacaran menyakitkan hati salah satu Perbedaan Perbedaan latar Komunikasi dan Penyesuaian spiritualitas; belakang keluarga conflict resolution kepribadian/minat perbedaan agama Beberapa sumber konflik pernikahan (dari ruang praktik psikolog) (Sadarjoen, 2020) Ekspresi emosi yang kurang Pengelolaan Pembagian tugas antar pasangan sehingga perolehan finansial Perselingkuhan domestik menyakitkan hati salah satu keluarga Perbedaan kadar Komunikasi Perbedaan dalam pola Penyesuaian dalam spiritual interpersonal asuh anak kehidupan psikoseksual antarpasangan antarpasangan Stres pernikahan= ancaman marital stability ❖ Sources of stress can be either internal or external to the relationship. Internal stressors are factors that cause stress and result from the relationship itself; they include conflicts and tensions that arise between partners due to different goals, attitudes, needs, and desires, habits of one partner that annoy the other partner, and a lack of compatibility between partners (Bodenmann et al., 2006). External stress refers to stress resulting from factors outside the relationship; these factors can include financial strain, loss of a job, illness, caring for children, the transition to parenthood, etc. ❖ Family life cycle transitions (awal pernikahan, losing a baby, memiliki anak pertama), childbearing, the Covid-19 pandemic (including the financial situation and the fragile balance parents had to maintain between work and children's activities), living apart from partner and children, partner’s personalities, and differences in religious beliefs (Novianti dkk, 2024)  Sumber stres pernikahan lainnya... ❑ Premarital pregnancy, chronic illness in the family, lack of support from partners or family networks, and financial strain (Hardee et al., 2004; Muslima & Herawati, 2019; Rosiana et al., 2022; Surijah et al., 2023); ❑ Marital conflict and financial difficulties are the main reasons for marital dissolution (Puspitasari & Gayatri, 2022); ❑ Illness affects both the marital relationship and the parent-child relationship (Riany et al, 2017; Wiguna et al., 2015). ❑ Sebab perceraian di Indonesia 2023 adalah: perselisihan dan pertengkaran terus menerus, masalah ekonomi, pasangan meninggalkan rumah, kekerasan dalam rumah tangga, perilaku mabuk. Respon terhadap relationship distress Contoh pada relasi pernikahan ❖ Try to more intimate and affectionate, improved communication among family members, and improved teamwork between spouses (Novianti et al, 2024). ❖ When faced with a crisis, family members would be driven to deal with the issue together as a unit. This would then slowly drive each family member to communicate better in order to understand the crisis better; they would gather appropriate information and discuss the available resources to find the most appropriate solution and thereby overcome the crisis (Walsh, 2016). When a family is in the midst of a crisis, it is crucial to maintain healthy and open communication and engage in positive activities. This would build a sense of togetherness that would foster trust, cohesion, and happiness despite the problems (Gayatri & Irawaty, 2021; D. Olson et al., 2019). ❖ Positive behaviours such as helping each other, communicating, and apologising to resolve problems are significant predictors of marital satisfaction, emotional wellbeing, and general health in married couples (Muslima & Herawati, 2019; Rosiana et al., 2022) Divorced and detachment process ❖ Individualistic cultures: What does my heart say?→independent self construal. ❖ Communal cultures: What will other people say? → interdependent self construal. ❖ Orang mengingat lebih banyak rasa sakit karena menolak cinta seseorang daripada karena ditolak. Kesedihan mereka muncul dari rasa bersalah karena menyakiti seseorang, dari kesal karena kegigihan kekasih yang patah hati, atau dari ketidakpastian tentang bagaimana merespons. ❖ Di antara pasangan yang sudah menikah, perpisahan memiliki biaya tambahan: orang tua dan teman yang terkejut, rasa bersalah karena melanggar sumpah, kesedihan karena pendapatan rumah tangga yang berkurang, dan mungkin lebih sedikit waktu dengan anak-anak.  