The Concepts of

UNIT 1 THE CONCEPT OF SOCIAL Social Influence

INFLUENCE
Structure

1.0 Introduction
1.1 Objectives
1.2 Current Research on Social Influence
1.2.1 Minority Influence
1.2.2 Persuasion
1.2.3 Elaboration Likelihood Model
1.2.4 Heuristic-systemic Models
1.2.5 Social Impact Theory
1.2.6 Social Influence Network Theory
1.2.7 Expectation States Theory
1.3 Areas of Social Influence
1.3.1 Conformity
1.3.1.1 Asch's (1951) Experiment on Conformity
1.3.1.2 Factors Found to Increasing Conformity
1.3.1.3 Informational Social Influence
1.3.1.4 Normative Social Influence
1.3.1.5 Minority Influence and Conformity
1.3.1.6 Gender and Conformity
1.3.2 Compliance
1.3.2.1 Principles Observed by Robort Cialdini
1.3.2.1.1 Reciprocation
1.3.2.1.2 Credibility
1.3.2.1.3 Liking/Friendship
1.3.2.1.4 Scarcity
1.3.2.1.5 Social Validation
1.3.2.1.6 Commitment
1.3.2.2 Four Compliance Strategies
1.3.2.2.1 Foot-in-the-door Technique
1.3.2.2.2 Door-in-the-face Technique
1.3.2.2.3 Low-Ball Technique
1.3.3 Obedience
1.3.3.1 Forms of Obedience
1.3.3.2 Cultural Attitudes to Obedience
1.3.3.3 Obedience Training of Human Beings
1.3.3.4 Experimental Studies of Human Obedience
1.3.3.4.1 The Stanford Prison Experiment
1.3.3.4.2 The Hofling Hospital Experiment
1.3.3.4.3 Factors That Increase Obedience
1.4 Let Us Sum Up
1.5 Unit End Questions
1.6 Suggested Reading and References

1.0 INTRODUCTION
Social influence is defined as change in an individual’s thoughts, feelings, attitudes,
or behaviours that results from interaction with another individual or group. It
refers to the change in behaviour that one person causes in another, intentionally
or unintentionally. As a result , the changed person perceives himself in relationship 5
Process of Social Influence to the influencer, other people and society in general. In this unit we will be dealing
with Current research on social influence, such as minority influence etc., areas of
social influence such as conformity with related experiments, compliance and its
factors, obedience and the related factors and experimental studies on human
obedience.

1.1 OBJECTIVES
After completion of this unit, you will be able to:

l Define Social influence;

l Differentiate between various types of Social influence;
l Analyse various factors associated with Conformity;
l Explain various factors affecting Compliance; and
l Describe the factors affecting Obedience.

1.2 CURRENT RESEARCH ON SOCIAL

INFLUENCE
Social influence can also be defined as the process by which individuals make real
changes to their feelings and behaviours as a result of interaction with others who
are perceived to be similar, desirable, or expert. People adjust their beliefs with
respect to others to whom they feel similar in accordance with psychological
principles such as balance. Individuals are also influenced by the majority: when
a large portion of an individual’s referent social group holds a particular attitude,
it is likely that the individual will adopt it as well. Additionally, individuals may
change an opinion under the influence of another who is perceived to be an expert
in the matter at hand. French and Raven (1959) provided an early formalisation
of the concept of social influence in their discussion of the bases of social power.
For French and Raven, agents of change included not just individuals and groups,
but also norms and roles. They viewed social influence as the outcome of the
exertion of social power from one of five bases: reward power, coercive power,
legitimate power, expert power, or referent power. A change in opinion or attitude
was considered an instance of social influence.

Since 1959, scholars have distinguished true social influence from forced public
acceptance and from changes based on reward or coercive power. Social
researchers are still concerned with public compliance, reward power, and coercive
power, but those concerns are differentiated from social influence studies.

Current research on social influence generally uses experimental methodology and

tends to fall into five main areas: (1) minority influence in group settings, (2)
research on persuasion, (3) dynamic social impact theory, (4) a structural approach
to social influence, and (5) social influence in expectation states theory. Each is
discussed below.

1.2.1 Minority Influence

Minority influence is said to occur when a minority subgroup attempts to change
the majority. For example, teachers often influence their students’ beliefs, and
6 political and religious leaders frequently influence the behaviour of their followers.
While some previous research has characterised the process of social influence The Concepts of
as the majority riding over the minority, many scholars interested in minority Social Influence
influence believe that every member of a group can influence others, at least to
some degree. Studies have found this to be particularly true when the minority
group is consistent in what it presents to the majority. In addition, the presence
of minority groups within a larger group often leads to more creative thinking and
better overall solutions on group tasks. Nemeth and Kwan (1987) demonstrated
this in a study of four-person groups working on a creativity task. Individuals
were given information that a majority 3 of 3 or a minority 1 of 3 of the other
group members had come up with a novel response to the task at hand. Those
who were in the minority condition actually produced more correct solutions to
the task, indicating the strong effect of minority viewpoints.

1.2.2 Persuasion
Current research on persuasion, broadly defined as change in attitudes or beliefs
based on information received from others, focuses on written or spoken messages
sent from source to recipient. This research operates on the assumption that
individuals process messages carefully whenever they are motivated and able to
do so. Two types of theories dominate modern persuasion research: the elaboration
likelihood model and heuristic-systemic models.

1.2.3 Elaboration Likelihood Model

The elaboration likelihood model developed by Cacioppo, Petty, and Stoltenberg
(1985) has been used most frequently in therapeutic and counseling settings. It
states that the amount and nature of thinking that a person does about a message
will affect the kind of persuasion that the message produces. Aspects of the
persuasion situation that have been shown to be important for this model include
source, message, recipient, affect, channel, and context. Of particular importance
is the degree to which the recipient views the message’s issue as relevant to
himself. This model has demonstrated its utility in persuading various people to
make various types of healthier choices e.g., cancer patients, teens at risk from
tobacco use.

1.2.4 Heuristic-systemic Models

Heuristic-systemic models propose that argument strength will be most effective
in persuading an individual when he is motivated and able to attend to the
message, the ‘‘systemic’’ route . When the target individual is not motivated or
is unable to attend carefully, persuasion will take place through more indirect
means, the ‘‘heuristic’’ route, such as nonverbal cues or source credibility.
Persuasion that takes place via the systemic route will be relatively permanent and
enduring; persuasion through the heuristic route is more likely to be temporary.

1.2.5 Social Impact Theory

Broader than persuasion, social impact theory, as developed primarily by Bibb
Latane (1981), forms the basis for an active line of inquiry today called dynamic
social impact theory. Social impact means any of the number of changes that
might occur in an individual (physiological, cognitive, emotional, or behavioural)
due to the presence or action of others, who are real, imagined, or implied.
7
Process of Social Influence Social impact theory proposes that the impact of any information source is a
function of three factors: (i) the number of others who make up that source, (ii)
their immediacy i.e., closeness, and their strength and (iii) salience or power.

Dynamic social impact theory uses ideas about social impact to describe and
predict the diffusion of beliefs through social systems. In this view, social structure
is the result of individuals influencing each other in a dynamic way. The likelihood
of being influenced by someone nearby, rather than far away, (the immediacy
factor) produces localised cultures of beliefs within communication networks.

This process can lead initially randomly distributed attitudes and beliefs to become
clustered or correlated , less popular beliefs become consolidated into minority
subcultures. Dynamic social impact theory views society as a self-organising
complex system in which individuals interact and impact each others’ beliefs.

Like dynamic social impact theory, the structural approach to social influence
examines interpersonal influence that occurs within a larger network of influences.
In this larger network, attitudes and opinions of individuals are reflections of the
attitudes and opinions of their referent others.

Interpersonal influence is seen as a basis of individuals’ socialisation and identity.

Social influence is seen as the process by which a group of actors will weigh and
then integrate the opinions of significant others within the context of social structural
constraints. The structure determines the initial positions of group members and
the network and weight of interpersonal influences within the group.

1.2.6 Social Influence Network Theory

Social influence network theory, as described by Friedkin (1998), has its roots
in work by social psychologists and mathematicians .The formal theory involves
a two- weighted averaging of influential opinions. Actors start out with their own
initial opinions on some matter. At each stage, then, actors form a ‘‘norm’’ opinion
which is a weighted average of the other opinions in the group. Actors then
modify their own opinion in response to this norm, forming a new opinion which
is a weighted average of their initial opinion and the network norm. This theory
utilises mathematical models and quantifications to measure the process of social
influence.

1.2.7 Expectation States Theory

Expectation states theory provides another formal treatment of social influence.
Rooted in the work of Bales (1950), which found inequalities in the amount of
influence group members had over one another . Researchers in this tradition
have developed systematic models predicting the relative influence of task-oriented
actors in group settings. Bales discovered that even when group members were
equal on status at the beginning of the group session, some members would end
up being more influential than others.

The group would develop a hierarchy based on the behaviour of the group
members. When group members were initially unequal in status, inequalities would
be imported to the group from the larger society such that, for example, age or
sex or race would structure a hierarchy of influence.

8 Expectation states theory, as described in Berger et al. (1980), was originally

proposed as an explanation for Bales’s finding that groups of status equals would The Concepts of
develop inequalities in influence. According to the theory, group members develop Social Influence
expectations about the future task performance of all group members, including
themselves. Once developed, these expectations guide the group interaction. In
fact, expectations both guide and are maintained by the interaction. Those group
members for whom the highest expectations are held will be the most influential
in the group’s interactions.. Scholars are continuing to expand the theory both
theoretically and substantively.

1.3 AREAS OF SOCIAL INFLUENCE

Three areas of social influence are conformity, compliance and obedience.
Conformity is changing how you behave to be more like others. This plays to
belonging and esteem needs as we seek the approval and friendship of others.
Conformity can run very deep, as we will even change our beliefs and values to
be like those of our peers and admired superiors.

Compliance is where a person does something that they are asked to do by

another. They may choose to comply or not to comply, although the thoughts of
social reward and punishment may lead them to compliance when they really do
not want to comply. Obedience is different from compliance in that it is obeying
an order from someone that you accept as an authority figure. In compliance, you
have some choice. In obedience, you believe that you do not have a choice.
Many military officers and commercial managers are interested only in obedience.

1.3.1 Conformity
Conformity is the process by which an individual’s attitudes, beliefs, and behaviours
are conditioned by what is conceived to be what other people might perceive.
This influence occurs in both small groups and society as a whole, and it may be
the result of subtle unconscious influences, or direct and overt social pressure.
Conformity also occurs by the “implied presence” of others, or when other people
are not actually present. For example, people tend to follow the norms of society
when eating or watching television, even when they are at home by themselves.
People often conform from a desire to achieve a sense of security within a
group—typically a group that is of a similar age, culture, religion, or educational
status.

Any unwillingness to conform carries with it the very real risk of social rejection.
In this respect, conformity can be seen as a safe means of avoiding bullying or
deflecting criticism from peers. Conformity is often associated with adolescence
and youth culture, but it affects humans of all ages. Although peer pressure may
be viewed as a negative trait, conformity can have either good or bad effects
depending on the situation. Driving safely on the correct side of the road is a
beneficial example of conformity. Conformity influences the formation and
maintenance of social norms and allows society to function smoothly and predictably.
Because conformity is a group phenomenon, such factors as group size, unanimity,
cohesion, status, prior commitment, and public opinion all help to determine the
level of conformity an individual will display (Aronson, et.al. (2007).

1.3.1.1 Asch’s (1951) Experiment on Conformity

Perhaps the most influential study of conformity came from Solomon E. Asch 9
Process of Social Influence (1951). Asch gave groups of seven or nine college students what appeared to be
a test of perceptual judgment: matching the length of a line segment to comparison
lines. Each subject saw a pair of cards set up in front of the room, similar to the
ones that follow.

Stimuli like those used by Asch

Subjects received the following instructions:

This is a task involving the discrimination of lengths of lines. Before you is a pair
of cards. On the left is a card with one line. The card at the right has three lines
different in length; they are numbered 1, 2 and 3, in order. One of the three lines
at the right is equal to the standard line at the left-you will decide in each case
which is the equal line. You will state your judgment in terms of the number of the
line. There will be 18 such comparisons in all... As the number of comparisons
is few and the group small, I will call upon each of you in turn to announce your
judgments.

In a group of nine, eight subjects were actually confederates of the experimenter.

The experiment was designed so that the genuine subject was called upon
next-to-last in the group. The experimenter’s confederates had been instructed,
in advance, to make deliberately ridiculous judgments on many of the trials, but
to agree unanimously with one another. On 12 of the 18 trials, they said in loud
voices (for example) that the 4½" line was exactly equal to 3" standard line. The
pressure of the group had a dramatic effect. Although people could pick the
correct line 99% of the time when making the judgments by themselves, they went
along with the erroneous group judgment 75% of the time, even when it was
plainly wrong.

The conforming subjects did not fool themselves into thinking the wrong line was
equal to the standard line. They could see the difference. However, they were
influenced by eight people in a row making the “wrong” decision. Asked later why
they had made such obviously incorrect judgments, subjects reported, “They must
have been looking at line widths” or “I assumed it was an optical illusion” or “If
eight out of nine people made the same choice, I must have missed something in
the instructions.”

Asch obtained the conformity effect even when the confederate declared an
eleven-inch line to be equivalent to a four-inch standard. He found that small
groups-even groups of three, containing two confederates and one naïve subject-
were sufficient to induce the effect.

10
About a quarter of the subjects remained independent throughout the testing and The Concepts of
never changed their judgments to fit those of the group. One could argue that Social Influence
Asch’s experiment showed stubborn independence in some people, just as it
showed conformity in others. A subject who did not conform reported to Asch
later:

I’ve never had any feeling that there was any virtue in being like others. I’m used
to being different. I often come out well by being different. I don’t like easy group
opinions.

Asch later tested the effect of having a dissenter in the group. He found that if
only one of seven confederates disagreed with the group decision, this was enough
to free most subjects from the conformity effect. However, if the dissenter defected
later, joining the majority after the first five trials, rates of conformity increased
again. The public nature of the judgment also seemed to have an effect. If subjects
were invited to write their responses in private, while the majority made oral
responses, this destroyed the conformity effect.

1.3.1.2 Factors Found to Increase Conformity

Asch’s experiment inspired a lot of follow-up research by other experimenters.

Factors found to increase conformity included the following:

1) Attractiveness of other members in the group . People tended to go along with

a group of attractive people.

2) Complexity or difficulty of the task . People were more likely to conform if the
judgment was difficult.

3) Group cohesiveness. People conformed more if friendships or mutual

dependencies were set up beforehand .

To appreciate further the nature of this dilemma, let us imagine an introductory

lecture in psychology. The instructor is describing the Asch study and has just
shown a picture of the experimental stimuli. Suddenly he is interrupted by a
student who remarks, “But line A is the correct answer...” Predictably, the class
would laugh aloud and thereby communicate their enjoyment of their peer’s joke.
Suppose, however, that the dissenter failed to smile or to otherwise confirm that
he was trying to be funny. Suppose, instead, that he insisted, “Why are you all
laughing at me? I can see perfectly, and line A is correct.” Once convinced of the
dissenter’s sincerity, the class response almost certainly would be a mixture of
discomfort, bewilderment, concern, and doubt about the dissenter’s mental and
perceptual competence. It is this response that the Asch dissenters risked and,
accordingly, it is not surprising that many chose to avoid it through conformity.

Was the Asch conformity effect possibly due to the era in which it was carried
out? After all, the early 1950s were famous for emphasising conformity, such as
the “corporate man” who did everything possible to eliminate his individuality and
fit into a business setting. To see if the same experiment would work with a later
generation of subjects, NBC news had social psychologist Anthony Pratkanis
replicate the Asch experiment in front of a hidden camera for its Dateline show
in 1997. Sure enough, the experiment still worked, and the percentage of
conformists was almost identical to what Asch found. Most students, even some
who looked creative or rebellious on the outside, went along with obviously 11
Process of Social Influence incorrect group judgments. Later they explained that they did not want to look
foolish, so they just “caved in.”

Research in has focused primarily on two main varieties of conformity. These are
informational conformity, or informational social influence, and normative
conformity, otherwise known as normative social influence.

1.3.1.3 Informational Social Influence

Informational social influence occurs when one turns to the members of one’s
group to obtain accurate information. A person is most likely to use informational
social influence in three situations: When a situation is ambiguous, people become
uncertain about what to do. They are more likely to depend on others for the
answer. During a crisis when immediate action is necessary, in spite of panic.
Looking to other people can help ease fears, but unfortunately they are not
always right. The more knowledgeable a person is, the more valuable they are as
a resource. Thus people often turn to experts for help. But once again people
must be careful, as experts can make mistakes too. Informational social influence
often results in internalisation or private acceptance, where a person genuinely
believes that the information is right. Informational social influence was first
documented in Muzafer Sherif’s autokinetic experiment (Sherif, M., 1936). He
was interested in how many people change their opinions to bring them in line with
the opinion of a group. Participants were placed in a dark room and asked to
stare at a small dot of light 15 feet away. They were then asked to estimate the
amount it moved. The trick was there was no movement, it was caused by a
visual illusion known as the autokinetic effect. Every person perceived different
amounts of movement. Over time, the same estimate was agreed on and others
conformed to it. Sherif suggested that this was a simulation for how social norms
develop in a society, providing a common frame of reference for people.

Subsequent experiments were based on more realistic situations. In an eyewitness

identification task, participants were shown a suspect individually and then in a
lineup of other suspects. They were given one second to identify him, making it
a difficult task.

One group was told that their input was very important and would be used by
the legal community. To the other it was simply a trial. Being more motivated to
get the right answer increased the tendency to conform.

Those who wanted to be most accurate conformed 51% of the time as opposed
to 35% in the other group (Baron, 1996). Economists have suggested that fads
and trends in society form as the result of individuals making rational choices
based on information received from others. These information form quickly as
people decide to ignore their internal signals and go along with what other people
are doing.

1.3.1.4 Normative social influence

Normative social influence occurs when one conforms to be liked or accepted by

the members of the group. It usually results in public compliance, doing or saying
something without believing in it. Asch was the first psychologist to study this
phenomenon in the laboratory. As mentioned earlier, He conducted a modification
of Sherif’s study, assuming that when the situation was very clear, conformity
12 would be drastically reduced. He exposed people in a group to a series of lines,
and the participants were asked to match one line with a standard line.
All participants except one were secretly told to give the wrong answer in 12 of The Concepts of
the 18 trials. The results showed a surprisingly high degree of conformity. 76% Social Influence
of the participants conformed on at least one trial. On average people conformed
one third of the time.

However, in a reinterpretation of the original data from these experiments Hodges

and Geyer (2006) found that Asch’s subjects were not so conformist after all. The
experiments provide powerful evidence for people’s tendency to tell the truth
even when others do not. Also, there are multiple moral claims which include the
need for participants to care for the integrity and well-being of other participants,
the experimenter, themselves, and the worth of scientific research.

Normative influence is a function of social impact theory which has three

components. The number of people in the group has a surprising effect. As the
number increases, each person has less of an impact. A group’s strength is how
important the group is to a person. Groups we value generally have more social
influence. Immediacy is how close the group is in time and space when the
influence is taking place. Psychologists have constructed a mathematical model
using these three factors and are able to predict the amount of conformity that
occurs with some degree of accuracy.

Baron and his colleagues conducted a second “eyewitness study”, this time focusing
on normative influence (Baron, 1996). In this version, the task was made easier.
Each participant was given five seconds to look at a slide, instead of just one
second. Once again there were both high and low motives to be accurate, but the
results were the reverse of the first study. The low motivation group conformed
33% of the time (similar to Asch’s findings). The high motivation group conformed
less at 16%.

These results show that when accuracy is not very important, it is better to get
the wrong answer than to risk social disapproval.

An experiment using procedures similar to Asch’s found that there was significantly
less conformity in six-person groups of friends as compared to six-person groups
of strangers. Because friends already know and accept each other, there may be
less normative pressure to conform in some situations. Field studies on cigarette
and alcohol abuse, however, generally demonstrate evidence of friends exerting
normative social influence on each other.

1.3.1.5 Minority Influence and Conformity

Although conformity generally leads individuals to think and act more like groups,
individuals are occasionally able to reverse this tendency and change the people
around them. This is known as minority influence, a special case of informational
influence.

Minority influence is most likely when people are able to make a clear and
consistent case for their point of view. If the minority fluctuates and shows
uncertainty, the chance of influence is small. However, if the minority makes a
strong, convincing case, it will increase the probability of changing the beliefs and
behaviour of the majority.

Minority members who are perceived as experts, are high in status, or have
benefited the group in the past are also more likely to succeed. Another form of
13
Process of Social Influence minority influence can sometimes override conformity effects and lead to unhealthy
group dynamics. By creating negative emotional climate that interferes with healthy
group functioning. They can be avoided by careful selection procedures and
managed by reassigning them to positions that require less social interaction.

1.3.1.6 Gender and Conformity

Societal norms often establish gender differences. In general, this is the case for
social conformity, as females are more likely to conform than males (Reitan &
Shaw, 1964).

There are differences in the way men and women conform to social influence.
Social psychologists, Alice Eagly and Linda Carli performed a meta-analysis of
148 studies of influenceability. They found that women are more persuasible and
more conforming than men in group pressure situations that involve surveillance.
In situations not involving surveillance, women are less likely to conform.

In a study by Sistrunk and McDavid at a private university, a public junior college,

and at a high school, overall, females were more susceptible to social pressures
than males. In fact, females conformed more than males 3 out of 4 times when
they were presented masculine questions. Males conformed more than females 2
out of 4 times when they were presented feminine questions.

The composition of the group plays a role in conformity as well. In a study by

Reitan and Shaw, it was found that men and women conformed more when there
were participants of both sexes involved versus participants of the same sex.
Subjects in the groups with both sexes were more apprehensive when there was
a discrepancy amongst group members, and thus the subjects reported that they
doubted their own judgments. (Reitan & Shaw, 1964).

Normative social influence explains women’s attempt to create the ideal body
through dieting, and also by eating disorders such as anorexia nervosa and bulimia.
Men, in contrast, are likely to pursue their ideal body image through dieting,
steroids, and overworking their bodies, rather than developing eating disorders.
Both men and women probably learn what kind of body is considered attractive
by their culture through the process of informational social influence.

Self Assessment Questions

1) What are the current research in social influence?

................................................................................................................

...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................

2) What kind of studies have been conducted to understand minority influence?

...............................................................................................................

...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
14 ...............................................................................................................
 The Concepts of
3) Give with suitable examples some of the studies conucted in persuation.
Social Influence

...............................................................................................................

...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................

4) Discuss elaboration likelihood and heuristic systemic models in regard to

social influence.

...............................................................................................................

...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................

5) What do you understand by social impact theory and how it has contributed
to understading social influence?

...............................................................................................................

...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................

6) Discuss social influence network theory and the expectation states theory of
social influence.

...............................................................................................................

...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................

7) Discuss the various areas of social influence .

...............................................................................................................

...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................

8) Put forward the experiment by Asch on conformity and indicate its significance
for social influence.

...............................................................................................................

...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
............................................................................................................... 15
Process of Social Influence 1.3.2 Compliance
In psychology, compliance refers to the act of responding favourably to an explicit
or implicit request offered by others. The request may be explicit, such as a direct
request for donations, or implicit, such as an advertisement promoting its products
without directly asking for purchase. In all cases, the target recognises that he or
she is being urged to respond in a desired way. To study the compliance professions
from the inside, Cialdini (2001) joined training programs of a different compliance
professions (sales, advertising, public relations, etc.) and started the participant
observation. He found that some principles are commonly used to increase the
probability of successful compliance, including reciprocation, credibility, liking/
friendship, scarcity and social validation.

