HUMAN RELATIONSHIPS
Social Responsibility
Interpersonal Relationships
Violence
HUMAN RELATIONSHIPS
Social Responsibility
OUR ROLES AS HUMANS WITHIN
SOCIETY

In 1978 Staub defined pro-social behavior as
behavior that benefits another person or has
positive social consequences.


Considered vague because it doesn’t discuss the motivation
of the behavior, just the outcome.
Helping behavior just what it sounds like! (Behavior
that intentionally helps/benefits another person)
“Making a difference”
 CAS hours


Altruism is when one helps another with no
reward and at some cost to oneself

Risking one’s life so save another in a car accident
PSYCHOLOGICAL RESEARCH ON
ALTRUISM
Biological
Evolutionary
psychology
 Kin Selection Theory



“The selfish gene
theory”
Reciprocal Altruism
Theory

Prisoner’s Dilemma
Psychological (Cognitive)
Based off of cognitive
psychology
 Negative-State Relief
Model
 Empathy-Altruism
Model


Personal distress vs.
empathetic concern
KIN SELECTION THEORY
The closer the relationship between the helper
and those being helped the more likely altruistic
behavior will be displayed
 Dawkins (1976): “The Selfish Gene Theory”
 Innate drive that our genes compete; organisms
try to maximize its “inclusive fitness” (number of
genes copied globally, not individually)
 Difficult to test under controlled conditions, does
not explain why humans help complete
strangers

RECIPROCAL ALTRUISM THEORY
(“YOU SCRATCH MY BACK, I’LL SCRATCH YOURS”)
An animal may benefit from behaving altruistically if
there is expectation that the favor will be returned in
the future
 Used to explain the evolution of altruism among non
related individuals
 Trivers (1971): Through mutual cooperation both will
increase their chance of survival.


Smaller fish cleaning a larger fish gills and mouth
PRISONER’S DILEMMA
Axelrod & Hamilton (1981): Used a version of the
prisoner’s dilemma to test reciprocal altruism with
humans
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IotsMu1J8fA
 Cooperate or defect
 If both cooperate, both receive a reward
 If both defect, neither receive a reward
 If players meet each other many times, they will
adjust their strategy to fit opponent’s last move


“tit-for-tat”
HOW THE PRISONER’S DILEMMA EXPLAINS ALTRUISM
 Axelrod
& Hamilton believe that cooperation to
this extent is an evolutionarily stable strategy.
 Shows how actions determined by self-interest
are not always in the group’s interest.
 Thomas

Hobbs: Social Contract Theory:
“…uncontrolled pursuit of self-interest would
result in chaos and that governments have the
responsibility of preventing this chaos.”
EVALUATION OF THE RECIPROCAL ALTRUISM
THEORY
Can we use animal behavior to justify human
behavior?
 Human behavior is influence more conscious
beliefs and desires as well as by culture than that
of animals.
 Generally, humans behave more altruistically
towards close kin than non-relatives and we also
like to repay the favor of people helping us.
 Adoption however cannot be explained by the
biological model since it does not benefit the kin.

PSYCHOLOGICAL EXPLANATION OF ALTRUISM
Lerner & Lichtman (1968): Working in pairs,
one individual was the learner (receive electrical
shocks) and the other was the control.
 One person per group was the confederate (in on
the experiment) and that person was always
“randomly” assigned the role of the “learner.
 When the confederate (learner) acted distressed
the other person offered to switch roles, thus
illustrating altruistic behavior.

NEGATIVE-STATE RELIEF
Schaller & Cialdini (1988): As humans, we often
don’t like to see others in discomfort/distress.
 Egoistic motives cause us to help others in negative
circumstances in order to reduce the distress WE
experience from watching THEM.
 This also justifies why we walk away from situations
rather than helping because it helps reduce distress.

EMPATHY-ALTRUISM MODEL:
BATSON ET AL. (1981)
Personal Distress
Anxiety & fear
 Leads to egoistic helping

Empathetic Concern
Sympathy, compassion,
tenderness
 Leads to altruistic
behavior

When you feel empathy towards someone you will help
him/her regardless of any pay back. Relieving
individuals from suffering is the biggest concern. When
no empathy is felt, cost vs. benefit rules your decision to
help.
FINDINGS OF BATSON’S STUDY
This study has been replicated multiple times with
similar results thus supporting the idea that helping
behavior based on empathy is unselfish.
 Weaknesses:

This study only looks at short-term altruism
 Also, personality factors have not been taken into
consideration
 Doesn’t measure the level of one’s empathy
 Although Batson argues that empathy is innate trait it is
undetermined why we do not experience predictable levels
of empathy in a given situation.


Is one’s level of empathy learned or is there a
biological connection?
KITTY GENOVESE CASE
March 13, 1964 Along a serene, tree-lined street in the
Kew Gardens section of Queens, New York City, Catherine
Genovese began the last walk of her life in the early
morning hours of March 13, 1964. She had just left work,
and it was 3:15 a.m. when she parked her red Fiat in the
Long Island Railroad parking lot 20 feet from her
apartment door. As she locked her car door, she took notice
of a figure in the darkness walking quickly toward her. She
became immediately concerned as soon as the stranger
began to follow her. “As she got out of the car she saw me
and ran,” the man told the court later, “I ran after her and
I had a knife in my hand.” She must have thought that
since the entrance to her building was so close, she would
reach safety within seconds. But the man was faster than
she thought. The man caught up with Catherine, who was
all of 5'1” and weighed just 105 pounds, near a street light
at the end of the parking lot.

“I could run much faster than she could, and I jumped on her
back and stabbed her several times,” the man later told cops. “Oh
my God! He stabbed me!” she screamed. “Please help me! Please
help me!” Some apartment lights went on in nearby buildings.
Irene Frost heard Catherine’s screams plainly. “There was
another shriek,” she later testified in court, “and she was lying
down crying out.” Up on the seventh floor of the same building,
Robert Mozer slid open his window and observed the struggle
below.

“Hey, let that girl alone!” he yelled down into the street. The
attacker heard Mozer and immediately walked away. There was
quiet once again in the dark. The only sound was the sobbing of
the victim, struggling to her feet. The lights in the apartment
went out again. Catherine, bleeding badly from several stab
wounds, managed to reach the side of her building and held onto
the concrete wall. She staggered over to a locked door and tried to
stay conscious. Within five minutes, the assailant returned. He
stabbed her again. “I’m dying! I’m dying!” she cried to no one.