Sampai bertemu di MKPP Interpersonal Relationships, MKPP Perkembangan Kehidupan Keluarga, MKPP Parenting 101 (semester 5-6)  Sumber Bacaan ❑http://www.kordoutis.gr/STLS.pdf ❑https://www.robertjsternberg.com/love ❑Myers et al. (2022). Social Psychology 14th edition. USA: Mc Graw Hill Inc. ❑Tough, H., Siegrist, J. & Fekete, C. Social relationships, mental health and wellbeing in physical disability: a systematic review. BMC Public Health 17, 414 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-017-4308-6 ❑The dynamic interplay of social network characteristics, subjective well-being, and health: The costs and benefits of socio-emotional selectivity. Huxhold, Oliver, Fiori, Katherine L., & Windsor, Tim D. Psychology and Aging, Vol 28(1), Mar 2013, 3-16. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030170 ❑Can We Improve Our Physical Health by Altering Our Social Networks? Sheldon Cohen and Denise Janicki-Deverts Perspectives on Psychological Science 2009 4:4, 375-378 ❑Amber A. Price, Chelom E. Leavitt, Ashley Larsen Gibby, Erin K. Holmes & Annie O. Johnson (2024) Social Comparison as a Barrier to Relationship Satisfaction through a Weakened Sense of Self, The American Journal of Family Therapy, 52:4, 432-447, DOI: 10.1080/01926187.2023.2272907 ❑Gayatri, M., & Irawaty, D. K. (2021). Family Resilience during COVID-19 Pandemic: A Literature Review. Family Journal, 1. https://doi.org/10.1177/10664807211023875 ❑Walsh, F. (2016). Family resilience: A developmental systems framework. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 13(3), 313–324. https://doi.org/10.1080/17405629.2016.1154035 ❑Walsh, F. (2020). Loss and resilience in the time of COVID-19: Meaning making, hope, and transcendence. Family Process, September. https://doi.org/10.1111/famp.12588  Sumber Bacaan ❑Bodenmann, G., Pihet, S., & Kayser, K. (2006). The relationship between dyadic coping and marital quality: A 2-year longitudinal study. Journal of Family Psychology, 20(3), 485– 493. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.20.3.485 ❑Puspitasari, M. D., & Gayatri, M. (2022). Covid-19 and marital dissolution in West Java, Indonesia. The Family Journal, 106648072211242. https://doi.org/10.1177/10664807221124246 ❑Olson, D., DeFrain, J., & Skogrand, L. (2019). Marriages and families: Intimacy, diversity, and strength (9th ed.). McGraw-Hill. ❑Muslima, F., & Herawati, T. (2019). The role of social support and marital adjustment to marital quality of married student. Journal of Family Sciences, 3(2), 30–41. https://doi.org/10.29244/jfs.3.2.30-41 ❑Novianti LE, Purba FD, Karremans J, Agustiani H. (2024). Stress, Coping, and Marital Satisfaction: A Qualitative Study. Submitted on PlosOne. ❑Sadarjoen, Sawitri. (2020). Merawat Perkawinan. Jakarta: Penerbit Kompas. ❑Rosiana, E., Zaman, A. A., Lutfiani, F., Simanjuntak, M., & Riany, Y. E. (2022). Case study: Analysis of factors affecting marriage satisfaction in married couples during pandemic. Journal of Family Sciences, 68–82. https://doi.org/10.29244/jfs.vi.36537 ❑Wiguna, T., Ismail, R. I., Noorhana, S. R., Kaligis, F., Aji, A. N., & Belfer, M. L. (2015). Family responses to a child with schizophrenia: An Indonesian experience. Asian Journal of Psychiatry, 18, 66–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajp.2015.09.009 ❑Riany, Y. E., Cuskelly, M., & Meredith, P. (2017). Parenting style and parent–child relationship: A comparative study of Indonesian parents of children with and without Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). Journal of Child and Family Studies, 26(12), 3559–3571. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-017-0840-3 ❑Hardee, K., Eggleston, E., Wong, E. L.., Irwanto, & Hull, T. H. (2004). Unintended pregnancy and women’s psychological well-being in Indonesia. Journal of Biosocial Science, 36(5), 617–626. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021932003006321 ❑Surijah, E. A., Murray, K., Wraith, D., & Shochet, I. (2023). Examining trajectories of marital satisfaction to represent the resilience process among Indonesian married individuals. Personal Relationships. https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12529 Prosocial Behavior: Helping Others Konsep dan Teori Psikologi Sosial 2024  Contents 01 Why do people help? 04 Who will help? 02 Why Do Some People 05 How Can We Increase Help More than Others? Helping? 03 When Will People Help? Prosocial Behavior Any act performed with the goal of benefiting another person (Aronson, 2019) Actions by individuals that help others with no immediate benefit to the helper (Branscome & Baron, 2023) Altruism (Myers and Twenge, 2022) is selfishness in reverse. An altruistic person is concerned and helpful even when no benefits are offered or expected in return.  