1.3.2.1 Principles Observed by Robert Cialdini

The principles observed by Cialdini include (i) reciprocation, (ii) credibility (iii)
Liking / friendship (iv) Scarcity (v) Social validation and (vi) Commitment.

1.3.2.1.1 Reciprocation

Based on the social norm “treat others as you would expect to be treated”, when
someone does us a favour, it creates an obligation to accept any reasonable
requests he or she might make in return. We feel a motivation to reciprocate. For
instance if someone does something for you (such as giving you a compliment),
then you feel more obligated to do something for them (buy a product they may
be offering). Failing to respond leads to violation of our obligation to reciprocate
and bears the risk of social sanction. Guilt arousal produces an increase in
compliance. People who are induced to guilt are more likely to comply with a
request such as making a phone call to save native trees or donating blood
(Darlinton, & Macker, 1966).

Research findings supports in that this can be demonstrated by experiment.

Participants acted as subjects to answer questions under two conditions. When
they answered wrongly, participants acted as shock administrator and delivered
shock in condition A . When participants acted as witness, witnessing subjects
being shocked in condition B. After a few trials, requests for making calls were
made. Results showed that participants in condition A were more likely to comply
with the requests by making many more calls (39 calls) than those in condition
B (6.5 calls). It is because participants in condition A comply with the requests
in order to ward off their guilty feeling.

1.3.2.1.2 Credibility

The source of requests will also affect whether we comply or not. If the source
is an expert, with knowledge, abilities or skills, i.e. more credible, we would
respect the request more and would be more likely to comply. This principle is
used as a marketing strategy, where they put on white lab coats which, from a
consumer’s point of view, will symbolise authority.

One of the experiments conducted in this regard invited five hundred university
students to join the study about their opinion of sleep. In the first stage, students
gave their opinion on the optimum length of sleep and the average result was
about eight hours. Then, students received advice from two sources, one was a
16 physiologist who had won a Nobel Prize before and was a specialist on sleep
research; the other one was a YMCA instructor.
Clearly, the former one represented a more credible source while the latter one The Concepts of
represented a less credible source. Two experts varied their answer about the Social Influence
number of sleeping hours needed every day from eight to zero. Therefore, the
discrepancy between the student’s answer and the expert’s answer increased
from zero to eight.

After consulting the experts, students were asked to give their opinion again about
the number of sleeping hours. When the experts’ opinion was different from that
of students, students were more likely to change their own answers after they got
the advice from the physiologist (more credible source) than from the YMCA
instructor (less credible source). Therefore, a high credibility source makes people
more likely to comply. This may explain why advertisements nowadays always
quote experts’ opinion or construct a sense of expertise by showing a professional
figure.

1.3.2.1.3 Liking/Friendship

People are more likely to say yes to those they know and like because of the
Social Exchange Theory, which states that human relationships are formed by
using a subjective cost-benefit analysis and the comparison of alternatives. Thus,
complying with a person we like certainly is more favourable. This principle is
used by salesmen all over the world. The principle of liking is common within
neighbourhoods, neighbours selling and buying things from each other. When you
feel that you trust a person you feel more obliged to buy the thing that they’re
selling.

In an experiment conducted by Dennis (2006), 115 female and 94 male

undergraduate students were requested to complete a questionnaire asking them
the degree of intimacy with their partners. Besides, participants were also asked
to consider 32 behavioural change messages e.g. smoking cessation, safe sex
practice, etc. as if these were delivered to them by their partners and to estimate
their effectiveness on a 5-point scale.

The result showed that higher levels of intimacy within romantic relationships are
significantly and positively correlated with the estimated success of appeals targeted
at health-related behavioural motivations.

1.3.2.1.4 Scarcity

The scarcity effect refers to the influence of perceived scarcity on the subjective
desirability of an object. Individuals do not want to be left alone without an item.
A consumer often infers value in a product that has limited availability or is
promoted as being scarce. The idea of “Limited edition” which can be seen all
over the world is based on the principle of scarcity. When we see that an object
is limited we feel the urge to buy them in order to not be left out. This also relates
to the key explanation to one of the fundamental concepts in economics “Supply
and Demand”.

A classical experiment was done by Worchel et al. (1975). Jars of chocolate chip
cookies were shown to the subjects who were then asked to rate ‘how much do
you like the cookies’, ‘how attractive the cookies are’ and ‘how much would you
pay for the cookies’.

Results found that the rating of liking, attractiveness and cost paid were significantly
17
Process of Social Influence higher in the scarcity condition in which there were only 2 cookies in the jar than
in the abundant condition with 10 cookies in the jar. Therefore, suggesting that the
product is scarce or in limited supply is an effective selling method. People are
more likely to comply with the salesmen’s persuasion and buy the limited edition
products as they value more on scarce products.

1.3.2.1.5 Social Validation

Social Validation, also called “Principle of Conformity and Consensus”, in

compliance is a phenomenon in which people are more willing to take a
recommended step if they see evidence that many others, especially similar others,
are taking it. The human need to fit in is very strong and tends to make us comply
in order to be a part of the majority.

Schultz (1999) had conducted a “Field Experiment on Curbside Recycling” to

observe participants’ curbside recycling behaviours for 17 weeks with different
interventions. In the experiment, 5 conditions namely, ‘plea’, ‘plea plus information’,
‘plea plus neighbourhood feedback’, ‘plea plus individual household feedback’,
or the control condition are observed.

Among these conditions, the ‘Plea plus neighborhood feedback’ condition in

which subjects receive the total amount of each material collected for the duration
of the study and the percentage of households participated that week , shows the
most long lasting participation during post-intervention. This unveils the underlying
strong influence of social validation in compliance.

On business front, manufacturers often persuade purchase by claiming that their

products are the fastest growing or best selling in the market. Cialdini (2001) has
pointed out that this strategy of enhancing compliance by providing information of
others who had already complied was the most widely used principle he
encountered.

1.3.2.1.6 Commitment

Commitment to a store or a company induced by loyalty cards or bonuses can

make it harder for a person to change where they shop or what they purchase.

1.3.2.2 Four Compliance Strategies

Compliance is known to be enhanced by a number of situational manipulations

such as:

l Foot-in-the-door technique
l Door-in-the-face technique
l Low-Ball
l Ingratiation

1.3.2.2.1 Foot-in-the-door technique

Foot-in-the-door technique (FITD) is a compliance tactic that involves getting a

person to agree to a large request by first setting them up by having that person
agreeing to a modest request.

18 In a study, a team of psychologists telephoned housewives in California and asked

if the women would answer a few questions about the household products they The Concepts of
used. Three days later, the psychologists called again. This time, they asked if they Social Influence
could send five or six men into the house to go through cupboards and storage
places as part of a 2-hr enumeration of household products. The investigators
found these women were more than twice as likely to agree to the 2-hr request
as a group of housewives asked only the larger request. Numerous experiments
have shown that foot-in-the-door tactics work well in persuading people to comply,
especially if the request is a pro-social request. Research has shown that FITD
techniques work over the computer via email, in addition to face-to-face requests.

Examples

“Can I go over to Sita’s house for an hour?” followed by “Can I stay the
night?”

“Can I borrow the car for 1 day?” followed by “Can I borrow the car for
the weekend?”

“Would you sign this petition for our cause?” followed by “Would you donate
to our cause?”

“May I re turn the maggine a few hours late?” followed by “May I re turn
it in next week?”

1.3.2.2.2 Door-in-the-face technique

The door-in-the-face (DITF) technique is a persuasion method. Compliance with

the request of concern is enhanced by first making an extremely large request that
the respondent will obviously turn down, with a metaphorical slamming of a door
in the persuader’s face. The respondent is then more likely to accede to a second,
more reasonable request than if this second request were made without the first,
extreme request. Cialdini (Cialdini, 2001) suggests that this is a form of reciprocity,
e.g. the [induced] sharp negative response to the first request creates a sense of
debt or guilt that the second request offers to clear. Alternately, a reference point
(or framing) construal may explain this phenomenon, as the initial bad offer sets
a reference point from which the second offer looks like an improvement.

One of the classic experiments to test the door in the face technique is where
Cialdini asked students to volunteer to counsel juvenile delinquents for two hours
a week for two years. After their refusal, they were asked to chaperone juvenile
delinquents on a one-day trip to the zoo. 50% agreed to chaperone the trip to
the zoo as compared to 17% of participants who only received the zoo request.

Examples

Other examples of the door-in-the-face technique include:

“Will you donate Rs.1000 to our organization?” [Response is no].

“Oh. Well, could you donate Rs.10 ?”

“Can you help me do all this work?”

“Well, can you help me with this bit?”

1.3.2.2.3 Low-Ball Technique

19
Process of Social Influence The low-ball is a persuasion and selling technique in which an item or service is
offered at a lower price than is actually intended to be charged, after which the
price is raised to increase profits.

A successful low-ball relies on the balance of making the initial request attractive
enough to gain agreement, whilst not making the second request so outrageous
that the customer refuses.

First propose an attractive price on an idea/item which you are confident that the
other person/buyer will accept.

Maximise their buy-in, in particular by getting both verbal and public commitment
to this, e.g. down payment or hand-shaking. Make it clear that the decision to
purchase is from their own free will.

Change the agreement to what you really want. The person/buyer may complain,
but they should agree to the change if the low-ball is managed correctly.

The experimenters asked students to participate in an experiment. 56% agreed,

before being told that the experiment started at 7am. They then told the volunteers
that the study was scheduled at 7am, and the volunteers could withdraw if they
wished. None did so, and 95% turned up at the scheduled time (the Low-Ball
group). When a control group were asked to participate and were told the
unsocial timing of the experiment up front, only 24% agreed to participate.

Self Assessment Questions

1) In regard to Compliance, what are principles observed by Cialdini? Support

your arguments with research findings.

...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................

2) What is credibility? Discuss credibilioty factor as influencing compliance.

Give evidence in terms of research findings.

...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................

3) How does liking or friendship affect a person’s compliance? Give suitable

evidences and examples.

...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
20
 The Concepts of
4) What is meant by scarcity factor? How does it contribute to compliance? Social Influence

...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................

5) Describe and discuss each of the four compliance strategies. FIDT, DIFT,
LBT

...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................

1.3.3 Obedience
Obedience is a form of social influence where an individual acts in response
to a direct order from another individual, who is usually an authority figure.
It is assumed that without such an order the person would not have acted in this
way. Obedience occurs when you are told to do something (authority), whereas
conformity happens through social pressure (the norms of the majority). Obedience
involves a hierarchy of power/status.

Therefore, the person giving the order has a higher status than the person receiving
the order. Obedience is the act of obeying orders from others.

As humans we are indoctrinated to obey authority figures. This training begins

from the moment of birth as we are reliant on our parents to take care of our
every need, in turn being subservient to our authority figure or parents. As we
begin to mature and are thrust into society we obtain more influential authority
figures from outside the household.

Schools have a system of order and authority. Teachers give us guidance and
direction academically and even socially because we begin to learn how to act in
a group or societal setting. The school environment is all a preparation for careers.

When we begin working most of us work for a company or organisation with all
levels of management who we must be obedient to. As we mature we are given
more and more responsibility over our actions and judgments, thus making it more
beneficial to our societal advancement to be obedient. Stanley Milgram, a famous
social psychologist, performs a number of experiments on human obedience in the
1960’s.

Obedience, in human behaviour, is the quality of being obedient, which describes

the act of carrying out commands, or being actuated. Obedience differs from
compliance, which is behaviour influenced by peers, and from conformity, which
is behaviour intended to match that of the majority. Humans have been shown to
be surprisingly obedient in the presence of perceived legitimate authority figures,
as demonstrated by the Milgram experiment in the 1960s, which was carried out
by Stanley Milgram to discover how the Nazis managed to get ordinary people
21
Process of Social Influence to take part in the mass murders of the Holocaust. The experiment showed that
obedience to authority was the norm, not the exception

1.3.3.1 Forms of Obedience

Obedience is the tendency to follow orders given by an authority figure. This can
be explained by Milgram’s Agency Theory, which states that we are in either one
of two states. Forms of human obedience include:

l obedience to laws;
l obedience to social norms;
l obedience to a monarch, government, organisation, religion, or church;
l obedience to God;
l obedience to self-imposed constraints, such as a vow of chastity;
l obedience of a spouse or child to a husband/wife or parent respectively;
l obedience to management in the workplace.

1.3.3.2 Cultural Attitudes to Obedience

Obedience is regarded as a virtue in many traditional cultures; historically, children

have been expected to be obedient to their elders, slaves to their owners, serfs
to their lords in feudal society, lords to their king, and everyone to God. Even long
after slavery ended in the United States, the Black codes required black people
to obey and submit to whites, on pain of lynching.

In some Christian weddings, obedience was formally included along with honor
and love as part of a conventional bride’s (but not the bridegroom’s) wedding
vow. This came under attack with women’s suffrage and the feminist movement.
Today its inclusion in marriage vows is optional in some denominations.

As the middle classes have gained political power, the power of authority has
been progressively eroded, with the introduction of democracy as a major turning
point in attitudes to obedience and authority.

Since the democides and genocides of the First World War and Second World
War periods, obedience has come to be regarded as a far less desirable quality
in Western cultures. The civil rights and protest movements in the second half of
the twentieth century marked a remarkable reduction in respect for authority in
Western cultures, and greater respect for individual ethical judgment as a basis for
moral decisions.

1.3.3.3 Obedience Training of Human Beings

Some animals can easily be trained to be obedient by employing operant

conditioning, for example obedience schools exist to condition dogs into obeying
the orders of human owners. Obedience training seems to be particularly effective
on social animals a category that includes human beings; other animals do not
respond well to such training.

Learning to obey adult rules is a major part of the socialisation process in childhood,
and many techniques are used by adults to modify the behaviour of children.
22 Additionally, extensive training is given in armies to make soldiers capable of
obeying orders in situations where an untrained person would not be willing to The Concepts of
Social Influence
follow orders. Soldiers are initially ordered to do seemingly trivial things, such as
picking up the sergeant’s hat off the floor, marching in just the right position, or
marching and standing in formation. The orders gradually become more demanding,
until an order to the soldiers to place themselves into the midst of gunfire gets a
knee-jerk obedient response.

1.3.3.4 Experimental Studies of Human Obedience

Obedience has been extensively studied by psychologists since the Second World
War — the Milgram Experiment and the Stanford Prison Experiment are the most
commonly cited experimental studies of human obedience, while the Hofling hospital
experiment was an early field experiment (Hofling CK et al., 1966)

The Milgram experiments, the first of which was carried out in 1961, were the
earliest investigations of the power of authority figures as well as the lengths to
which participants would go as a result of their influence. Milgram’s results showed
that, contrary to expectations, a majority of civilian volunteers would obey orders
to apply electric shocks to another person until they were unconscious or dead.
Prior to these experiments, most of Milgram’s colleagues had predicted that only
sadists would be willing to follow the experiment to their conclusion.

Obedience is a basic human trait and is a deeply ingrained behaviour. Some form
of obedience is a requirement for function in modern society. The Milgram shock
experiment proves these characteristics. The experiments first took place at Yale
University and eventually involved over one thousand participants from all walks
of life.

Two individuals were to enter a psychology laboratory and take part in a study
of memory and learning. One of them was to be the teacher and the other the
student. The student was instructed to learn a list of word pairs and whenever the
student made a mistake would receive an electric shock of increasing intensity.
However the focus of the experiment is the teacher. The teacher watches the
student being strapped into place and then taken to a shock generator. The shock
generator features switches ranging from 15 to 450 volts in 15 volt increments.
If the student gets the answer correct the teacher is to move on to the next
problem. If the answer is wrong the teacher is to shock the student beginning with
15 volts.

The teacher, being the focus of the experiment, does not know that the student
is not really being shocked and that the student is really an actor. Each time the
student answers incorrectly and is shocked, he pretends to be shocked. As the
teacher watches the student being tortured by the electric shocks, he continues
to follow the orders he was instructed. The experiment proves that obedience is
something humans teach one another and follow through with.

Milgram thinks the problems lies in the structure of society, people are just
following orders of superiors and are not directly responsible for his or her
actions.

Also, Milgram himself had already conducted several studies, which had shown
that obedience tended to increase with the prestige of the authority figure. In these
studies, an undergraduate research assistant posing as a Yale professor had a
much greater influence than did someone of lesser status, regardless of the prestige 23
of the institution in which the study was based.
Process of Social Influence 1.3.3.4.1 The Stanford Prison Experiment

Unlike the Milgram experiment, which studied the obedience of individuals, the
1971 Stanford prison experiment studied the behaviour of people in groups, and
in particular the willingness of people to obey orders and adopt abusive roles in
a situation where they were placed in the position of being submissive or dominant
by a higher authority.

In the experiment, a group of volunteers was divided into two groups and placed
in a “prison,” with one group in the position of playing prison guards, and other
group in the position of “prisoners”.

In this case, the experimenters acted as authority figures at the start of the
experiment, but then delegated responsibility to the “guards,” who enthusiastically
followed the experimenters’ instructions, and in turn assumed the roles of abusive
authority figures, eventually going far beyond the experimenters’ original instruction
in their efforts to dominate and brutalize the “prisoners.” At the same time, the
prisoners adopted a submissive role with regard to their tormentors, even though
they knew that they were in an experiment, and that their «captors» were other
volunteers, with no actual authority other than that being role-played in the
experiment.

The Stanford experiment demonstrated not only obedience (of the “guards” to the
experimenters, and the “prisoners” to both the guards and experimenters), but
also high levels of compliance and conformity.

1.3.3.4.2 The Hofling Hospital Experiment

Both the Milgram and Stanford experiments were conducted in experimental

circumstances. In 1966, psychiatrist Charles K. Hofling published the results of
a field experiment on obedience in the nurse-physician relationship in its natural
hospital setting. Nurses, unaware they were taking part in an experiment, were
ordered by unknown doctors to administer dangerous doses of a (fictional) drug
to their patients. Although several hospital rules disallowed administering the drug
under the circumstances, 21 out of the 22 nurses would have given the patient an
overdose of medicine.

1.3.3.4.3 Factors that Increase Obedience

Milgram found that subjects were more likely to obey in some circumstances than
others. Obedience was highest when:

l Commands were given by an authority figure rather than another volunteer

l The experiments were done at a prestigious institution
l The authority figure was present in the room with the subject
l The learner was in another room
l The subject did not see other subjects disobeying commands

In everyday situations, people obey orders because they want to get rewards,
because they want to avoid the negative consequences of disobeying, and because
they believe an authority is legitimate. In more extreme situations, people obey
even when they are required to violate their own values or commit crimes.
24 Researchers think several factors cause people to carry obedience to extremes:
People justify their behaviour by assigning responsibility to the authority rather The Concepts of
than themselves. Social Influence

People define the behaviour that’s expected of them as routine.

People don’t want to be rude or offend the authority.

People obey easy commands first and then feel compelled to obey more and
more difficult commands. This process is called entrapment, and it illustrates the
foot-in-the-door phenomenon.

Stanley Milgram has pointed out a human characteristic that may very well be in
each and every one of us. These experiments show us that ordinary people will
go to any length to be subservient to an authority figure, no matter the moral
dilemma. Only when we can differentiate between being a good subject and
having good morals will we be able to make a distinction between being obedient
and committing crimes by our own individual actions.

Self Assessment Questions

1) What are the various forms of obedience?

...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................

2) How are humans trained to obey?

...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................

3) What factors influence obedience? Put forward experimental studies on

humans in regard to obedience.

...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................

4) Describe the Milgram experiment . What did you learn from it in regard to
obedience?

...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................

25
Process of Social Influence
5) What factors increase obedience?

...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................

1.4 LET US SUM UP

Social influence is the change in behaviour that one person causes in another,
intentionally or unintentionally, as a result of the way the changed person perceives
themselves in relationship to the influencer, other people and society in general.
Social influence can also be defined as the process by which individuals make real
changes to their feelings and behaviours as a result of interaction with others who
are perceived to be similar, desirable, or expert. Three areas of social influence
are conformity, compliance and obedience. Conformity is changing how you
behave to be more like others. This plays to belonging and esteem needs as we
seek the approval and friendship of others. Conformity can run very deep, as we
will even change our beliefs and values to be like those of our peers and admired
superiors. Compliance is where a person does something that they are asked to
do by another. They may choose to comply or not to comply, although the
thoughts of social reward and punishment may lead them to compliance when
they really do not want to comply. Obedience is different from compliance in that
it is obeying an order from someone that you accept as an authority figure. In
compliance, you have some choice. In obedience, you believe that you do not
have a choice. Many military officers and commercial managers are interested
only in obedience.

1.5 UNIT END QUESTIONS

1) Define the term Social Influence and discuss its various types.

2) Describe the factors associated with conformity.

3) describe in detail the Asch’s study on conformity.

4) What do you mean by compliance? Discuss various factors leading to compliance.

5) Describe the Stanford Prison experiment and indicate itws contribution in

understanding obedience.

6) What is the significance of Hofling Hospital experiment? Discuss the same in

the context of obedience.

1.6 SUGGESTED READINGS AND

REFERENCES
Aronson, E., Wilson, T. D., & Akert, R. M. (2010). Social Psychology (7th
ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
26
Baron, R. A., Branscombe, N. R., & Byrne, D. (2009). Social Psychology(12th The Concepts of
ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson/Allyn and Bacon. Social Influence

References

Aronson, E., Wilson, T.D., & Akert, A.M. (2007). Social Psychology (6th Ed.).
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Asch, S. E. (1951). Effects of group pressure upon the modification and distortion
of judgments. Groups, leadership, and men, 177-190.

Bales, R. F. (1950) Interaction Process Analysis. Addison Wesley, Reading, MA

Baron, R. S., Vandello, J. A., & Brunsman, B. (1996). The forgotten variable in
conformity research: Impact of task importance on social influence. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 915-927.

Berger, J., Rosenholtz, S. J., & Zelditch, M. Jr. (1980). Status Organizing
Processes. Annual Review of Sociology 6: 479–508

Bochner, S., & Insko, C. A. (1966). Communicator discrepancy, source credibility,

and opinion change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4, 614-621.

Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., & Stoltenberg, C. D. (1985) Processes of Social

Influence: The Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion. In: Kendall, P. C.
(Ed.), Advances in Cognitive-Behavioural Research and Therapy. Academic Press,
San Diego, pp. 215–74.

Cialdini, Robert B. (2001). ‘‘Influence: Science and practice (4th ed.)’’. Boston:
Allyn & Bacon.

Darlinton, R. B., & Macker, C. E. (1966). Displacement of guilt-produced altuistic

behaviour. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4(4), 442-443.

Dennis, M. R. (2006). Compliance and Intimacy: Young Adults’ Attempts to

Motivate Health-Promoting Behaviours by Romantic Partners. Health
Communication, 19 (3), 259-267.

French, J. R. P., Jr. & Raven, B. (1959) The Bases of Social Power. In: Cartwright,
D. (Ed.), Studies in Social Power. Institute for Social Research, Ann Arbor, MI,
pp. 150–67.

Friedkin, N. (1998) A Structural Theory of Social Influence. Cambridge University

Press, Cambridge.

Hodges, B. H. and A. L. Geyer (2006). A Nonconformist Account of the Asch

Experiments: Values, Pragmatics, and Moral Dilemmas. In:Personality and Social
Psychology Review 10(1), 2–19.

Hofling CK et al. (1966) “An Experimental Study of Nurse-Physician

Relationships”. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease 141:171-180.

Latane, B. (1981) The Psychology of Social Impact. American Psychologist 36:

343–56.
27
Process of Social Influence Latane, B. (1996) Dynamic Social Impact: The Creation of Culture by
Communication. Journal of Communication 4: 13–25.

Milgram, Stanley. (1963). “Behavioural Study of Obedience”. [1] Journal of

Abnormal and Social Psychology 67, 371-378

Nemeth, C. & Kwan, J. (1987) Minority Influence, Divergent Thinking and the
Detection of Correct Solutions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 17: 788–
99.

