A2 Psychology
Module 4:
PRO AND ANTI-SOCIAL
BEHAVIOUR
Summary Handout
PYA4 Pro and Anti-Social Behaviour Revision Booklet
Zoe Cross
MODULE 4 - PRO-AND ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR
Ref
Content
PASB
1
Nature and Causes of Aggression
Notes?
Understand
?
Revised
?
Social psychological theories of aggression (e.g.
social learning theory, deindividuation, relative
deprivation) including research studies relating
to these theories. Research into the effects of
environmental stressors on aggressive
behaviour.
PASB
2
Altruism and Bystander behaviour
Explanations (e.g. empathy - altruism, negative
state relief) and research studies relating to
human altruism and bystander behaviour.
Cultural differences in pro-social behaviour.
PASB
3
Media Influences on Pro-and Anti-Social
Behaviour
Explanations and research studies relating to
media influences on pro-and anti-social
behaviour.
SAMPLE QUESTIONS
1) Describe and evaluate one social psychological theory of aggression (24)
2) Critically consider research into effects of two environmental stressors on
aggressive behaviour (24)
3) a) Outline two or more explanations for human altruism.
b) Evaluate these and / or other explanations with reference to research studies.
4) a) Outline research evidence relating to bystander behaviour (12)
b) Assess the effects of cultural differences on pro-social behaviour (12)
5) Critically consider two research studies relating to media influences on anti-social
behaviour (24)
6) "There is much public interest in the debate about the effects of violence in the
media on the behaviour of young children: but why don't people focus more on the
potentially pro-social influences ?"
Discuss the above quotation in relation to the pro-and anti-social effects of the media
(24)
PYA4 Pro and Anti-Social Behaviour Revision Booklet
Zoe Cross
PASB1 -SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGICAL THEORIES OF AGGRESSION
THEORY ONE - SOCIAL LEARNING THEORY
"MIRROR VID"
MODELLING
IMITATION
REINFORCEMENT
RESPONSE ACQUISITION
OBSERVATIONAL LEARNING
RECALL
VICARIOUS LEARNING
IMITATION
DETERMINED BY ENVIRONMENT
EVALUATION OF SOCIAL LEARNING THEORY
EVIDENCE
BANDURA - "BOBO DOLL STUDIES"
PROCEDURE - Child watched another behaving aggressively towards toy clown
CONDITIONS - several variations e.g. gender, age , consequences, on film etc.
FINDINGS - CHILD SUBSEQUENTLY BEHAVED MORE VIOLENTLY
TOWARDS CLOWN
-especially if ;
Child was same gender as model
Model was 'rewarded' for aggression
(see next page for more details)
PYA4 Pro and Anti-Social Behaviour Revision Booklet
Zoe Cross
MORE DETAIL: (if a studies question comes up)
The experiments carried out by Bandura et al. involved children observing aggressive
and non-aggressive adult models and then being tested for imitative learning in the
absence of the model.
 The participants were male and female children ranging from 3 to 5 years. Half
the experimental children were exposed to aggressive models interacting with a
life-sized inflatable Bobo doll and half were exposed to models that were nonaggressive in their behaviour towards the doll.
 The model displayed some distinctive physically aggressive acts, such as striking
the doll on the head with the mallet and kicking it about the room, accompanied
by verbal aggression such as saying ‘POW’.
 After exposure to the model, children were frustrated by being shown attractive
toys that they could not play with, and were then taken to a room where, among
other toys, there was a Bobo doll.
 Children in the aggression condition reproduced a good deal of physical and
verbal aggressive behaviour resembling that of the model. Children in the nonaggressive and control groups (who had no prior experience of the Bobo doll)
exhibited virtually no aggression toward the Bobo doll.
Approximately one-third of the children in the aggressive condition also repeated the
model’s non-aggressive verbal responses while none of the children in either the nonaggressive or control groups made such remarks. Boys reproduced more imitative
physical aggression than girls but the groups did not differ in their imitation of verbal
aggression.
