Pro-Social & Anti Social Behavior Pro-Social & Anti-Social Behavior

Pro-Social Behavior Altruism: Selfless concern for the welfare of others. Does altruism really exist? 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

Antisocial Behavior: Causes Aggression- Any act that is intended to hurt someone or something. What are the possible causes of aggression? Biological serotonin testosterone Social/Cultural Frustration Aggression hypothesis Enemy perception Social traps Media

Kitty Genevese Video Clip

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 Kitty Genovese, picture from The New York Times article: "Thirty-Eight Who Saw Murder Didn't Call the Police"

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

Stanford Prison Experiment: Methodology 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

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