Why do people help? Social Exchange Evolutionary Theory Psychology life’s essence is gene The theory that human Social Norms interactions are survival. Our genes transactions that aim to drive us in adaptive maximize one’s rewards Norms, the oughts of ways that have and minimize one’s costs. our lives, are social maximized their expectations. They chance of survival. prescribe proper behavior.  Social Exchange Theory INCREASING POSITIVE REDUCING N GUILT EMOTION EGATIVE re lie ve th e ir g u ilt: a way to EMOTION g a k u i k e s a la h a n, people help because it men Near som n m e n e g u r o ra n g makes them eone denga in distres a ta u d e n gan s, we may yang d is a kit i, feel good. distress. E feel X: men w ka n p e rb ua ta n baik FEEL GOOD, DO GOOD the most ho were melaku upset at a k m e n g im b a ng i distress a nother’s untu lso gave the most perbuatan jahat. help to th e person  SOCIAL NORMS RECIPROCITY NORM: An expectation that people will help, not hurt, those who have helped them. THE SOCIAL-RESPONSIBILITY NORM: people should help those who need help, without regard to future exchanges (Berkowitz, 1972; Schwartz, 1975). The social-responsibility norm compels us to help those most in need and those most deserving. Responses are thus closely tied to attributions.  GENDER AND RECEIVING HELP Perempuan menawarkan bantuan yang sama kepada laki-laki dan perempuan, sedangkan laki-laki menawarkan lebih banyak bantuan ketika orang yang membutuhkan adalah perempuan. Pria lebih sering membantu perempuan yang menarik daripada yang tidak menarik. Perempuan tidak hanya menerima lebih banyak tawaran bantuan dalam situasi tertentu tetapi juga mencari lebih banyak bantuan. Seorang pakar Universitas Tel Aviv tentang pencarian bantuan, mengaitkan hal ini dengan perbedaan gender dalam individualisme versus kolektivisme: Perempuan lebih kolektivis dan dengan demikian lebih bersedia meminta bantuan orang lain.  EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGY 01 03 KIN SELECTION 02 GROUP SELECTION The idea that evolution has RECIPROCITY Groups of mutually selected altruism toward supportive altruists one’s close relatives to An organism helps another, outlast groups of enhance the survival of biologist Robert Trivers nonaltruists mutually shared genes. argued, because it expects help in return  Genuine Altruism and Empathy Batson theorized that our willingness to help is influenced by both self-serving and selfless considerations  Helping When Number of Someone Else Bystanders WHEN WILL Does PEOPLE HELP? Time Pressures Similarity Number of Bystanders bystander effect: The finding that a person is less likely to provide help when there are other bystanders  Who Will Help? 01 03 Religious Personality 02 Faith Traits and Status Gender Personality Traits and Status There are individual differences in helpfulness that persist over time and are noticed by one’s peers The personality trait that best predicts willingness to help is agreeableness, indicative of someone who highly values getting along with others Personality influences how particular people react to particular situations. Those high in self-monitoring are attuned to others’ expectations and are therefore helpful if they think helpfulness will be socially rewarded. Others’ opinions matter less to internally guided, low-self- monitoring people. Status and social class also affect altruism.  Gender the gender difference depends on the situation. When faced with potentially dangerous situations in which strangers need help (such as with a flat tire or a fall in a subway), men more often help (Eagly & Crowley, 1986). Alice Eagly (2009) In safer situations, such as volunteering to help with an experiment or spend time with children with developmental disabilities, women are slightly more likely to help. Indiana University’s Women’s Philanthropy Institute reports that: (1) single women donate more than single men, (2) men donate more if married to a woman, and (3) at every income level, female-headed households donate more than male-headed households (Mesch & Pactor, 2015  Religious Faith Agama (KBBI) : ajaran, sistem yang mengatur tata keimanan (kepercayaan) dan peribadatan kepada Tuhan Yang Maha Kuasa serta tata kaidah yang berhubungan dengan pergaulan manusia dan manusia serta manusia dan lingkungannya Determinants of Religiosity (Jackson & Bergeman, 2011) Religious Daily Spiritual Religious Practice Experiences /Spiritual Coping Cognition, Emotion, Behavior Cognition, Emotion Motivation, Behavior HOW CAN WE INCREASE HELPING? Suggest how helping might be increased by reversing the factors that inhibit helping, by teaching norms of helping, and by socializing people to see themselves as helpful.  