PYA4 Pro and Anti-Social Behaviour Revision Booklet
Zoe Cross
Second Social Psychological Theory of Aggression- DEINDIVIDUATION
An emotional state
One feels or perceives oneself to be anonymous
Not being observed
Leads to lessening of moral restraint
Reduction of monitoring of one's own behaviour
Lack of self awareness
More responsive to environmental cues
Evidence
Mann - well documented cases of crowds urging possible suicides to jump.
(this is aggression - intention to harm)
especially when;
At night
Crowd was large
Crowd was some distance away
A02
1) Information from newspapers - is this valid ?
2) Both jumper and crowd are 'faceless'
A rather more artificial study is Zimbardo's prison study.
Zimbardo's famous study in which students took on the role of prisoner and guard in
simulated prison situation. Several factors worked to deindividuate participants;
1) dress
2) head 'shaved' (stocking)
3) Uniforms
4) Mirrored sunglasses
Zimbardo also did some 'Milgram - style' execution studies.
People gave higher shocks if they were referred to by a number and wearing a hood.
This is 'cos they felt anonymous, therefore deindividuated.
AO2
Does the research allow for individual differences ? - Race, culture, age, class,
interpersonal reactivity (Davis)
Explanatory power ? - doesn't explain domestic violence or peaceful crowds (why?)
But - crowds make us more responsive to external cues. If crowd is happy, so are we.
If crowd is violent, so are we.
Does explain institutional violence e.g. prison, army, schools.
Also explains military atrocities such as Mai Lai massacre (explain why! - they were
in a crowd in uniform)
PYA4 Pro and Anti-Social Behaviour Revision Booklet
Zoe Cross
MORE DETAIL ON ZIMBARDO (if studies question comes up)
ZIMBARDO
CONTROLLED
OBSERVATION
24 college students (white / male)
To examine conformity to SOCIAL ROLES and expectations
-Subjects psychologically tested for mental stability
-Randomly allocated prisoner or guard role
-Prisoners undergo realistic / humiliating arrest procedure
-Prison regime established (e.g. uniforms issued )
Perverted relationship developed between guards and prisoners
Study abandoned after 5 days
5 prisoners released early with psychotic / psychosomatic symptoms.
Situation makes "good men do evil deeds".
Loss of restraint due to
DEINDIVIDUATION
CONFORMITY to SOCIAL ROLES
Lack of E.V.
Experimenter effect
Shows conformity to wider society, not just those present in the room.
PYA4 Pro and Anti-Social Behaviour Revision Booklet
Zoe Cross
ENVIRONMENTAL STRESSORS
CROWDING AND TEMPERATURE
CROWDING

DEINDIVIDUATION Reduces individuality
Person is ‘depersonalised'Lessening of moral restraint
STOKOLS '76 - Three conceptualisations of link between crowding and
aggression;
Stimulus overload
Behavioural constraint
Ecological model
see next page for moreA02 for crowding
Evidence
Calhoun 'rat universe' - increase in pop. density led to aggression.
But can’t be extrapolated
Heavily congested traffic routes lead to higher aggression (Green)
A lovely thing to do here would be to explain road rage in terms of all four approaches
Day Nursery – aggression increased in day nursery as got more crowded.(Loo)
Prison- Riots increase as prison pop. density does (McCain et al)
(Do you really need these last two ? depends how much material you can cover !)
TEMPERATURE
High temp leads to aggression in the lab
Baron & Bell – as heat went up , subjects were more likely to give electric shocks to
others, unless it got too hot. Then they were less likely.
There was a curvilinear relationship:
HEAT
AGGRESSION
PYA4 Pro and Anti-Social Behaviour Revision Booklet
Zoe Cross
possible lack of ecological validity ?- Has been supported by some naturalistic
studies.
Correlations – Riots correlate with high temperatures in weather reports (Baron &
Ransenberger)
So do assault rape and murder (Anderson), but there’s no ‘tailing off ‘, like there is in
the lab.