But several people in her building heard her screams. Lights
went on once again and some windows opened. Tenants tried to
see what was happening from the safety of their apartments. The
attacker then ran to a white Chevy Corvair at the edge of the
railroad parking lot and seemed to drive away.
On the sixth floor Marjorie and Samuel Koshkin witnessed the
attack from their window. “I saw a man hurry to a car under my
window,” he said later. “He left and came back five minutes later
and was looking around the area.” Mr. Koshkin wanted to call
the police, but Mrs. Koshkin thought otherwise. “I didn't let
him,” she later said to the press. “I told him there must have
been 30 calls already.” Miss Andre Picq, who lived on the second
floor, heard the commotion from her window. “I heard a scream
for help, three times,“ she later told the court, “I saw a girl lying
down on the pavement with a man bending down over her,
beating her.”



About 3:25 a.m., Catherine, bleeding badly, stumbled to the rear
of her apartment building and attempted to enter through a back
entrance. The door was locked. She slid along the wall until she
reached a hallway leading to the 2nd floor of 82-62 Austin Street
but she fell to the vestibule floor. In the meantime, the man had
returned again. “I came back because I knew I’d not finished what
I set out to do,” he told cops later.
He walked along the row of doors and calmly searched for the
woman. He checked the first door and didn’t find her. He followed
the trail of blood to the doorway where Catherine lay bleeding on
the tiled floor. And there, while the defenseless victim lay
semiconscious, incoherent from pain and loss of blood, he cut off
her bra and underwear and sexually assaulted her. He then took
$49 in cash from her wallet. “Why would I throw money away?”
he asked the court at his trial.
As Catherine moaned at his feet, probably unable to comprehend
what had happened to her, the man viciously stabbed her again
and killed her. The man, who had selected his victim purely at
random, ran to his car still parked where he left it. The entire
event lasted at least 32 minutes.



He said later that murder “was an idea that came into my mind,
just as an idea might come into your mind, but I couldn't put mine
aside.” Catherine was his third murder.
At about 3:50 a.m., a neighbor, Karl Ross, who lived on the second
floor of Catherine’s building on Austin Street, finally called the
police. But before he did, he called a friend in nearby Nassau
County and asked his opinion about what he should do. After the
police were notified, a squad car arrived within three minutes and
quickly found Catherine’s body in the hallway on the first floor.
She had been stabbed 17 times. Her torn and cut clothes were
scattered about and her open wallet lay on the floor next to her.
Her driver’s license identified her as Catherine Genovese.
Detectives from the 112 responded and began an exhaustive
investigation. A canvass of the neighborhood turned up several
witnesses, including the one who had notified the police. When
cops finished polling the immediate neighborhood, they discovered
at least 38 people who had heard or observed some part of the fatal
assault on Kitty Genovese.
WHAT WOULD YOU HAVE DONE?
Have you ever been a bystander? What
causes some people to stop to help others
and some choose not to help?
BYSTANDER EFFECT


Latane’ & Darley began research after the Kitty
Genovese murder (1964) to understand why some
people do not help others…thus bystanderism was
coined (The presence of others seems to determine
whether or not others will intervene.)
2 factors cause individuals to either help or not:
1.) Diffusion of Responsibility
 2.) Pluralistic Ignorance

BYSTANDERISM
Diffusion of Responsibility






People reason that
somebody else
can/should/will offer
assistance.
Latane’ & Darley (1968):
Interviews and a “choking”
victim:
4+ participants:31%
helped
One other person 65%
helped
Only person there 85%
helped
Pluralistic Ignorance
•If there is an emergency and
someone sees others not reacting,
they will not either.
•Look to others to know how to react
(information social influence.)
•Latane’ & Darley (1969):
•Sitting in a waiting room and hears
a women fall and cry out
•Alone, reacted more often and
quickly
•In a room with a confederate (in
on experiment) who didn’t react
then they were less likely to
react/help.
POST-EXPERIMENT INTERVIEW OF THE
LATANE’ & DARLEY 1969 STUDY
Participants reveled that they felt anxious when thy
heard the person fall but since others appeared calm
they assumed there was no emergency.
 In real life there is ambiguity about situations and it is
hard to interpret what is going and if there are real
emergencies.
 Also, people are less likely to help in situations when
they believe there is a relationship between the people
(Domestic violence cases)

SOCIAL EXCHANGE THEORY
Human relationships are based on a subjective
cost-benefit analysis
 When benefits (financial reward, esteem,
affection, avoidance of failure) outweigh the
potential costs (humiliation, pain, financial loss)
we are more likely to help

AROUSAL-COST-REWARD MODEL
Piliavan et al. (1969, 1981): Looked a both
emergency and nonemergency situations
 Considers an interaction of mood and cognition in
determining behavior and arousal is the
emotional response to the need or distress of
others.
 Bystanders are motivated to reduce arousal thus
it is considered a motivational factor.
 Agrees with the negative-state relief model
 The cost-reward factor should be seen in terms of
assessing possible costs and rewards associated
with helping or not helping.

PILIAVIN ET AL. (1969)
Observing an emergency situation always creates
emotional arousal in bystanders.
 Arousal can be increased by several factors including
empathy with the victim, proximity to the emergency,
and the length of time that the emergency lasts.
 Depending on the situation, arousal can perceived in
many ways such as fear, disgust, or sympathy.
 Ways arousal can be reduced:

Helping
 Seeking help from others
 Leaving the scene
 Deciding that the person does not need/deserve help

COST-REWARD ANALYSIS
Cost of helping: Effort, embarrassment,
possible physical harm
 Cost of not helping: Self-blame & perceived
censure from others
 Rewards of helping: praise from onlookers &
the victim
 Rewards of not helping: getting on with
personal business & not incurring the possible
costs of helping

THE ROLE OF SOCIAL NORMS IN PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR
Religion
Heroic Helpers

Oliner & Oliner
(1988): Civil Rights
workers during
segregation in the
1960s or Christians
that sheltered Jews
during WWII
identified with
parents that showed
concern for others

Calosanto (1989):
Those that are
committed religiously
were more likely to
give time & money
compared to non
committed religious
individuals.
FAMILY AFFAIR= NEGATIVE EXAMPLE OF
PRO-SOCIAL BEHAVIOR
Shotland & Straw (1976):
 Staged attack of a man and woman

“I don’t know you!”= 65% prevented the
“stranger’s” assault
 “I don’t know why I ever married you!”= 19%
helped because that thought it was a marital dispute

CAN SOCIAL NORMS CHANGE
BYSTANDERISM?
Beaman (1978):




2 groups, one watched a
film about helping, the
other did not.
2 weeks later each
student from both
groups were observed in
a mock accident.
Those that watched the
film= 43% helped
Did not watch film=
25% helped
Staub (1983):




Asked young children to do one
of the three tasks
1.) Write a letter to other
children in a hospital
2.) Tutor a younger child
3.) Make toys for chronically ill
children

More likely to help in
situations where the helped
was desired rather than in
situations where the children
had engaged in similar
activities (making toys for
themselves or studying with a
friend)
WHAT DO THESE STUDIES
PROVE?
Social norms play important roles in pro-social
behavior
 Social norms that one should not intervene in
another’s personal life is perhaps stronger than the
idea of helping someone