Reitan, H. T. & Shaw, M. E. (1964). Group membership, sex-composition of the

group, and conformity behaviour. The Journal of Social Psychology, 64, 45-51.

Schultz, P. W. (1999). Changing behaviour with normative feedback interventions:

A field experiment on curbside recycling. Basic and Applied Social Psychology,
21, 25-36.

Sherif, M. (1936). The psychology of social norms. New York: Harper Collins.

Worchel, S., Lee, J., & Adewole, A. (1975). Effects of supply and demand on
rating of object value. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 906-
914.

28
 Pro-social Behaviour and
UNIT 2 PRO-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR Factors Contributing to
Pro-social Behaviour
AND FACTORS
CONTRIBUTING TO PRO-
SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR
Structure

2.0 Introduction
2.1 Objectives
2.2 Pro-social Behaviour
2.2.1 Definition and Description
2.2.2 Pro-social Behaviour and Altruism
2.2.3 Certain Historical Aspects of Prosocial Behaviour

2.3 Pro-social Behaviour in Emergency Situation

2.3.1 Noticing the Emergency
2.3.2 Interpreting an Emergency as an Emergency
2.3.3 Assuming that it is your Responsibility to Help
2.3.4 Knowing what to do
2.3.5 Making the Decision to Help

2.4 Factors Affecting Helping Behaviour

2.4.1 Physical Attractiveness
2.4.2 Similarity and Kinship
2.4.3 Religiosity
2.4.4 Victim’s Perspective
2.4.5 Personal Experience
2.4.6 Identifiable Victim Effect
2.4.7 Attributions Concerning Victim’s Responsibility
2.4.8 Positive Friend Influence
2.4.9 Gender
2.4.10 Age
2.4.11 Personality
2.4.12 Effects of Positive Moods: Feel Good, Do Good

2.5 Theoretical Perspectives

2.5.1 Social Learning Theory
2.5.2 Motivation Perspective
2.5.3 Social Identity Theory
2.5.4 Biological Perspectiv

2.6 Negative-State Relief Hypothesis

29
Process of Social Influence 2.7 Empathy – Altruism Hypothesis
2.7.1 Empathic-Joy Hypothesis

2.7.2 Self-Efficacy Hypothesis

2.8 Reciprocity and Social Norms

2.9 Current Trends
2.10 Let Us Sum Up
2.11 Unit End Questions
2.12 Suggested Readings and References

2.0 INTRODUCTION
Pro-social behaviour is defined as “…any act performed with the goal of benefiting
another person” (Aronson, Wilson, & Akert, 2004 p. 382). How is it possible
to differentiate the meaning or motivation or consequences between a ten rupees
donation to charity and rescuing a drowning child? This is not a topic confined
within one discipline. Even a cursory review of the literature reveals that
psychologists, philosophers, economists, sociobiologists, and others all have distinct
and often conflicting points of view. Prosocial are voluntary made with the
intention of benefiting others. This definition focuses on the potential benefits to
the person performing the prosocial behaviour. In this unit we will be dealing with
noticing emergency for help, understanding how and what do in such situations,
and determining and taking decisions to help. Such a helping behaviour is influenced
by a large number of factors such as physical attractiveness of the person who
needs help, similarity in a number of factors, whether the person is a relative
and belong to kin etc. This unit deals with also the perspective of help from the
victim’s point of view and one’s own personal experience. Many theoretical
perspectives have also been put across in this unit which includes social learning
theory and its influence on helping behaviour, the motivation and social identity
theories contributing to understanding of helping behaviour empathic and receiprocity
factors as to how they contribute to the understanding of helping behaviour. Lastly
the unit discusses the current trends in regard to pro social behaviour.

2.1 OBJECTIVES
After successful completion of this Unit, you are expected to be able to:

l Define Pro-social behaviour and altruism;

l Have knowledge about various factors affecting pro-social behaviour;

l Explain pro-social behaviour in the light of different theories; and

l Analyse the current trends in research related to pro-social behaviour.

2.2 PRO-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR

2.2.1 Definition and Description
Staub (1979) defined pro-social behaviour as voluntary behaviour intended to
30
benefit another person. “Voluntary” emphasises the spontaneous initiative by the
actor in contrast to professional help (e.g., physicians or nurses). Pro-social Pro-social Behaviour and
behaviour may include helping, sharing, giving, and comforting (Bierhoff, 2002). Factors Contributing to
Pro-social Behaviour
Pro-social behaviour is defined as “…any act performed with the goal of benefiting
another person” (Aronson, Wilson, & Akert, 2004 p. 382). How is it possible
to differentiate the meaning or motivation or consequences between a ten rupees
donation to charity and rescuing a drowning child? Many researchers have
attempted to narrow the parameters of discussion by focusing on subsets of
prosocial behaviour such as altruism versus self-interest, helping behaviours
sustained over time versus one-time events, personality variables versus situational
context, the origins of empathy and others.

Pro-social behaviour is not a topic confined within one discipline. Even a cursory
review of the literature reveals that psychologists, philosophers, economists,
sociobiologists, and others all have distinct and often conflicting points of view. As
Kohn points out, the term pro-social is so broad that it becomes essentially
meaningless.

Pro-social are voluntary made with the intention of benefiting others (Eisenberg
& Fabes, 1998). This definition focuses on the potential benefits to the person
performing the pro-social behaviour. Nevertheless, benefiting others, but whose
main goal is self-advantageous (e.g. cooperative intended to obtain a common
resource), typically are not considered pro-social. Typical examples include:
volunteering, sharing toys, or food with friends instrumental help (e.g., helping a
peer with school assignments) costly help e.g. risking one’s own life to save
others and emotionally supporting others in distress e.g., comforting a peer
following a disappointing experience or caring for a person who is ill.

2.2.2 Pro-social Behaviour and Altruism

Pro-social behaviour is often accompanied by psychological and social rewards
for its performer. In the long run, individuals can benefit from living in a society
where prosociality is common. It has been difficult for researchers to identify
purely altruistic behaviours, benefiting only the recipient and not the performer.
Altruism is generally defined as any form of voluntary act intended to favour
another without expectation of reward (Smith & Mackie, 2000; Batson et. al.,
2002; Aronson et. al., 2004).

Perhaps the first person to utilise the term altruism was the French sociologist
Auguste Comte, who declared that humans have inborn drives to behave
sympathetically toward others (Lee, Lee and Kang, 2003). It is a specific kind
of motivation to benefit another without consciously considering for one’s own self
interest (Hall, 1999). In other words, altruism refers to a kind of selfless help,
which is based on pure desire to help others (Aronson, Wilson, Akert, & Fehr,
2004). Nevertheless, altruism is not a synonym for pro-social behaviour.

Prosocial behaviour refers to helping behaviour of favouring another person with

the goal that may involve benefits to self (Smith & Mackie, 2000; Aronson et. al.,
2004). For instance, people donating money to Tsunami relief fund may not
always be selfless. In the case that donation is for the sake of tax exemption, its
motive would not be regarded as altruistic. The major difference between altruism
and pro-social behaviour is that altruism does not involve the element of self
interest (Myers, 1996).
31
Process of Social Influence 2.2.3 Certain Historical Aspects of Prosocial Behaviour
The term pro-social behaviour was introduced in the early 1970’s after the
incident of Kitty Genovese case in USA (Kohn, 1990) .On March 13, 1964,
Kitty Genovese was murdered in front of her home. She parked her car a number
of feet from her apartment when all of a sudden, a man named Winston Moseley
chased her down and stabbed her in the back twice. Kitty screamed for help
and a neighbour responded shouting at the criminal “Let that girl alone!”
Immediately, Winston fled the scene and left the girl crawling towards her apartment.
Several witnesses reported to have seen the whole scene. At that time, there was
a strong degree of interest in exploring why 38 neighbours ignored the pleas and
calls for help from a woman being repeatedly stabbed and ultimately murdered
by her assailant.

Why were such apathy, indifference and lack of concern observed from all the
neighbours of Kitty? Two social psychologists, John Darley & Bibb Latane,
started asking questions why the witnesses demonstrated a lack of reaction towards
the victim’s need for help. They found bystander apathy is the major factor that
influences helping behaviour.

The term bystander effect refers to the phenomenon in which greater the numbers
of people present, the less likely people are to help a person in distress. When
an emergency situation occurs, observers are more likely to take action if there
are few or no other witnesses.

In a series of classic study, researchers Bibb Latane and John Darley (1969)
found that the amount of time it takes the participant to take action and seek help
varies depending on how many other observers are in the room. In one experiment,
subjects were placed in one of three treatment conditions: alone in a room, with
two other participants or with two confederates who pretended to be normal
participants.

As the participants sat filling out questionnaires, smoke began to fill the room.
When participants were alone, 75% reported the smoke to the experimenters. In
contrast, just 38% of participants in a room with two other people reported the
smoke. In the final group, the two confederates in the experiment noted the
smoke and then ignored it, which resulted in only 10% of the participants reporting
the smoke.

There are two major factors that contribute to the bystander effect. First, the
presence of other people creates a diffusion of responsibility. Because there are
other observers, individuals do not feel as much pressure to take action, since the
responsibility to take action is thought to be shared among all of the present. The
second reason is the need to behave in correct and socially acceptable ways.
When other observers fail to react, individuals often take this as a signal that a
response is not needed or not appropriate. Other researchers have found that
onlookers are less likely to intervene if the situation is ambiguous (Solomon,
1978). In the case of Kitty Genovese, many of the 38 witnesses reported that
they believed that they were witnessing a “lover’s quarrel,” and did not realise that
the young woman was actually being murdered.

32
 Pro-social Behaviour and
2.3 PRO-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR IN Factors Contributing to
Pro-social Behaviour
EMERGENCY SITUATIONS
There are five step response in emergency situations (Darley & Latane, 1969),
which include the following:

2.3.1 Noticing the Emergency

In order for people to help, they must notice that an emergency has occurred.
Sometimes very trivial things, such as how much of a hurry a person is in, can
prevent them from noticing someone else in trouble. Darley and Batson (1973)
showed that seminary students who were in a hurry to give a sermon on campus
were much less likely to help an ostensibly injured confederate groaning in a
doorway than were those who were not in a hurry.

2.3.2 Interpreting an Emergency as an Emergency

The next determinant of helping is whether the bystander interprets the event as
an emergency. Ironically, when other bystanders are present, people are more
likely to assume an emergency is something innocuous. This pluralistic ignorance
occurs because people look to see others’ reactions (informational influence);
when they see that everyone else has a blank expression, they assume there must
be no danger (Latané and Darley, 1970)

2.3.3 Assuming that it is your Responsibility to Help

The next step that must occur if helping is to take place is for someone to take
responsibility. When there are many witnesses, there is a diffusion of responsibility,
the phenomenon whereby each bystander’s sense of responsibility to help decreases
as the number of witnesses increases. Everyone assumes that someone else will
help, and as a result, no one does, as happened with the Kitty Genovese murder.

2.3.4 Knowing what to do

Even if all the previous conditions are met, a person must know what form of
assistance to give. If they don’t, they will be unable to help.

2.3.5 Making the Decision to Help

Finally, even if you know what kind of help to give, you might decide not to
intervene because you feel unqualified to help or you are too afraid of the costs
to yourself. Markey (2000) examined helping in an Internet chat room situation;
when the chat room group as a whole was asked to provide some information
about finding profiles, the larger the group, the longer it took for anyone to help.
However, when a specific person was addressed by name, that person helped
quickly, regardless of group size.

2.4 FACTORS AFFECTING HELPING

BEHAVIOUR
2.4.1 Physical Attractiveness
Attractiveness is defined as physical attractiveness or the attractiveness of a person’s 33
Process of Social Influence personality or behaviour (DeVito, 1976). Researchers believe physical attractiveness
can be defined for any one individual situationally (DeVito, 1976). Physically
attractive people are more likely to receive help than unattractive people (Harrell,
1978). The explanation lies in the fact, that as a society, we consciously or
subconsciously tend to treat attractive individuals differently, expecting better lives
for them (Berscheid, Walster, Bohrnstedt, 1973). Adams and Cohen (1976) feel
physical attractiveness is a major factor in the development of prosocial behaviour
in a child.

2.4.2 Similarity and Kinship

Finally, individuals are more likely to behave prosocially towards similar or likable
others (Penner et al., 2005), and towards others considered to be close, especially
kin (Graziano et al., 2007). Genetic relatedness aside, pro-social behaviour towards
family members probably involves a sense of duty, reciprocity, and affective
relationships. Individuals care more for victims who belong to their in-group rather
than to their out-group (Dovidio et al. 1997; Flippen et al. 1996; Levine et al.
2002). Park and Schaller (2005) found that attitude similarity serves as a heuristic
cue signaling kinship, which may motivate kin-recognition responses (e.g., prosocial
behaviour) even to unrelated individuals.

2.4.3 Religiosity
Although several studies have examined the impact of donor characteristics across
various domains, the findings are not as robust as those about victim characteristics.
One consistent finding is that humanitarian values and religiosity are correlated
with giving (Burnett 1981; Pessemier, Bemmaor, and Hanssens 1977).

2.4.4 Victim’s Perspective

Batson and colleagues have shown consistently greater empathy and altruistic
behaviour by individuals who are primed to take the victim’s perspective (Batson,
Early, and Salvarani 1997; Batson et al. 2003).

2.4.5 Personal Experience

A vast literature examines the impact of personal experience on self-protective
behaviour (Weinstein, 1989, for a critical review). Although the majority of studies
examine effects on victims themselves, a few assess the impact of knowing a
victim as a form of personal experience (Manheimer, Mellinger & Crossley 1966
and Schiff 1977). Barnett et al. (1986) found that participants who had been
raped reported greater empathy when watching a video about a rape victim than
did those who had never been raped. Batson et al. (1996) found that for females
but not males, the expectation of oneself receiving a shock affected self-reported
empathy when one observed a same-sex peer receiving a shock. Christy and
Voigt (1994) found that those who reported being abused as a child indicated that
they would be more likely than those who had never been abused to intervene
if they saw a child being abused.

2.4.6 Identifiable Victim Effect

Previous research has shown that people give more to identifiable victims than to
unidentifiable or statistical victims (Kogut and Ritov 2005a, b; Small, Loewenstein,
34 and Slovic 2006). This effect has even been demonstrated when no meaningful
information is provided about the identified victim (Small and Loewenstein 2003). Pro-social Behaviour and
Other identifying factors, such as showing a victim’s face or being in the presence Factors Contributing to
Pro-social Behaviour
of a victim, also increase pro-social behaviour (Bohnet and Frey 1999). Charities
do often describe or show images of specific victims to potential donors in their
advertising campaigns, but such attempts seem designed to benefit from the
identifiable victim effect (Kogut and Ritov, 2005a, b; Small et al. 2006), rather
than to create “friendship” between donors and victims.

2.4.7 Attributions Concerning Victim’s Responsibility

People also give more to victims who are perceived as “deserving,” in other
words, whose needs arise from external rather than internal causes (Weiner 1980).
Thus, disabled children are deemed deserving; healthy unemployed men are not
(Schmidt and Weiner 1988). Finally, the effect of deservingness on prosocial
behaviour is mediated by sympathy, suggesting that giving decisions are not based
on cold mental calculations (Weiner, 1980). A study carried out on the New York
subway showed that people were more likely to help ‘blind’ rather than ‘drunk’
confederates who had collapsed (Piliavin, 1969).

2.4.8 Positive Friend Influence

Barry and Wentzel (2006) supported the notion that friends in particular can be
important socialisers of pro-social behaviour. Children are similar to their friends
in the degree to which they display pro-social behaviour and are motivated to
behave this way (Wentzel, Barry, & Caldwell, 2004; Wentzel & Caldwell, 1997).
Adolescents who have friends are more likely to be pro-social than those without
friends (McGuire & Weisz, 1982).

2.4.9 Gender
Females engage in prosocial behaviours more frequently than males (Fabes, Carlo,
Kupanoff, & Laible, 1999), which is consistent across ratings from parents,
teachers, and peers (Holmgren, Eisenberg, & Fabes, 1998). Additionally,
observational studies have indicated that females are more likely than males to
share and cooperate when interacting (Burford, Foley, Rollins, & Rosario, 1996).
Beutel and Johnson (2004) reported that in a study of 12 through 17 year-olds,
females placed more importance on prosocial values than males at younger ages,
and the gender gap in prosocial values was larger at older ages. Eagly and
Crowley (1986) did a meta-analysis and found that men are more likely to help
in chivalrous, heroic ways, and women are more likely to help in nurturant ways
involving long-term commitment.

2.4.10 Age
Older adolescent males placed less importance on prosocial values than younger
adolescent males (Beutel & Johnson, 2004). Further, in a study of adolescent
soccer players’ behaviours, recruited from age groups of under 13, under 15, and
under 17, significant differences among the age groups indicated that the oldest
group displayed more frequent antisocial behaviours and less frequent prosocial
behaviours compared to the younger groups (Kavussanu, Seal, & Phillips, 2006).
However, there appears to be an increase in the use of some prosocial behaviours
after a certain point in adolescence, as Eisenberg et al. (2005) found that prosocial
moral reasoning and perspective-taking abilities showed increases with age from
35
Process of Social Influence late adolescence to early adulthood, whereas helping and displaying sympathy did
not increase with age.

2.4.11 Personality
Research following children from early childhood to adulthood supports the existence
of the long-debated altruistic or prosocial personality (Eisenberg et al., 1999).
Individual differences in prosociality are linked to sociability, low shyness,
extroversion, and agreeableness, although specific prosocial behaviours may require
a combination of additional traits, such as perceived self-efficacy in the case of
helping (Penner et al., 2005). Personality and contextual variables are likely to
interact in determining prosocial behaviour. For example, agreeable individuals
were more likely to help an outgroup member than low-agreeableness individuals,
but agreeableness was not associated with helping an ingroup member (Graziano
et al., 2007).

While, Hartshorne and May (1929) found only a .23 correlation between different
kinds of helping behaviours in children, and several studies have found that those
who scored high on a personality test of altruism were not much more likely to
help than those who scored low. People’s personality is clearly not the only
determinant of helping. Instead, it seems to be that different kinds of people are
likely to help in different situations.

2.4.12 Effects of Positive Moods: Feel Good, Do Good

People who are in a good mood are more likely to help. For example, Isen and
Levin (1972) did a study in a shopping mall where subjects either found or did
not find a dime in a phone booth. As the person emerged from the booth, a
confederate walked by and dropped a sheaf of papers; 84% of those who found
the dime helped compared with 4% of those who did not find the dime. North,
Tarrang, & Hargreaves (2004) found that people are more likely to help others
when in a good mood for a number of other reasons, including doing well on a
test, receiving a gift, thinking happy thoughts, and listening to pleasant music.

Good moods can increase helping for three reasons: (1) good moods make us
interpret events in a sympathetic way; (2) helping another prolongs the good
mood, whereas not helping deflates it; (3) good moods increase self-attention,
and this in turn leads us to be more likely to behave according to our values and
beliefs (which tend to favor altruism).

2.5 THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES

There are a large number of theorie which explain pro-social behaviour and these
are described and discussed below:

2.5.1 Social Learning Theory

Social learning theory suggests that pro-social behaviour is learned (Bandura,
1977; Bandura & McDonald, 1963; Batson, 1998). Observing role models who
are loved or respected, such as parents or authorities, engaged in pro-social
behaviour, demonstrates how people can and should behave prosocially. Rewards
reinforce helping behaviour; punishments reduce unhelpful or hurtful behaviour.
36
Within a group context, social recognition, not just private reward, increases pro-
social behaviour (Fisher & Ackerman, 1998).Observational modeling processes Pro-social Behaviour and
with reinforcement will result in learning over time (Compeau & Higgins, 1995; Factors Contributing to
Pro-social Behaviour
Lim et al., 1997).

2.5.2 Motivation Perspective

Theorists differentiate altruistic prosocial behaviour from egoistic prosocial behaviour
depending upon the motivation of the helper (Batson, 1991; Nelson, 1999; Piliavin
& Charng, 1990). Altruistic prosocial behaviour is motivated purely by the desire
to increase another person’s welfare; egoistic prosocial behaviour is motivated by
the desire to increase one’s own welfare or that of one’s group or cause through
helping others (Batson, 1998; MacIntyre, 1967).

Some researchers believe that pro-social behaviour does not need to be based
on unobservable underlying motivations of children (Eisenberg & Mussen, 1989),
but other researchers believe that another person’s well-being must be of primary
concern in prosocial behaviours (Cialdini, Kenrick, & Bauman, 1976). It is generally
understood that an intention of prosocial behaviours is to achieve positive
consequences for others (Jackson & Tisak, 2001; Tisak & Ford, 1986), but it
is possible that there are other reasons children behave prosocially as well.
Children’s expectancies may influence their likelihood of engaging in prosocial
behaviours. Adolescents who expect positive adult reactions to their prosocial
behaviours report engaging in more prosocial and less aggressive behaviours
(Wyatt & Carlo, 2002).

2.5.3 Social Identity Theory

Social identity theory and self-categorisation theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1986; Turner
et al., 1987) are helpful in understanding why some people exhibit substantial
prosocial behaviour over time.

Social identity theory is based on the premise that people identify with particular
groups in order to enhance their self-esteem. Identification leads to selective
social comparisons that emphasise intergroup differences along dimensions. This
leads to favouring the ingroup and confer positive distinctiveness on the ingroup
when compared to the salient outgroup (Hogg & Abrams, 1988).

Categorising the self and others in terms of groups accentuates the similarities
between group members with respect to their fit with the relevant group prototype
or ‘cognitive representation of features that describe and prescribe attributes of
the group’ (Hogg & Terry, 2000). The prototype guides the participants’
understanding of the group and its expected behaviours and attitudes. People
identified with a group will thus be more likely to exhibit behaviours that are
consistent with shared group norms and will cooperate with the group and its
members.

Group identification is an important antecedent to cooperative behaviours related

to group maintenance and survival (Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Kramer, 1993; Mael
& Ashforth, 1995; Tyler, 1999).

2.5.4 Biological Perspective

Empathy, altruism and prosocial behaviour are considered vital for the good
functioning of society. Although psychological theories emphasise the importance 37
Process of Social Influence of cognition and socialisation, genes also have a role to play. Monozygotic (MZ)
twin pairs share 100% of their genes, whereas dizygotic (DZ) twin pairs share
50%; thus the comparison of MZ and DZ twin similarities and differences allows
for estimates to be made of genetic influences (Plomin et al. 2001). Several
studies have found that by adulthood, approximately 50% of the variance in
altruism, empathy and social responsibility is due to genes and 50% to non-
genetic factors (Rushton et al. 1986; Rushton 2004).

2.6 NEGATIVE-STATE RELIEF HYPOTHESIS

Negative State Relief Model, views empathic concern as being accompanied by
feelings of sadness that the helper tries to relieve through helping someone in need
(Smith, Keating, & Stotland, 1989; Cialindi, et al., 1987; Schroeder, Dovidio,
Sibicky, Matthews, & Allen, 1988). Here, the motivation for prosocial behaviour
is based on increasing the welfare of both the helper and helpee. Three prominent
features of the Negative State Relief Model are that: (1) helpers experience
empathic concern; (2) such concern is accompanied by feelings of sadness and
(3) helpers attempt to relieve such feelings by helping others.

Cialdini’s (1987) experiments involved participants taking the place of people

receiving electric shocks. However, high empathy participants were less inclined
to help if they had been praised by the researchers. It is thought that this praise
helped to lift their mood so that it was not necessary to help the person receiving
the shocks.

When people feel guilty, they are more likely to help. For example, Harris et al.
(1975) found that churchgoers were more likely to donate money after confession.