FINAL A02 POINT
both crowds and temperature lead to
PHYSIOLOGICAL AROUSAL
But it might depend upon your cognitive interpretation of the arousal.
(Crowds can be uplifting, fun, inspiring etc)
PYA4 Pro and Anti-Social Behaviour Revision Booklet
Zoe Cross
ALTRUISM & BYSTANDER BEHAVIOUR (They're different but connected !)
CASE STUDY -THE MURDER OF KITTY GENOVESE
Two psychologists, Latane & Darley , investigated this case and used it as a basis for
their DECISION MODEL
LATANE & DARLEY’s -DECISION MODEL
DECISION = Not “Do I help or not ?”
But “Is my help required ?”
5 KEY FACTORS influence the decision;
SITUATION AMBIGUITY
PLURALISTIC IGNORANCE
SITUATION LACKS DEFINITION
DIFFUSION OF RESPONSIBILITY
AUDIENCE INHIBITION
So, crowds discourage altruism (helping behaviour), because if it’s not clear what
needs to be done, we’d rather let someone else do it than make a fool of ourselves.
IMPLICATIONS:
Bystander Apathy is caused by THE SITUATION
The larger the number of bystanders, the less likely you are to get help.
Implications for modern city life.
HOW TO GET HELP
BEAMAN – Teach people Psychology (more helped after viewing film)
CIALDINI – ‘De-victimise’ yourself.
RESEARCH SUPPORT FOR LATANE & DARLEY
BASIC PARADIGM – staged deceptions involving confederates.
Independent variable – usually number of ‘bystanders’
Dependent variable – length of time subject takes to respond to incident.
SMOKE-FILLED ROOM
SEIZURE INCIDENT
WOMAN IN DISTRESS ?
PYA4 Pro and Anti-Social Behaviour Revision Booklet
Zoe Cross
EMPATHY ALTRUISM HYPOTHESIS (2nd theory of Altruism)
We empathise with people in distress, which motivates us to help relieve the person's
distress
The reason we help could be egostic or altruistic depending on how we feel.
An egoist helps to make himself feel better(lessen his own distress / arousal) and an
altruist helps to make other people feel better.
A02
BATSON’S RESEARCH SUPPORT
Do we offer to take other people’s shocks out of empathy or in order to lessen
personal distress ?
This is a long and complicated study;
Basically – there’s someone receiving electric shocks. The subject can leave or take
their place.
If they leave they will reduce their own arousal .
But IF EMPATHY IS PROMOTED they stay and take their place – so empathy is
more important than arousal.
They promote empathy by pointing out how similar the subject is to the person
receiving the shocks .
This should be easy to lay into for A02 !
More details (if research study question comes up)
Helping Elaine (Batson et al., 1981)
The empathy-altruism model predicts that people high in empathic concern are more
likely to help another person even when they are in a position to escape from this
responsibility, whereas those low in empathetic concern will choose escape if the
‘cost’ of escaping is low (see diagram on right). In one study, Batson et al. (1981)
used a placebo drug which had no real effects but would led participants to interpret
their reactions as high or low empathy. Participants then watched a female
confederate (‘Elaine’) apparently receiving random electric shocks. After two trials
the confederate appeared to become distressed. Participants were then faced with a
difficult decision – take her place (showing empathetic concern) or leave (showing
only personal distress). Batson et al. found that those in the high empathy condition
tended to stay even when given the opportunity to leave, whereas those in the low
empathy condition, when offered the chance to leave, took it. However if the cost of
leaving was high (they had to do an onerous task if they left) then those in the low
empathy condition were more likely to stay – even more likely than those in the high
empathy condition.
PYA4 Pro and Anti-Social Behaviour Revision Booklet
Zoe Cross
CULTURAL DIFFERENCES IN
PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOUR
.
1) Kitty Genovese
38 people watched – no-one rang police.
-seen as reflection of modern life
Does it reflect city life ? Or is such behaviour (‘bystander apathy) a universal ?