Domestic violence cases
>
IS PRO-SOCIAL BEHAVIOR COMMON
CROSS-CULTURALLY?
Whiting (1979)

Nurturing and helping
behavior of children ages 3-11
in 6 countries
Graves & Graves (1985)

Kenya, Mexico, and Pilipino
scored high
 United States scored the lowest



Pro-social behavior correlates
with children’s involvement in
the responsibilities of family
life
Helping is least likely in
societies were completing
school is held higher than
being assigned to help with
farming and household chores

Taking on the role of a
caregiver at a young age
provides children with the
opportunity to learn how to
behave in a pro-social
manner.
Pro-social behavior can be
learned in environments
that models and has social
norms that expect all
members of the family to
contribute for the common
good
SOCIAL IDENTITY THEORY

The desire to provide help for those that we
perceive to be similar to us (members of our ingroup)
Katz (1981): People are more likely to help those in their
own ethnic group that others that are not
 Bond & Leung (1988): Chinese and Japanese helped more
than US to those whom they perceived to be from an ingroup, however, they were less likely than Americans to
help others from an out-group


More extensive research needs to be conducted
to confirm that this difference is unique
HUMAN RELATIONSHIPS
INTERPERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS
STRONG AND FREQUENT INTERDEPENDENCE
(THOUGHTS, EMOTIONS AND BEHAVIORS THAT
INFLUENCE OTHERS IN MANY DOMAINS OF LIFE
The condition or fact of being related; connection or
association.
Connection by blood or marriage; kinship.
A particular type of connection existing between
people related to or having dealings with each other.
(siblings, classmates, peer groups)
A romantic or sexual involvement.
IS A RELATIONSHIP A NEED OR A WANT?

According to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs,
relationships are necessary to have a fulfilled life.
RELATIONSHIPS NOT ONLY HELP OUR
EMOTIONAL WELL-BEING, BUT OUR HEALTH IS
IMPACTED AS WELL
Married people report being happier and
healthier than those who are single (Steinhauser
1995)
 Compared to those in troubled marriages, those
that are happily married have immune systems
that ward off infections more effectively (Kiecolt
1987)
 Steven Cole (2007) found that chronic loneliness
increased gene activity linked to inflammation,
and reduced gene activity associated with
antibody production and antiviral responses.

WHAT IMPACTS ATTRACTION?
 Proximity:
Geographic nearness
 Greater availability to meet,
familiarity

MERE EXPOSURE EFFECT: The
phenomenon that repeated exposure to novel
stimuli increase liking of them.

Studies have shown that we are more
attracted to things/people that we have seen
more than once.
ANOTHER IMPACT OF ATTRACTION
 Physical
attractiveness:
APPEARANCE plays a major
role…unfortunately as humans we are
superficial!

Predicts frequency of dating, feelings of popularity,
and initial impressions of their personality.

Attractive people are PERCIEVED to be healthier,
happier, more sensitive, more successful, and more
socially skilled, however not more honest or
compassionate. (Eagly & others, 1991)
LAST FACTOR OF ATTRACTION
 Similarity:
Humans tend to have
healthier relationships with those
that are similar (have similar
interests, personalities, etc.)

Friends and couples are far more likely
to share common attitudes, beliefs and
interests. (Rosenbaum, 1986)

In “real life” opposites retract NOT
attract.
WHAT PURPOSE DOES ATTRACTION
SERVE?



Evolutionary theories argue that the purpose of
attraction is for procreation (biological level of
analysis)
The extent to which one perceives another person to be
similar to themselves then the likelihood of that person
finding that person attractive is higher. (cognitive level
of analysis)
People that tend to live closer to each other tend to have
the same social and cultural norms and they also tend to
share the same ways of contacting and interacting with
one another. (sociocultural level of analysis)
LOVE…WHAT IS IT AND DOES
IT HAVE A PURPOSE?
A deep, tender, ineffable feeling of affection and
solicitude toward a person, such as that arising
from kinship, recognition of attractive qualities,
or a sense of underlying oneness.
 A feeling of intense desire and attraction toward
a person with whom one is disposed to make a
pair; the emotion of sex and romance.
 A person who is the object of deep or intense
affection or attraction; beloved. Often used as a
term of endearment

PASSIONATE LOVE
VS.
COMPANIONATE LOVE
(BERSCHEID AND HATFIELD, 1972)
Passionate Love



Complete absorption in
another that includes
sexual feelings and
intense emotion.
Gradually replaced by
companionate love.
Women tend to be more
statisfied with their
marriage when they feel
sparks of passionate
love, males are not
affected (Aron and
Hankemyer, 1995)
Companionate Love

Warm, trusting,
tolerant affection for
another whose life is
deeply intertwined
with one’s own life.
TRIANGULAR THEORY OF LOVE
(ROBERT STERNBERG, 1988)
Passion, intimacy, and commitment work together
SCIENCE OF ATTRACTION

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuometYfMTk
ORIGINS OF ATTRACTION:
BIOLOGICAL LOA
 Obsession:
Not being able to turn off
their thoughts about the one they
love/admire.


Biochemical “cocktail” of a human’s romantic
passion can be blamed on a combination of
dopamine, serotonin, and adrenaline.
Romantic love is NOT an emotion but rather a
motivation system (need or craving) that our
brain has been hardwired due to years of
evolution in order to mate. (Fischer)
SEROTONIN…
HOW DOES IT IMPACT LOVE?
Helps focus on the one you love
 In 1999, Marazitti et al. conducted a study that
looked at the serotonin level of 20 people that
have fallen in love within the past 6 months and
20 people with untreated OCD, and 20 normal
individuals who were not in love (control group)
and compared their serotonin level in blood
samples…
 RESULTS: The low serotonin levels in the blood
of those fallen in love in 6 months and those with
OCD were equivalent.

SO WHAT? IT’S THE BRAIN
THAT MATTERS!
 In
2004, Fischer argued that until
research on serotonin levels are measured
in specific parts of the brain then there is
not any proof that serotonin impacts
romantic love.
ADRENALINE...
HEART IS RACING!
Stress hormone
 Fischer (2004) argues that when you are around
that “special someone” and you have an increased
level in adrenaline it can contribute to those
“butterflies in your stomach” feelings of…






Sweaty palms
Heart racing
Mouth going dry
High energy
Less need for sleep and food
And focused attention on that “loved one”
“A BEAUTIFUL PICTURE OF THE
BRAIN IN LOVE”

In 2003, Fischer investigated the blood flow in
the brain by using fMRI brain scans of people in
love.
20 people were shown a picture of their beloved for 30
seconds and then their brain was scanned.
 They were then given a distracting task followed by
viewing another photo of a neutral person, once again their
brain was scanned.


