1. Social Responsiblity
1.1. Altruism
1.1.1. Dawkins (1976) "selfish gene theory"- innate drive for survival and propagation of own genes
1.1.1.1. Limits: theory so hard to test under controlled situations
1.1.2. Trivers (1971) Reciprocal altruism theory explains evolution of altruism among individuals not related. May benefit animal to be altruistic if it benefits them later on
1.1.2.1. Alxelrod and Hamilton (1951) tested on humans using prisoner's dilema
1.1.3. Social
1.1.3.1. Limit: has some cognitive component rather than just biological
1.1.3.2. Lerner ad Lichtman (1968)- Their experiment was composed of individuals who were asked to work in pairs. One of the participants was a confederate.The participants were told that one of them would be the learner (they would be receiving electric shocks) and the other would be the controller. The participants were told to draw from a hat, but it was designed in a manner that would allow the confederate to always be the learner. When the confederate acted distressed, most of the true participants behaved altruistically and took over the role of the learner.
1.1.4. Cognitive: The empathy altruism model: we experience one of 2 types of emotions when we see someone suffering: 1. personal distress 2. empathy When there is an opportunity to help we may feel empathy, seep possible rewards for ourselves or decide to leave the situation. If we feel empathy for an individual we are going to help no matter what the cost If we do not we then consider the cost/ benefits of helping in making your decision and therefore egoistic motivation now becomes a factor.
1.2. Biological: Kin Selection Theory- A theory which predicts that the degree of altruism depends on the number of genes shared by individuals. The closer the relationship between the helper and those being helped, the greater the chance for altruistic behavior.
1.2.1. Sime (1983)- Analyzed accounts of how people fled from a burning building. Found that when individuals were with unrelated group members before exit, they tended to become separated; those with family members before exit tended to stay together. (Evidence for group survival and Kin Selection Theory.)
1.2.1.1. Strengths: Supported by extensive observations and documentation of occurrences.
1.2.1.2. Limits: - Doesn't explain why a smaller number of people help complete strangers. - Difficult (unethical) to test under controlled conditions. - Dawkins (1976), creator of the "selfish gene theory", assumes genes directly cause behavior; this assumption doesn't have adequate support.
2. Domestic Violence
2.1. Biological
2.1.1. Cohen (1998): found that young US males who were part of an urban street culture where honor was an issue had high levels of testosterone. Explained why they had hyper-responsiveness to insults in order to maintain respect and high level of hormone.
2.1.2. Low levels or serotonin leads to fast track anger- act now think later. Bernhardt (1997) suggest that the interaction of low levels of serotonin and high levels of testosterone result in aggression.
2.2. Cognitive
2.2.1. Schemas: individuals who have been subjected to abuse, social rejection, or violence by his or her peers are at risk for developing anti-social behavior. (Dodge et al. 1990)
2.2.2. Cultivation theory- media violence gives children a perspective the world is much more violent then it really is.. teaches them violence is normal and helps them develop scripts that problems can be solved through violenece
2.3. Social
2.3.1. Deindividuation theory
2.3.1.1. Rehm et al (1987): Investigated weather wearing a uniform when part of a sports team also increased aggressive behaviour. They found that children wearing their sports uniform consistently played more aggressively than the opposite team who we're wearing their own clothes.
2.3.1.2. Zimbardo: Carried out research that supports the link between deindividuation and aggression. He used groups of 4 female undergraduates and they were asked to give electric shocks to another student. They were told this was to 'aid learning'. Half of the participants were anonymous (wore a big hooded lab coat and no name) whereas the other half wore their own clothes and had a huge name tag. Both sets of participants could see the learner have electric shocks. Zimbardo found that the anonymous participants (deindividuation condition) shocked the learner for twice as long as the identifiable participants. This suggests that the anonymous participants entered a state of deindividuation and aggression increased suggesting that Zimbardo's explanation of aggression is correct.
2.4. Limits
2.4.1. Not one aspect is root cause mixture of all three
3. Attraction
3.1. Culture/ Social
3.1.1. Limits: Moghaddam (1993)- most theories and research is reflection of US culture and not enough cross cultural
3.1.2. Goodwin (1995)- passionate love is western --> culmination of loving culture. Arranged marriages is opposite
3.1.3. Gupta and Singh (1992)- couples who marry for love in India reported diminished feelings of love if they had been married for more than five years. Arranged marriages reported higher levels of love
3.1.4. Yelsma and Athappily (1990)- arranged marriages in India more satisfying than Indian/American love marriages
3.1.5. Wealth
3.1.5.1. Levine et al. (1995)- individualistic countries more likely to rate love as essential to marriage and agree that disappearance of love is sufficient to end marriage. Same w/ counties with large GDP
3.1.6. Study
3.1.6.1. Buss (1994)- Method: Questionare Aim: To gain understanding into mate selection Participants: Over 10 000 respondents from 37 cultures. Findings: In 36 out of 37 cultures, women ranked financial prospects as more important than males. In all 37, men preferred younger mates, while men preferred older mates. In 23 of the cultures, males rated chastity as being more important than women did. Conclusion: The degree of agreement in sex differences across cultures led Buss to view mate selection preferences as universal, arising from different evolutionary selection pressures on males and females.
