Class Notes (782,971)
Canada (480,462)
Psychology (7,540)
PSYB10H3 (543)
Lecture 10

Social Psych - lecture 10

9 Pages
Unlock Document

University of Toronto Scarborough
E- Page Gould

Aggression and pro-social behaviour Aggression - Intentional behaviour aimed at casing physical or psychological pain - Two dimension of classification - type of pain: - goal of pain: goal of inflicting pain - Physical aggression - aggression inflicting physical pain - Verbal or relational aggression - saying or doing psychologically hurtful things - GOAL: we make distinction b/w hostile and instrumental aggression - hostile aggression: aggressive behaviour that stems from feelings of anger, has goal of inflicting pain - instrumental aggression: aggressive behaviour that inflicts pain, the pain is a middle step toward another goal - Is goal is simply to hurt the person, then it is hostile aggression (just meant to be hurtful) - Instrumental: hurting someone but you do not want to hurt them (do not care if you do but you do not want to) - goal is something other than inflicting pain on someone - Aggressive behaviour that inflicts pain, pain is middle step toward another goal Approaches to aggression - genetic predisposition: I was born that way - some people may be more genetically predisposed than other - basic theoretical premise: aggression is adaptive and has survival value - they fight and compete for mates, social status and one needs to be more aggressive to get the resources they need for family - earliest evidence: animals can be bred for aggression (Rottweilers - show more traits of aggression than other dogs) - twin studies find high heritability for aggression neural structure: - amygdale: stimulating amygdale can lead to aggression (stimulating the amygdale this will increase aggression, but also depends on context) - depends on context: sometime leads to withdrawal/fear, relative social status matters (the higher they are in social status the more aggressive they become and less social status rats showed more fear) - prefrontal cortex: PFC may be regulator of aggressive impulses - generally involved in planning and behavioural regulation - you can regulate how aggressive you may get in certain situations - relation of PFC and aggression - murderers have less PFC activity than normal control - PFC become activated when contemplating and aggressive act hormones and neurotransmitters: - testosterone - steroid hormone may increase aggression - smaller 2D:1D ratios correlated with greater exposure to androgens (prenatal testosterone) in the womb (affects behaviours when you are older ) - smaller ratios correlated with aggression - BUT: injecting testosterone does no increase aggression, testosterone-aggression has small effect size, r=.14 - serotonin - neurotransmitter related to many aspects of experience - may inhibit aggressive impulses - violent criminals have less serotonin than normal - serotonin antagonists (blocker) increase aggression - Chemical influence - alcohol - booze made me do it -alcohol disinhibits behaviour in general (does not make you do something that would never do, just made you do something that you have inhibited) - reduced self-consciousness deindividuation - reduced attention to consequences of actions - relationship b/w alcohol and aggression: - in 65% of homicides and 55% of domestic violence, assailant and or victim has been drinking - in lab studies comparing alcohol with placebo: people give stronger shocks (Milgram study), report more anger when thinking about conflict with romantic partner - Frustration aggression theory - has a bad day - aggression stems from frustration (by Freud) - frustration: perception that you have been prevented from attaining a goal - more aggressive when: - stopped when you are close to goal - frustration is unexpected, intentional or unjustified - cannot retaliate against cause of frustration (you have two goals that you cannot get at, your original goal and the goal of getting payback have been stopped) - critiques: not all aggression is result of frustration - environmental factors - pain (rats attack each other after being shocked, participants blast each other with louder noise after hand submerged in ice water vs room temp water - heat (heat above 32 invokes aggression) - neo-associationism - aversive events: cause anger, concepts associated with anger become more accessible, anger related concepts already n working memory especially facilitated - aggressive stimuli triggers aggressive behaviour (object associated with aggression - study for aggressive stimuli - method: (1)participant and confederate on problem solving task involving shocks (2) anger manipulated by shocks from confederate (decreased anger = 1 shock, increase anger = 7 shocks (3) next, P can shock C (4) beside the shock machine was either: nothing, gun or badminton racket - results: more shocks administered when a gun was near and showed higher anger - Social learning theory - everyone else did it so I did it - vicarious learning: (Albert Bandura), learning solely through observation of other people's reinforced and punished behaviour - no direct reinforcement or punishment (social modelling) - social modelling - we learn aggression from observing others and imitating them - adoption of modelled behaviours are dependent on rewards and punishments observed - Bandura's bobo doll experiment - implications: family influence - physically aggressive children more likely to have physically punitive parents - 30% of physically abused kids abuse their own kids - media influence: high publicized studies increased suicides - Television and aggression - by 7th grade, average child has seen: 8000 murders, 100,000 other acts of violence - more television predicts aggressiveness - important caveat: mostly correlational studies - over time: Eron and Heusmann, method: (1) recruited 200 8 year old from NYC (2) measured general aggressiveness at age 8 (3) documented how much violent TV they watched - results: violent tv watching at age 8 predicted aggression at age 19, criminal acts of violence (rape, robberies, assault) at age 30, controlled for aggression at age 8 Moderating factors in TV-aggression link - Model similarity - Punishment vs reward - Apparent reality - cartoons influence aggression less than film - Apparent consequences - modelling more likely when pain/harm caused by violence is not depicted How does TV affect aggression? - Imparts information about how to aggress - Primes anger - Make world seem more dangerous, increases fear of victimization - heavy viewers tend to overestimate frequency of violent crime, probability of being assaulted - Loosens inhibitions toward violence - desensitizes up to violence PRO-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR Cooperative dilemmas - Situations where the most beneficial action for an individual will be harmful for the collective group Escalation of conflict - Interpersonal conflict feeds itself and escalates if one side does not being concession - Stimulus: partner A comes home and snaps at partner B - partner B response: - an equally harmful remark: partner b is vindicated, but partner A feels compelled to respond with an equally vehement remark - conflict escalates - defusing remark: partner takes a hit in pride, but partner A has no reason to say another hurtful remark - conflict defuses - Stimulus: country A accidentally bombs civilian area of country B during a training exercise - country B response: - bomb them back: country B is vindicated, but they are now at war with country A - accept apology: country B takes a hit in many ways but they maintain peaceful relations with country A Tragedy of the commons - Cooperative dilemma that occurs in situations where everyone has access to common pools of goods that will replenish itself it used in moderation but disappear if overused - People reliably tend to make more than their fair share - Why do we take more: -anchoring and adjustment heuristic: desired share is used as an anchor (you know how much you want from the shares but you do not sufficiently adjust down) - size of commons s not readily estimated (ex. Big family and passing around potatoes, you think about how much will be enough for everyone so you take less so there is enough) - When do we take out fair share - both the size of the commons and the group that is sharing it are easily determined - the size of an equal share is explicitly stated - like splitting a pizza among 4 people with 8 slices The prisoner's dilemma - Situation where two people must make a collectively dependent decision without knowing the other person's decision - Special case of John Nash's Game theory - need to make a decision that is dependent on another person but you do not know what the other person's decision may be - Have prisoner A and B, but do not have enough data to actually convict these people - they separate two people and asked who did it - given a chart about the consequences if they confess or do not confess - depends on if you think your partner will confess of not confess - Sometimes played with how much money you will give your partner but you do not know what they will say - Strategies that maximizes personal outcomes (gain most money) in multi stage prisoner' dilemma: - best strategy: simple tit for tat strategy
More Less

Related notes for PSYB10H3

Log In


Don't have an account?

Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.