Objectives Reduce Guilt and Ambiguity, PERSONALIZED Concern for Socializing Increase APPEAL Self-Image Altruism Responsibility  TEACHING MODELING MORAL ALTRUISM Socializing INCLUSION. Altruism LEARNING LEARNING BY ABOUT DOING BYSTANDER INTERVENTION Thank you! www.reallygreatsite.com  AGGRESSION HURTING OTHERS ZAINAL ABIDIN & TIM FAKULTAS PSIKOLOGI UNIVERSITAS PADJADJARAN 2024 BAHAN BACAAN  BAHAN BACAAN https://www.researchgate.net/publication/381824249_Penghakiman_Massa_Kajian_atas_Kasus_dan_Pelaku  E-BOOK GRATIS. SILAHKAN DOWNLOAD https://www.researchgate.net/publication/381824249_Penghakiman _Massa_Kajian_atas_Kasus_dan_Pelaku  PERBEDAAN PENGGUNAAN ISTILAH: AGGRESSION OR VIOLENCE?  PENDAPAT 1: KEDUA KONSEP ITU BEDA TAPI BERHUBUNGAN: A) VIOLENCE ADALAH SUATU BENTUK AGRESI AGGRESSION YANG SANGAT EKSTRIM DAN SANGAT OR VIOLENCE? MEMBAHAYAKAN KORBAN. B) KONSEP AGRESI LEBIH LEBIH LUAS DAN “NETRAL” DIBANDINGKAN KEKERASAN. C) KESAMAANNYA: BAIK AGRESI MAUPUN KEKERASAN BERSIFAT MENYERANG KORBAN DAN DICIRIKAN OLEH ADANYA NIAT (INTENSI)  PERBEDAAN PENGGUNAAN ISTILAH: AGGRESSION OR VIOLENCE?  PENDAPAT 2: KEDUA KONSEP ITU PADA DASARNYA SAMA. KONSEP “AGRESI” BIASANYA AGGRESSION DIPAKAI DALAM ILMU PSIKOLOGI, OR VIOLENCE? SEDANGKAN “KEKERASAN” (VIOLENCE) DIPAKAI DALAM SOSIOLOGI DAN ILMU- ILMU SOSIAL (ILMU HUKUM, POLITIK, ANTROPOLOGI, KRIMINOLOGI, KOMUNIKASI, DLL.), KEHIDUPAN SEHARI- HARI, SERTA MEDIA MASA APA AGRESI ATAU KEKERASAN ITU?  WHAT IS AGGRESSION?  Myers (2005; 2019, p.381): “aggression is physical or verbal behavior intended to hurt someone”  (Aronson, at all,19th edition, 2019, p.366) “… Intentional behavior aimed at causing physical harm or psychological pain to another person” Bandura (1973, p.5): “Aggression is defined as behavior that results in personal injury and in the destruction of property. The injury may be psychological (in the form of devaluation or degradation) as well as physical.” Brigham (1991, h.412): “Aggression is behavior intended to bring physical or psychological harm to a person who whishes not to be harmed.”  BERDASARKAN DEFINISI-DEFINISI TADI, TERDAPAT LIMA KOMPONEN UTAMA DALAM AGRESI/KEKERASAN: 1. PELAKU 2. NIAT (UNTUK MELUKAI ORANG LAIN) 3. BENTUK PERILAKUNYA: BAIK FISIK MAUPUN VERBAL 4. KORBAN (PADA UMUMNYA TIDAK INGIN DAN MENGHINDAR MENJADI KORBAN?), ATAU HARTA BENDA KORBAN 5. AKIBAT PADA KORBAN: LUKA FISIK DAN PSIKIS, ATAU KERUGIAN HARTA BENDA APAKAH PERLAKUAN TIMBAL-BALIK ANTARA SADISTIS DAN MASOKIS (SADOMASOCHISM) MERUPAKAN SUATU BENTUK KEKERASAN?  BUSS’S CLASSIFICATION OF AGGRESSION ACTIVE PASSIVE DIRECT INDIRECT DIRECT INDIRECT PUNCHING / PRACTICAL JOKE, OBSTRUCTING REFUSING TO PHYSICAL HITTING BOOBY TRAP PASSAGE PERFORM NECESSARY TASK INSULTING MALICIOUS REFUSING TO REFUSING CONSENT VERBAL VICTIM GOSSIP SPEAK  THEVARIETIES VARIETIES OFOF AGGRESSION AGGRESSION INTERPERSONAL AGGRESSION CYBER-AGGRESSION (CYBERBULLYING) INTERGROUP AGGRESSION HOSTILE AGGRESSION IN-GROUP AGGRESSION INSTRUMENTAL AGGRESSION INTENTION TO AGGRESSION) PHYSICAL AGGRESSION PERCEIVED AGGRESSION / VERBAL AGGRESSION PERCEPTION OF AGGRESSION SELF-AGGRESSION DISPLACED AGGRESSION (SELF-INJURY, SUICIDE) ?  Instrumental Agression Perilaku agresif yang dilakukan sebagai alat DUA JENIS untuk mencapai tujuan tertentu AGRESI Contoh: BERDASARKAN  Membunuh korban untuk mendapatkan bayaran PADA (upah) MOTIF PELAKU  Mengancam untuk mendapatkan uang  Bagaimana dengan guru yang memberi hukuman pada siswanya? Apakah itu hostile atau instrumental aggression?  Hostile Agression DUA JENIS Perilaku agresif yang didorong oleh kemarahan atau emosi- AGRESI emosi negatif lainnya BERDASARKAN PADA Contoh:  Menyerang korban karena MOTIF PELAKU kesal, marah, atau dendam terhadap korban  Aggression can have serious consequences, with victims suffering from depression and sometimes—as happened in several well-publicized cases— THE committing suicide. CONSEQUENCES OF AGGRESSION Dan Olweus and Kyrre Breivik (2013): “...the consequences of bullying as “the opposite of well-being.”  