3.2. Biological
3.2.1. Same Sex attraction (Zietsh et al.2008) evolutionary explanations of hompsexuality
3.2.1.1. (Deuaux and Hanna (1984) homosexual
3.3. Cognitive
3.3.1. Proxmity
3.3.1.1. Festinger et al (1950)- finds that 65% of pairs of university friends lie in same building; 44% live next door. As distance increases friendship decrease
3.3.1.2. Darley and Berscheid (1967)- liked women more they expected to talk to romantically then women they don't expect to talk to
4. Bullying
4.1. Social
4.1.1. Olweus (1972): Developed a whole-school programme for schools in Norway. In this programme, teachers are trained to recognize and deal with bullying; cooperative learning is used; head teachers ensure that lunchrooms and playgrounds are adequately supervised; and councellors conduct intensive therapy with bullies and their parents. An important part of the programme is for teachers and administrators to model non-aggressive conflict-resolution strategies in the classroom. The programme has reduced bullying by 50 %
4.1.2. Vreeman (2006): Found that bullying can be curbed, but that many common methods of dealing with the problem, such as classroom discussions, role-playing or detention, are ineffective. Whole-school interventions, involving teachers, administrators, and social-workers committed to culture change, are the most effectibe and are especially effective throughout highschool.
4.2. Cognitive
4.2.1. The empathy altruism model: we experience one of 2 types of emotions when we see someone suffering: 1. personal distress 2. empathy When there is an opportunity to help we may feel empathy, seep possible rewards for ourselves or decide to leave the situation. If we feel empathy for an individual we are going to help no matter what the cost If we do not we then consider the cost/ benefits of helping in making your decision and therefore egoistic motivation now becomes a factor.
4.2.2. Batson et al. (1981): Method: Experiment IV = Empathy level DV = Helping behavior or not Procedure: Students were asked to listen to tapes of an interview with an student named Carol. She talkeed about her car accident in which both her legs were broken. She talked about he struggles, and how far she had fallen behind at school. Students were each given a letter, asking them to meet with Carol and share lecture notes with her. The experimenters varied the level of empathy, telling one group to try to focus on how Carol was feeling (high empathy level) and the other group to not be concerned about her feelings (low empathy level). The experimenters also varied the cost of helping. The high-cost group were told that Carol would be in their psychology class when she returned to school. The low-cost group believed Carol would finish the class at home. Findings: The results confirmed the empathy-altruism hypothesis. Those in the high-empathy group were almost equally likely to help Carol in either se of circumstances, while the low-empathy group helped out of self-interest. Thinking about seeing her in class made the m feel guilty if they did not help her
4.3. Biological
4.3.1. Genetics- Eley et al. (1999): Aim: To study anti-social behavior Participants: 1500 pairs of British and Swedish twins Findings: identical twins were more likely than fraternal twins to show aggressive antisocial behavior and this was interpreted as an indication of the roles in genes in this behavior. Male identical twins and fraternal twins were just as likely to exhibit symptoms of non-aggressive antisocial behavior. This was taken as an indication that the environment plays a strong role. They also found that play with peers greatly influences the behaviour of both boys and girls and that this influence could be different for each memberof a twon pair. It is not possible to conclude that bullying is caused by genes, but this suggests that violent behavior could, to som
4.3.2. Raine et al. (1997): Aim: to discover if murderers who have pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI) show evidence of brain abnormalities Procedures: The study used PET scans to examine the brains of 41 people (39 males and 2 females) who were charged with murder and were pleading Not Guilty for Reasons of Insanity (NGRI), and compared them with 41 controls. Findings: In this study, compared to the controls, the NGRIs were found to have less activity in their prefrontal and parietal areas, more activity in their occipital areas, and no difference in their temporal areas Conclusion: Raine et al. argue that the difference in activity in the amygdala can be seen to support theories of violence that suggest it is due to unusual emotional responses such as lack of fear. The differences in corpus callosum activity between the NGRIs and the controls suggest this can be matched up to evidence of people with a severed corpus callosum which show they can have inappropriate emotional expression and an inability to grasp long-term implications of a situation.
4.3.3. Raine et al. (1997)