Pro-Social & Anti Social Behavior

Q12: ch. 14 sec. 11-12 Many studies disconfirm the ______________, the idea that we feel better if we “blow off steam” by venting our emotions. Catharsis Hypothesis Social Script Hypothesis Frustration aggression principle Genetic influences principle

Q13: ch. 14 sec 11-12 Major League Baseball pitchers were more likely to hit a batter when the batter hit a homerun the last time at bat. This illustrates the Just world belief Genetic influences of aggression Frustration aggression principle Social script phenomenon

Q14: ch. 14 sec. 11-12 Social psychologists attribute the media’s influence partly to the ____________, mental tapes for how to act, provided by our culture. social scripts catharsis hypothesis desensitization principle frustration-aggression principle

Q14 Ch 14 sec. 17 Shared goals that override differences among people and require their cooperation. Conciliatory goals Superordinate goals Mirror-image goals Social exchange goals

Pro-Social Behavior Altruism: Selfless concern for the welfare of others. 1. Does altruism really exist? 2. When are we most- and least- likely to help? Related Concepts: Social Exchange Theory Human interaction based on maximizing rewards and minimizing costs Norms of reciprocity- expecting a favor in return. Feel good-do good hypothesis Moods affect behavior "Kind words can be short and easy to speak, but their echoes are truly endless." - Mother Teresa

Kitty Genevese Video Clip Why don’t people help? Don’t Notice Interpretation Don’t know how to take responsibility

Anti Social Behavior Bystander Effect (Kitty Genovese) Diffusion of responsibility By-Stander Effect Jericho Experiment Effects of time Only 40% offered some form of help 63% Early, 45% On Time, 10% Late Bystander Effect (Kitty Genovese) People are less likely to help others as the size of the group increases Kitty Genovese, picture from The New York Times article: "Thirty-Eight Who Saw Murder Didn't Call the Police"

Antisocial Behavior: Causes Aggression- Any act (physical/verbal) that is intended to hurt someone or something. What are the possible causes of aggression? Biological – amygdala serotonin testosterone Psychological Frustration Aggression hypothesis Social/Cultural Enemy perception- Mirror-image- self fulfilling prop. Social traps Media- social scripts =

Deindividuation: Loss of self to the group Deindividuation occurs when group participation makes people feel aroused and anonymous. Dodd’s Study (1985) Are college freshman or prison inmates more susceptible to deindividuation?

Deindividuation Aggression Charity Academic Dishonesty Crime Escapism Political Activities Sexual Behavior Social Disruption Interpersonal Spying/Eves dropping Travel Other Social Desirability Scale Prosocial 9 % (intended to help others) Antisocial 36% (behavior intended to injure others or deprive them of their rights) Nonnormative 19% (behavior that violates social norms and practices but does not specifically help or hurt others) Neutral 36% (behaviors that do not meet the criteria for any of the first three categories)

Philip Zimbardo: Stanford Prison Experiment Recruitment and Methodology Wanted to learn about behaviors and feelings of prisoners & guards Set up a phony prison in a university building Recruited male college students to participate Randomly assigned 24 participants to role of either prisoner or guard In 1971, psychologist Philip Zimbardo conducted a study to find out how people behave and feel when placed in the roles of prisoners and guards. He was curious about real prisoners and guards but conducted his study in a simulation using college students. Zimbardo set up the basement of a building at Stanford University to serve as the prison. There were three cells, a warden’s office, other offices, and a closet to be used for solitary confinement if necessary. He hired a former prisoner as a consultant to help make the experiment as realistic as possible. Zimbardo placed newspaper ads to attract participants. He asked for male college students and offered to pay them $15 a day. More than 70 people replied to the ad. After all applicants took psychological tests to determine their fitness for the experiment, Zimbardo selected 24 participants and then flipped coins to decide who would be “prisoners” and who would be “guards.” At the beginning of the experiment, there were no noticeable differences between the prisoners and the guards.

Stanford Prison Experiment: Methodology Zimbardo told the guards that they could not use any physical force against the prisoners but that they could, and should, try to make the prisoners feel frustrated, insignificant, and bored, and like they were lacking any control over their situation. The guards wore khaki uniforms and mirrored sunglasses and carried billy clubs. Real policemen arrested and handcuffed the prisoners at their homes and took them in squad cars to the simulated prison. After being stripped, deloused, and fingerprinted, they were taken blindfolded to their cells wearing prison uniforms (like hospital gowns), stockings on their heads (in place of shaving their heads), and heavy chains around their right ankles. The guards immediately started acting out their roles, shouting orders and bullying the prisoners. For example, they conducted counts of the prisoners several times each day, including in the middle of the night. During these counts, prisoners had to line up in their gowns outside of their cells facing the wall. Guards instructed to make prisoners feel frustrated and not in control Prisoners arrested and booked as real prisoners Guards bullied the prisoners and began “counts”

Stanford Prison Experiment: Results Prisoners staged a rebellion on the second day Guards stepped up their harassment and treated rebellion “ringleaders” differently than the “good” prisoners Prisoners told they couldn’t leave; many became anxious Guards increased bullying tactics as they perceived prisoners to be a real threat Zimbardo and his colleagues adapted to their roles During the first day, the prisoners generally acknowledged that it was a simulation and were not too disturbed by the process. Beginning on the second day, however, they began to actively rebel against the guards, taunting them, removing their stocking caps, and refusing to obey orders. The guards reacted by harassing the prisoners, stripping them in their cells, removing their beds, and placing the “ringleaders” into solitary confinement. They then denied privileges to the most disobedient prisoners and gave extra privileges to the “good” ones, providing a heavy dose of psychological intimidation. The prisoners were told that they couldn’t leave the experiment, which caused some to become more and more anxious. Meanwhile, the guards began to view the prisoners as real threats and correspondingly increased control and surveillance. They forced prisoners to use buckets in their cells as toilets at night and sometimes would not let them empty the buckets. Even Zimbardo and his research colleagues became caught up in the realism of the experiment. For example, rather than objectively observing a rumored escape plot unfold, they became concerned about the prison’s security and called a special administrative meeting.

Stanford Prison Experiment: Results Everyone took on the role to which they were assigned—the experiment became very realistic Experiment ended after six days instead of two weeks Prisoners had lost their identity Ultimately, participants in all roles internalized the experiment so much that they stopped perceiving it as an experiment and began to feel that they really were prisoners, guards, and prison administrators. The experiment exacted such a toll on the prisoners that Zimbardo called it off after only six days instead of the two weeks he had planned. The prisoners were happy to end it, but the guards were disappointed. After the experiment, the prisoners talked about how they had come to identify with their prison numbers rather than with their own names or selves. They had internalized their roles and had felt like real prisoners. What does this experiment reveal about the experiences of prisoners and guards in real prisons? What about the relationship between military personnel and prisoners of war?