Each part repeated 6 times.

RESULTS: The blood flow in the brain’s reward
system (activated by a pleasant stimulus) during the
beloved picture was more intense than during the
neutral pictures.

http://www.ted.com/talks/helen_fisher_studies_the_brain_i
n_love.html
ROLE OF HORMONES IN BONDING
 Moving
from passionate love to intimate
love…attachment is formed.
Feelings of comfort, security, and relatedness
 In 1969, Bowlby argued that our ability to create
attachments is an innate quality; specific
behaviors and physiological responses are
attachment behaviors.
 Hormones involved in attachment:

1.) Oxytocin
2.) Vasopressin
OXYTOCIN
VERY powerful Hormone released during sex
and touching; helps deepen and intensify
feelings of attachment.
 It is also released during childbirth, thus
forming close attachments with the mother and
infant.


Lab rats that had their oxytocin blocked/inhibited
rejected their young and did not demonstrate
nurturing behaviors.
VASOPRESSIN
Another sex released hormone that is important
for long-term commitment.
 In a study that increased the level of vasopressin
in prairie voles, these animals formed stronger
bonds and had more sex (other than for
reproduction) just like humans.
 When vasopressin was inhibited, the males lost
devotion to their mate and did not protect them
from potential mates.


Evidence that vasopressin plays an important role in
attachment and mating behavior.
JEALOUSLY…IT PLAYS AN IMPORTANT ROLE TOO
BUSS (1996) ARGUES THAT JEALOUSY IS BIOLOGICALLY BASED
AND THAT HUMAN SEXUAL BEHAVIOR IS GROUNDED IN THE NEED
TO OPTIMIZE THE POTENTIAL REPRODUCTION.
During menstruation
Estrogen levels are
low
 Women are more
SEXUALLY jealous
 Fears the male will
seek out other females
to mate with since she
is unable to have
intercourse.

During ovulation



Estrogen levels are
relatively high
Women are more
EMOTIONALLY
jealous
Since impregnating is
possible, she fears the
male will develop an
emotional attachment to
another female, thus
hindering the security of
the potential child.
PHYSICAL ATTRACTIVENESS
HORMONES
&
Buss (1993) found that in areas of the world
where levels of pathogen stress is high, then that
importance of physical attractiveness was rated
more important as opposed to areas in the world
with lower levels of pathogen stress.
 Schackerlford and Watson (1987) concluded that
men were found less attractive when their facial
features were not symmetrical and they had
more symptoms of depression and more physical
problems (colds, headaches, gastrointestinal)
 Lower levels of androgen during puberty, stunted
the development of prominent cheekbones and
masculine chins which are viewed as facial
features that are physically attractive.

ORIGINS OF ATTRACTION:
COGNITIVE LOA

Similarity is the key factor in the cognitive level
of analysis for arguing why individuals are
attracted to each other.

Couples tend to be similar in:
Age
 Religion
 Social class
 Cultural background
 Personality
 Education
 Intelligence
 Physical attractiveness
 Attitudes

STUDIES TO SUPPORT THE
COGNITIVE LOA
Bryne (1971) believes that other people’s support
for one’s own views and attitudes boosts the selfesteem and therefore is rewarding and
reassuring.
 In 2007, Morry coined the idea of the attractionsimilarity model which ties into an individuals
perceptions or relationships; people tend to see
friends and partners similar to themselves so
attraction predicts perceptions of similarity.
(similar physical features causes us to perceive
that an individual is similar to us in beliefs about
relationships.)

ANOTHER STUDY…
Markey et al. conducted a study using questionnaires to
gather information about psychological characteristics
such as values and attitudes of their ideal romantic
partner.
 They were then asked to describe themselves
RESULTS:
 The way they describe themselves and the things they
looked for in their dream partner were extremely similar.
 Follow-up study: 212 married/committed people filled
out a questionnaire about their own psychological
characteristics and then about their partner’s and the
results were the same as the pervious study (similar
beliefs and values for both partners.)
 Confirms that people want partners similar to
themselves!

RECIPROCITY…HOW DOES IT IMPACT
RELATIONSHIPS?
Reciprocity happens when you like those who
show interest in you.
 This increases self-enhancement (making a
partner feel good about oneself)
 People seek feedback that mirrors and supports
their self-concepts…this process is known as selfverification
 With Romantic Relationships, people view
their partner more favorable than the partner
views him/herself however when the views are
matched/equal, the relationship will progress
(Markey et. Al, 2007).

ORIGINS OF ATTRACTION:
SOCIOCULTURL LOA
 Interaction



with others lead to liking:
Comparing our feelings and reactions to others
help us better understand ourselves.
Provides us with connectedness and attachment.
 Basic human need
Familiarity is more likeable than the unfamiliar.
 1971: Zajonc et al.
 Participants evealuated photos of strangers and the
photos that were shown repeatedly were rated more
positively….Mere exposure effect gives us a
sense of trust.
CULTURAL NORMS:
FORMING AND MAINTAINING RELATIONSHIPS
Moghaddam (1993): Believed that much research
on cultural norms is a reflection of US culture
and more cross-cultural research must be
conducted.
 According to Goodwin (1995), passionate love is
largely a western society idea.

Love is seen as the result of a loving relationship.
 In societies with arranged marriages, love and
marriage is reversed; marriage, then love.


1992: Gupta & Singh: Couples in India that
married for love had their feelings of love
diminish after 5 years, but those that had
arranged marriages had higher levels of love.
MORE PROOF THAT WESTERN-CULTURES
“HAVE IT ALL WRONG.”

1986: Simmons et al: Compared to Japanese
culture, romantic love is valued more in the US
and Germany.


Romantic love is valued less in cultures with strong
extended family bonds.
Dion & Dion (1993) In traditional societies is
viewed more than just a union of two people but
rather a union of two families; Americans view
marriage as lifetime companionship between two
people IN LOVE; Other cultures view marriage
as a partnership created to have children and
provide social and economic support.
BACK TO BUSS…
1995, Levine et al. Individualistic countries rate
love as a key factor for the establishment of
marriage and the lack of love warrants the
decision to end a marriage.
 1994 (Buss):

10,000 participants from 37 cultures
 All 37 cultures, men preferred younger mates, women
preferred older.
 23 cultures men felt chastity (virginity) was more
important than women did.
 Buss concluded that mate selection preferences is
universal which is derived from evolutionary
selection and pressure on males and females.