There is some evidence that helping behaviours may depend upon cultural context
2) The Findings
100% 3-10 yr old Kenyan Kids altruistic (8% North American)
LAB STUDIES –People don’t like to ask for help (especially North Americans)
FIELD STUDIES – People happy to ask for help (especially Asians)
So – contradictory findings – depends on research method (link to A02)
In lab could be demand effect, need to appear confident, fear of evaluation etc.
Other factors – depends who asks for help
Foreigners get help in Greece
Locals get help in Paris and Boston.
3) The Theory
INDIVIDUALIST VS. COLLECTIVIST CULTURES
INDIVIDUALIST
Developed world
Industrial
Nuclear family
Self Interest
Isolated individual
COLLECTIVIST
Developing world
Pre-industrial
Extended family
Community interest
Integrated individual
4) Modern Society makes us more anti-social (a modern malaise)
Kitty Genovese perhaps wouldn’t have died if in village in Kenya
EISENBURG & MUTTEN – Meta-study – middle class American kids less helpful than any other
culture
USE STANDARD A02 POINTS
BLAG IT – Social Learning Theory – different cultures provide different role
models.
PYA4 Pro and Anti-Social Behaviour Revision Booklet
Zoe Cross
Explanations and research studies relating to media influences on pro-and anti-social behaviour.
MEDIA AND ANTI-SOCIAL
FOUR KEY PROCESSES
DESENSITISATION - violence doesn't shock us
TV needs to get more violent to ‘thrill’ us (Gadow)
Kids who watch violent Tv show later less likely to report a fight (Drabman &
Thomas)
IMITATION - we copy violence (This is the clearest / strongest argument of the
four)
Use the MIRROR VID and Bobo Doll stuff – link it to TV !
AROUSAL - viewing violence arouses us
However, link with violent TV and arousal not that strong in most studies !
DISINHIBITION - We become more likely to use violence
Seen as a ‘proper’ way to resolve conflicts.
DIFFERENT TYPES OF RESEARCH
EXPT - BANDURA
Use the Bobo Doll studies here.
A02 – lack of EV
FIELD EXPT. – Park et al.
used U.S. and Belgian boys in young offenders institutions – Boys who watched 5
violent films were more violent.
A02 – representative sample? Hard to quantify aggression
LONGITUDINAL STUDY- Eron & Huesman
If boys watched a lot of violent TV at 8, then more likely to be violent at 18 and in
prison at 30.
A02 – Too many variables to control properly, attrition.
LONGITUDINAL STUDY- Milavsky
3 year study of over 3000 children and teenagers – asked friends how violent they
were, asked children themselves to state what TV there was – looked for relationship
between the two
A02 – both measured variables very problematic here ?
Other A02



Other theories – Freud (catharsis) , evolutionary theory
Individual differences
Eron & Huesmann found only 10% aggression down to TV
Hard to quantify aggression.
PYA4 Pro and Anti-Social Behaviour Revision Booklet
Zoe Cross
More detail on anti-social media studies:
Meta-analysis of research (Paik and Comstock, 1994)
A substantial number of laboratory and field experiments over the past half-century
have examined whether children exposed to violent behaviour on film or television
behave more aggressively immediately afterwards. A meta-analysis of media violence
research was conducted by Paik and Comstock (1994). They examined 217 studies of
the relationship between media violence and aggressive behaviour. The studies were
carried out between 1957 and 1990, with an age range from 3 to 70 years of age. They
found a highly significant relationship between television violence and aggressive
behaviour. The greatest effect was evident in pre-school children, and the effect for
males was slightly higher than it was for females.
A natural experiment - the St. Helena study (Charlton et al., 2000)
A recent study was in St. Helena, a British Colony in the South Atlantic Ocean, which
received television for the first time in 1995. Despite expectations that the
introduction of television would produce an increase in anti-social behaviour, the
researchers concluded that very little changed following television’s arrival. The vast
majority of the measures used to assess pro- and anti-social behaviour showed no
differences in either after the introduction of television. Those measures that did show
a difference were fairly equally split between positive and negative changes. Five of
these showed decreases in pro-social behaviour in boys and girls, but two showed
increases (boys only). There were only two significant changes in anti-social
behaviour scores – both of which were lower after the introduction of television.
