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