2.7 EMPATHY – ALTRUISM HYPOTHESIS

Batson (1987, 1991) introduced the empathy-altruism hypothesis, which states
refers to “ the claim that feeling empathic emotion for someone in need evokes
altruistic motivation to relieve that need has been called the empathy-altruism
hypothesis. According to this hypothesis, the greater the empathetic emotion, the
greater the altruistic motivation.” (Batson et. al., 2002).

According to the Empathy-Altruism Hypothesis, empathic concern motivates

helpers to enhance the welfare of those in need rather than avoid the situation
instead (Smith, Keating, & Stotland, 1989; Baston, 1987).

In a study by Toi and Batson, (1982), students listened to a taped interview with
a student who had ostensibly broken both legs in an accident and was behind in
classes. Two factors were manipulated: empathetic vs. non-empathetic set,
manipulated by instructions given to Ss; and the costs of helping, manipulated by
whether or not the injured student was expected to be seen every day once she
returned to class. The dependent variable was whether Ss responded to a request
to help the injured student catch up in class. As the empathy-altruism hypothesis
predicted, people in the high empathy condition helped regardless of cost, while
those in the low empathy condition helped only if the cost of not helping was high.

2.7.1 Empathic-Joy Hypothesis

38 Smith, Keating, and Stotland’s (1989) hypothesis proposes that empathic concern
is based on a helper’s overarching sensitivity to a victim’s emotional state and a Pro-social Behaviour and
subsequent heightened sense of vicarious happiness and relief upon the fulfillment Factors Contributing to
Pro-social Behaviour
of the recipient’s needs. The authors propose that empathic witnesses to someone
in need may regard empathic joy as being more achievable and rewarding than
would be a self-focused witness, and thus have greater motivation to help.

The three prominent features of the Empathic-Joy Hypothesis are that:

1) helpers experience empathic concern;

2) this concern is a function of their sensitivity to another’s needs; and

3) the awareness of relief for another’s distress promotes subsequent relief of the
helper’s empathic concern as well as a sense of joy.

2.7.2 Self-Efficacy Hypothesis

This hypothesis reflects a combination of proposals from authors regarding correlates
to helping behaviours. According to Midlarsky (1968) individuals? level of
competence with a given skill can influence helping behaviour, especially in times
of need. Such competence may increase the likelihood of helping through increased
certainty over what to do, along with the decreased fear of making a mistake and
decreased stress over the situation (Withey, 1962; Janis 1962, Midlarsky, 1968;
Staub, 1971).

2.8 RECIPROCITY AND SOCIAL NORMS

The concept of reciprocity” is defined in settings in which individuals act in a more
cooperative manner in response to the positive or friendly behaviour of others. As
a result, reciprocity as a reputational motivation is very closely linked to the idea
that the more others contribute, the more one gives. For instance, although
contributing to charitable organisations does not benefit the donor directly, she
may still gain in the long run, because she expects to benefit from reciprocity in
the future when she will need help. Leider et al. (2009) established that giving is
motivated, at least in part, by future interaction (enforced reciprocity).

Social norms also encourage people to find ways by which to avoid being generous
when it is not completely necessary. As suggested by Stephen Meier (2004),
reciprocity and concern to conform to social norms are closely tied together. In
particular, by observing the behaviour of others, one translates this behaviour into
a recipe of what one ‘should do’.

2.9 CURRENT TRENDS

Genetics also contribute to individual variation in prosociality. Research on adults
finds that prosociality is substantially heritable. Research on young children shows
lower heritability, demonstrated by one longitudinal twin study showing increase
in the heritability of parent-rated prosociality, from 30 % at age 2 to 60 % at age
7 (Knafo & Plomin, 2006). Gene-environment correlations can also shape individual
differences in prosociality. For example, children’s low prosociality is related to
parents’ use of negative discipline and affection.

This relationship can be traced back to children’s genetic tendencies, implying that 39
the genetically influenced low prosociality can initiate a negative reaction from
Process of Social Influence parents (Knafo & Plomin, 2006). Some evidence suggests that children in Western
societies are less pro-social than children in other cultures, but some studies find
no differences along these lines (see review by Eisenberg et al., 2006).

A field study by Levine, Norenzayan, and Philbrick (2001) found large cultural
differences in spontaneously helping strangers. For example, the proportion of
individuals helping a stranger with a hurt leg pick up dropped magazines ranged
from 22 % to 95 % across 23 cultures. Perhaps, cultures differ substantially in
what each promotes as prosocial behaviour (Eisenberg et al., 2006).

It has been suggested that there are two reasons for cultural differences in altruism
(Eisenberg & Mussen, 1989) first is Industrial societies place value on competition
and personal success and secondly Co-operation at the home in non-industrial
societies promotes altruism.

2.10 LET US SUM UP

Pro-social behaviours are voluntary behaviours made with the intention of benefiting
others. Prosocial behaviour is often accompanied with psychological and social
rewards for its performer. In the long run, individuals can benefit from living in a
society where prosociality is common. Altruism is generally defined as any form
of voluntary act intended to favour another withour expectation of reward. There
are various factors that affect the pro-social behaviour e.g. (i) Noticing the
emergency, (ii) Interpreting an emergency as an emergency. (iii) Assuming that it
is your responsibility to help, (iv) Knowing what to do, (v) Making the decision
to help. Amongst the various factors affecting helping behaviour, we saw that (i)
Physical attractiveness, (ii) Similarity and kinship, (iii) Religiosity, (iv) Victim’s
perspective,(v) Personal experience, (vi) Gender, (vii) Age, (viii) Personality etc.

It has been suggested that there are two reasons for cultural differences in altruism
(Eisenberg & Mussen, 1989) first is Industrial societies place value on competition
and personal success and secondly Co-operation at the home in non-industrial
societies promotes altruism.

2.11 UNIT END QUESTIONS

1) Define pro-social behaviour with factor leading us to help in a particular situation.

2) Discuss various factors that affect pro-social behaviour.

3) Critically evaluate theories of pro-social behaviour.

2.12 SUGGESTED READINGS AND

REFERENCES
Aronson, E., Wilson, T., & Akert, R. (2004). Social Psychology, Media and
Research

Update (Fourth ed.). Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Pearson Education.

Bandura, A. (1977). Social Learning Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-

Hall.
40
Baron, R. A., Branscombe, N. R., & Byrne, D. (2009). Social Psychology Pro-social Behaviour and
(12th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson/Allyn and Bacon. Factors Contributing to
Pro-social Behaviour
L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 20 (p. 65-
122), New York: Academic Press

Myers, D.G. (1996). Social Psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Smith, E.R. & Mackie,D.M. (2000). Social Psychology (2nd ed.). New York:
Worth.

References
Adams, G. R., & Cohen, A. S.(1976). An examination of cumulative folder
information used by teachers in making differential judgements of children’s abilities.
The Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 22, 216-224.

Aronson, R.B., Macintyre, I.G., Precht, W.F., Wapnick, C.M., Murdoch, T.J.T.,
2002. The expanding scale of species turnover events on coral reefs in Belize.
Ecol. Monogr. 72, 233–249.

Ashforth, B.E. and Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization.
Academy of Management Review, 14(1), 20–39.

Bandura, A. and McDonald, F.J. (1963). Influence of social-reinforcement and

behaviour of models in shaping children’s moral judgments. Journal of Abnormal
and Social Psychology, 67(3), 274–81.

Barnett, M. A., P. A. Tetreault, J. A. Esper, and A. R. Bristow (1986), “Similarity

and Empathy -the Experience of Rape,” Journal of Social Psychology, 126 (1),
47-49.

Barry, C. M., & Wentzel, K. R. (2006). Friend influence on prosocial behaviour:

The role of motivational factors and friendship characteristics. Developmental
Psychology, 42, 153-163.

Baston, C.D. (1987). Prosocial motivation: Is it ever truly altruistic? In L. Berkowitz

(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, 20 (p. 65-122), New York:
Academic Press, p. 65-122.

Batson, C.D. (1991). The altruism question: toward a social psychological answer.
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Batson, C. D. (1998). Altruism and prosocial behaviour. In D.T. Gilbert, S.T.

Fiske, and G. Lindzey (eds), Handbook of social psychology (4th edn) (Vol. II,
pp. 282–316). New York:McGraw-Hill.

Baston, C.D., Bolen, M.H., Cross, J.A., and Neuringer-Benefiel, H.E. (1986).
Where is the altruism in the altruistic personality? Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 50(1), 212-220.

Batson, C.D., Chang, J., Orr, R., Rowland, J., 2002. Empathy, attitudes, and
action: Can feeling for a member of a stigmatised group motivate one to help the
group? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(12), pp. 1656-1666.
41
Process of Social Influence Batson, C. D., Early, S. and Salvarani, G. (1997), “Perspective taking: Imagining
how another feels versus imagining how you would feel,” Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 23 (7), 751-58.

Batson, C. D., Lishner, L. Dulin, S. Harjusola-Webb, E.L. Stocks, S. Gale, O.

Hassan, and B. Samput (2003), “…As you would have them do unto you”: Does
imagining yourself in the other’s place stimulate moral action?,” Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 29 (4), 1190-201.

Batson, C. D., S. C. Sympson, J. L. Hindman, P. Decruz, R. M. Todd, J. L.

Weeks, G. Jennings, and C. T. Burris (1996), “‘’I’ve been there, too’’: Effect on
empathy of prior experience with a need,” Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 22 (5), 474-82.

Berscheid, E., Walster, E., & Bohrnstedt, G. (1973). The happy American body:
A survey report. Psychology Today, 7, 119-131.

Bierhoff, H.W. (2002). Prosocial behaviour. Hove, UK: Psychology Press.

Bohnet, Iris and Bruno S. Frey (1999), “Social Distance and other-regarding
Behaviour in Dictator Games: Comment,” The American Economic Review, 89
(1), 335-39.

Burnett, John J. (1981), “Psychographic and demographic characteristics of blood

donors,” Journal of Consumer Research, 8 (1), 62-66.

Beutel, A. M., & Johnson, M. K. (2004). Gender and prosocial values during
adolescence: A research note. Sociological Quarterly, 45, 379-393.

Burford, H. C., Foley, L. A., Rollins, P. G., & Rosario, K. S. (1996). Gender
differences in preschoolers’ sharing behaviour. Journal of Social Behaviour and
Personality, 11, 17-25.

Cialdini, R., Kenrick, D., & Bauman, D. (1976). Effects of mood on prosocial
behaviour in children and adults. In N. Eisenberg (Ed.), The development of
prosocial behaviour (pp. 339-356). New York: Academic Press.

Cialdini, R. B., Schaller, M., Houlihan, D., Arps, K., Fultz, J., & Beaman, A. L.
(1987). Empathy-based helping: is it selflessly or selfishly motivated? Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 749-758.

Compeau, D.R. and Higgins, C.A. (1995). Application of social cognitive theory
to training for computer skills. Information Systems Research, 6(2), 118–43.

Christy, C.A. and H Voigt (1994), “Bystander responses to public episodes of

child abuse,” Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24 (9), 824-47.

Darley, J.M. & Batson, C.D. (1973). From Jerusalem to Jericho: A study of
situational and dispositional variables in helping behaviour. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 27, 100-108.

Darley, J. M. & Latané, B. (1969). Bystander “apathy.” American Scientist, 57,

244-268.

DeVito, J. A. (1976). The interpersonal communication book. New York, New

42
York: Harper and Row.
Dovidio, J. F., S. L. Gaertner, A. Validzic, K. Matoka, B. Johnson, and S. Pro-social Behaviour and
Frazier (1997), Extending the benefits of recategorization: Evaluations, self- Factors Contributing to
Pro-social Behaviour
disclosure, and helping,“ Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 33 (4), 401-20.

Eagly, A. H., & Crowley, M. (1986). Gender and helping behaviour: A meta-
analytic view of the social psychological literature. Psychological Bulletin, 100,
283-308.

Eisenberg, N., Cumberland, A., Guthrie, I. K., Murphy, B. C., & Shepard, S.
A. (2005). Age changes in prosocial responding and moral reasoning in adolescence
and early adulthood. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 15, 235-260.

Eisenberg, N., & Fabes, R.A.(1998). Prosocial Development. In W. Damon,

(Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Social, emotional, and personality
development (Vol. 3, pp. 701–778). New York: Wiley.

Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., & Spinrad, T. L. (2006). Prosocial development.

In N. Eisenberg (Vol. Ed.), W. Damon & R. M. Lerner (Series Eds.), Handbook
of child psychology: Social, emotional, and personality development (Vol. 3, pp.
646–718). New York: Wiley.

Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., & Spinrad, T. L. (2006). Prosocial development.

In N. Eisenberg (Vol. Ed.), W. Damon & R. M. Lerner (Series Eds.), Handbook
of child psychology: Social, emotional, and personality development (Vol. 3, pp.
646–718). New York: Wiley.

Eisenberg, N., & Mussen, P. (1989). The roots of prosocial behaviour in children.
New York: Cambridge University Press.

Fabes, R. A., Carlo, G., Kupanoff, K., & Laible, D. (1999). Early adolescence
and prosocial/moral behaviour I: The role of individual processes. Journal of Early
Adolescence, 19, 5-16.

Field,D. and Johnson, I. (1993). Satisfaction and change: a survey of volunteers

in a hospice organisation. Social Science & Medicine, 36(12), 1625–33.

Fisher, R.J. and Ackerman, D. (1998). The effects of recognition and group need
on volunteerism: a social norm perspective. Journal of Consumer Research, 25(3),
262–75.

Flippen, A.R., H.A Hornstein, W.E. Siegal, and E.A. Weitman (1996), „A
comparison of similarity and interdependence as triggers for ingroup formation,“
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 76, 338-402.

Graziano, W. G., Habashi, M. M., Sheese, B. E., & Tobin, R. M. (2007).

Agreeableness, empathy, and helping: A person X situation perspective. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(4), 583–59.

Hall, L. (1999). A comprehensive survey of social behaviours in O.J. Simpson

case, from A to Z. Wales, United Kindom: The Edwin Meller Press.

Harrell, W.A. (1978). Physical Attractiveness, Self-Disclosure, and Helping

Behaviour. The Journal of Social Psychology, 104 (1), 15-17.

Hartshorne, H. & May, M. A. (1929). Studies in the nature of character: Studies 43

in service and self-control (Vol. 2). New York: Macmillan.
Process of Social Influence Hogg, M.A. and Abrams, D. (1988). Social identifications: a social psychology
of intergroup relations and group processes. London: Routledge.

Hogg, M.A. and Terry, D.J. (2000). Social identity and self-categorization
processes in organizational contexts. Academy of Management Review, 25(1),
121–40.

Holmgren, R. A., Eisenberg, N., & Fabes, R. A. (1998). The relations of children’s
situational empathy-related emotions to dispositional prosocial behaviour.
International Journal of Behavioural Development, 22, 169-193.

Isen, A. M., & Levin, P. F. (1972). Effect of feeling good on helping: Cookies
and kindness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 21, 384-388.

Jackson, M., & Tisak, M. S. (2001). Is prosocial behaviour a good thing?

Developmental changes in children’s evaluations of helping, sharing, cooperating,
and comforting. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 19, 349-367.

Kavussanu, M., Seal, A. R., & Phillips, D. R. (2006). Observed prosocial and
antisocial behaviours in male soccer teams: Age differences across adolescence
and the role of motivational variables. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 18,
326-344.

Knafo, A., & Plomin, R. (2006). Parental discipline and affection and children’s
prosocial behaviour: Genetic and environmental links. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 90, 147–164.

Kogut, T. and I. Ritov (2005a), “The Identified victim effect: An identified group,
or just a single individual?,” Journal of Behavioural Decision Making, 18 (3), 157-67.

Kogut, T. and I. Ritov (2005b), “The singularity effect of identified victims in

separate and joint evaluations,” Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision
Processes, 97 (2), 106-16.

Kohn, A. (1990). The Brighter Side of Human Nature: altruism and empathy in
everyday life. N.Y.: BasicBooks.

Kramer, R.M. (1993). Cooperation and organizational identification. In

J.K.Murnighan (ed), Social psychology in organizations: advances in theory and
research (pp. 244–268).

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Latane, B., & Darley, J. 1970. The unresponsive bystander: Why doesn’t he
help? New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Leider, Stephen, Markus Mobius, Tanya Rosenblat and Quoc-Anh Do. 2009.
\Directed Altruism and Enforced Reciprocity in Social Networks.“ Forthcoming
in Quarterly Journal of Economics (previously part of NBER Working Paper
W13135, earlier version circulated under the title Social Capital in Social
Networks).

Levine, M., C. Cassidy, G. Brazier, and S Reicher (2002), “Self-categorization

and bystander non-intervention: Two experimental studies,” Journal of Applied
44 Social Psychology, 32 (7), 1452-63.
Levine, R. V., Norenzayan, A., & Philbrick, K. (2001). Cross-cultural differences Pro-social Behaviour and
in helping strangers. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32, 543–560 Factors Contributing to
Pro-social Behaviour
Lim, K.H.,Ward, L.M., and Benbasat, I. (1997). An empirical study of computer
system learning: comparison of co-discovery and self-discovery methods.
Information Systems Research, 8(3), 254–72.

MacIntyre,A. (1967). Egoism and altruism. In P. Edwards (ed), The encyclopedia

of philosophy (Vol. 2, pp. 462–6).New York:Macmillan.

Mael, F.A. and Ashforth, B.E. (1995). Loyal from day one: biodata, organizational
identification, and turnover among newcomers. Personnel Psychology, 48(2), 309–33.

Manheimer, D.I., G.D. Mellinger, and H.M. Crossley (1966), “A follow-up study
of seat belt usage,” Traffic Safety Research Review, 10, 2-13.

Markey, P. M. (2000). Bystander intervention in computer-mediated

communication. Computers in Human Behaviour, 16, 183-188.

Meier, Stephen. 2004. “An Economic Analysis of Pro-Social Behaviour.”

Dissertation.

McGuire, K. D., & Weisz, J. R. (1982). Social cognition and behaviour correlates
of preadolescent chumship. Child Development, 53, 1478-1484.

Midlarsky, E. (1968). Aiding responses: An analysis and review. Merrill-Palmer

Quarterly, 14, 229-269.

Nelson, T.D. (1999).Motivational bases of prosocial and altruistic behaviour: a

critical reappraisal. Journal of Research, 4(1), 23–31.

North, A.C., Tarrant, M., & Hargreaves, D.J. (2004). The effects of music on
helping behaviour: a field study. Environment and Behaviour, 36 (2), 266-275.

Omoto, A.M. and Snyder,M. (1995). Sustained helping without obligation:

motivation, longevity of service, and perceived attitude change among AIDS
volunteers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(4), 671–86.

Park, J.H. & Schaller, M. (2005). Does attitude similarity serve as a heuristic cue
for kinship? Evidence of an implicit cognitive association. Evolution and Human
Behaviour, , 26 (2), 158-170.

Penner, L. A., Dovidio, J. F., Piliavin, J. A., & Schroeder, D. A. (2005). Prosocial
behaviour: multilevel perspectives. Annual Reviews of Psychology, 56, 365–392.

Pessemier, Edgar A., Albert C. Bemmaor, and Dominique Hanssens, M. (1977),

“Willingness to supply human body parts: Some empirical results,” The Journal of
Consumer Research, 4(3), 131-40.

Piliavin, J.A. and Charng, H.-W. (1990). Altruism: a review of recent theory and
research. Annual Review of Sociology, 16, 27–65.

Piliavin, I.M., Rodin, J.A. & Piliavin, J. (1969) Good Samaritanism: An

underground phenomenon? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 13,
289 -299.
45
Process of Social Influence Plomin, R., DeFries, J. C., McClearn, G. E. & McGuffin, P. 2001 Behavioural
genetics, 4th edn. New York, NY: W. H. Freeman.

Rushton, J. P. (2004), Genetic and environmental contributions to prosocial attitudes:

a twin study of social responsibility. Proc. R. Soc. B 271, 2583–2585.

Rushton, J. P., Fulker, D. W., Neale, M. C., Nias, D. K. B. & Eysenck, H. J.

(1986) Altruism and aggression: the heritability of individual differences. J. Pers.
Soc. Psychol. 50, 1192–1198.

Schiff, M. (1977), “Hazard Adjustment, Locus of Control, and Sensation Seeking

- Some Null Findings,“ Environment and Behaviour, 9 (2), 233-54.

Schmidt, Greg and Bernard Weiner (1988), “An Attribution-Affect-Action Theory

of Behaviour. Replications of Judgments of Help-Giving,” Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 14 (3), 610-21.

Schroeder, D.A., Dovidio, J.F., Sibicky, M.E., Matthews, L.L. & Allen, J.L.
(1988). Empathic concern and helping behaviour: Egoism or altruism? Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 24, 333-353.

Small, Deborah A. and George Loewenstein (2003), “Helping a victim or helping

the victim: Altruism and identifiability,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 26 (1), 5-
16.

Smith, K.D., Keating, J.P., and Stotland, E. (1989). Altruism reconsidered: The
effect of denying feedback on a victim?s status to empathic witnesses. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 57(4), 641-650.

Soloman, L.Z, Solomon, H., & Stone, R. (1978). Helping as a function of

number of bystanders and ambiguity of emergency. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 4, 318-321. .

Staub, E. (1971). The use of role playing and induction in children?s learning of
helping and sharing behaviour. Child Development, 42, 805-816.

Staub, E. (1979). Positive social behaviour and morality:Vol. 2. Socialization and

development. New York: Academic Press.

Tajfel, H. and Turner, J.C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup
behaviour. In

S.Worchel and W.G. Austin (eds), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7–24).
Chicago: Nelson–Hall.

Toi, M., & Batson, C. D. (1982). More evidence that empathy is a source of
altruistic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 281-292.

Turner, J.C.,Hogg, M.A., Oakes, P.J., Reicher, S.D., and Wetherell, M.S. (1987).
Rediscovering the social group: a self-categorization theory. Oxford, UK: Basil
Blackwell.

Tyler, T.R. (1999).Why people cooperate with organizations: an identity-based

perspective. Research in Organizational Behaviour, 21, 201–46.
46
Weiner, B. (1980), “A Cognitive (Attribution) - Emotion - Action Model of Pro-social Behaviour and
Motivated Behaviour- an Analysis of Judgments of Help-Giving,” Journal of Factors Contributing to
Pro-social Behaviour
Personality and Social Psychology, 39 (2), 186-200.

Wentzel, K. R., Barry, C. M., & Caldwell, K. (2004). Friendships in middle

school: Influences on motivation and school adjustment. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 96, 195-203.

Wentzel, K. R., & Caldwell, K. (1997). Friendships, peer acceptance, and group
membership: Relations to academic achievement in middle school. Child
Development, 68, 1198-1209.

