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