THE ROLE OF COMMUNICATION:
ATTRIBUTION THEORY: HOW WE TRY TO UNDERSTAND
PEOPLE AND MAKE SENSE OF THEIR BEHAVIOR
Situational




Blaming the situation
Analyzing the person’s
action with regards to
the situation he/she is in
Culture & environment
Ex: Late work/missing
assignments= genuine
issue such as a
family/personal issue
Dispositional




Blaming the person
A person’s behavior is
influenced by internal
characteristics
Personality, beliefs,
attitude
Ex: Late work/missing
assignments= Lazy &
irresponsible and never
finishes work on time
HOW DOES THIS IMPACT
RELATIONSHIPS?
Unhealthy
Relationships
Happy Relationships
 Attributions
are
positively based:
Positive behaviors
are viewed as
DISPOSITIONAL &
negative behaviors
are seen as
SITUATIONAL.

 Attributions
are
negatively based:
Negative behaviors
are viewed as
DISPOSITONAL &
positive behaviors
are viewed as
SITUATIONAL.
 Leads to phrases such
as, “You always…”
and “You never…”

WHAT CAUSES A RELATIONSHIP TO
END?
Quality of relationship
leads to negative
communication?



Attributional style leads
to the end of a
relationship?
Bradbury & Fincham (1990):
Poor marital quality in a couple = dispositional attributions
to negative behaviors & situational attributions to positive
behaviors.
1992: Attributions a married couple make, correlates to their
behavior towards each other.
Wives that linked dispositional attributions about their husbands in
negative situations behave negatively towards their husband
 Opposite held true for in wives who made dispositional attributions
about their husband in positive situations.
 Unhappy couples have neg. attributions and behave neg.
towards each other 

MARITAL SATISFACTION
Bradbury & Fincham (1992):
 Type of attibutions made by the couple in the
beginning of the study helped predict marital
satisfaction at the end of the study (12- month
longitudinal study)
 LEVEL of satisfaction at the beginning of the
study did NOT predict what kinds of attributions
the couple made at the end of the study.
 Possible indication: Kinds of attribution which
influence the behavior of couples rather than the
other way around.


Falls in line with the theory of idealization and
positive illusions of the partner
NEGATIVE FEELINGS/COMMUNICATION
=PROBLEMS
 In
2003, Flora & Segrin found that
negative feelings of women towards
their partner predicted marital
problems and for men, when their
partners expressed negative feelings
that leads to problems.

Attributions that partners make about
each other correlate to the levels of
satisfaction with the relationship as
well as their behavior towards each
other.
TO SUMMARIZE…
Attributions that partners make about each other
correlate with the level of satisfaction of the
relationship as well as the type of behavior they
display towards each other.
 Negative communication leads to marital
dissatisfaction which can lead to the end of the
relationship.

COMMUNICATION IS THE KEY!

Social penetration theory: Close relationships
are formed by a gradual process of self-disclosure.

Altman & Taylor
Closeness will develop as the couple proceed from
superficial conversations to intimate levels; this
is associated with attraction.
 Leads to self-disclosure: Sharing facts about
one’s life with a loved one including inner
thoughts, feelings and emotions.


“I don’t know if I am qualified enough to get the new
position I applied for.”
COLLINS & MILLER (1994)




Disclosing information about yourself makes both
strangers and friends like you more and leads to selfvalidation (the feeling of being truly known and
ACCEPTED by the listener.)
1.) People who disclose more intimate information
about themselves are more liked than those that do
not.
2.) People tend to disclose more personal information
to those they like.
3.) As people disclose more information to a person,
they like that person more (attraction grows)

Disclosure is crucial for establishing and maintaining
relationships!
MEN AND WOMEN DO NOT COMMUNICATE
THE SAME!
Females


Reis 1986 :Women selfdisclose more than men
(more women to women
than men to men)
Deborah Tannen 1990:
Respond to negative
feelings with
understanding and
acceptance.

“I know, it’s as though
you are not in control of
your body.”
Males

Tannen 1990: Men
often take the initial
disclosure as a
complaint and try to
give advice to solve
the problem.

“You could always join
a gym to get back into
shape!”
MEN AND WOMEN HAVE CONVERSATIONS
DIFFERENTLY!
Men
Women

Use more language
tags (yup, uh-huh,
right, no kidding)
along the side of the
main speaker to show
SUPPORT
(overlapping speech)


“I understand”
Ask others for their
opinion
View those tags as “I
agree”
 Interrupt and change
subjects more
frequently

FRAMING CONVERSATIONS TO AVOID
CONFLICT
 It’s
better to be positive and express
our own feelings as opposed to point
the blame.

“You always wait until the last minute
to do things!”

Leads the partner to want to defend her/himself which
leads to an argument.
 “I
feel anxious when I think
we are going to be late.”

Better approach
WHY DO RELATIONSHIPS END OR CHANGE?
THE “ECONOMIC” THEORIES
Social Exchange Theory


Kelley & Thibaut
(1959): The costs of the
relationship must not
outweigh the benefits;
the more one “invests”
then the greater the
return.
Equivalence must be
maintained (nonequivalence may be
tolerated for short-term
but balance must be
established for it to last)
Equity Theory



Elaine Walster: The
perception of equality is
what determines if the
relationship will last.
Used to explain infedelity
Hatfield (1979): 2000
couples, those
deprived/under-benefited
had extramarital sex
sooner and with more
partners than those that
who felt fairly treated.
CONCLUSION & CRITICAL ANALYSIS

Under and OVER benefited felt just as doubtful
about the security of their relationship compared
to those that had EQUITABLE relationships.
Critical analysis:
1.) Exchange theories do not take into account
emotions which tend to override the “profit
motive”
 2.) Culturally bound, more common in capitalistic
societies.
 3.) Difficult to place quantity on costs and
rewards in relationships in order to test the
theory.

PATTERNS OF ACCOMMODATION: THE PROCESS OF
RESPONDING TO A PARTNER’S NEGATIVE BEHAVIOR
INTERTWINE WITH THE MAINTENANCE OF THE RELATIONSHIP
RUSBULT ET AL. (1991):
Destructive
Constructive

Discussing problems
openly & honestly,
waiting for situations
to improve naturally,
and forgiving each
other

Silent treatment,
recounting lists of past
failures, and physical
avoidance.
However, in domestic violence/abusive
relationships, constructive ideas may not work
like it would in healthy relationships.
WHAT LEADS TO CONSTRUCTIVE
ACCOMMODATIONS?
Idealization: Those with positive illusions of one’s
partner
 Murray & Holmes (1997): Those with positive
illusions reported less conflict and few
destructive patterns of conflict resolution.
 Feeling of commitment:

Helps overlook flaws
 Engage in open communication or concerns and
needs
 Express willingness to change behavior in order to
mend relationship

ATTACHMENT STYLE ALSO PLAYS A ROLE
Securely attached: Tend to engage in constructive
conflict resolution.
 Simpson (1996): Questionnaire measuring
attachment style
 Couples discussed a major problem in
relationship
 Those that were insecure tended to be anxious
and used negative strategies during the
discussion which led to negative feelings and
harm to the relationship.