Withey, S.B. (1962). Reaction to uncertain threat. In Y. Baker and D.W. Chapman
(Eds.) Man and Society in Disaster. New York: Basic

Wyatt, J. M., & Carlo, G. (2002). What will my parents think? Relations among
adolescents’ expected parental reactions, prosocial moral reasoning and prosocial
and antisocial behaviours. Journal of Adolescent Research, 17, 646-666.

http://www.education.com/reference/article/prosocial-behaviour/

47
Process of Social Influence
UNIT 3 INTERPERSONAL
ATTRACTION
Structure

3.0 Introduction
3.1 Objectives
3.2 Interpersonal Attraction
3.2.1 Physical Attractiveness
3.2.1.1 Research on Physical Attractiveness Stereotype
3.2.2 Propinquity/ Proximity
3.2.2.1 Proximity as an Intensifier of Sentiments
3.2.2.2 Increased Probability of Acquiring Information
3.2.2.3 Heider’s Balance Theory
3.2.3 Similarity
3.2.3.1 Similarity in Different Aspects
3.2.3.2 Effect of Similarity on Interpersonal Attraction
3.2.3.3 Complementarity
3.2.3.4 Principles of Similarity or Complementarity

3.3 Explaining Interpersonal Attraction

3.3.1 Social Exchange Theory
3.3.2 Evolutionary Theories
3.3.3 The Reciprocity-of-Liking Rule
3.3.4 Rewarding Reduces Anxiety, Stress, Loneliness, Enhancing Self-Esteem

3.3.4.1 Liking Produced By Rewards others Provide

3.3.4.2 Anxiety
3.3.4.3 Stress
3.3.4.4 Social Isolation
3.3.4.5 Self Esteem

3.4 Let Us Sum Up

3.5 Unit End Questions
3.6 Suggested Readings and References

3.0 INTRODUCTION
Relationships with the individuals around us are key to one’s social existence. Any
given interaction is characterised by a certain level of intensity, which is conveyed
by individual and interpersonal behaviour, including the more subtle nonverbal
behavioural information of interpersonal attraction. The words “like” and “love,”
“dislike” and “hate” are among the most frequently used in the English language.
Everyone knows what is meant by these terms. Therefore, when we state that we
feel “attracted” to a certain person, it is unlikely that we will be asked to define
48 our use of the verb “attracted.” Interpersonal attraction is the attraction between
people which leads to friendships and romantic relationships. The study of Interpersonal Attraction
interpersonal attraction is a major area of research in social psychology. In this
unit we will be discussing how Interpersonal attraction is related to how much we
like, love, dislike, or hate someone. We will consider interpersonal attraction as
a force acting between two people that tends to draw them together and resist
their separation. We would also provide the causative factors to interpersonal
attraction, as for example similarity, thinking alike etc.

3.1 OBJECTIVES
After completion of this Unit, you will be able to:

l Define Interpersonal attraction;

l Elucidate the factors contributing to Interpersonal attraction;

l Analyse Interpersonal attraction in the light of different theories;and

l Explain how rewarding or complementing in Interpersonal attraction reduces

negative emotions.

3.2 INTERPERSONAL ATTRACTION

To the query why it is that a particular person has evoked our positive regard,
probably we will reply by making reference to some of the person’s “good
qualities” such as the person’s honesty, sense of humor, or even the particular
hair style that the person sports etc. While explanations referring to qualities which
seem to “compel” admiration are frequently given, it must be kept in mind that
interpersonal attraction is much more complicated than such explanations would
imply.

In some cases, people are attracted to those persons whom they perceive as
similar to themselves. The effect is very small for superficial features like clothes
or race but very strong for perceived similarity of attitudes.

In certain other cases, we like people who seem to agree with us because

a) we think they’re smart,

b) we will probably get along, and

c) they’ll probably like us too.

To pretend to agree with someone even when you do not really, for the purpose
of getting something they can give you, like a job, is called ingratiation. In general
this works best if you pretend to agree in about 70%. Research shows that less
is not enough, and more is both suspicious and boring.

Interpersonal attraction has been an important topic of research in psychology,

because humans are social animals, and attraction serves an important function in
forming a social network, which in turn provides security and satisfies people’s
need to belong to a social group (Baumeister & Bushman, 2008).

49
Process of Social Influence In assessing the nature of attraction, psychologists have used methods such as
questionnaires, survey, and rating scale to determine level of one’s attraction
toward another. Here, the effects of similarity, social reward, familiarity, and
physical attractiveness are examined to see how they impact interpersonal attraction.
When measuring interpersonal attraction, one must refer to the qualities of the
attracted as well as the qualities of the attractor to achieve predictive accuracy.
It is suggested that to determine attraction, personality and situation must be taken
into account. Many factors leading to interpersonal attraction have been studied.
The most frequently studied are: physical attractiveness, propinquity, familiarity,
similarity, complementarity, reciprocal liking, and reinforcement. We will discuss
each factor one by one.

3.2.1 Physical Attractiveness

Despite the old sayings that “beauty is only skin deep” and “you can not judge
a book by its cover”, we tend to operate according to Aristotle’s 2000-year-old
pronouncement that “personal beauty is a greater recommendation than any letter
of introduction”.

One of the most commonly cited factors influencing attraction is physical

attractiveness. It is indeed well known that most people show a substantial
preference for attractive persons over unattractive others (Baumeister & Bushman,
2008). Perhaps the advantage of good looks and the inferences people make
when they see a physically attractive person are the reasons for getting attracted
to another person.

Studies have shown that when people see an attractive person, they believe that
there is more than physical beauty that they see, and they tend to assume certain
internal qualities within the person, such as kindness, outgoing, etc. (Barocas &
Karoly, 1972). To illustrate this factor, let us take the research illustrating this
relationship between physical attractiveness and its stereotypes. For instance, a
study on popularity among adolescents was carried out by Cavior & Dokecki in
1973. They found that when physical attractiveness was compared to perceived
attitude similarity, physical attractiveness had a stronger effect on popularity. These
findings suggest that individuals’ perceptions of attitude similarity with those of
others may be strongly influenced by more automatic judgments of physical
attractiveness. Such demonstrations of preferential treatment may have significant
implications at the level of society, as well. For example, in one jury task
simulation experiment, more attractive defendants were found to be evaluated
more positively and with less certainty of guilt than were other less attractive
defendants.

Even though physical attractiveness is unrelated to objective measure of internal

qualities such as intelligence and personality, many researches indicate that bias
for beauty is pervasive in society

3.2.1.1 Research on Physical Attractiveness Stereotype

In one of the first studies of the physical attractiveness stereotype, college students
were asked to look at pictures of men and women who either were good-
looking, average, or homely and to then evaluate their personalities. Results
indicated that the students tended to assume that physically attractive persons
possessed a host of socially desirable personality traits as compared to those who
50 were unattractive. Consistent with the physical attractiveness stereotype, it was
also reported from research that beautiful and handsome characters were Interpersonal Attraction
significantly more likely to be portrayed as virtuous, romantically active, and
successful than their less attractive counterparts. Over the past thirty-five years,
many researchers have examined this stereotype, and two separate meta-analyses
of these studies reveal that physically attractive people are perceived to be more
sociable, successful, happy, dominant, sexually warm, mentally healthy, intelligent,
and socially skilled than those who are unattractive.

Although the above findings are based solely on samples from individualistic
cultures, the physical attractiveness stereotype also occurs in collectivist cultures,
but its content is a bit different.

Attractiveness and Job-Related Outcomes

Field and laboratory studies conducted in both individualistic and collectivistic

cultures indicate that physical attractiveness does have a moderate impact in a
variety of job-related outcomes, including hiring, salary, and promotion decisions.
In one representative study, it was found that there was a significant difference
between the starting salaries of good-looking men and those with slow average
faces. For women, facial attractiveness did not influence their starting salaries, but
it did substantially impact their later salaries. Once hired, women who were above
average in facial attractiveness typically earned $4,200 more per year than women
who were below average in attractiveness.

For attractive and unattractive men, this difference in earning power per year was
$5,200. Further, although neither height nor weight affected a woman’s starting
salary, being 20% or more overweight reduced a man’s starting salary by more
than $2,000. Overall, the research literature informs us that physical appearance
does indeed influence success on the job.

Alan Feingold (1992) conducted a meta-analysis of more than ninety studies that
investigated whether physically attractive and physically unattractive people actually
differed in their basic personality traits. His analysis indicated no significant
relationships between physical attractiveness and such traits as intelligence,
dominance, self-esteem, and mental health.

3.2.2 Propinquity/Proximity
According to Rowland Miller’s Intimate Relationships text, the propinquity effect
can be defined as: “the more we see and interact with a person, the more likely
he or she is to become our friend or intimate partner.” This effect is very similar
to the mere exposure effect in that the more a person is exposed to a stimulus,
the more the person likes it; however, there are a few exceptions to the mere
exposure effect.

3.2.2.1 Proximity as an Intensifier of Sentiments

A frequently advanced and commonly accepted notion is that propinquity, or

proximity, has a strong influence on one’s friendship choices. Stated in its simplest
form, the proposition is as follows: Other things being equal, the closer two
individuals are located geographically, the more likely it is that they will be attracted
to each other. Studies demonstrating the impact of proximity on friendship choices
are so numerous that we will mention only a few.
51
Process of Social Influence Several investigators have collected data which indicate that students tend to
develop stronger friendships with those students who share their classes, or their
dormitory or apartment building, or who sit near them, than with those who are
geographically located only slightly farther away (Byrne, 1961a). Clerks in a large
department store and members of a bomber crew have been found to develop
closer relations with those who happen to work next to them than with co-
workers a few feet away (Zander and Havelin, 1960).

One of the more interesting studies demonstrating the relationship between proximity
and friendship choice was conducted by Festinger, Schachter, and Back (1950).
These investigators examined the development of friendships in a new housing
project for married students. The housing development studies consisted of small
houses arranged in U-shaped courts, such that all except the end houses faced
onto a grassy area. The two end houses in each court faced onto the street.
Festinger (1951) arrived at the intriguing conclusion that to a great extent architects
can determine the social life of the residents of their projects. He found that the
two major factors affecting the friendships which developed were (1) sheer distance
between houses and (2) the direction in which a house faced. Friendships
developed more frequently between next-door neighbors, less frequently between
people whose houses were separated by another house, and so on. As the
distance between houses increased, the number of friendships fell off so rapidly
that it was rare to find a friendship between persons who lived in houses that were
separated by more than four or five other houses.

Festinger, Schachter, and Back also found that architectural feature which brought
an individual into proximity with other residents tended to increase that person’s
popularity. It was found, for example, that the positions of the stairways enabled
the residents of the apartments near the entrances and exits of the stairways to
make more friends than other residents. Similarity, the position of the mailboxes
in each building improved the social life of the residents of the apartment near
which they were located.

Another interesting finding has been that integrated housing produced increased
racial harmony. Deutsch and Collins (1958), for example, concluded on the basis
of their data that integrated housing should be encouraged since such integration
helps eradicate racial prejudice. Segregationists, however, have concluded that
since the evidence suggests that integration would lead to interracial friendships
and “race mixing,” segregation should be preserved at all costs.

3.2.2.2 Increased Probability of Acquiring Information

What underlies the often obtained relationship between proximity and sentiment?
Proxomity appears to allow, an opportunity to obtain information about the other
person and accumulates experience regarding the rewards or punishments one
is likely to receive from the other person.

Thus with decreasing distances sentiments such as likes and dislikes, especially
the strong sentiments of love and hate, are not likely to be felt for people about
whom we have minimal information and with whom we have had little experience.

Hence if we know the degree of proximity between two people, and do not have
knowledge of the content of the information exchange such proximity has made
possible, we cannot make a prediction concerning whether a positive sentiment
52 or a negative sentiment will develop. Therefore one may state that there are a
number of factors which may make such a conclusion erroneous.
It appears that there is a somewhat greater tendency for proximity to breed Interpersonal Attraction
attraction than hostility. Newcomb has advanced the hypothesis that proximity
should produce positive rather than negative attraction. He argued that when
persons interact, the reward-punishment ratio is more often such as to be reinforcing
than extinguishing. (Newcombe, 1956, p. 576). Thus, he reasons that the
information which proximity permits is more likely to be favorable than unfavourable
and that liking, therefore, will more often result from proximity than disliking.
Since people are to a great extent dependent upon one another for satisfaction
of their needs, it seems probable that individuals generally take care to reward
others as much as possible in interaction with them.

3.2.2.3 Heider’s Balance Theory

The prediction that proximity will more often lead to liking than disliking can be
derived from a number of the cognitive-consistency theories. It can perhaps be
most easily derived from Heider’s (1958) balance theory. The basic tenet of
Heider’s theory is that people strive to make their sentiment relationships harmonious
with their perception of the unit relationships existent between objects.

What does Heider mean by the phrase “sentiment relationships”? A “sentiment”

is simply a positive or negative attitude toward someone or something. What does
Heider mean by the phrase “unit relationships”? Separate entities are said to
have a unit relationship when they are perceived as belonging together. The
members of a family, for example, are usually perceived as a unit, as are a person
and his clothing, and so on.

Heider draws upon the principles of perceptual organisation which were formulated
by the Gestalt psychologists. The Gestaltists discovered that relationship between
objects which is especially likely to lead to unit formation is proximity: Objects
which are close together spatially tend to be perceived as a unit. According to
Heider’s theory, then, if one perceives that a unit relationship with another exists
(e.g., the other is in close proximity), this perception should induce a harmonious
sentiment relationship (e.g., liking).

To test whether or not unit formation produced by interacting intimately with

another increases attraction, Darley and Berscheid (1967) led college women to
expect that they were going to discuss their sexual standards and behaviour with
another girl, ostensibly participating in the same study. After the expectation of
further interaction had been induced, each girl was given two folders. One folder
was said to contain personality information about her partner, the girl with whom
she would converse and exchange information. The other folder was said to
contain information about another girl, who would also participate in the study but
whom she would never meet.

The personality information contained in both folders was designed to produce as

ambiguous a picture as possible of the girl described. Half of the subjects believed
that the girl described in folder A was their “randomly selected” discussion partner;
the other half believed that the girl described in folder B was their partner.

Subjects were instructed to read through both folders, form a general impression
of both girls, and then rate each of them along a number of dimensions, including
liking. The results of this study clearly indicated that the subjects expressed more
liking for the girl who had been designated as their discussion partner than they
did for the girl who was not. This study suggests, that the factor of proximity, may 53
Process of Social Influence produce a feeling of unit formation between two people. This feeling of being in
a unit relationship with another may then induce feelings of liking for that person.
Knowledge that one will be in close proximity with another may result, then, in
an individual’s going into an interaction situation with increased liking for the other
person prior to the actual interaction and prior to actual knowledge of possible
rewards which may be obtained in the interaction.

It is interesting that the liking produced by the anticipation of being in close

proximity with another may lead a person to voluntarily choose to associate with
the other person, even though the original interaction which was anticipated has
been cancelled. It was found that even when a subject anticipated interacting with
an objectively undesirable person, the attraction induced by the anticipation of
close interaction caused subjects to choose voluntarily to interact with that negative
person more readily than did people who had not previously anticipated association
with that person.

Thus one may summarise this section by stating that actual proximity is probably
correlated with attraction (or repulsion) because proximity allows one to obtain
an increased amount of information about the other person and to experience
rewards or punishments from the other. There is some suggestive evidence that
proximity in and of itself, (apart from any information it may provide about another
and apart from any rewards or punishments which the other may administer), may
facilitate attraction as a by-product of the individual’s desire for cognitive
consistency.

3.2.3 Similarity
The notion of “birds of a feather flock together” points out that similarity is a
crucial determinant of interpersonal attraction. According to Morry’s attraction-
similarity model (2007), there is a lay belief that people with actual similarity
produce initial attraction. Perceived similarity develops for someone to rate others
as similar to themselves in ongoing relationship. Such perception is either self
serving (friendship) or relationship serving (romantic relationship). Newcomb (1963)
pointed out that people tend to change perceived similarity to obtain balance in
a relationship. Additionally, perceived similarity was found to be greater than
actual similarity in predicting interpersonal attraction.

3.2.3.1 Similarity in Different Aspects

Research suggest that interpersonal similarity and attraction are multidimensional

constructs in which people are attracted to others who are similar to them in
demographics, physical appearance, attitudes, interpersonal style, social and cultural
background, personality, interests and activities preferences, and communication
and social skills. A study conducted by Theodore Newcomb (1963) on college
dorm roommates suggested that individuals with shared backgrounds, academic
achievements, attitudes, values, and political views became friends.

Physical Appearance

Erving Goffman, sociologist suggests that people are more likely to form long
standing relationships with those who are equally matched in social attributes, like
physical attractiveness etc. The study by researchers Walster and Walster supported
the matching hypothesis by showing that partners who were similar in terms of
54 physical attractiveness expressed the most liking for each other. Another study
also found evidence that supported the matching hypothesis: photos of dating and Interpersonal Attraction
engaged couples were rated in terms of attractiveness, and a definite tendency
was found for couples of similar attractiveness to date or engage (Murstein et.al.,
1976).

Attitudes

According to the ‘law of attraction’ by Byrne (1971), attraction towards a person

is positively related to the proportion of attitudes similarity associated with that
person. It was also raised that the one with similar attitudes as yours was more
agreeable with your perception of things and more reinforcing she/he was, so the
more you like him/her. Based on the cognitive consistency theories, difference in
attitudes and interests can lead to dislike and avoidance (Singh & Ho, 2000)
whereas similarity in attitudes promotes social attraction (Singh & Ho, 2000). It
was pointed out that attitude similarity activates the perceived attractiveness and
favuor-ability information from each other, whereas dissimilarity would reduce the
impact of these cues.

The studies by Jamieson, Lydon and Zanna (1987) showed that attitude similarity
could predict how people evaluate their respect for each other, and social and
intellectual first impressions which in terms of activity preference similarity and
value-based attitude similarity respectively. In intergroup comparisons, high attitude
similarity would lead to homogeneity among in-group members whereas low
attitude similarity would lead to diversity among in-group members, promoting
social attraction and achieving high group performance in different tasks Although
attitudinal similarity and attraction are linearly related, attraction may not contribute
significantly to attitude change (Simons, Berkowitz & Moyer, 1970).

Social and Cultural Background

Byrne, Clore and Worchel (1966) suggested people with similar economic status
are likely to be attracted to each other. Buss & Barnes (1986) also found that
people prefer their romantic partners to be similar in certain demographic
characteristics, including religious background, political orientation and socio-
economic status.

Personality

Researchers have shown that interpersonal attraction was positively correlated to

personality similarity (Goldman, Rosenzweig & Lutter, 1980). People are inclined
to desire romantic partners who are similar to themselves on agreeableness,
conscientiousness, extroversion, emotional stability, openness to experience and
attachment style (Klohnen & Luo, 2003).

Interests and Activities

Activity similarity was especially predictive of liking judgments, which affects the
judgments of attraction (Lydon, Jamieson & Zanna, 1988). Lydon et.al, (1988)
claimed that high self-monitoring people were influenced more by activity preference
similarity than attitude similarity on initial attraction, while low self-monitoring
people were influenced more on initial attraction by value-based attitude similarity
than activity preference similarity.

55
Process of Social Influence Social Skills

According to the post-conversation measures of social attraction, tactical similarity

was positively correlated with partner satisfaction and global competence ratings,
but was uncorrelated with the opinion change and perceived persuasiveness
measures (Waldron & Applegate, 1998).

3.2.3.2 Effects of Similarity on Interpersonal Attraction

Similarity has effects on starting a relationship by initial attraction to know each

other. It is showed that high attitude similarity resulted in a significant increase in
initial attraction to the target person and high attitude dissimilarity resulted in a
decrease of initial attraction. Similarity also promotes relationship commitment.
Study on heterosexual dating couples found that similarity in intrinsic values of the
couple was linked to relationship commitment and stability (Kurdek & Schnopp-
Wyatt, 1997).

3.2.3.3 Complementarity

The model of complementarity explains whether “birds of a feather flock together”

or “opposites attract”.Studies show that complementary interaction between two
partners increases their attractiveness to each other. Complementary partners
preferred closer interpersonal relationship than non-complementary ones. Couples
who reported the highest level of loving and harmonious relationship were more
dissimilar in dominance than couples who scored lower in relationship quality.
(Markey & Markey (2007)).

Mathes and Moore (1985) found that people were more attracted to peers
approximating to their ideal self than to those who did not. Specifically, low self-
esteem individuals appeared more likely to desire a complementary relationship
than high self-esteem people. We are attracted to people who complement to us
because this allows us to maintain our preferred style of behaviour (Markey &
Markey (2007), and through interaction with someone who complements our
own behaviour, we are likely to have a sense of self-validation and security.

3.2.3.4 Principles of Similarity or Complementarity

Principles of similarity and complementarity seem to be contradictory on the

surface. In fact, they agree on the dimension of warmth. Both principles state that
friendly people would prefer friendly partners (Dryer & Horowitz, 1997) . The
importance of similarity and complementarity may depend on the stage of the
relationship. Similarity seems to carry considerable weight in initial attraction,
while complementarity assumes importance as the relationship develops over time.
Markey (2007) found that people would be more satisfied with their relationship
if their partners differed from them, at least, in terms of dominance, as two
dominant persons may experience conflicts while two submissive individuals may
have frustration as neither member take the initiative. Perception and actual
behaviour might not be congruent with each other. There were cases that dominant
people perceived their partners to be similarly dominant, yet in the eyes of
independent observers, the actual behaviour of their partner was submissive, in
other words, complementary to them (Dryer 1997). Why do people perceive
their romantic partners to be similar to them despite evidence to the contrary? The
reason remains unclear, pending further research.
56
 Interpersonal Attraction
3.3 EXPLAINING INTERPERSONAL
ATTRACTION
3.3.1 Social Exchange Theory
People’s feelings toward a potential partner are dependent on their perception of
rewards and costs, the kind of relationships they deserve, and their likelihood for
having a healthier relationship with someone else. Rewards are the part of a
relationship that makes it worthwhile and enjoyable. A cost is something that can
cause irritation like a friend overstaying his welcome. Comparison level is also
taken into account during a relationship. This suggests that people expect rewards
or costs depending on the time invested in the relationship. If the level of expected
rewards is minimal and the level of costs is high, the relationship suffers and both
parties may become dissatisfied and unhappy. Lastly, the comparison of alternatives
means that satisfaction is conditional on the chance that a person could replace
the relationship with a more desirable one.

3.3.2 Evolutionary Theories

The evolutionary theory of human interpersonal attraction states that opposite-sex
attraction most often occurs when someone has physical features indicating that
he or she is very fertile. Considering that the primary purpose of conjugal/romantic
relationships is reproduction, it would follow that people invest in partners who
appear very fertile, increasing the chance of their genes being passed down to the
next generation. This theory has been criticised because it does not explain
relationships between same-sex couples or couples who do not want children,
although this may have something to do with the fact that whether one wants
children or not one is still subject to the evolutionary forces which produce them.

Another evolutionary explanation suggests that fertility in a mate is of greater

importance to men than to women. According to this theory, a woman places
significant emphasis on a man’s ability to provide resources and protection. The
theory suggests that these resources and protection are important in ensuring the
successful raising of the woman’s offspring. The ability to provide resources and
protection might also be sought because the underlying traits are likely to be
passed on to male offspring.

Evolutionary theory also suggests that people whose physical features suggest
they are healthy are seen as more attractive. The theory suggests that a healthy
mate is more likely to possess genetic traits related to health that would be passed
on to offspring. People’s tendency to consider people with facial symmetry more
attractive than those with less symmetrical faces is one example. However, a test
was conducted that found that perfectly symmetrical faces were less attractive
than normal faces.It has also been suggested that people are attracted to faces
similar to their own. Case studies have revealed that when a photograph of a
woman was superimposed to include the features of a man’s face, the man whose
face was superimposed almost always rated that picture the most attractive. This
theory is based upon the notion that we want to replicate our own features in the
next generation, as we have survived thus far with such features and have instinctive
survival wishes for our children. Another (non-evolutionary) explanation given for
the results of that study was that the man whose face was superimposed may
have consciously or subconsciously associated the photographically altered female
57
face with the face of his mother or other family member.
Process of Social Influence Evolutionary theory also suggests that love keeps two people together so that
they can raise a child. Love keeps two people together, and this would help raise
a child. For example, a man and a woman who love each other would be together
and work together to raise a child. Back in the tribal days—when much of human
evolution took place—it would probably require two people to successfully raise
an offspring, and a mother with a supporting partner would probably have more
surviving offspring than a mother who does not have such a partner. Thus, people
with the ability to form love would produce more offspring than those without that
ability. And these offspring would have the genes for love. Thus, the genes for
love would become common, and that is why most people today have the ability
to love.

