Social PsychologyLecture 3

Prosocial Behaviour and Aggression

Jane Clarbour

(Spring 2002)

Objectives

• Understand what is meant by ‘prosocial’ and ‘aggressive’ behaviour

• Describe the main characteristics of both the prosocial and aggressive personality

• Discuss the elements of the process leading to the activation of prosocial behaviour

• Explain how the norm of reciprocity applies to prosocial and aggressive behaviour

Prosocial behaviour

• Defined as… ‘voluntary behavior intended to benefit another regardless of motive’ (Eisenberg, 1988)

– Considerate of other people’s feelings– Helpful to others– Kind – Generous

Prosocial behaviour as

Helpful behaviour

1. Egoistic motivation– Ultimate goal to benefit oneself

2. Altruistic motivation– Ultimate goal to benefit others

Example: Live Aid concert promotes performers sales and benefits those in need

Prosocial behaviour as

Reciprocal exchange• Favoured by natural selection process if:

– Follows reciprocity norms (tit-for-tat)– Costs to helper are less than advantages

• Limited to particular circumstances– Trust between helper and helped– Stability of group membership– Longevity of the group– Recognisability of group members

Characteristics of the prosocial personality

Obligation to help

and

Understanding of the needs of others

Social responsibilityInternal locus of control

Empathy

Empathicconcern

Personal distress

Norm of social responsibility

• Moral obligation

• Belief in a just world

• Interpersonal guilt

• Diffusion of social responsibility– Bystander apathy

Model of prosocial behaviour

Prosocial motivation

Prosocial characteristicsResponsibilityInternal control

Empathy

Just world belief

Prosocialbehaviour

Devaluation of victims

satisfaction

Remove injustice completely

Injustice continues

(Bierhoff, 2001)

Activation of prosocial behaviour

Process model of altruism

Attention

Motivation

Evaluation

Defence

Behaviour(Schwartz & Howard, 1981)

Process model of altruism

Attention

• Awareness that others need help• Recognition of other’s distress

• Selection of effective altruistic action

• Self-attribution of competence

Process model of altruism Motivation

• Motivation for action• Construction of a personal norm on basis

of social responsibility norms• Generation of feelings of moral obligation• Need for approval• Desire for reward

Process model of altruism Evaluation

• Assessment of potential costs/benefits

• Social costs• Physical costs• Self-concept costs• Moral costs

Process model of altruism

Defence

• Denial of responsibility– Priority to self-interest– Refute responsibility for others as an

‘unjust demand– Conflict of responsibility with other

obligations– Lack of resources or ability to intervene

Weakness of process model

• Doesn’t account for individual differences in:– Perspective taking ability– Sensitivity to interpersonal problems– Consequential decision-making ability for

self and for others– Social understanding of how one feels and

acts is influenced by how others feel and act

Aggressive behaviour

• Defined as… • ‘ behaviour that is intended to harm

others’ (Eisenberg, 1988)

– Hostile or physical aggression– Direct verbal aggression– Indirect aggression

Prosocial behaviour mediates aggression?

LOW PROSOCIAL

more aggressive, less kind, thoughtful

or ready to share

HIGH PROSOCIALless aggressive, more

kind, thoughtfuland ready to share

PsychopathyProsocial behaviour

Eron & Huesman (1984)

Eisenberg (1988)

Aggressive, manipulative, domineering

Obedient, compliant, helpful and cooperative

Hart et al (1997)

Emotional strengths and difficulties

Examples of items from SDQ (Goodman, 1997)

Emotional Difficulties

•Often fights and is manipulative

•Disobedient

•Lies and cheats

•Takes things from others

•Hyperactive

•Poor friendships

Emotional Strengths

•Nice to people & cares about their feelings

•Willingness to share

•Helpful if someone is hurt or ill

•Kind to younger children

•Volunteers to help others

Developmental model of aggressive behaviour

Physical

Indirect

Direct verbal

(Bjorkqvist and Osterman, 2000)

Gender differences

• Males more physically aggressive

• No sex differences in verbal aggression

• Females more indirectly aggressive– Girls more socially skilled– Girls better at conflict resolution– Girls mature socially faster

Relationship between empathy and social intelligence with aggression (Bjorkqvist et al (2000)

Social Intelligence

Empathy

Aggressive strategy

Indirect .55*** .15*

Verbal .39** .05

Physical .22** -.04

Peaceful conflict resolution .80*** .80***

Withdrawal .48*** .47***

Empathy mediates aggression

(1.) SOCIAL INTELLIGENCEBivariate correlation

Partial correlation

(Empathy controlled)

Indirect .55*** .65***

Verbal .39** .54***

Physical .22** .38***

Peaceful conflict resolution

.80*** .51***

Withdrawal .48*** .23***

Empathy mediates aggression

(2.) EmpathyBivariate correlation

Partial correlation

(Social intelligence controlled)

Indirect .15* -.45***

Verbal .05 -40***

Physical -.04 -.32***

Peaceful conflict resolution

.80*** .51***

Withdrawal .47*** .18**

What causes aggression?

Frustration-aggression hypothesisBlocking of goals catharsis

• Asserts that aggression is always the product of frustration.

• Frustration will always elicit the drive to attack others.

– Aggression as dominant response– Frustration creates readiness for aggression– Frustration induced arousal

Cue-arousal theory (Berkowitz, 1960’s)

Frustration

Arousal

Interpretation of cue

Response

Classical conditioning

Social Information Processing model

of aggression (Dodge, 1986)

• Encoding– Perception of cues– Attention to cues

• Interpretation– Integration of

memory/goals/new data

• Response search– Generation of potential

responses

• Evaluation• Behaviour

Attribution biasAggressive boys over attribute

hostility in others

Impulsive boys have problems in assessing alternative problems

Whether an act is labelled aggressive is affected by PERCEPTIONS of:

• The harm taking place• The harm being avoidable or foreseeable

(Source: PsychNow!)

Perception of aggressive acts

Was there an

Intention to harm?

Yes

No

Could this situation have

been avoided?

Did harm come to a person or

thing?

Yes

No No

Yes

Reciprocal aggression

• Norm of reciprocity (tit-for-tat)– Justification for retaliation

• Initiator is perceived as aggressive, unfair, hostile

• Retaliatory attack is perceived as acting defensively and fairly

Summary

• Social intelligence is required for aggressive as well as peaceful conflict resolution

• Empathy mitigates aggression

Discussion points…

• What role does empathy play as a mediator of both prosocial and aggressive behaviour?

• To what extent can aggressive and prosocial behaviour be explained by similar models for action?