SEE VD  DATA FROMVIDEO 5% they were excluded from SURVEY RESULTS: activities on purpose  4% each said that someone tried 21% of students had experienced to make them do things they did bullying not want to do, and that their 11% the were pushed, shoved, property was destroyed on tripped, or spit on purpose 18% being the subject of rumors  79% they were bullied inside the 6% they were threated with harm school  DATA FROM VIDEO THE EFFECTS OF AGGRESSION MESSAGES: depression  eating disorder  Be strong but not rude depression  suicide  Be proud but not arrogant Why do people act aggressively?  1. Aggression as a Biological Phenomenon THE THEORIES 2. Aggression as Learned Social OF AGGRESSION Behavior   INSTINCTIVE BEHAVIOR AND 1. AGGRESSION AS A BIOLOGICAL PHENOMENON EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGY  Freud  human aggression springs from a self-destructive impulse. It redirects toward others the energy of a primitive death urge (the “death instinct”) BIOLOGICAL (“thanatos” vs “eros”). THEORIES  Lorenz  aggression as adaptive rather than self-destructive (“fight” or “flight”).  The two agreed that aggressive energy is instinctive (innate, unlearned, and universal).   KELEMAHAN TEORI INI 1. BUKTI DAN PENJELASAN ILMIAHNYA LEMAH: It’s tempting to play this explaining-by-naming game: “Why do sheep stay together?” “Because of their herd instinct.” “How do you know they have a herd instinct?” “Just look at BIOLOGICAL them: They’re always together!” THEORIES 2. MENGABAIKAN VARIASI AGRESI BAIK DI LEVEL INDIVIDU MAUPUN BUDAYA: How would a shared human instinct for aggression explain the difference between the peaceful Iroquois before White invaders came and the hostile Iroquois after the invasion (Hornstein, 1976)?  A. NEURAL INFLUENCES  Brain neural systems in both animals and humans that facilitate aggression. When the scientists activate these brain areas, hostility increases; when they deactivate them, hostility decreases.  In one experiment, researchers placed an electrode BIOLOGICAL in an aggression-inhibiting area of a domineering monkey’s brain. A smaller monkey, given a button THEORIES that activated the electrode, learned to push it every time the tyrant monkey became intimidating. Brain activation works with humans, too. After receiving painless electrical stimulation in her amygdala (a brain core area involved with emotion), one woman became enraged and smashed her guitar against the wall, barely missing her psychiatrist’s head (Moyer, 1976, 1983).  NEURAL INFLUENCES  Does this mean that violent people’s brains are in some way abnormal? Adrian Raine and his colleagues (1998, 2000, 2005, 2008) found that the prefrontal cortex, which acts like an emergency brake on deeper brain areas involved in aggressive BIOLOGICAL behavior, was 14 percent less active than normal in murderers (excluding those who had been abused THEORIES by their parents) and 15 percent smaller in the anti- social men.  Pardini et al. (2014) found that more aggressive and violent men had smaller amygdalas. Abnormal brains can contribute to abnormally aggressive behavior (Davidson et al., 2000; Lewis, 1998; Pincus, 2001).  B. GENETIC INFLUENCES  Heredity influences the neural system’s sensitivity to aggressive cues.. Finnish psychologist Kirsti Lagerspetz (1979) took normal albino mice and bred the most aggressive ones together; she did the same with the least aggressive ones. After repeating the procedure for 26 BIOLOGICAL generations, she had one set of fierce mice and one set of THEORIES placid mice.  Aggressiveness also varies among individuals (Asher, 1987; Bettencourt et al., 2006; Denson et al., 2006; Olweus, 1979). Our temperaments—how intense and reactive we are—are partly brought with us into the world, influenced by our sympathetic nervous system’s reactivity (Kagan, 1989; Wilkowski & Robinson, 2008). A person’s temperament, observed in infancy, usually endures (Larsen & Diener, 1987; Wilson & Matheny, 1986).  C. BIOCHEMICAL INFLUENCES  Blood chemistry also influences neural sensitivity to aggressive stimulation.  ALCOHOL.  Both laboratory experiments and police data indicate that alcohol unleashes aggression when people are BIOLOGICAL provoked (Bushman, 1993; Taylor & Chermack, 1993; THEORIES Testa, 2002). Consider the following:  Thirty-seven percent of U.S. rapes and sexual assaults involved alcohol (NCADD, 2014). Four in 10 prisoners convicted of a violent crime were drinking when they committed murder, assault, rob- bery, or sexual assault (Karberg & James, 2005).  