3.3.3 The Reciprocity-of-Liking Rule

A naive observer from another culture would have little trouble discovering one
reward which people in our society spend a tremendous amount of time, money,
and effort to obtain. Just a brief glance at a few television commercials would
reveal that the desire for the esteem of others must be a very strong and pervasive
motivation, for it is often exploited by those who have something to sell. Countless
everyday observations provide a great deal of evidence that we value highly the
esteem of others and will work hard to obtain this reward. If esteem is indeed
a reward, and if it is true that we tend to like those who reward us, it follows that
we should like people who like us.

The proposition that esteem will be reciprocated can be derived from several
psychological theories. Theorists who take the reinforcement point of view reason
that the most general determinants of interpersonal esteem are reciprocal rewards
and punishments. Some of these theorists (e.g., Homans, 1961) have specifically
noted that one type of reward to which people are extremely responsive is social
approval or esteem. Like money, social approval is viewed as a generalised,
“transituational” reinforcer because it has the power to reinforce a wide variety
of human activities. For example, many experimenters have demonstrated that if
one merely nods his head and murmurs approval each time his discussion partner
utters a plural noun, he can dramatically increase the frequency with which the
recipient of that reward will pepper his discourse with plural nouns (e.g., Dulany,
1961). Stronger demonstrations of approval, such as the roar of the crowd or
another’s love for oneself, frequently influence lifetimes of activity. Social approval,
again like money, is valuable because its possession makes one reasonably confident
that a number of his needs will be satisfied; a lack of social approval often
indicates that many of one’s needs— those which require the good will and
cooperation of others for satisfaction— will be frustrated.

In addition to the reinforcement theorists, cognitive-consistency theorists also

make the reciprocal-liking prediction. Heider’s balance theory (1958), for example,
predicts that if Person A likes X (himself) and Person B likes X (Person A), a
cognitively balanced state in which Person A likes Person B will be induced.
Many correlational data, obtained from a wide variety of psychological studies,
have been cited in support of the reciprocal-liking proposition (e.g., Newcomb,
1963). These data provide evidence that individuals tend to believe that the
people they like reciprocate their liking. If it is true that we like people who like
us, we would expect to find such a correlation. Taken alone, however, these data
do not provide conclusive evidence for reciprocity of liking. Either one of two
58
processes, or both, could be responsible for the observed correlation between
the extent to which we feel another likes us and the extent to which we like him.
1) A person may come to like another and then, as a consequence of his liking, Interpersonal Attraction
come to perceive that the other person likes him. In such a case, the liking for
the other is not induced by the other person’s providing the reward of esteem,
but rather by some other determinant of interpersonal attraction.

2) One may become attracted to another as a consequence of his discovery that

the other person likes him. Such a process would support the notion that esteem
constitutes a reward, and we are attracted to people who give such a reward.

3.3.4 Rewarding Reduces Anxiety, Stress, Loneliness and

Enhances Self-Esteem
As a strategy of interpersonal attraction if one person in the interaction rewards
the other for aomething the latter has done, it enhances the interpersonal relationship.
In the process it also reduces many of the negative emotional states of the person
concerned. This is being discussed in detail below:

3.3.4.1 Liking Produced By Rewards Others Provide

The psychological principle which is most frequently used to predict interpersonal

attraction is the principle of reinforcement. We will like those who reward us, we
will dislike those who punish us. Several theorists have elaborated upon the
relationship between reinforcement and interpersonal attraction. For example,
Homans’ (1961) theory rests largely on the general proposition that a necessary
condition for receiving esteem from others is the capacity to reward them. He
hypothesizes further that

A man’s esteem depends upon the relative rarity of the services he provides if we
take a larger look at the ways in which a man may help others. If he has
capacities of heart, mind, skill, experience, or even strength that they do not have,
and uses these capacities to reward others, he will get esteem from them. But if
his capacities are of a kind that they also possess, or if these capacities are widely
available in the group, he will not get much esteem even if he uses them in such
a way as to reward the others.

In other words, there are, according to Homans, rewards and rewards— one
who provides rewards which are in short supply is more likely to evoke attraction
than one who provides rewards which are relatively common. Homans considers
the costs as well as the rewards one can incur in a relationship and introduces the
concept of profit. Profit is simply defined as the amount of reward a person
receives from an interaction minus the cost he incurs in that interaction. The
amount of social approval, or esteem, one has for another is hypothesised to be
a function of the profit one obtains from one’s interactions with the other.

According to these theorists, then, how much a person will be attracted to another
depends upon whether the outcomes the person obtains from the other are above
or below his Comparison Level (CL) “If the outcomes in a given relationship
surpass the CL, that relationship is regarded as a satisfactory one. And, to the
degree the outcomes are supra-CL, the person may be said to be attracted to
the relationship. If the outcomes endured are infra-CL, the person is dissatisfied
and unhappy with the relationship”.

Lott and Lott (1961), extending Hullian learning theory to apply to the case of
interpersonal attraction, have reasoned that a person should come to like not only 59
Process of Social Influence those who provide rewards, but also those who have nothing to do with providing
rewards, but are merely physically present when the individual receives rewards.
They have reasoned that, like any other response, response to a reward becomes
conditioned to all discriminable stimuli present at the time of reinforcement; another
person, of course, may be a discriminable stimulus.

To test whether or not one tends to like those who just happen to be present at
the time one receives a reward, Lott and Lott formed three-member groups of
children. Each group then played a game in which some members of the group
were rewarded and other members were not. Following participation in the game
sociometric tests were administered to the children. Specifically the children were
asked which two children in the class they would choose to take with them on
their next family vacation. The results of some studies indicated that children who
had been rewarded chose members of their three-person groups (who were
present at the time of reward) significantly more often than unrewarded children
chose members of their three-person groups.

Thus, Lott and Lott concluded that the reward of success in the game had been
conditioned to the other members of the group and this led to increased esteem
for these members. Results of this study were corroborated by a subsequent
study conducted by James and Lott (1964). While it is generally accepted that
“we will like those who reward us and dislike those who punish us,” we must note
that this statement does not, to any great extent, increase predictability in the area
of interpersonal attraction. We have no equation which will permit us to add up
all the rewards a stimulus person will provide and balance them against the
punishment which he will inflict and thus arrive at a total reward index which will
tell us how much others will like him.

A multitude of things may be rewarding or punishing to any individual at a given

time. In addition, it is often the case that “one man’s meat is another man’s
poison”; individuals differ in what they find to be rewarding or punishing. Since
it is so difficult to calculate what one individual at one point in time will find
rewarding, researchers in interpersonal attraction have been led to consider which
behaviours and events most people, most of the time, will find rewarding. By
considering some of the specific behaviours that have been found to be rewarding
or punishing to people in a number of different situations, that is behaviours which
appear to be “trans-situational reinforcers, some predictive insight into interpersonal
attraction has been gained.

3.3.4.2 Anxiety

There is much evidence that when individuals feel anxious, afraid, lonely or unsure
of themselves, the sheer presence of others is particularly rewarding. Try an
experiment: Come to class a few minutes early on a regular school day. You will
probably find that few of your classmates approach you. Then, some time when
an exam is scheduled in one of your classes, arrive a few minutes early. You may
be surprised to see the number of classmates who approach you with friendly
remarks or joking comments. There is a good psychological explanation for the
observation that students seem friendlier on days when an exam is scheduled than
on days when one is not.

Schachter (1959) tested the hypothesis that anxiety conditions will lead to an
increased affiliative tendency. He recruited college women to participate in an
60 experiment. When they arrived in the experimental rooms, the experimenter claimed
that his investigation was concerned with the effects of electric shock. The Interpersonal Attraction
description of the shock experiment was designed to make some of the women
highly anxious, while leaving the remainder of the women calm. Specifically, anxiety
was produced in the following way:

In the high-anxiety condition, the subjects entered a room to find facing them a
gentleman of serious mien, wearing hornrimmed glasses, dressed in a white
laboratory coat, stethoscope dribbling out of his pocket, behind him an array of
formidable electrical junk. After a few preliminaries, the experimenter began:
“Allow me to introduce myself. I am Dr. Gregor Zilstein of the Medical School’s
Departments of Neurology and Psychiatry. I have asked you all to come today
in order to serve as subjects in an experiment concerned with the effects of
electrical shock”.

To make matters worse, the series of electric shocks the girls were to receive
were described as extremely painful. In the low-anxiety condition, both the setting
and the description of the experiment were designed to avoid arousing anxiety in
the subjects. There was no electrical apparatus in the experimental room. The
experimenter explained that he was concerned with extremely mild electrical shocks
that would not in any way be painful. The “shocks” were said to resemble more
a tickle or a tingle than anything unpleasant.

Once some women had been made more anxious than others, Schachter could
examine how anxiety affected their desire to be with other individuals. He assessed
subjects’ desire to affiliate in the following way. The experimenter claimed that
there would be about a ten-minute delay while several pieces of equipment were
secured. Subjects were told that during the ten-minute break they could wait in
a private cubicle. These rooms were said to be comfortable and spacious; they
all contained armchairs and there were books and magazines in each room. The
experimenter also commented that some of them might want to wait with other
girls. If they preferred to wait with others, they were asked to let the experimenter
know. He then passed out a sheet upon which the subject could indicate whether
she preferred to wait alone, or with others, or had no preference at all. Schachter
found support for his hypothesis that anxious people will be especially inclined to
seek the company of others. Sixty-three per cent of the subjects in the high-
anxiety condition wanted to wait with other subjects. In the low-anxiety condition
only thirty-three per cent of subjects wished to wait with others. Schachter had
also asked girls to indicate how strongly they desired to be alone or with others.
They could give answers varying from “I very much prefer being alone” (scored
-2) through “I don’t care very much” (0) to “I very much prefer being together
with others” (scored +2). These data also support the notion that affiliative desire
increases with anxiety.

The finding that the anticipation of stress produces an increased desire to affiliate
has been replicated by Darley and Aronson (1966). While anxiety appears to
increase an individual’s need for affiliation, there is evidence that anxious individuals
are selective about the others with whom they wish to affiliate. Anxious people
apparently do not wish to be in the company of just any other person. Instead,
anxious individuals seem to prefer to associate with people who are in a situation
similar to their -own.

Schachter bases this conclusion on a study which is similar in many ways to the
experiment just described. Two groups of college women were led to anticipate
that they would soon be severely shocked. Then they were asked whether they 61
Process of Social Influence preferred to wait alone or with others. How the “others” were described varied.
In one condition girls were given a choice between waiting alone or waiting with
some girls who were said to be taking part in the same experiment. In the other
condition, girls were told they could either wait alone or with girls who were
waiting to talk to their professors and advisors. Sixty per cent of the girls who
had a chance to visit with similar others chose to spend their time in the company
of others. Not one girl who was given the option of waiting with girls who were
waiting to talk with their professors chose to wait with others. Scores on the
“Over-all Intensity Scale” revealed the same results. Girls did not seem to be
especially anxious to associate with other girls unless these other girls were in a
situation similar to their own. Schachter notes that this finding puts a limitation on
the old saw “Misery loves company.” Perhaps misery doesn’t love just any kind
of company - only miserable company. Once we accept the proposition that
when individuals are anxious they have a special desire to affiliate with people in
situations similar to their own, the question arises as to why this would be so.
Schachter considers several possibilities:

1) Escape. When one is in a stressful situation, perhaps he anticipates that talking

to others in the same situation may help him figure out a way to avoid the pain
altogether.

2) Cognitive clarity. There is some evidence that individuals in ambiguous or novel

situations will desire to talk with knowledgable others in order to gain some
understanding of an otherwise incomprehensible event. Since receiving severe
shock in an experimental setting is probably unique in the subject’s experience,
perhaps anxious subjects desire to associate with others in order to find out if
the others know any more about what is going on than they do.

3) Direct anxiety reduction. People often comfort and reassure one another.
Perhaps highly anxious subjects choose to wait with others in the hope that the
others will bolster their courage.

4) Indirect anxiety reduction. An effective device for reducing anxiety is to “get

one’s mind off one’s troubles.” People may be seen as more diverting than
books or magazines. Perhaps subjects choose to wait with others in order to
prevent themselves from thinking about the shock which will be forthcoming.

5) Self-evaluation. People often use other people in order to evaluate the

reasonableness of their own emotions and feelings. In this novel and emotion-
producing situation, an individual probably is not quite sure exactly how she
should be reacting. (Should she be angry at the experimenter? Slightly
apprehensive about the shock? Terrified?) Perhaps high-anxiety subjects seek
out others in an attempt to appropriately label and identify their own feelings.

3.3.4.3 Stress

There is some evidence that individuals who are placed in a stressful situation
show less severe physiological disturbance if other individuals are present than if
they are not. Bovard (1959) developed an intriguing and compelling theory
concerning the effect of social stimuli on an individual’s physiological response to
stress.

A number of recent studies have suggested a reciprocal inhibitory effect between

62 the posterior hypothalamus and the anterior hypothalamus and parasympathetic
centers . . . Stimulation of the latter region would appear to inhibit activity of the Interpersonal Attraction
former . . .

The simplest hypothesis to account for the observed phenomena at the human and
animal levels is, therefore, that the presence of another member of the same
species stimulates activity of the anterior hypothalamus and thus, as a byproduct,
inhibits activity of the posterior hypothalamus and its centers mediating the
neuroendocrine response to stress. Previous interaction with the other person or
animal, as the case may be, could be assumed to accentuate this effect.

The evidence that the presence of others may help eliminate an individual’s
discomfort when he is experiencing stress, provides an additional reason why
individuals might learn to affiliate with others in stressful circumstances.

3.3.4.4 Social Isolation

There is evidence that even when not under stressful conditions, people prefer a
fair amount of contact with others to being alone for any length of time. The
strength of the desire for social intercourse with others was dramatically
demonstrated by the results of a social reform experiment conducted in the early
19th century. At this time one of the great prison architects was John Haviland.
As the result of the Quakers’ religious beliefs and the upsurge of “humanitar-
ianism,” an attempt was made in 1821 to reform the prison system. Haviland was
commissioned to build a “perfect” and “humanitarian” prison. The Quaker reformers
noticed that mingling among prison inmates produced strong friendships among
the inmates which caused them to continue their friendships after being released.
Such friendships among ex-criminals tended to lead ex-criminals back into a life
of crime. In the humanitarian reformation, it was decided to prevent contact
among the prisoners. It was thought that total social isolation would prevent
harmful corruption, protect the criminal’s good resolutions, and give him ample
opportunity to ponder on his mistakes and make his peace with God. Haviland’s
architectural design, which provided for solitary confinement day and night, was
extremely popular with prison commissioners and a great many prisons imitated
this style. The wardens, however, soon found that great ingenuity had to be
adopted to prevent prisoners from talking. For example, new ventilation systems
had to be designed, for prisoners soon found that the regular systems could be
utilised for purposes of communication. Ultimately the policy of social isolation
was found to produce undesirable results. The fact that many inmates became
physically and mentally ill as a result of their solitary confinement and their lack
of work eventually forced a change of policy. Current psychological knowledge
would have enabled us to foresee this outcome. By early childhood a person has
usually developed a need for the company of people. Complete social isolation
for any prolonged period of time is known to be a painful experience. “Cabin
fever” is a familiar expression which epitomizes the discomfort that even brief
social isolation brings. Schachter points out that the autobiographical reports of
religious hermits, prisoners of war, make it clear that isolation is devastating.

He notes that three trends have been found to characterise the experience of
individuals enduring absolute social deprivation.

1) The reported pain of the isolation experience seems typically to bear a

nonmonotonic relationship to time. Pain increases to a maximum in many cases
and then decreases sharply. This decrease in pain is frequently marked by onset
of the state of apathy, sometimes so severe as to resemble a schizophrenic state 63
Process of Social Influence of withdrawal and detachment.

2) There seems to be a stronger tendency for those in isolation to think, dream,

and occasionally to hallucinate about people.

3) Those isolates who are able to keep themselves occupied with distracting
activities appear to suffer less and to be less prone to develop apathy.

The data support the conclusion that complete social isolation is more unpleasant
than normal human contact. It is evident that others provide some reward by their
sheer physical presence, they stave off loneliness.

3.3.4.5 Self Esteem

What effect does an individual’s self-esteem have on his reaction to accepting or

rejecting others? Clinicians seem to agree that a high self-esteem person is more
receptive to another’s love than is an individual with lower self-esteem. For
example, Rogers (1951) says that the person who accepts himself will have better
interpersonal relations with others. Adler (1926) adds that those who themselves
feel inferior depreciate others. Horney (1939) views love as a capacity, she sees
love of self and love of others as positively related. Fromm (1939), too, agrees
with this notion. Studies supporting a positive relationship between self-esteem
and liking or acceptance for others are reported in Omwake (1954). These
studies support the contention that there is a positive relationship between self-
esteem and liking.

A different prediction was made by Dittes (1959). He hypothesised that approval

from other people would be especially rewarding to individuals low in self-esteem.
He argued that:

A person’s attraction towards membership in a group, like motivational attraction

toward any object, may be considered a function of two interacting determinants:
(a) the extent to which his particular needs are satisfied by the group, and (b) the
strength of his needs.

Dittes assumed that the lower the level of one’s own self-esteem, the greater
would be his need for such supports to self-esteem as are provided by acceptance
in a group. From this assumption, Dittes’ predictions can be clearly derived: (1)
When another person is accepting, he satisfies a greater need in a low self-esteem
person than in a high self-esteem person. Thus, acceptance should produce a
greater increase in attraction the lower the self-esteem of the recipient. (2) When
the other person is rejecting, he frustrates a greater need in the low self-esteem
person than in the high self-esteem person. Thus rejection should decrease the
other’s attractiveness more, the lower the self-esteem of the recipient.

An experimental study provided support for Dittes’ proposal. Subjects were

college freshmen, who met in small groups of five or six members for a two-hour
discussion task session. An attempt was made to make the group very attractive.
During the first hour of discussion, the groups’ conversation was interrupted three
times to allow subjects to rate the desirability of having each of the other members
in the group. These ratings were requested by the experimenter as though they
were for his own interest. At an intermission, the subject’s interest in these ratings
was aroused and he was allowed to see privately what he believed to be the
64
ratings of desirability made of him by other members of the group. Actually, the
distributed ratings were fictitious, and had been prepared in advance to lead some Interpersonal Attraction
subjects (those in the Satisfying condition) to believe that they were highly accepted
by the group, and to lead others (those in the Frustrating condition) to believe that
the group rejected them. After some additional tasks had been performed, the
subject’s own attraction to the group was assessed. Individuals were asked if the
group met again, how much they would like to continue working with it, how
much they enjoyed participating in the experiment, and how disappointed would
they be if not invited back to participate. Scores on these questions were summed
to form an index of the subject’s attraction to the group.

Dittes measured self-esteem in three ways: (1) Before the experimental session,
subjects completed a self-esteem questionnaire. (2) At the end of the session,
they were asked about their general sense of adequacy among groups of peers.
(Since the acceptance manipulation would be expected to affect answers to this
question, subjects’ scores were computed separately in each experimental
condition.) (3) Subjects were rated by the other individuals in the group. The
ratings they received were considered to be indicative of their own self-esteem.The
extent to which the subject believed he had been accepted by the group had a
much greater effect on whether or not he reciprocated the group’s liking when his
self-esteem was low than when it was high.

3.4 LET US SUM UP

Both personal characteristics and environment play a role in interpersonal attraction.
A major determinant of attraction is propinquity, or physical proximity. People
who come into contact regularly and have no prior negative feelings about each
other generally become attracted to each other as their degree of mutual familiarity
and comfort level increases. The situation in which people first meet also determines
how they will feel about each other. One is more likely to feel friendly toward a
person first encountered in pleasant, comfortable circumstances. People are
generally drawn to each other when they perceive similarities with each other. The
more attitudes and opinions two people share, the greater the probability that they
will like each other. It has also been shown that disagreement on important issues
decreases attraction. One of the most important shared attitudes is that liking and
disliking the same people creates an especially strong bond between two individuals.
The connection between interpersonal attraction and similar attitudes is complex
because once two people become friends, they begin to influence each other’s
attitudes. In conclusion, people tend to be attracted to individuals who are physically
attractive, physically accessible and socially available; and similar in terms of
purposes, backgrounds, beliefs, and needs. However, interpersonal attraction is
not the only factor that affects the building of a strong and health relationship. A
good relationship requires communication and the ability to adapt to one another.

3.5 UNIT END QUESTIONS

1) Define the term interpersonal attraction and discuss its significance in our life.

2) Describe the salient factors that contribute in the development of interpersonal

attraction

3) Why do people attracted towards others as they do, critically evaluate.

65
Process of Social Influence
3.6 SUGGESTED READINGS
Aronson, E., Wilson, T. D., & Akert, R. M. (2010). Social Psychology (7th
ed.). Upper addle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Baron, R. A., Branscombe, N. R., & Byrne, D. (2009). Social Psychology

(12th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson/Allyn and BaconBaumeister, R.F. & Bushman,
B. (2008). Social Psychology and Human Nature (1st Edition). Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth.

Berscheid, Ellen; Walster, Elaine H. (1969). Interpersonal Attraction. Addison-

Wesley Publishing Co.

Byrne, D. (1971). The Attraction Paradigm. New York: Academic Press.

References
Adler, A. The Neurotic Constitution. New York: Dodd, Mead, 1926.

Back, K. W. and M. D. Bogdonoff. “Plasma lipid responses to leadership,

conformity, and deviation.” In P. H. Leiderman and D. Shapiro (Eds.)
Psychobiological Approaches to Social Behaviour. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford Univer.
Press, 1964, 36-39.

Backman, C. W. and P. F. Secord. “The effect of perceived liking on interpersonal

attraction,” Hum. Rel., 1959, 12, 379-384.

Barocas, R., & Karoly, P. (1972). “Effects of physical appearance on social

responsiveness.” Psychology Reports 31:772-781.

Bovard, E. W. “The effects of social stimuli on the response to stress,” Psych.

Rev., 1959, 66, 267-277.

Buss, D. M., & Barnes, M. (1986). Preferences in human mate selection. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology , 50(3), 559-570.

Byrne, D., Clore, G. L. J. & Worchel, P. (1966). Effect of economic similarity-

dissimilarity on interpersonal attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
4(2), 220-224.

Byrne, D. (a) “The influence of propinquity and opportunities for interaction

on classroom relationships,” Hum. Rel. 1961, 14, 63-70.

Cavior, N., & Dokecki, P. (1973). “Physical Attractiveness, Perceived Attitude

Similarity, and Academic Achievement as Contributors to Interpersonal Attraction
among Adolescents.” Developmental Psychology 9 (1): 44-54.

Darley, J. M. and E. Aronson, “Self-evaluation vs. direct anxiety reduction as

determinants of the fear-affiliation relationship,” J. Exp. Soc. Psych. Suppl, 1966,
1,66-79.

Darley, J. M. and E. Berscheid, “Increased liking as a result of the anticipation

of personal contact,” Hum. Rel., 1967, 20, 29-40.
66
Deutsch, M. and M. E. Collins, “The effect of public policy in housing projects Interpersonal Attraction
upon interracial attitudes,” in Eleanor Maccoby, T. M. Newcomb, and E. L.
Hartley (Eds.), Readings in Social Psychology (3rd ed.). New York: Holt,
1958,612-623.

Dittes, J. E. “Attractiveness of group as function of self-esteem and acceptance

by group,” J. Abn. Soc.

Drayer, D. C. & H, L. M. (1997). When do opposites attract? Interpersonal

complementarity versus similarity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
72, 592-603

Dulany, D. E., Jr. “Hypotheses and habits in verbal ‘operant conditioning’ “J.
Abn. Soc. Psych., 1961, 63, 251-263.

Festinger, L. “Architecture and group membership,”J. Soc. Iss., 1951, 1, 152-

163.

Festinger, L., S. Schachter, and K. Back. Social Pressures in Informal Groups:

A Study of Human Factors in Housing. New York: Harper, 1950.

Fromm, E., “Selfishness and self-love,” Psychiatry, 1939, 2, 507-523.

