Social Psychology
Lecture 3
Prosocial Behaviour and
Aggression
Jane Clarbour
(Spring 2002)
Objectives
• Understand what is meant by ‘prosocial’
and ‘aggressive’ behaviour
• Describe the main characteristics of both
the prosocial and aggressive personality
• Discuss the elements of the process leading
to the activation of prosocial behaviour
• Explain how the norm of reciprocity applies
to prosocial and aggressive behaviour
Prosocial behaviour
• Defined as… ‘voluntary behavior
intended to benefit another
regardless of motive’ (Eisenberg, 1988)
– Considerate of other people’s feelings
– Helpful to others
– Kind
– Generous
Prosocial behaviour as
Helpful behaviour
1. Egoistic motivation
– Ultimate goal to benefit oneself
2. Altruistic motivation
– Ultimate goal to benefit others
Example: Live Aid concert promotes
performers sales and benefits those in
need
Prosocial behaviour as
Reciprocal exchange
• Favoured by natural selection process if:
– Follows reciprocity norms (tit-for-tat)
– Costs to helper are less than advantages
• Limited to particular circumstances
–
–
–
–
Trust between helper and helped
Stability of group membership
Longevity of the group
Recognisability of group members
Characteristics of the prosocial
personality
Social responsibility
Internal locus of control
Obligation
to help
and
Understanding of
the needs of others
Empathy
Empathic
concern
Personal
distress
Norm of social responsibility
•
•
•
•
Moral obligation
Belief in a just world
Interpersonal guilt
Diffusion of social responsibility
– Bystander apathy
Model of prosocial behaviour
Prosocial motivation
Prosocial characteristics
Responsibility
Internal control
Empathy
satisfaction
Prosocial
behaviour
Remove injustice
completely
Just world belief
Injustice continues
(Bierhoff, 2001)
Devaluation
of victims
Activation of prosocial behaviour
Process model of altruism
Attention
Motivation
Evaluation
Defence
Behaviour
(Schwartz & Howard, 1981)
Process model of altruism
Attention
• Awareness that others need help
• Recognition of other’s distress
• Selection of effective altruistic action
• Self-attribution of competence
Process model of altruism
Motivation
• Motivation for action
•
•
•
•
Construction of a personal norm on basis
of social responsibility norms
Generation of feelings of moral obligation
Need for approval
Desire for reward
Process model of altruism
Evaluation
• Assessment of potential
costs/benefits
•
•
•
•
Social costs
Physical costs
Self-concept costs
Moral costs
Process model of altruism
Defence
• Denial of responsibility
– Priority to self-interest
– Refute responsibility for others as an
‘unjust demand
– Conflict of responsibility with other
obligations
– Lack of resources or ability to intervene
Weakness of process model
• Doesn’t account for individual
differences in:
– Perspective taking ability
– Sensitivity to interpersonal problems
– Consequential decision-making ability for
self and for others
– Social understanding of how one feels and
acts is influenced by how others feel and
act
Aggressive behaviour
• Defined as…
• ‘ behaviour that is intended to harm
others’ (Eisenberg, 1988)
– Hostile or physical aggression
– Direct verbal aggression
– Indirect aggression
Prosocial behaviour mediates aggression?
LOW PROSOCIAL
more aggressive, less
kind, thoughtful
or ready to share
Psychopathy
Aggressive,
manipulative,
domineering
HIGH PROSOCIAL
Eisenberg (1988) less aggressive, more kind,
thoughtful
and ready to share
Eron & Huesman (1984)
Hart et al (1997)
Prosocial
behaviour
Obedient, compliant,
helpful and
cooperative
Emotional strengths and difficulties
Examples of items from SDQ (Goodman, 1997)
Emotional Difficulties
Emotional Strengths
•Often fights and is
manipulative
•Nice to people & cares about
their feelings
•Disobedient
•Willingness to share
•Lies and cheats
•Helpful if someone is hurt or ill
•Takes things from others
•Kind to younger children
•Hyperactive
•Volunteers to help others
•Poor friendships
Developmental model of
aggressive behaviour
Physical
Direct verbal
Indirect
(Bjorkqvist and Osterman, 2000)
Gender differences
• Males more physically aggressive
• No sex differences in verbal aggression
• Females more indirectly aggressive
– Girls more socially skilled
– Girls better at conflict resolution
– Girls mature socially faster
Relationship between empathy and social
intelligence with aggression (Bjorkqvist et al (2000)
Social
Empathy
Intelligence
Aggressive strategy
Indirect
.55***
.15*
Verbal
.39**
.05
Physical
.22**
-.04
Peaceful conflict resolution .80***
.80***
Withdrawal
.47***
.48***
Empathy mediates aggression
(1.) SOCIAL INTELLIGENCE
Bivariate
Partial
correlation correlation
(Empathy controlled)
Indirect
.55***
.65***
Verbal
.39**
.54***
Physical
.22**
.38***
Peaceful conflict
resolution
Withdrawal
.80***
.51***
.48***
.23***
Empathy mediates aggression
(2.) Empathy
Bivariate Partial
correlation correlation
(Social intelligence
controlled)
Indirect
.15*
-.45***
Verbal
.05
-40***
Physical
-.04
-.32***
Peaceful conflict
resolution
Withdrawal
.80***
.51***
.47***
.18**
What causes aggression?
Frustration-aggression hypothesis
Blocking of goals
catharsis
• Asserts that aggression is always the product
of frustration.
• Frustration will always elicit the drive to attack
others.
– Aggression as dominant response
– Frustration creates readiness for aggression
– Frustration induced arousal
Cue-arousal theory (Berkowitz, 1960’s)
Frustration
Arousal
Interpretation of cue
Classical
conditioning
Response
Social Information Processing model
of aggression (Dodge, 1986)
• Encoding
– Perception of cues
– Attention to cues
Attribution bias
Aggressive boys over attribute
hostility in others
• Interpretation
– Integration of
memory/goals/new data
• Response search
– Generation of potential
responses
• Evaluation
• Behaviour
Impulsive boys have
problems in assessing
alternative problems
Whether an act is labelled aggressive is
affected by PERCEPTIONS of:
• The harm taking place
• The harm being avoidable or foreseeable
(Source: PsychNow!)
Perception of aggressive acts
Was there
an
Intention to
harm?
Yes
Yes
Did harm
come to a
person or
thing?
Could this
situation have
been avoided?
No
Yes
No
No
Reciprocal aggression
• Norm of reciprocity (tit-for-tat)
– Justification for retaliation
• Initiator is perceived as aggressive, unfair,
hostile
• Retaliatory attack is perceived as acting
defensively and fairly
Summary
• Social intelligence is required for
aggressive as well as peaceful conflict
resolution
• Empathy mitigates aggression
Discussion points…
• What role does empathy play as a mediator
of both prosocial and aggressive behaviour?
• To what extent can aggressive and prosocial
behaviour be explained by similar models for
action?