D. TESTOSTERONE o Hormonal influences appear to be much stronger in other animals than in humans. But human aggressiveness does correlate with the male sex hormone testosterone. o After men reach age 25, their testosterone BIOLOGICAL levels and rates of violent crime decrease THEORIES together. o Testosterone levels are higher among prisoners convicted of planned and unprovoked violent crimes compared with those convicted of nonviolent crimes (Dabbs, 1992; Dabbs et al., 1995, 1997, 2001).  TESTOSTERONE. ∙  Among the normal range of boys and men, those with high testosterone levels are more prone to delinquency, hard drug use, and aggressive responses to provocation (Archer, 1991; Barzman et al., 2013).  Testosterone, said James Dabbs (2000), “is a small BIOLOGICAL molecule with large effects.” Injecting a man with THEORIES testosterone won’t automatically make him aggressive, yet men with low testosterone are somewhat less likely to react aggressively when provoked (Geen, 1998). Testosterone is roughly like battery power. Only if the battery levels are very low will things noticeably slow down.  E. POOR DIET (LESS NUTRITION)  Prisoners who got the extra nutrition were involved in 35 percent fewer violent incidents (Gesch et al., 2002). Such programs may eventually help people outside of prison as well, BIOLOGICAL because many people have diets THEORIES deficient in important nutrients, such as omega-3 fatty acids (found in fish and important for brain function) and calcium (which guards against impulsivity). BIOLOGY AND BEHAVIOR INTERACT  The traffic between biology and behavior flows both ways. For example, higher levels of testosterone may cause dominant and aggressive behavior, but dominant and aggressive behavior can also lead to higher testosterone levels (Mazur & Booth, 1998). After a World Cup soccer match or a big basketball game between archrivals, testosterone levels rise in the winning fans and fall in the losing fans (Bernhardt et al., 1998).  Similar results occurred among men who voted for the winning U.S. presidential candidate in 2008 (Barack Obama) versus the losing candidate (John McCain) (Stanton et al., 2009). The phenomenon also occurs in the laboratory, where socially anxious men exhibit a pronounced drop in their testosterone level after losing a rigged face-to-face competition (Maner et al., 2008). Testosterone surges, plus celebration-related drinking, probably explain the finding of Cardiff University researchers that fans of winning rather than losing soccer and rugby teams commit more postgame assaults (Sivarajasingam et al., 2005).  F. AGGRESSION AS A RESPONSE TO FRUSTRATION  Frustration grows when our motivation to achieve a goal is very strong, when we expected BIOLOGICAL gratification, and when the blocking is complete. THEORIES  College students who were frustrated by losing a multiplayer video soccer game blasted their opponents with longer and louder bursts of painful noise (Breuer et al., 2014). Displaced aggression as a Response to Frustration  The aggressive energy need not explode directly against its source. Most people learn to inhibit direct retaliation, especially when others might disapprove or punish; instead, we displace, or redirect, our hostilities to safer targets.  Displacement occurs in an old anecdote about a man who, humiliated by his boss, berates his wife, who yells at their son, who kicks the dog, which bites the mail carrier (who goes home and berates his wife...).  RELATIVE DEPRIVATION  Frustration is often compounded when we compare ourselves with others. Workers’ feelings of well-being depend on whether their compensation compares favorably with that of others in their line of work (Yuchtman, 1976). A raise in salary for a city’s police officers, while temporarily lifting their morale, may deflate BIOLOGICAL that of the firefighters. THEORIES  Such feelings, called relative deprivation, explain why happiness tends to be lower and crime rates higher in communities and nations with large income inequality (Hagerty, 2000; Kawachi et al., 1999). And it explains why the former East Germans revolted against their communist regime: They had a higher standard of living than some Western European countries, but a frustratingly lower one than their West German neighbors (Baron et al., 1992). AGGRESSION: IS IT AS A BIOLOGICAL OR A LEARNED SOCIAL BEHAVIOR?  