Gerard, E. O. “Medieval Psychology: Dogmatic Aristotelianism or Observational

Empiricism?,”J. Hist. Behav. Sci., 1966, 2, 315-329.

Goldman, J. A., Rosenzweig, C. M. & Lutter, A. D. (1980). Effect of similarity

of ego identity status on interpersonal attraction. Journal of Youth and Adolescence,
9(2), 153-162.

Heider, F. (1958). The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations. Wiley,

Homans, G. C. Social Behaviour: Its Elementary Forms. New York: Harcourt,

Brace and World, 1961.

Horney, K.(1939) New Ways in Psychoanalysis. New York: Norton.

Huston, T. & Levinger, G. (1978). “Interpersonal Attraction and Relationships.”

Annual Reviews 29:115-56.

James, A. and A. J. Lott, “Reward frequency and the formation of positive

attitudes toward group members,” J. Soc. Psych., 1964, 62, 111-115.

Jamieson, D. W. Lydon, J. E., & Zanna, M. P. (1987). Attitude and activity

preference similarity: Differential bases of interpersonal attraction for low and high
self-monitors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(6), 1052–1060.

Klohnen, E. C., & Luo, S. (2003) Interpersonal attraction and personality: What
is attractive – self similarity, ideal similarity, complementarity, or attachment security?
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 709-722.

Kurdek, L. A., & Schnopp-Wyatt, D. (1997). Predicting relationship commitment

and relationship stability from both partners’ relationship values: Evidence from
heterosexual dating couples. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23(10),
1111-1119.
67
Process of Social Influence Lott, A. J. and B. E. Lott. “Group cohesiveness, communication level, and
conformity,” J. Abn. Soc. Psych., 1961, 62, 408-412.

Lydon, J. E., Jamieson, D. W., & Zanna, M. P. (1988). Interpersonal similarity

and the social and intellectual dimensions of first impressions. Social Cognition,
6(4), 269-286.

Markey, P.M.& Markey, C. N.(2007) Romantic ideals, romantic obtainment, and

relationship experiences: The complementarity of interpersonal traits among romantic
partners. Journal of social and Personal Relationships, 24(4), 517-533.

Mathes, E. W., & Moore, C. L. (1985). Reik’s complementarily theory of romantic

love. The Journal of Social Psychology, 125, 321-327.

Morry, M. M. (2007). Relationship satisfaction as a predictor of perceived similarity

among cross-sex friends: A test of the attraction-similarity model. Journal of Social
and Personal Relationships, 24, 117-138.

Murstein, Bernard I.; Patricia Christy (October 1976). “Physical attractiveness

and marriage adjustment in middle-aged couples”. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology.

Newcomb, T. M. (1963). Stabilities underlying changes in interpersonal attraction.

Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 66(4), 376-386.

Omwake, Katherine. “The relationship between acceptance of self and acceptance

of others shown by three personality inventories,” J. Cons. Psych., 1954, 18,443-
446.

Ossorio, P. G. and K. E. Davis. “The self, intentionality, and reactions to evaluations

of the self,” in C. Gordon and K. J. Gergen (Eds.), Self in Society. New York:
Wiley, 1966. Psych., 1959, 59, 77-82.

Rogers, C. R. Client-centered Therapy. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1951.

Schachter, S. The Psychology of Affiliation. Stanford, California: Stanford University

Press, 1959.

Simons, H. W., Berkowitz, N. N., & Moyer, R. J. (1970). Similarity, credibility,

and attitude change: A review and a theory. Psychological Bulletin, 73(1), 1-16.

Singh, R., & Ho, S. Y. (2000). Attitudes and attraction: A new test of the
attraction, repulsion and similarity-dissimilarity asymmetry hypotheses. British Journal
of Social Psychology, 39(2), 197-211.

Tagiuri, R. “Social preference and its perception,” in R. Tagiuri and L. Petrullo

(Eds.), Person Perception and Interpersonal Behaviour. Stanford: Stanford
University Press, 1958, 316-336.

Thibaut, J. W. and H. H. Kelley. The Social Psychology of Groups. New York:

Wiley and Sons, 1959, 89-99.

Waldron, V. R., & Applegate, J. L. (1998). Similarity in the use of person-

centered tactics: Effects on social attraction and persuasiveness in dyadic verbal
disagreements. Communication Reports, 11(2), 155-165.

Zander, A. and A. Havelin. “Social comparison and interpersonal attraction,”

68
Hum. Rel., 1960, 13, 21-32.
 Aggression and Violence
UNIT 4 AGGRESSION AND
VIOLENCE
Structure

4.0 Introduction
4.1 Objectives
4.2 Nature and Types of Aggression
4.2.1 Clinical Classification
4.2.2 Instrumental versus Hostile Aggression
4.2.3 Proactive and Reactive Aggression
4.2.4 Positive versus Negative Aggression

4.3 The Measurement of Aggression

4.4 Causes of Aggressive Behaviour
4.4.1 Neurophysiologic Perspectives
4.4.2 Biological Causes
4.4.2.1 Brain Dysfunction
4.4.2.2 Testosterone
4.4.2.3 Serotonin
4.4.2.4 Nutrition Deficiency
4.4.3 Environment and Genes
4.4.4 Parental Rearing Style
4.4.5 Parent-child Interaction Pattern
4.4.6 Parental Influence on Children’s Emotions and Attitudes
4.4.7 Difficulties with Friends and at School
4.4.8 Predisposing Child Characteristics
4.4.9 Environmental Stressors
4.4.9.1 Temperature
4.4.9.2 Crowding
4.4.9.3 Noise

4.5 Theories of Aggression

4.5.1 Psychodynamic Theory
4.5.2 Frustration-Aggression Theory
4.5.3 Cognitive Neo-association Theory
4.5.4 Social Learning Theory
4.5.5 Script Theory
4.5.6 Excitation Transfer Theory
4.5.7 Social Interaction Theory
4.5.8 Social Information Processing Theories
4.5.9 General Aggression Model
69
Process of Social Influence 4.6 Intervention to Reduce Aggression
4.6.1 Parent Training Programmes for Reducing Antisocial Behaviour in Children
4.6.2 Developing a Programme
4.6.3 Training Using Videotapes
4.6.4 Other Training Programmes
4.6.5 Failure of Parent Training
4.6.6 Management of Hyperactivity
4.6.7 Interventions at Schools

4.7 Let Us Sum Up

4.8 Unit End Questions
4.9 Suggested Readings and References

4.0 INTRODUCTION
Human aggression is any behaviour directed toward another individual that is
carried out with the proximate (immediate) intent to cause harm. In addition, the
perpetrator must believe that the behaviour will harm the target, and that the target
is motivated to avoid the behaviour (Bushman & Anderson 2001, Baron &
Richardson 1994, Berkowitz 1993, Geen 2001).

Aggression is the delivery of an aversive stimulus from one person to another, with
intent to harm and with an expectation of causing such harm, when the other
person is motivated to escape or avoid the stimulus.

When we hear the word ‘aggression’ we probably tend first to think of physical
force - a fist-fight, an assault with a weapon, a loud verbal retort or some other
form of intense and punitive action enacted in the course of conflict between two
people. Actually, according to the definition we have adopted, aggression may be
carried out in any behaviour actuated by intent to harm another person against
that person’s wishes. Spreading vicious gossip about someone in hopes of ruining
that person’s reputation would be considered aggression.

In this unit we will be dealing with nature and type of aggression, and learn how
to measure aggression. Following this we will learn about causes of aggression
from various perspectives including biologic, neurophysiologic and social
perspective. Whether aggressive behaviour is in any way related to parental
rearing style and the influence of parental attitudes on children. Also there will be
environmental stressorws and the unit will take up all the theories of aggression.
Finally the unit will talk about the interventions to prevent aggression.

4.1 OBJECTIVES
After successful completion of this Unit, you will to be able to:

l Define aggression;

l Differentiate between various types of aggression;

l Analyse the various causes of aggression;

70
l Explain aggression in the light of different theories; and Aggression and Violence

l Explain effective techniques to reduce aggression.

4.2 NATURE AND TYPES OF AGGRESSION

Apart from physical violence against the body of other humans, there may also
be verbal abuse and verbal assault etc., which all can be considered as aggression.
In addition, damaging or destroying another’s property can be a highly effective
way of aggressing against another person. Even something as subtle and controlled
as a social snub can be a powerful source of harm to the victim, a harm that is
clearly intended by the person delivering it. Accidental harm is not aggressive
because it is not intended. Harm that is an incidental by-product of helpful actions
is also not aggressive, because the harm-doer believes that the target is not
motivated to avoid the action (e.g., pain experienced during a dental procedure).
Similarly, the pain administered in sexual masochism is not aggressive because the
victim is not motivated to avoid it. Indeed, the pain is actively solicited in service
of a higher goal (Baumeister 1989).

Aggressive behaviour during early childhood is considered a part of the normal

developmental process (Greydanus, Pratt, Greydanus, & Hoffman, 1992). Acts
of aggression change during a person’s life span. When young children lack verbal
skills, aggression is predominantly physical. When verbal skills develop, they
could be used as peaceful communication, but also for aggressive purposes (Ferris
& Grisso, 1996). Outbursts of anger usually peak around 18 to 24 months of age
and gradually decrease by five years of age. Tremblay et al. (1999), found that
most children have experienced their onset of physical aggression by the end of
their 2nd year. Early aggressive behaviour consists of crying, screaming, temper
tantrums, biting, kicking, throwing, and breaking objects (Achenbach, 1994; Raine,
Reynolds, Venables, Mednick, & Farrington, 1998). At this stage, intention is
instrumental.

Early childhood aggressive behaviour may be in response to parental authority

and unrealistic expectations on the part of the parent toward their child. Later as
social interactions increase, aggression may be directed towards peers (Greydanus
et al., 1992). Later on, such behaviours as teasing, bullying, fighting, irritability,
cruelty to animals, and fire-setting occur. During early adolescence, more serious
violence develops, including gang fights and use of weapons.

In human research, a widely used definition of aggression is behaviour deliberately

aimed at harming people and/or objects. In this definition harm has implicitly been
defined as hurting someone physically, e. g. by kicking. However, other forms of
harm, like psychological harm, e. g. humiliating, and relational harm such as
malicious gossiping, are just as important. In addition to physical aggression, two
other forms of aggression are currently recognised, namely psychological aggression
and relational aggression.

Antisocial behaviour is defined as behaviour by which people are disadvantaged

and basic norms and values are violated. Examples of such behaviours are lying,
stealing and truancy. Aggressive behaviour then is a specific form of antisocial
behaviour. Aggressive behaviour is an important component of several common
mental health disorders in young people, including conduct disorder, oppositional-
defiant disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and intermittent explosive 71
disorder.
Process of Social Influence Effective treatment of aggression is important not only because this behaviour is
associated with negative developmental outcomes for perpetrators but also because
it harms people in addition to the client

There are different types of aggression. Theoretical perspectives on aggression

suggest that typographically and functionally distinct subtypes of aggression exist
(Dodge & Schwartz, 1997). It is important to consider the multidimensional
nature of aggression because different stimuli combine with different types of
physiological and mental processes to create distinct forms of aggression. Although
different classification systems for aggression have been proposed, as seen below,
these typologies tend to overlap somewhat, with each system having a slightly
different emphasis. The forms of types of aggression that are reviewed consist of
the clinical classification, the stimulus-based classification, the instrumental versus
hostile classification, and the positive versus negative classification.

4.2.1 Clinical Classification

The clinical literature research, heavily influenced by the work of Feshbach (1970)
has frequently referred to two forms of aggression the first form being “affective,”
“reactive,” “defensive,” “impulsive,” or “hot-blooded” aggression. This type of
aggression is defined as a violent response to physical or verbal aggression initiated
by others that is relatively uncontrolled and emotionally charged. In contrast, the
second form of aggression is referred to as “predatory,” “instrumental,” “proactive,”
or “cold-blooded” aggression. This type of aggression is characterised as controlled,
purposeful aggression lacking in emotion that is used to achieve a desired goal,
including the domination and control of others.

4.2.2 Instrumental versus Hostile Aggression

Feshbach (1970) originally developed this typology, and it has been elaborated
upon more recently by Atkins et al. (1993). This influential model separates
aggression into instrumental and hostile functions. Instrumental aggression produces
some positive reward or advantage (impact) on the aggressor unrelated to the
victim’s discomfort. The purpose of hostile aggression is to induce injury or pain
(negative impact) upon the victim. In this case, there is little or no advantage to
the aggressor. This model has been widely studied in community samples of
children and adults with varying results (Atkins et al., 1993). One problem with
this classification is that the constructs require careful delineation because many
aggressive episodes will have components of both instrumental and hostile
aggression.

4.2.3 Proactive and Reactive Aggression

A number of recent studies of aggression draw a distinction between reactive and
proactive aggression. The first of these terms refers to aggressive behaviour that
is enacted in response to provocation, such as an attack or an insult, and it is
manifested in both self-defensive and angry actions. The latter term refers to
aggression that is initiated without apparent provocation, such as we see in bullying
behaviour. Such behaviour is not evoked by anger, hostility or the need to defend
oneself, but by other motives that relate to obtaining goods, asserting power,
assuring the approval of reference groups and other such goals. Reactive and
proactive aggression are the equivalent of what earlier theorists called affective
and instrumental aggression.
72
4.2.4 Positive versus Negative Aggression Aggression and Violence

Generally speaking, aggression is considered to have a negative function that not

only elicits disapproval from others, but also is evaluated as destructive and
damaging in its consequences. However, Blustein (1996) argues that the term
“aggressive” behaviour is ambiguous, denoting both positive and negative
behaviours. Ellis (1976) considered positive aggression to be healthy, productive
behaviour if it promoted the basic values of survival, protection, happiness, social
acceptance, preservation, and intimate relations. In the context of positive
aggression, a certain amount of aggression is thought to be necessary and adaptive
throughout childhood and adolescence because it helps build autonomy and identity
(Gupta, 1983; Romi & Itskowitz, 1990).

Furthermore, a certain degree of aggression or dominance helps to facilitate

engagement in cooperative and competitive activities with one’s peers. Channeled
in the proper direction, human aggression is the force that enables a person to be
healthfully self-assertive, dominant, and independent and to achieve mastery of
both the environment and the self. Therefore, it is believed that positive aggression
takes many forms, including self-protection, standing up in the face of negation,
pushing for new possibilities, and defending against harm.

With respect to negative aggression, this behaviour has been defined as acts that
result in personal injury or destruction of property (Bandura, 1973). Alternatively,
it also has been defined as attacking behaviour that harms another of the same
species (Atkins et al., 1993). Negative aggression also is defined as forceful
action that is directed towards the goal of harming or injuring another living being
(Moyer, 1968).

Encroaching on the home or territory of a resident and causing others financial,

physical, and emotional damage also is included in negative aggression (Moyer,
1968). Negative aggression is considered unhealthy because it induces heightened
emotions that can in the long-term be damaging to the individual.

4.3 THE MEASUREMENT OF AGGRESSION

Aggression has been measured in a number of different ways. Perhaps the most
popular technique has been to use rating scales that are completed by either the
mother of the child or the schoolteacher. One well-used example of such a rating
scale is the Child Behaviour Checklist (Achenbach, 1994). A second frequently
used measure of aggression consists of self-report measures where the individual
fills out a questionnaire to assess different aggressive attitudes and behaviours.
Perhaps the most popular is the Buss-Durkee Hostility Inventory (Buss & Durkee,
1957).

Aggression also can be measured by observers. For example, the Overt Aggression
Scale (Yudofsky, 1986) measures four different types of ward behaviour in
psychiatric patients by nurse raters. Furthermore, aggression can be measured
using a subtype scale that can classify different types of aggression. Proactive and
reactive aggression can be reliably and validly assessed by a brief self-report
measure (the Reactive-Proactive Aggression Questionnaire) with a reading age of
eight years.

73
Process of Social Influence In addition, aggression and aggressive-related measures can be assessed in the
justice system by using

1) official files of the police, court, and correctional agencies

2) self-report measures, for example Self-Reported Delinquency

3) Psychopathy Checklist Revised (PCL-R), a rating scale designed to measure

traits of psychopathic personality disorder (Hare, 1991).

PCL-R is the most popular clinical instrument for assessing psychopathic behaviour
Finally, aggression may be assessed using clinical projective tests such as the
Thematic Apperception Test (Murray, 1957; Wodrich & Thull, 1997).

Self Assessment Questions

1) Discuss nature and types of aggression with suitable examples.

...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................

2) What are the clinical classification of aggression?

...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................

3) Differentiate between proactive and reactive aggression.

...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................

4) Define instrumental aggression and differentiate it from hostile aggression.

...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................

5) Explain proactive and reactive aggression.

...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
74 ...............................................................................................................
 Aggression and Violence
6) What are the characteristic features of positive and negative aggression.

...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................

7) Describe the methods by which aggression can be measured.

...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................

4.4 CAUSES OF AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOUR

4.4.1 Neurophysiologic Perspectives
Neurophysiologic perspectives argue that aggression is a biological response that
is under the control of the brain. There are several important principles, It
emphasises the role of the brain, hormones and neurotransmitters in aggressive
behaviour; It stresses that our behaviour is largely governed by biological forces
rather than environmental ones; It states that aggression is innate not learned.

4.4.2 Biological Causes

Research is beginning to indicate that biological processes (internal stimuli) may
serve a role in predisposing to aggression. Five specific processes are selected
for brief description: (1) brain dysfunction, (2) testosterone, (3) serotonin, (4)
birth complications, and (5) nutrition deficiency.

4.4.2.1 Brain Dysfunction

Aggressive criminals have been found to have poor brain functioning. One source
of evidence comes from neuropsychological tests, which have indicated poor
functioning of the frontal and temporal regions of the brain in violent offenders. In
addition, EEG studies have shown that aggressive prisoners are more likely to
show EEG abnormalities.

Aggressive psychopaths are more likely to show excessive slow EEG wave. A
third source of evidence comes from brain imaging studies. Aggressive prisoners
have been shown to have reduced glucose metabolism in the prefrontal region of
the brain, while individuals with antisocial personality disorder show an 11%
reduction in the volume of prefrontal gray matter compared to normal and
psychiatric control groups. The reason why brain dysfunction predisposes to
aggression may be because the prefrontal region of the brain normally acts to
control and regulate the emotional reactions generated by deeper, limbic brain
structures like the amygdala. If the prefrontal region of the brain is functioning
poorly, it will be less able to keep these aggressive impulses in check, resulting
in an increased likelihood of impulsive, aggressive acts.
75
Process of Social Influence 4.4.2.2 Testosterone

Sex hormones appear to play a role in shaping aggressive behaviour. Aggressive,

violent offenders have been found to have significantly higher levels of testosterone
than controls. Female criminals also have been found to be much more likely to
commit crimes around the menstrual phase of their cycle when progesterone is
low, while aggression is reduced around the time of ovulation when estrogen and
progesterone levels are high (Carlson, 1998). Weight-lifters who take anabolic
steroids become more aggressive and hostile, and normal men who are given
testosterone become more irritable and hostile.

4.4.2.3 Serotonin

There has been a recent increase in research on neurotransmitters and their

relationship to aggression in animals and humans. Although there is emerging data
implicating the role of a variety of neurotransmitters in mediating impulsive aggressive
behaviour in humans, most data have suggested a particularly strong role for
serotonin. Both animal and human research has shown that aggressors have lower
levels of the neurotransmitter serotonin. Nevertheless, the links between brain
chemistry and aggression in humans are complex, because the environment plays
a key role in regulating neurochemistry.

Social dominance influences serotonin levels in monkeys, and alcohol consumption

also plays a significant role (Carlson, 1998). Birth complications have been
repeatedly found to be associated with later increased aggressive behaviour in
childhood and criminal activity in adults . Interestingly, birth complications alone
have rarely been found to have a direct link with aggression and violence. Instead,
aggressive behaviour is especially likely to develop when birth complications
combine with psychosocial risk factors such as disadvantaged family environment,
and poor parenting (Arsenault, Tremblay, Boulerice, & Saucier, 2002). Specific
birth complications e.g., forceps delivery etc. are believed to result in central
nervous system damage, which in turn impairs brain function, which then predisposes
aggression (Liu, 2004a).

4.4.2.4 Nutrition Deficiency

Research on nutrition deficiency and aggressive behaviour is beginning to get

attention. Factors include food additives, hypoglycemia, cholesterol, and deficiencies
in protein, iron, and zinc. In humans, the male offspring of pregnant women
starved during the German blockade of food to Holland at the end of World War II
had 2.5 times the rates of antisocial personality disorder in adulthood compared
to controls. In addition, several studies reported that iron deficiency is directly
associated with aggressive behaviour and conduct disorder. Similarly, zinc deficiency
has been found to be linked with aggressive behaviour in both animals and humans.
It is believed that early malnutrition negatively impacts brain growth and
development, and that brain impairments predispose individuals to antisocial and
violent behaviour by impacting cognitive functions (Liu, Raine, Venables, &
Mednick, 2004).

4.4.3 Environment and Genes

Twin and adoption studies suggest a large shared (family) environmental effect, a
moderate non-shared (unique) environmental effect, and a modest genetic effect.
76 Typical twin concordance rates for adolescent delinquency are 87% for
monozygotic twins and 72% for dizygotic twins. Adoption studies suggest that Aggression and Violence
genetically vulnerable children—that is, children whose birth parents were
antisocial—may be especially susceptible to unfavourable family conditions. The
genetic element seems to be stronger for adult criminality than childhood conduct
disorder and delinquency.

4.4.4 Parental Rearing Style

Five aspects of how parents bring up their children have been shown repeatedly
to be strongly associated with long term antisocial behaviour problems, namely
(a) poor supervision, (b) erratic, harsh discipline, (c) parental disharmony, (d)
rejection of the child, and (e) low involvement in the child’s activities. One study
showed that among antisocial boys aged 10, differences in parenting styles predicted
over 30 % of the variance in aggression two years later.

4.4.5 Parent-child Interaction Pattern

Direct observation in the home shows that much aggressive behaviour in children
is influenced by the way parents behave towards them. In many families with
antisocial children the parents do little to encourage polite or considerate behaviour
by the child. Such behaviour is often ignored and rendered ineffective. Yet
frequently when the child yells or has a tantrum he or she gets attention, often
the parent gives in, so the child wins and soon learns to adapt accordingly. The
coexistent unresponsiveness to the child’s communications and emotional needs
contributes further to the child’s disturbance.

4.4.6 Parental Influence on Children’s Emotions and Attitudes

Difficulties can often be traced back to infancy. A high proportion of toddlers who
go on to develop conduct problems show disorganised attachment patterns,
experiencing fear, anger, and distress on reunion with their parent after a brief
separation. This behaviour is likely to be a response to frightening, unavailable,
and inconsistent parenting. The security of infant attachment can be predicted with
substantial certainty before the child is even born, from the emotionally distorted,
confused style in which the mother talks about relationships with her own parents.

By middle childhood, aggressive children are quick to construe neutral overtures

by others as hostile and have difficulty judging other people’s feelings. They are
poor at generating constructive solutions to conflicts, believing instead that aggression
will be effective. This quickness to take offence at the slightest opportunity is
reflected on the street in sensitivity to disrespect, which can lead to swift retribution.
This indicates the fragile self esteem and confrontational view of the world that
these young people have come to develop after experiencing years of frustration
and failure. Some find that being violent makes them feel good about themselves
and give them control.

