4/22 - 4/27 Notes
Popular in Social Psychology
verified elite notetaker
Popular in Psychlogy
This 4 page Study Guide was uploaded by Kirsten Notetaker on Sunday May 1, 2016. The Study Guide belongs to at Lewis University taught by Dr. Greenwood in Winter 2016. Since its upload, it has received 13 views. For similar materials see Social Psychology in Psychlogy at Lewis University.
Reviews for 4/22 - 4/27 Notes
Report this Material
What is Karma?
Karma is the currency of StudySoup.
You can buy or earn more Karma at anytime and redeem it for class notes, study guides, flashcards, and more!
Date Created: 05/01/16
Aggression Aggression intentional attempt to injure someone, measured by the level of intent, need to separate injury from intent o Instrumental vs. hostile (emotional) aggression an instrument is a tool (NO SHIT) so instrumental aggression is a tool that is used to achieve some other goal, there is not investment of emotion of bias or prejudice, it is just necessary to do it to achieve an objective, knocking down a building or a forest to build a hotel is instrumental in order to get the building built, someone who knocks you out just enough so they can steal your money is instrumental aggression hostile aggression is what we normally thing about, it is based on anger, mob behavior, mass deindividuation, is emotion driven, based on hostility (who woulda thunk?) Sociobiological models – survival of the fittest – gerbil effect fight or die? Humans usually do not use aggression as a first response, we are natural cowards, we can be intensely aggressively hostile beyond the normal level, in combat situations for territory or sex there are automatic submission signals (animals), we are capable of killing even if it doesn’t serve good purposes for survival, gerbils are prey animals and have large liters, they have little cute pink babies, maybe 12 – you could come back later and some are missing, the sick and weak ones were eaten o Territoriality, food gathering, sexual competition we are territorial, we have maps with borders, yards with fences, communities with gates, historically we have engaged in combat for territory, competition creates hostility and aggression for food and mates, scare resources, survival of the group, or response to a threat is to fight or flight, our instinctual response is to flight Fight or flight syndrome (predator vs. prey) = amygdala we are omnivorous, most prey are herbivores Typical instinctive limits on intra-species aggression we can talk ourselves into justifying anything particularly if we can cover up values (Spanish Inquisition) Humans innate cowardice plus weak inhibitions tru o Cognitive ability (blessing/curses) as servant of limbic system religion can inhibit or support aggression, think about how settlers treated the Native Americans when they came here, killing people in the name of religion Tool use to magnify impact vs. cultural norms to limit Heredity vs. environment – always an interaction-not blank slate we have instincts for cooperation, empathy, etc. child soldiers – have less inhibition than adults, great tool for assholes to use to recruit and get whatever job done that they want to Physical evolution vs. cultural evolution multiple tribes in combat with each other for scarce resources, then they started to work together - cultural evolution - we cant survive fighting each other, especially with other people trying to fight us, an effort to evolve culture to reduce conflict and solve problems (United Nations), an attempt to take away stranger anxiety and in and out group ideas, really important for the success and longevity of our nation o Normative limitation aggression “thou shalt not murder” true translation, historically when Moses received the 10 Commandments – it was thou shalt not kill, what it really means is that you cannot kill legally, outside of your group it is okay, killing in the name of God, people think that that is okay since it is not “your people”, this commandment is a limitation/controlling on killing, but these rules do not apply to people outside of the community (dehumanization) Frustration-aggression hypothesis – loose connection at best frustration activates the limbic system and makes us angry, neither does not cause the other o Excitation-transfer model, negative affect model aggression sometimes comes from energy totally outside of a different situation, negative energy in your system can transfer into aggression, when people act irrationally, you need to think what else could be going on, the key is to not let your frustration escalate, this is a hard lesson, but necessary to know/learn how to do, when you are interacting with someone and minor things build and become more intense before they get out of control o Energy weakens inhibitions, triggers deeper habits/responses o Aggressive cues (classical conditioning) “weapons effect” o Environmental factors – pain, heat, attacks, crowding Social learning theory – bandura – bobo doll studies o Impact of role models – similarity and consequences, scripts o Observed aggression correlated to expressed aggression o Disinhibition (deindividuation) “mask effect” war paint/dances when we do something that we have been resisting, anything that has been making us resist, when it is gone, we do the behavior we have been resisting, Deindividuation is when you have lost your control, mob behavior, easy to lose control when under pressure, mask effect – wearing a mask creates this, war paint and war dances are real and are not limited to American Indians, took drugs before going into battle, they could act without restraint/limitations because killing is considered (in the tribe) to be very wrong, they were crazy and scary looking – effective, side note: they had purification rituals because they didn’t want that negative energy in their tribes o Desensitization (psychic numbing) you cannot feel empathy, concern, as you continue to engage in the behavior it no longer has an effect on you, it is pathological, it is the way we respond in defense to hurting people, putting people in positions of constant violence makes them numb to the violence – impact of constant exposure o Cultural differences (normative patterns) Japan, Britain the warrior caste in Japan had no respect for anyone who would allow themselves to be captured, if you win, that’s great, it you loose you should kill yourself, this is the code of conduct for these people, police officers in Britain stopped carrying guns, people would not act violently when being arrested, the role of violence, how it is expressed and where the limits are, are normative o Pornography (erotic vs. violent actions) erotic is designed to arouse sexual feelings, violent pornography (THIS IS SO AWKWARD) evoke violence in the context of sex, rape is a violent action in the content of sex, high intensity sexual activity is very violent, making rape a military tactic? Negative reciprocity (innate equity tendency) retaliation when aggression happens, when you respond, you don’t respond at the same level, because of your anger it is intensified, it’s escalation, in acts of aggression if you attack someone verbally, they will counterattack and it escalates, o Escalation/cultural limit: an eye for an eye” (Lex Talonis) you’re allowed to take an eye for an eye but not more than that, an effort to restrict Gender differences – hormone levels vs. cultural socialization Reducing aggression o Violent catharsis (paintball) increases later aggression Freud, the energy builds up and if you can release it in a non-violent way by watching violence or having fantasies then you will not act on it, paintball is a war game, it is a socially acceptable game, engaging in these fantasy activities reduces the energy, releases the inside impulse for aggression, IT WORKS THE OPPOSITE WAY because it increases LATER aggression, in a situation in which aggression is suggested they are ready to go, the more you observe and participate goes back to the psychic numbing, the catharsis model does not work o Punishment is ineffective or merely defers aggression punishment can be a control but it doesn’t eliminate it, it redirects it, fear can only go so far in controlling people, the normative influences are the strongest, Capital punishment does not deter, is for revenge/justice capital punishment – killing people, it is unethical/unprofessional to provide services for someone on death row so they can be stabilized and sane enough for us to kill them, capital punishment does not stop violence, it has no real effect at all, we use capital punishment as a form of revenge, an eye for an eye, the real energy in capital punishment is anger
Are you sure you want to buy this material for
You're already Subscribed!
Looks like you've already subscribed to StudySoup, you won't need to purchase another subscription to get this material. To access this material simply click 'View Full Document'