Theories of aggression based on instinct and frustration assume that hostile urges erupt from inner emotions, which naturally “push” aggression from within.  Social psychologists contend that learning “pulls” aggression out of us.  THE REWARDS OF AGGRESSION  People can learn the rewards of aggression. A child who successfully intimidates other children by being aggressive will likely become increasingly aggressive (Patterson et al., 1967). Canadian teenage hockey players whose fathers applaud physically aggressive play show the most aggressive attitudes and style of AGGRESSION AS play (Ennis & Zanna, 1991). In such cases, aggress- LEARNED SOCIAL ion is instrumental in achieving certain rewards. BEHAVIOR  The same is true of terrorist acts, which enable powerless people to garner widespread attention. “The primary targets of suicide-bombing attacks are not those who are injured but those who are made to witness it through media coverage,” note Paul Marsden and Sharon Attia (2005). OBSERVATIONAL LEARNING  Albert Bandura (1997) proposed a social learning theory of aggression. He believes that we learn aggression not only by experiencing its payoffs but also by observing others. THE FAMILY.  Physically aggressive children tend to have had physically punitive parents, who disciplined them by modeling aggression with screaming, slapping, and beating (Patterson et al., 1982). These parents often had parents who were themselves physically punitive (Bandura & Walters, 1959; Straus & Gelles, 1980).  Such punitive behavior may escalate into abuse, and although most abused children do not become criminals or abusive parents, 30 percent do later abuse their own children—4 times the rate of the general population (Kaufman & Zigler, 1987; Widom, 1989). Even more mild physical punishment, such as spanking, is linked to later aggression (Gershoff, 2002). Violence often begets violence.  THE CULTURE.  The social environment outside the home also provides models. In communities where “macho” images are admired, aggression is readily transmitted to new generations (Cartwright, 1975; Short, 1969). The violent subculture of teenage gangs, for instance, provides its junior members with aggressive models. Among Chicago adolescents who are otherwise AGGRESSION AS equally at risk for violence, those who have observed LEARNED SOCIAL gun violence were twice as likely to be violent (Bingenheimer et al., 2005). BEHAVIOR  The broader culture also matters. Men from cultures that are nondemocratic, high in income inequality, focused on teaching men to be warriors, and have gone to war are more likely to behave aggressively than those from cultures with the opposite characteristics (Bond, 2004). 2. AGGRESSION AS LEARNED SOCIAL BEHAVIOR  People learn aggressive responses both by experience and by observing aggressive models. But when will aggressive responses actually occur? Bandura (1979) contended that aggressive acts are motivated by a variety of aversive experiences—frustration, pain, insults (Figure 2). Such experiences arouse us emotionally. But whether we act aggressively depends on the consequences we anticipate. Aggression is most likely when we are aroused and it seems safe and rewarding to aggress. 2. AGGRESSION AS LEARNED SOCIAL BEHAVIOR 3. WHAT ARE THE OTHER FACTORS INFLUENCE AGGRESSION? 1. AVERSIVE INCIDENTS  PAIN  HEAT  ATTACT 2. ARROUSAL 3. AGGRESSIVE CUES 4. MEDIA INFLUENCES 5. GROUP INFLUENCES  1. AVERSIVE INCIDENTS 3. WHAT ARE SOME INFLUENCES ON AGGRESSION? PAIN  Nathan Azrin (1967) was doing experiments with laboratory rats in a cage wired to deliver electric shocks to the animals’ feet….. As soon as the rats felt pain, they attacked each other, before the experimenter could switch off the shock. The greater the shock (and pain), the more violent the attack. The same effect occurred across a long list of species, including cats, turtles, and snakes. The animals were not selective about their targets. They would attack animals of their own species and those of a different species, or stuffed dolls, or even tennis balls. 3. WHAT ARE SOME INFLUENCES ON AGGRESSION?  