PYA4 Pro and Anti-Social Behaviour Revision Booklet
Zoe Cross
MEDIA / T.V. and PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOUR
KEY EXPLANATIONS
SOCIAL LEARNING THEORY - TV REINFORCES PRO-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR
LEARN THAT 'MIRROR VID' REALLY WELL!!
EVIDENCE
Mildarsky '73 - if child observes altruistic behaviour and the model is rewarded, then the child is likely
to repeat the helping behaviour
Stein & Friedrich '72 - kids watch TV for 4 weeks, (aggressive, neutral or pro-social). Pro-social
condition showed more helpfulness, co-operation and affection
Baron '79 - kids who watched episode of The Waltons with strong pro-social theme were later more
helpful than those who hadn't.
Sprafkin & Rubenstein - kids who prefer to watch pro-social TV are more sociable in school.
EMPATHY / AROUSAL THEORIES
Negative state relief model
Empathy-altruism theory
Empathic Joy Model
EVIDENCE
Strategies deployed by TV charity appeals.- e.g. unflinching exposure to suffering of others.
MESSENGER-DAVIES - FUNCTIONAL Model of TV
TV has many positive functions;
-Common interests
-shared understanding
-Ideas for play and creativity
EVIDENCE
Children's Television Workshop set up in '68 - produced Sesame Street - promotes
social values.
Forge & Phemister - kids who don't watch programmes such as Sesame St. are less
likely to be altruistic in schools.
GUNTER & McALEER - TV is EDUCATIONAL
Informative programming can introduce children to wide variety of people places and ideas.
PYA4 Pro and Anti-Social Behaviour Revision Booklet
Zoe Cross
A02
SESAME STREET VIEWED DAILY IN OVER 70 COUNTRIES, SO HOW
COME THE WORLD ISN'T A NICER PLACE ?
There are two limitations to pro-social TV;
DURATION OF EFFECT
Hearold '86- META-STUDY of 100 studies in this field. - pro-social TV does have an
effect (probably greater than anti-social) - but no-one knows how long it lasts.
Sagotsky et al '81- Pro-social models produced more persistent behaviour changes in
8 yr olds, compared to 6 yr. olds.
SITUATION-SPECIFICITY
Lovelace & Huston '83 - learning from such situations can often be situation-specific
(this is why domestic dramas work best)
More detail (if pro-social STUDIES come up)
Exposure to pro-social behaviour
Are children exposed to pro-social programming? A recent survey found that US
programmes for preschool children did have high levels of pro-social content; 77% of
programmes surveyed contained at least one pro-social lesson. However, the survey
also found that only 4 of the top 20 most watched TV programmes for under 17s
contained pro-social lessons (Woodard, 1999).
Acquisition of pro-social behaviours and norms
Some studies of pro-social effects (such as the study by Poulos et al.) looked at oneshot exposures to a pro-social model. In general, the findings are that children are
most affected when they are shown the exact steps for positive behaviour, such as
being shown someone donating tokens (Mares and Woodard, 2001). This may be
because they can remember concrete acts better than abstract ones.
Learning pro-social norms (rather than specific behaviours) from the media may be
less common, except possibly when viewing is accompanied by follow-up discussion.
For example, in the study by Johnston and Ettema (on left) the largest effects were
found when the program was viewed in the classroom and accompanied by teacherled discussions. However, there are cases where this doesn’t work. Rubenstein and
Sprafkin (1982), in a study of adolescents hospitalised for psychiatric problems, found
that post-viewing discussion led to decreased altruism. This possibly happened
because the adolescents wanted to take up a view that was counter to the view held by
the adults.
PYA4 Pro and Anti-Social Behaviour Revision Booklet
Zoe Cross