WELL-BEING RELATES TO PERCEPTION OF
THE RELATIONSHIP
Flora & Segrin (2003):
 Longitudinal Study & self-Report
 66 young couples (6 months of dating) & 65
young couples (married for 4 years)
 Does the amount of common interests and
activities & the desire to spend time together
predict the quality of the relationship?


Results:
Men: Common interests and activities and spending time
meant more
 Women: The quantity of their OWN negative feelings
(relation to disappointment with their partner) determined
whether they would stay in the relationship

FACTS ABOUT RELATIONSHIPS
Women end relationships more than men (Gray
& Silver, 1990)
 Marriages in which partners are younger than
the average tend to be unstable (Duck, 1998)
 Marriages between couples from lower economic
groups and lower educational levels tend to be
more unstable (Pringle, 1986)

RULES: ARE THEY NECESSARY?
Fatal attraction Theory: The trait that initially
cause the attraction leads to the termination of
the relationship; Felmlee (1995)
 Duck (1992): Predictability provides comfort,
when crisis occurs, predictability is disrupted.


Having children, moving to a new city, or “breaking
the rules”

Argyle & Henderson (1984): Rules help maintain the goals
of the relationship; helps minimize the potential for conflict
 RULES: Respecting each others privacy, not talking to
others about disclosed information, being emotionally
supportive, and not being deceitful (most important)
“FALLING OUT OF LOVE”
Sprecher (1999)
 Longitudinal study over several years;
self-report
 Broken relationships were due to
general dissatisfaction and frustration
with the relationship, but there wasn’t
any change of feelings of love.

FRUSTRATION outweighs positive
feelings of LOVE.
 Breaking up is a painful process.

HUMAN RELATIONSHIPS:
VIOLENCE
ONE LEADS TO THE OTHER…
Aggression
Sequence of behavior
in which the goal is to
dominate or harm
another individual
 Part of human
condition according to
Hogg (1995)
 Everyone is affected
by it indirectly or
directly

Violence




An aggressive act in
which the perpetrator
abuses individuals
directly or indirectly.
Verbal, physical, and
psychological
Individuals, groups,
institutions, nations
Sometimes random, but
most are ongoing and
routine (domestic
violence & bullying)
LOW-BASE RATE BEHAVIOR
“Relatively rare;” Difficult to observe and easy to
miss
 Multifactorial in origin: No single explanation as to
the cause
 When observing in natural environments it may be
possible to not observe a violent act for a long period of
time, however this does not mean it never happens.
 Jane Goodall witnessed raiding parties of chimps
(usually peaceful mammals)
 Hunted down and brutally killed members of
another community, also cases of infanticide and
rape.
Like chimps, most humans are not aggressive, but
at times, violence occurs for no SPECIFIC
reason.

BIOLOGICAL LEVEL OF ANALYSIS
 Evolutionary
psychologists argue that
violent behavior serves the purpose to
protect offspring or for breeding purposes.
 TESTOSTERONE: Sexual arousal and
aggression
 Level of testosterone in males positively
correlates with the level of aggression.
 Bernhardt (1997): High testosterone levels
and antisocial behavior in males with low
socio-economic status…link is not cut & dry
and sociocultural and cognitive aspects need
to be taken into consideration.
TESTOSTERONE IS NOT AN
AGGRESSION HORMONE





Mazur & Booth (1998): Testosterone is relates to
status-seeking and dominance
Testosterone rises before competitive matches, even
chess matches, had higher levels of testosterone than
those that lose. (measured in their saliva)
Cohen (1998): Young US males in urban street
cultures where honor was valued had higher levels of
testosterone.
Hyper-responsive to insults to maintain status and
respect
People from southern states who display more of an
honor culture have higher testosterone response to
challenges then those in northern states who are not
part of an honor culture.
PERMISSIVE EFFECT
 The
presence of the hormone is enough to
allow for aggressive behavior
 Sapolsky (1998): With animals,
castration=aggression declined, injected
with testosterone, 20%-200%=returned to
“normal aggressive levels”
 Testosterone alone IS NOT RESPONSIBLE
for the level of aggressive behavior, other
factors are involved.
SEROTONIN: NEGATIVE CORRELATION BETWEEN
SEROTONIN LEVELS AND AGGRESSION

Low levels=highly irritable, aggressive, easily
frustrated, impulsive, fast-track anger (act
first, think later)
 Bernhardt
(1997): Low levels of
serotonin (irritability) + high levels of
testosterone (dominance-seeking behavior) =
AGGRESSION

Environmental stimuli (childhood physical
abuse=fewer serotonin receptor sites) can make
levels of testosterone rise and serotonin levels fall
FRONTAL LOBE ABNORMALITIES
Grafman et al (1996): 57 normal (control) & 279
veterans suffering from penetrating head injuries
from Vietnam.
 Self-report, family observations, scales and
questionnaires measuring violent & aggressive
attitudes and behaviors
 Those with frontal lobe lesions displayed violence
scale scores significantly higher than the control
group.

MURDERERS (N
OT GUILTY BY REASON OF INSANITY)
Raine et al. (1997): A study using PET scans
(positron emission tomography) found:
 lower activity (glucose metabolism) in the prefrontal
cortex & corpus callosum



Problem integrating information necessary to modify
behavior and control impulse
asymmetry in the amygdala, & the medial temporal
lobe including the hippocampus

Problem forming and using emotionally laden perceptions
and memories
Increased activity in the right-hemisphere
 However, biology alone cannot determine violent
acts…social, psychological, cultural, and situational
factors but be taken into consideration.

COGNITIVE LEVEL OF ANALYSIS

Fiske & Taylor 1991: Antisocial behavior and aggression
are linked to deficits in cognitive functioning such as:
Attention
 Cognitive flexibility
 Self-regulation


Growing up in violent family can affect the way the brain
processes information
Stressors
 Learning
 Or both



Violent acts are caused by previous experiences that have
shaped cognitive processing, more so cognition related to
social information
Social Cognition: The way people make sense of and
respond to their social world.
SOCIAL COGNITION PROCESSING AFFECTED
BY RISK FACTORS
General Knowledge
Structures
Cognitive schemas about
the world are influenced
by experience (self &
social schemas)
 Bowlby (1973): inner
working models:

Cog. Schemas of what
people expect from others
and the emotions linked to
those expectations
 Linked with attachment

Information Processing

The way a person
interprets social
situations and makes
judgments about a
person’s motives
(attribution) as well as
how a person decides to
respond.
COGNITIVE PROCESSES ARE LINKED TO
AGGRESSIVE AND VIOLENT ACTS
Dodge et al. (1990): General knowledge
structures and information processing link abuse,
social rejection, & violence by peers to being at
risk for developing antisocial behaviors
 Baumeister et al. (1996): Link between
negative views about oneself and aggression