4.4.7 Difficulties with Friends and at School

In the school playground these children lack the skills to participate and take turns
without upsetting others and becoming aggressive. Peer rejection typically ensues
quickly, and the children then associate with the other antisocial children, who
share their set of values. Those with difficulty reading typically fail to get any
qualifications by the time they leave school, and they become unemployed. This
may contribute to persisting aggressive behaviour. 77
Process of Social Influence 4.4.8 Predisposing Child Characteristics
Hyperactivity, also known as attention deficit Hyperactivity disorder is predominantly
genetically determined. Children who show this restless, impulsive pattern of
behaviour do not necessarily start off aggressive, but over time a proportion
become so. They have difficulty waiting their turns in social encounters and games
and so easily provoke retaliation and get into fights. Where hyperactivity and
conduct disorder coexist from an early age the long term outlook is especially
poor.

Delinquents have repeatedly been shown to have an IQ that is 8-10 points lower
than law abiding peers—and this is before the onset of aggressive behaviour.
Other traits predisposing to conduct problems include irritability and explosiveness,
lack of social awareness and social anxiety, and reward seeking behaviour.

The interplay between a child’s characteristics and the environment is complex.

As children grow older, their environment is increasingly determined by their own
behaviour and choices. There may be turning points when certain decisions set the
scene for years to come.Thus it is not simply a young person’s level of antisocial
behaviour per se that determines later outcome but also how the behaviour shapes
the social world inhabited later on. This has important implications for intervention.

4.4.9 Environmental Stressors

4.4.9.1 Temperature

When the temperature rises people tend to feel more disposed to aggressive
behaviour. A researcher looked at incidents of violence across the USA and the
corresponding weather reports. He found that when it was moderately hot (84°F)
there was the most violence, but after the weather showed higher temperature, the
violence decreased. This was backed up by a lab study by Baron and Bell who
put participants in rooms of different temperatures then increased the heat in each
of the rooms. The participants were asked to give electric shocks. They found
that as the temperature rose, the participants gave more electric shocks, but then
once the temperatures got to extreme levels, the shocks decreased. However,
another researcher called Anderson looked at cases of violent acts including rape,
murder and assault. He found that there was a steady increase as the temperature
rose but that there was no indication of decline in extreme heat. One problem with
this theory is that it would probably not be true to say that people in hotter
countries are more aggressive.

4.4.9.2 Crowding

A higher density of people leads to higher levels of aggression. This theory links
to de-individuation. It is also unpleasant when your personal space is invaded.
For example, there is the most aggression along the most heavily-congested
roads. There are more prison riots when the population density in the prison is
higher. A study shows there was more aggression in a day nursery as the nursery
got more crowded.

However, this pattern is not found in families, as people expect others to be in

close proximity. This suggests that it is not just a high density, but overcrowding
that is the problem. There are also limitations to this, as some people do not find
78 encroachment of their personal space to be a problem. Furthermore, there are
also cultural differences e.g. Arabs tend to stand very close together. Also, if you Aggression and Violence
can confront people about it, aggression can be reduced. Both crowding and heat
lead to physiological arousal which leads to aggression. However, this may depend
on your interpretation of the arousal; for example, crowds can be uplifting, fun
and exciting.

4.4.9.3 Noise

Noise is an unwanted sound that causes a negative effect. It can cause aggression
when it is too loud or unpredictable. Glass and Singer conducted an experiment
where participant were asked to complete a maths task and were then asked to
complete a proof-reading task. During the maths task, some of participants were
subjected to noise, but all of them had quietness and no noise during the proof-
reading task. It was found that the people who had the noise in the first task made
more mistakes in the second task. They made the most mistakes when the noise
was very loud, was random and when they had no control over it.

Self Assessment Questions

1) Discuss the various causes of aggressive behaviour.

...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................

2) What are the neurophysiologic factors that contribute to aggressive behaviour.

...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................

3) Put forward the biological causes of aggression.

...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................

4) Discuss the interaction between environment and genes in contributing to

aggressive behaviour.

...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
79
Process of Social Influence
5) In what ways parental rearing style and parental interaction cause aggression.

...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................

6) Discuss the parental influence on children’s emotions and attitudes and the
influence that the difficulties the child has with friends in then school.

...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................

7) Enumerate the various predisposing child characteristic factors in causing

aggression

...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................

8) What are the various environmental stressors that cause aggression.

...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................

4.5 THEORIES OF AGGRESSION

4.5.1 Psychodynamic Theory
Freud argued that all human beings possess two important instincts, the life instinct
(Eros) and the death instinct (Thanatos). The conflict between life and death
instincts results in self-destructive tendencies which lead to aggressive behaviour.
The struggle between life and death instincts creates a build up of tension in our
unconscious mind. This tension needs to be released, either through suitable
outlets such as sport (sublimation) or onto others (displacement). Failure to relieve
these aggressive impulses may result in an outburst of uncontrollable aggression.
Freud’s theory is also known as the hydraulic model of aggression.

4.5.2 Frustration-Aggression Theory

It is essentially a behaviourist approach that suggests aggression is a learned
response to frustration. Frustration occurs when an individual is exposed to external
situations (stimulus) that cause discomfort or anger e.g. prolonged queuing,
80
overcrowding, failure to achieve a goal, etc. Frustration is cumulative – it builds Aggression and Violence
up in an individual until it is discharged via an aggressive act (response). The
frustration-aggression hypothesis is sometimes known as drive-reduction theory.
Dollard et al claim that Frustration always causes aggression, and Aggression is
always caused by frustration.

4.5.3 Cognitive Neo-association Theory

Berkowitz (1993) has proposed that aversive events such as frustrations,
provocations, loud noises, uncomfortable temperatures, and odors produce negative
affect. Negative affect produced by unpleasant experiences automatically stimulates
various thoughts, memories, expressive motor reactions, and physiological responses
associated with both fight and flight tendencies. In cognitive neo-association theory,
aggressive thoughts, emotions, and behavioural tendencies are linked together in
memory (Collins & Loftus 1975).

Concepts with similar meanings e.g., hurt, harm and, concepts that frequently are
activated simultaneously e.g., shoot, gun, develop strong associations. When a
concept is primed or activated, this activation spreads to related concepts and
increases their activation as well. Cognitive neo-association theory not only
subsumes the earlier frustration-aggression hypothesis (Dollard et al. 1939), but
it also provides a causal mechanism for explaining why aversive events increase
aggressive inclinations, i.e., via negative affect (Berkowitz 1993). This model is
particularly suited to explain hostile aggression, but the same priming and spreading
activation processes are also relevant to other types of aggression.

4.5.4 Social Learning Theory

According to social learning theories (Bandura, 2001; Mischel 1999), people
acquire aggressive responses the same way they acquire other complex forms of
social behaviour—either by direct experience or by observing others. Social
learning theory explains the acquisition of aggressive behaviours, via observational
learning processes, and provides a useful set of concepts for understanding and
describing the beliefs and expectations that guide social behaviour. Patterson’s
work on family interactions and the development of antisocial behaviour patterns
relies heavily on this approach.

4.5.5 Script Theory

Huesmann (1998) proposed that when children observe violence in the mass
media, they learn aggressive scripts. Scripts define situations and guide behaviour.
The person first selects a script to represent the situation and then assumes a role
in the script. Once a script has been learned, it may be retrieved at some later
time and used as a guide for behaviour. This approach can be seen as a more
specific and detailed account of social learning processes. Scripts are sets of
particularly well-rehearsed, highly associated concepts in memory, often involving
causal links, goals, and action plans. When items are so strongly linked that they
form a script, they become a unitary concept in semantic memory. Furthermore,
even a few script rehearsals can change a person’s expectations and intentions
involving important social behaviours.

4.5.6 Excitation Transfer Theory

Excitation transfer theory (Zillmann 1983) notes that physiological arousal dissipates 81
Process of Social Influence slowly. If two arousing events are separated by a short amount of time, arousal
from the first event may be misattributed to the second event. If the second event
is related to anger, then the additional arousal should make the person even
angrier.

4.6.7 Social Interaction Theory

Social interaction theory (Tedeschi & Felson 1994) interprets aggressive behaviour
as social influence behaviour, that is, an actor uses coercive actions to produce
some change in the target’s behaviour. Coercive actions can be used by an actor
to obtain something of value e.g., information, money, goods, sex, services,
safety , to exact retributive justice for perceived wrongs, or to bring about desired
social and self identities e.g., toughness, competence. This theory provides an
excellent way to understand recent findings that aggression is often the result of
threats to high self-esteem, especially to unwarranted high self-esteem i.e.,
narcissism.

4.5.8 Social Information Processing Theories

Although there is not yet one common theory of SIP in aggressive individuals,
Crick and Dodge (1994) have convincingly integrated various constructs from
studies on child and adolescent aggression.

According to their model, individuals in social situations:

l perceive and encode the situational and social cues,

l form a mental representation and interpretation of the situation,

l select a goal or desired outcome for the interaction,

l recall or construct possible reactions to the situation,

l evaluate these reactions and finally,

l initiate what they expect to be an adequate action.

The model suggests that some individuals develop specific characteristics of SIP
that enhance their risk of aggressive behaviour. These processes are inferred from
contents of the memory store, acquired rules, social schemata, and social
knowledge.

Studies show that when aggressive youngsters encode situational cues, they focus
more on aggression-relevant stimuli, they remember more aggression-relevant
details of a situation, and they over perceive aggression in their partners. When
interpreting the cues, aggressive children are less able to recognise the specific
intentions and motivations of others, and they exhibit a tendency to attribute
hostile intentions to others.

In the third phase, more egocentric and antisocial goals have been found in
aggressive youngsters. They try more frequently to maximise their own utility even
when this injures others, or they are more interested in dominating the interaction
rather than maintaining a relationship. In the phase of response access or
construction, aggressive children generate more aggressive and hostile alternatives
82 (Zelli et al., 1999). This does not seem to be because of a generally smaller
number of stored response schemata.
However, their repertoire of reactions lacks variety and is dominated by aggressive, Aggression and Violence
impulsive, and sometimes fanciful reactions. In the phase of response evaluation
and decision, antisocial individuals have a more short-term estimation of
consequences. They also seem to expect more self-efficacy and relatively positive
consequences of aggressive behaviour (Zelli et al., 1999).

These evaluations may be derived from enduring beliefs learned in the family and
in peer groups. In the sixth phase, individuals initiate the reaction that seems to
be most appropriate and in line with their goals.

Models of SIP assume that individuals go through these phases more or less
automatically and with little if any reflection. Although the processes may depend
partially on dispositions of neuropsychological functioning and temperament, the
content of SIP is attributed mainly to learning in social contexts (e.g., Bandura,
1973).

For example, experiences of aggression, conflict, abuse, and inappropriate parenting

in the family seem to have a basic influence. Aggression-prone schemata and
beliefs may also be learned via media consumption, at school, and particularly in
peer groups. The respective cognitions influence interactions in peer groups, and
the resulting behaviour is again evaluated and reinforced cyclically by them (Crick
& Dodge, 1994). Eventual changes in SIP may be because of new social
experiences, differentiations of cognitive schemata, and acquired social skills during
development.

4.5.9 General Aggression Model

In General Aggression Model (GAM), Anderson and Bushman (2002) tried to
integrate existing mini-theories of aggression into a unified whole. The model is
based on the concept of knowledge structures and how they operate to produce
behaviour. Knowledge structures arise out of experience, influence perception,
can become more or less automatic in some cases, and are linked to affective
states, beliefs and behaviour. In essence, they are used to guide responses to the
environment. Knowledge structures include perceptual schemata, person schemata,
and behavioural scripts which define the kinds of behaviours that are appropriate
in various situations. The model focuses on characteristics of person and the
situation as they relate to a person’s present internal state (affect, arousal and
cognition), and ultimately appraisal and decision making processes. Appraisal and
decision making processes lead to either impulsive or thoughtful actions, which in
turn cycle back to the next social encounter.

Self Assessment Questions

1) Discuss the psychodynamic theory of aggression.

...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................

83
Process of Social Influence
2) In what ways frustration aggression theory explains aggression.

...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................

3) What is cognitive neo association theory? How does it explain aggression.

...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................

4) Delineate social learning theory from the point of view of learning aggressive
behaviour.

...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................

5) What is script theory? How does it explain aggression?

...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................

6) Discuss excitation transfer theory and social information processing theories

in terms of explaining aggression.

...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................

7) Explain aggression from the point of view of social interaction theory.

...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
84
 Aggression and Violence
8) Put forward the general aggression model and explaina ggression in terms of
the same.

...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................

4.6 INTERVENTION TO REDUCE

AGGRESSION
Treatment needs to be targeted at major modifiable risk factors and its outcome
measured objectively. It should preferably be at an early age as conduct disorder
can be reliably detected early, has high continuity, is amenable to treatment at a
young age, and is very hard to eradicate in older children..

4.6.1 Parent Training Programmes for Reducing Antisocial

Behaviour in Children
Little published evidence exists that individual psychotherapy whether
psychodynamic or cognitive behavioural, pharmacotherapy, general eclectic family
work, or formal family therapy are effective in treating conduct disorder.
Behaviourally based programmes to help parents, however, have consistently
been shown to be effective. For example, the pioneering work of Patterson and
colleagues showed that directly instructing parents while they interact with their
children leads to significant and lasting reduction in behavioural problems. Many
other studies have replicated this.

4.6.2 Developing a Programme

It is better to organise a training programme for the parents and teenage children
and this can be done by two or three disciplines coming together. To get results
the professionals need to be trained in the specific methods, and for this one
needs a manual and a training centre with well qualified trainers. Most consistently
effective programmes have at least 10 sessions, to increase the effects, a booster
is desirable several months later. Also, intervention needs to be early, since
teenage treatments have only small effects.

4.6.3 Training Using Videotapes

Although conventional one-to-one treatment is effective, a more cost effective
approach is needed to treat larger numbers. One could have videos showing
short vignettes of parents and children in common situations. They show the
powerful effect of parents’ behaviour on their child’s activity, with examples of
“right” and “wrong” ways to handle children. Ten to 14 parents attend a weekly
two hour session for 12 weeks. Two therapists lead the group and promote
discussion, so that all members grasp the principles; role play is used to practice
the new techniques. Practical homework is set each week and carefully reviewed
with a trouble shooting approach.

85
Process of Social Influence 4.6.4 Other Training Programmes
Among more intensive programmes, the one developed by Puckering et al entails
one day a week for 16 weeks. This programme has been shown to be effective
in improving parenting in quite damaged families and enabling children to come off
“at risk” child protection registers.

4.6.5 Failure of Parent Training

In many cases, aggression is caused by faulty parental behaviour, often because
of parental psychiatric difficulties such as depression, drug and alcohol problems,
and personality difficulties.

4.6.6 Management of Hyperactivity

Hyperactivity is distinct from conduct disorder, although they often coexist.
Psychological treatment has to be rather different. Rewards have to be given
more contingently and more frequently and have to be changed more often. Tasks
have to be broken down into shorter components. Specific, clear rules have to
be set for each different situation, as these children have difficulty generalising.
School is often particularly difficult as the demands for concentration are great,
the distractions from other children higher than at home, and the level of adult
supervision lower. However, use of the principles outlined above can lead to
useful improvements.

Management with drugs (usually methylphenidate or dexamphetamine) is reserved

for children with severe symptoms in both home and school (hyperkinetic
syndrome). This syndrome occurs in just over 1% of boys. The short term effects
of drug treatment are large; less is known about long term benefits.

4.6.7 Interventions at Schools

Early preventive educational programmes can reduce later aggressive behaviour.

Self Assessment Questions

1) What kind of parent training programme will be useful in reducing aggression.

...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................

2) What are the various methods of developing a programme of intervention in

Aggression?

...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................

86
 Aggression and Violence
3) Discuss the various other training programme for intervention in aggression
and indicate if there is failure of parent training how would it affect the
interventions?

...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................

4) How will you manage hyperactivity?

...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................

5) In what ways one could organise intervention programmes in schools for

reducing aggression

...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................

4.7 LET US SUM UP

Aggression is the delivery of an aversive stimulus from one person to another, with
intent to harm and with an expectation of causing such harm, when the other
person is motivated to escape or avoid the stimulus. Accidental harm is not
aggressive because it is not intended. Harm that is an incidental by-product of
helpful actions is also not aggressive, because the harm-doer believes that the
target is not motivated to avoid the action e.g., pain experienced during a dental
procedure. There are different types of aggression. Theoretical perspectives on
aggression suggest that typographically and functionally distinct subtypes of
aggression exist. It is important to consider the multidimensional nature of aggression
because different stimuli combine with different types of physiological and mental
processes to create distinct forms of aggression. Treatment needs to be targeted
at major modifiable risk factors and its outcome measured objectively. It should
preferably be at an early age as aggression is amenable to treatment at a young
age and is very hard to eradicate in adults

4.8 UNIT END QUESTIONS

1) Define the term aggression and discuss various types of aggression.

2) Describe the salient factors that contribute in the development of aggressive

behaviour pattern.

87
Process of Social Influence 3) Why do people behave aggressively as they do, critically evaluate?

4) Compare and contrast different theoretical models of aggression.

5) Design an intervention program to control aggression.

4.9 SUGGESTED READINGS AND

REFERENCES
Bandura, A. (1973). Aggression: A Social Learning Analysis. Prentice-Hall;
Oxford, England:

Baron R.A. & Richardson D.R. (1994). Human Aggression. 2nd ed. New York:
Plenum.

Baumeister R.F. (1989). Masochism and the Self. Hillsdale, NJ. Erlbaum.

Berkowitz, L. (1993). Aggression: Its Causes, Consequences, and Control.

New York: McGraw-Hill.

References
Achenbach, T.M. Child Behaviour Checklist and related instruments. In: Maruish,
ME., editor. The use of psychological testing for treatment planning and outcome
assessment. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; Hillsdale, NJ: 1994. p. 517-549.

American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental

disorders. 4th ed.. Authors; Washington, DC: 1994.

Anderson, C. A., & Bushman, B. J. (2002). Human aggression. Annual Review

of Psychology, 53, 27–51.

Arsenault L, Tremblay RE, Boulerice B, Saucier JF. Obstetrical complications

and violent delinquency: Testing two developmental pathways. Child Development
2002;73:496–508. [PubMed: 11949905]

Atkins MS, Stoff DM, Osborne ML, Brown K. Distinguishing instrumental and
hostile aggression: Does it make a difference? Journal of Abnormal Child
Psychology 1993;21:355–365. [PubMed: 8408984]

Bandura A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: an agentic perspective. Annu. Rev.

Psychol. 52:1–26

Blustein, J. Intervention with excessively aggressive children: Conceptual and ethical

issues. In: Ferris, CF.; Grisso, T., editors. Understanding aggressive behaviour in
children. New York Academy of Sciences; New York: 1996. p. 308-317.

Bushman B.J. & Anderson C.A. (2001). Is it time to pull the plug on the hostile
versus instrumental aggression dichotomy? Psychological Review, 108, 273–79.

Buss, A. H., & Durkee, A. (1957). An inventory for assessing different kinds of
hostility. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 21, 343–349.

Carlson, N. Physiology of behaviour. 6th ed.. Allyn and Bacon; Needham Heights,
88 MA: 1998.
Collins A.M., Loftus E.F. (1975). A spreading activation theory of semantic Aggression and Violence
processing. Psychol. Rev. 82:407–28

Crick NR, Dodge KA. 1996. Social-information-processing mechanisms in reactive

and proactive aggression. Child Dev 67:993–1002.

Crick, N. R., & Dodge, K. A. (1994). A review and reformulation of social

information processing mechanisms in children’s social adjustment. Psychological
Bulletin, 115, 74-101.

Dodge, KA.; Schwartz, D. Social information processing mechanisms in aggressive

behaviour. In: Breiling, JE., et al., editors. Handbook of antisocial behaviour. John
Wiley; New York: 1997. p. 171-180.

Dollard J, Doob L, Miller N, Mowrer O, Sears R. (1939). Frustration and

Aggression. New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press

Elliott, DS.; Ageton, S.; Huizinga, D.; Knowles, B.; Canter, R. The prevalence
and incidence of delinquent behaviour: 1976–1980. Behaviour Research Institute;
Boulder, Colorado: 1983. National Youth Survey. Report No. 26

Ellis A. Healthy and unhealthy aggression. Humanitas 1976;12:239–254.

Ferris, C.F. & Grisso, T. (1996). Understanding aggressive behaviour in children.

Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences; New York, p. 426-794.

Feshbach, S. Aggression. In: Mussen, P., editor. Carmichael’s manual of child

psychology. Wiley; New York: 1970. p. 159-259.

Geen R.G. (2001). Human Aggression. Taylor & Francis. 2nd Ed.

Greydanus D.E., Pratt H.D., Greydanus S.E. & Hoffman A.D. (1992). Corporal
punishment in schools: A position paper of the Society for Adolescent Medicine.
Journal of Adolescent Health 13, 240–246.

Gupta P. Frustration in socially disadvantaged adolescents. Child Psychiatry

Quarterly 1983;16:34–38.

Hare, RD. The Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised. Multi-Health Systems;

Toronto, Ontario, Canada: 1991.

Huesmann LR. (1998). The role of social information processing and cognitive
schema in the acquisition and maintenance of habitual aggressive behaviour. See
Geen & Donnerstein 1998, pp. 73–109.

Klein, M. Watch out for that last variable. In: Medinick, SA.; Moffitt, TE.; Stack,
SA., editors. The causes of crime: New biological approach. Cambridge University
Press; Cambridge: 1987.

Liu JH, Raine A, Venables P, Dalais C, Mednick SA. Malnutrition at age 3 years
predisposes to externalizing behaviour problems at ages 8, 11 and 17 years.
American Journal of Psychiatry. 2004

Liu JH. Prenatal & perinatal complications as predispositions to externalizing

behaviour. Journal of Prenatal & Perinatal Psychology & Health 2004a;18:301–
311. 89
Process of Social Influence Meloy, JR. The psychopathic mind: Origins, dynamics, and treatment. Jason
Aronson; Northvale, NJ: 1988.

Mischel W. (1999). Personality coherence and dispositions in a cognitive-affective

personality (CAPS) approach. In D. Cervone & Y. Shoda (Eds.), The Coherence
of Personality: Social-Cognitive Bases of Consistency, Variability, and Organization
(pp. 37–60). New York: Guilford

Moyer KE. Kinds of aggression and their physiological basis. Communication in

Behaviour Biology 1968;2:65–87.

Murray HA. Uses of the Thematic Apperception Test. American Journal of

Psychiatry 1951;107:577– 581. [PubMed: 14819343]

Neugebauer R, Hoek HW, Susser E. Prenatal exposure to wartime famine and

development of antisocial personality disorder in early adulthood. Journal of the
American Medical Association 1999;4:479–481

Raine A, Reynolds C, Venables PH, Mednick SA, Farrington DP. Fearlessness,

stimulation-seeking, and large body size at age 3 years as early predispositions
to childhood aggression at age 11 years. Archives of General Psychiatry 1998;
55:745–751.

Romi S, Itskowitz R. The relationship between locus of control and type of

aggression in middle-class and culturally deprived children. Personality & Individual
Differences 1990;11:327–333.

Scarpa A, Raine A. Psychophysiology of anger and violent behaviour. Psychiatric

Clinics of North America 1997;20:375–394. [PubMed: 9196920]

Tedeschi JT, Felson RB. 1994. Violence, Aggression, & Coercive Actions.
Washington, DC: Am. Psychol. Assoc.

Wodrich DL, Thull LM. Childhood Tourette’s syndrome and the Thematic
Apperception Test: Is there a recognizable pattern? Perceptual & Motor Skills
1997;85:635–641. [PubMed: 9347553]

Yudofsky SC. The Overt Aggression Scale for the objective rating of verbal and
physical aggression. American Journal of Psychiatry 1986;143:35–39. [PubMed:
3942284]

Zelli A, Dodge KA, Lochman JE, Laird RD, Conduct Problems Prevention
Research Group. (1999). The distinction between beliefs legitimizing aggression
and deviant processing of social cues: Testing measurement validity and the
hypothesis that biased processing mediates the effects of beliefs on aggression. J
Pers Soc Psychol 77:150–166.

90