Pain heightens aggressiveness in humans, too. Berkowitz (1983, 1989, 1998) proposed that aversive stimulation rather than frustration is the basic trigger of hostile aggression. Frustration is certainly one important type of unpleasantness. But any aversive event, whether a dashed expectation, a personal insult, or physical pain, can incite an emotional outburst. Even the torment of a depressed state increases the likelihood of hostile, aggressive behavior. HEAT  William Griffitt (1970; Griffitt & Veitch, 1971) found that compared with students who answered questionnaires in a room with a normal temperature, those who did so in an uncomfortably hot room (over 90 degrees F) reported feeling more tired and aggressive and expressed more hostility toward a stranger.  Studies in six cities have found that when the weather is hot, violent crimes are more likely (Anderson & Anderson, 1984; Cohn, 1993; Cotton, 1981, 1986; Harries & Stadler, 1988; Rotton & Cohn, 2004). ATTACKS  Being attacked or insulted is especially conducive to aggression. Several experiments confirm that intentional attacks breed retaliatory attacks. …. Extracting “an eye for an eye” is the more likely response (Ohbuchi & Kambara, 1985). 3. WHAT ARE SOME INFLUENCES ON AGGRESSION? 2. AROUSAL  Various aversive stimulations can arouse anger.  Do other types of arousal, such as during exercise or sexual excitement, have a similar effect? 3. AGGRESSION CUES  Berkowitz  “Weapon effect” “Guns not only permit violence, … they can stimulate it as well. The finger pulls the trigger, but the trigger may also be pulling the finger.” 4. MEDIA INFLUENCES: Pornography and Sexual Violence  Researchers have observed a correlation between the amount of TV viewing and rape myth acceptance ….those who saw the films with mild sexual violence were more accepting of violence against women. This was especially true if they were aroused by the films (Hald & Malamuth, 2015). 4. MEDIA INFLUENCES: Pornography and Sexual Violence  Boys and girls age 10 to 15 who had seen movies, magazines, or websites with violent sexual content were 6 times more likely to be sexually aggressive toward others (defined as “kissed, touched, or done anything sexual with another person when that person did not want you to do so”), even after adjusting for factors such as gender, aggressive traits, and family background (Ybarra et al., 2011). 4. Media Influences: Television and the Internet 3. WHAT ARE SOME INFLUENCES ON AGGRESSION? WHY DOES MEDIA VIEWING AFFECT BEHAVIOR? Because, it can make individuals experience:  Arousal. Arousal tends to spill over: One type of arousal energizes other behaviors.  Disinhibits. In Bandura’s experiment, the adult’s punching of the Bobo doll seemed to make outbursts legitimate and to lower the children’s inhibitions  Desensitization  Social scripts. When we find ourselves in new situations, uncertain how to act, we rely on social scripts—culturally provided mental instructions for how to act. After so many action films, youngsters may acquire a script that is played when they face real-life conflicts.  Altered perception. For those who watch much television, the world becomes a scary place. Media portrayals shape perceptions of reality. 3. WHAT ARE SOME INFLUENCES ON AGGRESSION?  GROUP INFLUENCES If frustrations, insults, and aggressive models heighten the aggressive tendencies of isolated people, such factors are likely to prompt the same reaction in groups. As a riot begins, aggressive acts often spread rapidly after the “trigger” example of one antagonistic person. Seeing looters freely helping themselves to TV sets, normally law- abiding bystanders may drop their moral inhibitions and imitate. GROUP INFLUENCES  Groups can amplify aggressive reactions partly by diffusing responsibility. Decisions to attack in war typically are made by strategists remote from the front lines. They give orders, but others carry them out. Does such distancing make it easier to recommend aggression?  JADI, PERILAKU AGRESIF DIPENGARUHI OLEH SEJUMLAH FAKTOR, YAKNI: 1) FAKTOR BIOLOGIS, 2) BELAJAR SOSIAL, DAN 3) FAKTOR-FAKTOR LAINNYA SEPERTI: AVERSIVE INCIDENTS (PAIN, HEAT, KESIMPULAN ATTACT…) AROUSAL, AGGRESSIVE CUES (WEAPON EFFECT), MEDIA INFLUENCES, GROUP INFLUENCES General Aggression Model (GAM) (Anderson & Bushman, 2002) Kontrol terhadap perilaku agresif  Hukuman.  Intervensi kognitif, misalnya melalui CBT, dll..  Tehnik-teknik lain: (self- theraphy: meditasi, relaksasi, dll.) TERIMA KASIH