BRADSHAW (2004)
Stronger link between aggression and an individual’s
negative view of others
 Negative attributional style could be linked to
aggression and violent behavior


125 male & female adolescents from NY(average age 19.9)
Aggression is mediated by negatively socially biased
information processing as well as childhood exposure
to violence (Bandura’s social learning theory)
 Conclusion: Through self-reports, hostile attribution,
self-reported aggressive response reaction, and
justification of aggression positively correlates to
negative view of others; however there is no
relationship between view of oneself and aggression


Remember, self-reports can be unreliable!
COGNITIVE PROBLEMS RELATED
TO BRAIN INJURIES

Leads to frustration which can cause violent
verbal and physical aggression outbursts which is
usually directed towards family members or close
friends/significant others.
COGNITIVE-BEHAVIORAL THERAPY &
ANGER MANAGEMENT
Demark & Gemeinhardt (2002)
 Once trigger situations are identified, a person is
helped to reduce the level of arousal and apply an
alternative solution to the problem.
 Used to indentify and deal with maladaptive thinking
patterns
 Combined with special behavior techniques to focus on
building pro-social behaviors

CULTIVATION THEORY, SOCIAL LEARNING
THEORY AND VIOLENCE
Gerbner et al (1994): Use the cultivation theory to
argue that media violence gives children a perception
that the world is hostile and violent and that violence
is normal and acceptable behavior thus leading them
to believe that violence solves problems.
 Merrill (1996): Believes that through the social
learning theory, domestic violence comes from three
factors:
 Direct instruction by others to act
violent/threatening ways
 Modeling violent/controlling behavior
 Rewards for threatening, controlling, or abusive
behavior

THEORY OF THREATENED EGOTISM

Baumeister & Bushman (1998): When someone
threatens, questions, or undermines one’s self-concept,
those with inflated or unstable forms of high selfesteem (narcissist) are more likely to act aggressively
because of distorted self-schema and their social
information processing is affected.
SOCIOCULTURAL LEVEL OF
ANALYSIS


Vygotsky believed that violence is a result of power
differences between different social groups (gender,
social class, or ethnicity)
Examples include:
Men being more likely to be violent towards women rather
than the opposite
 Extreme violence where violent behavior was accepted by a
large group within the community without feelings of guilt
or remorse:




Persecution of the Jews during the Holocaust
Genocide in Rwanda & Bosnia
If social norms allow violent actions to be
acceptable than it is likely that people will be
violent

Example: Spanking children
SOCIAL NORMS AND
VIOLENCE
The purpose of social norms is to provide
guidance for individuals and how emotions
should be expressed.
 Using survival mechanisms as a reason, it can be
argued that communities breed violent behaviors
via social learning theory.

DEINDIVIDUATION
THEORY
When individuals join crowds or large groups, the
psychological state of deindividuation is aroused.
 This is due to the diminished awareness of self and
individuality.
 Large groups allows an individual to avoid
responsibility for his/her actions because a degree of
anonymity is provided…thus one becomes more
impulsive, irrational, aggressive, and violent.
 Examples:



Football (soccer) hooliganism
Zimbardo experiment (1969)
DEINDIVIDUATION & CHILDREN
Diener et al. (1976): Used trick-or-treaters to
measure validity
 8% of children individuated (asked names and
addresses) took more than one pieced of candy
 80% of children deindividuated (dressed up in
costumes and not asked names/addresses) took more
candy.
 Results: Indicates the importance of deindividuation
on self-consciousness and feelings of responsibility.

MORE SUPPORT FOR DEINDIVIDUATION
Reicher (1987): Norms of a group become guiding the
force for one’s behavior because of increased group
identity.
 Johnson and Downing (1979): Variation of Zimbardo’s
experiment.



Ku Klux Klan outfit=stronger shocks vs. nurse’s outfit=lower
level of shocks.
Group identity and its social norms determined the level
of violent behavior exhibited.
COLLECTIVE BEHAVIOR
Self-categorization
Theory
Social Identity Theory



Reicher:
Social identity of the
group provides
indications as to what is
and is not acceptable
(social norms)
Crowd members look
to the members of the
core group for
guidance on to
behave

Example: Football
hooligans
Oaks et al. (1993):
 People look for other
individuals in the
group with whom they
can identify with


Police vs. rioters acting
different within the same
environment.
HUMAN RELATIONSHIPS
Violence: Bullying
OLWEUS’S BULLYING CIRCLE
WHAT IS BULLYING?





Bullying is when a person is exposed repeatedly over
time to negative actions on the part of one or more
people
Bullying can be direct (physical/verbal threats) or
indirect (social isolation/exclusion)
Bullying can happen to people of all ages, from the
playground to the office cubicle
Nansel et al. (2001): 17 percent of US high school
students between ages 12 and 17 who were surveyed
reported that they had been bullied, boys were more
likely to bully than girls
Bullying can be found in many countries: Kim(2006)
reported that 21.9% of elementary school and 24.4%
of high school students in Japan had bullied others
FACTS ABOUT BULLYING
Dan Olweus’s Study (1993)
 1 in 10 students have been the victim of bullying
 The percentage of students who are bullied
decreases with age
 Girls were more exposed to indirect and more
subtle forms of bullying
 Boys carried out a large part of the bullying to
which girls were subjected
 Teachers and parents were often unaware of
bullying

NANSEL ET AL. STUDY (2000)
Study of 15,686 students aged 10-15
 17% been bullied
 19% bullied others
 6% both
 Bullies, bystanders and victims all contribute to
problem of bullying
 Social contagion-diffusion of responsibility

CYBER BULLYING
Cyber bulling- online, email bullying, harming
others without face to face contact
 Not being face to face allows a bully to be more
bold or behave differently(Patchin & Hinojosa)
 Less likely to be caught online (Brown et al.)
 Happy slapping- online bullying

ELEY ET AL. (1999)
-1500 pairs of British and Swedish twins were
studied. Identical twins were more likely than
fraternal twins to show aggressive antisocial behavior
-Male identical and fraternal twins were just as likely
to exhibit symptoms of non-aggressive antisocial
behavior. Suggests link to environmental factors.
-Females’ antisocial behavior was more linked to
genetics
Does not prove bullying is related to genetics, yet
violent behavior to some extent could be related to
genetic make-up
LIEU AND RAINE (2004)
-14 year study of 1,000 children of different
backgrounds
-focused on nutrition of children at age 3, looked
at vitamin, protein and mineral deficiency.
Cognitive level and risk factors (income, health,
parent occupation) were also taken into account
-At age 8, 11, and 17, when compared to a control
group of children, there was a major increase in
aggressive, antisocial, and violent behavior in
malnourished children
-Malnutrition is a risk factor for developing
children’s health, cognitive development, and
behavior
MORE STUDIES ON BULLYING


Olweus (1993): The roots of bullying are a
combination of aspects of a child’s home environment,
parental influence, and problems with anger
management.
Eron (1987): The parents of bullies are strict and
often authoritarian and use physical methods of
punishment.




Bullies carry aggression with them into an unsuccessful
adulthood
Dodge (1980): Children are always ready to defend
themselves, especially when they feel threatened
8 yr old bullies = ¼ chance of having criminal record
by 30 yrs (others have a 1/20 chance)
Bullying may be a symptom of antisocial
behavior, rather than the cause.
EFFECTS OF BULLYING ON
THE INDIVIDUAL
 Studying
the effects of bullying on an
individual can be difficult because…
1.
2.
Students/subjects are rarely
measured before the bullying
occurs
The data is gathered through selfreports
EFFECTS OF BULLYING ON THE
INDIVIDUAL

Olweus (1992): Found correlation between frequent
bullying in middle school and low selfesteem/depression by age 23
Short Term
Long Term
Anger
Lingering feelings of
anger/bitterness
Depression
Difficulty trusting people
Higher rate of illness
Fear/avoidance of new social
settings
Lower grades than non-bullied
peers
Increased tendency to be a loner
Suicidal thoughts and feelings
Decreased self-esteem
EFFECTS OF BULLYING ON THE
INDIVIDUAL

Delville (2002): Studied effects of bullying on health and
brain development
o
o
o
o

Used adolescent hamsters
Placed male hamsters in a cage with others for 1 hr/day for 2 weeks
Resulted in hostility (hamsters chased and bit each other)
Caused increase in cortisol (stress hormone)
 Impacts memory
 Too much cortisol prevents brain from laying down new memory or
accessing old memories
Elliot and Kirkpatrick (1999): Administered surveys in
regards to suicide attempts
o
o
o
several thousand UK students
20% that were bullied had attempted suicide
3% participants not bullied had attempted suicide
STUDIES ON CORTISOL LEVELS IN
RELATION TO BULLYING

Carney & Hazler (2007): Measured cortisol levels in
saliva of 94 6th graders aged 9-14 then filled out
questionnaire on bullying
 Cortisol levels in AM and before lunch
 Bullying causes spike in cortisol levels
 Over time, cortisol deficiency linked to chronic
fatigue, pain, and PTSD


Greenburg & Ruback (1992)
Downward Comparison: comparing oneself to those
worse off
 Victimization didn’t leave major physical scars
 Negative models aren’t immediately available,
victims created worse scenarios
BULLYING AND PERCEPTIONS

Kliewer et al. (2004) : Spanish college students
direct relationship between victim’s perceptions
of control over bulling experience and extent of
long term difficulties they experience as a result
of bullying.
 Bullied students who believe they are able to
influence or escape their bullies reported fewer
negative long term affects
 Perception of control is KEY
EFFECTS OF BULLYING ON MENTAL HEALTH

Joseph (2003) :
 331 English adolescent students
 Up to 1/3 of the bullied students suffered from post- traumatic
stress disorder despite form of bullying.
 Disproves the myth that physical bullying is the worst
Instances of Aggression and Victimization
 Snyder (2003):
266 children from kindergarten to elementary school
Boys who were bullied were more likely to display depression and
antisocial behavior
 Aggression is a short-term way to avoid bullying but increases longterm risks of victimization by peers
 Antisocial behaviors made girls targets for future bullying
Friend/ Family support often lessens the impact of bullying
Individual receives positive messages on their worth and the negative
messages from the bully are less likely to be validated and take over
self- esteem.



THE CASE OF GAY AND LESBIAN STUDENTS
HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH REPORT (2001)
•Gay/ Lesbian youth are 2-3 times more likely to attempt
suicide than those that are heterosexual. 30% are
committed annually and it is the leading cause of death
for this group.
•28% of gay/lesbian high school students across the
country were assumed to have dropped out of school due
to harassment over their sexual orientation
•45% of gay males and 20% of lesbians report having
experienced such harassment.
•53% of students report hearing homophobic
comments made by school staff
•26% of gay youths are forced to leave home due to
familial conflict over their sexual orientation
VIOLENCE WITH OTHERS IN SOCIETY
Dodge(1981): Found that children who have
problems processing social cues tend to display
bias in their reactions to ambiguous harmful
actions they tend to react in a hostile manner.
 Feshbach and Feshbach (1982):

Trained students to put themselves in the other
persons shoes in order to recognize the feelings of
others and try to share their emotions.
 Children who engaged in this empathy training were
less aggressive in everyday activities.

VIRTUAL REALITY AND BULLYING
Recent Research use virtual reality to improve
empathy
 Figueiredo et al. (2007): Tested long term
effects of computer game in which each child
takes the role of an invisible friend of victimized
character, discussing problems and exploring
possible solutions and coping strategies.


Goal is to encourage students to be more reflective
about bullying and test out strategies
REDUCING VIOLENCE AND BULLYING
When Jamaica implemented strict gun-control and
censored gun scenes from television, robbery and
shooting rates dropped dramatically (Diner and
Crandell 1979)
 Bullying and exclusion has a long term effect on
society and victims.
 Strategies used to reduce bullying:

Counseling to deal with anger management and developing
empathy
 Altering perception of others and situations
 Teaching students to take time to process (like counting to
10)

SOCIAL SKILLS IN RELATION TO
BULLYING
 Toch
(1980): Believed that those who
lack social skills account for a high
proportion of the violence occurring in any
given society.
 Schneider (1991): Responded to Toch by
suggesting that social-skills training can
be effective in reducing the likelihood of a
person being either the source or the
target of aggressive behavior.
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS AND
BULLYING
Elliot Aronson (1979):

Showed that the use of the “jigsaw
classroom” or cooperative learning
lowers the rate of bullying in
schools and increases positive
interaction between out-groups
during play or free periods.
 classroom works on the idea
that everyone has something
to contribute to the learning
process and that by working
together towards a common
goal, everyone is valued.
Limber (1992):

Argues that jigsaw classrooms
and peer mediation may be
appropriate in resolving
conflict between students with
equal power. However, he
believes bullying is a form of
victimization

It is not a conflict, but a form of
abuse and therefore should be
addressed as such
SCHOOL INTERVENTION
Vreeman (2006)

Found that bullying can be
curbed

Common methods of
addressing the problem such

Olweus (1972)

Developed a whole-school
program for schools in
Norway

Teachers are trained to
as classroom discussions and
recognize and deal with
role-playing are ineffective
bullying through cooperative
Whole school interventions
learning
involving teachers and

Teachers and administrators
administrators are the most
model non-aggressive conflict-
effective
resolution strategies in the
classroom
AND…
BREATHE
WORKS CITED

Crane, J. & Hannibal, J. (2009) Psychology:
Course Companion, 258-301.