PSYM114 Social Psychology 2

25 September, 2025

Krisztina Borsfay, PhD

TRUE OR FALSE
• Our ability to know the causes of our own
emotions is so limited that when we are
aroused because of physical exercise, we
may misinterpret that arousal as a sign
that we are romantically attracted to
someone nearby.
• TRUE
• Misattribution of arousal: Dutton & Aron
(1974) “suspension bridge study” showed
arousal from fear/exercise can be misread
as attraction.
• People in a sad mood are less likely to
help others than are people in a neutral
mood.
• FALSE
• Negative state relief hypothesis (Cialdini et
al., 1975): sad people often help more,
since helping improves their own mood.
• People in West Africa and China are more
likely to conform to a group norm than are
people in the United States or Canada.
• TRUE
• Cultural psychology: collectivist cultures
show higher conformity than individualist
cultures (Bond & Smith (1996) – meta-
analysis)
• If ten people are all telling you the same
thing you are more likely to conform
publicly to their opinion than if just five
people are all telling you the same thing.
• FALSE
• Asch’s conformity studies: conformity
increases up to about 3–4 people, but
levels off — 10 is not much stronger than
5 (Asch, 1951)
• Once people have agreed to a small
request, they become more likely to agree
to a larger request.
• TRUE
• Foot-in-the-door technique (Freedman &
Fraser, 1966): compliance with a small
request increases likelihood of complying
with a larger request later.
• Even if an authority figure instructed
people to torture another person, few
people would comply.
• FALSE
• Milgram’s obedience studies (1963): the
majority of participants obeyed and
delivered the maximum shocks when
instructed by authority.
• Once people have rejected a large
request, they become more likely to agree
to a smaller request.
• TRUE
• Door-in-the-face technique (Cialdini et al.,
1975): rejecting a large request increases
compliance with a smaller one.
• When like-minded people discuss an
issue, their opinions tend to converge
toward the middle.
• FALSE
• Group polarization: group discussion
usually pushes members toward more
extreme positions, not moderation
(Moscovici & Zavalloni, 1969)
• People are less likely to be aggressive if
they recently released their tensions by
aggressing than if they did not aggress.
• FALSE
• Catharsis hypothesis not supported:
research (e.g., Berkowitz, 1969) shows
acting aggressively increases, rather than
decreases, later aggression.
• People with few friends tend to live
shorter, less healthy lives than people with
lots of friends.
• TRUE
• Social support and health: large meta-
analyses (Holt-Lunstad et al., 2010) show
strong social ties predict longer, healthier
lives.
• Parental disapproval for a relationship
(e.g., Romeo and Juliet) increases the
chance that the partners will stay together.
• FALSE
• Romeo and Juliet effect: parental
opposition may intensify attraction in the
short term, but usually undermines long-
term stability (Driscoll et al, 1972)
• Women tend to value and seek economic
status in a mate more than men do.
• TRUE
• Evolutionary psychology findings (Buss,
1989): across cultures, women report
preferring financial stability and status in
partners more than men do.
• The greater the cohesiveness or solidarity
of a group, the better its decisions will be.
• FALSE
• Groupthink (Janis, 1972): highly cohesive
groups can make worse decisions due to
pressure for consensus and suppression
of dissent.
• People are more likely to be aggressive
when it’s hot outside than when it’s cool.
• TRUE
• Heat hypothesis (Anderson, 1989; 2001):
higher temperatures are linked to
increased aggression and violence.
• "Birds of a feather flock together" holds
true in interpersonal attraction (i.e., people
are generally attracted to those similar to
themselves).
• TRUE
• Similarity-attraction effect: similarity in
attitudes, values, and background predicts
attraction and relationship satisfaction
(Byrne 1961, 1971, Montoya et al 2008).
• Exposure to aggressive models in the
media increases aggressive behavior
among viewers of the aggression.
• TRUE
• Bobo doll experiment (Bandura et al.,
1961): children imitated aggressive
behavior they observed in models.
Thank you for your attention!
PSYM114 Social Psychology 2

Social influence –
conformity, compliance,
obedience, persuasion

30 October 2025
Krisztina Borsfay, PhD
„Social influence is everywhere”
Think of a time when
someone influenced you.
Type one or two words
describing who or what
influenced
you and how.

[Link]
 Conformity
• Adjusting one’s behavior or attitudes to match
group norms.
– Changing one’s attitudes or behaviours in response to
explicit or implicit real or imagined group pressure.
• Classic study: Asch’s line-judgment experiment.
• Motivations:
– Normative influence: desire to be liked.
– Informational influence: belief that others know better.
– Factors increasing conformity: larger group size;
unanimity of the group; public responses rather than
private; cultural factors (collectivist vs individualist)
 Majority and Minority Influence
• Majority influence: pressure to conform to
dominant views (normative influence).
• Minority influence: a consistent, confident
minority can shape majority views
(informational influence).
 Compliance
• Changing one’s behaviour in response to
a direct request from another person
(often someone without authority) while
possibly keeping one’s private attitude
unchanged.
 Conformity vs. Compliance
• Conformity: Changing one’s behavior or belief
to match others, usually due to real or imagined
group pressure.
– Dressing like your peers to fit in.
• Compliance: Behavior change in response to a
direct request (from an equal or someone with
power), often without changing one’s private
attitude.
– Donating money after being asked on the
street.
 How Do People Get Us to Say “Yes”?
Classic compliance techniques
• Foot-in-the-door technique
– Start with a small request → follow with a larger one.
Works because people want to stay consistent.
• Door-in-the-face technique
– Start with a big request likely to be refused → follow
with a smaller one. Works due to reciprocity norm
(“they compromised, so I should too”).
• Low-ball technique
– Get initial commitment at a low cost → then raise the
cost after agreement. Works because people want to
remain consistent with their commitment.
How Do People Get Us to Say
“Yes”?
Classic compliance
techniques

[Link]
 What is Obedience?
• Obedience is social influence resulting
from direct orders by an authority figure.
• Different from conformity (peer pressure)
and compliance (requests).
• Kassin et al. (2025) place obedience on a
continuum: conformity → compliance →
obedience.
• Helps explain moral conflicts under social
hierarchy.
 Obedience
• [Link]
-wtc

• [Link]
tK3j0Y
 Milgram’s Classic Experiment
(1963)
• Participants (‘Teachers’) instructed to
deliver shocks to a ‘Learner’ for mistakes.
• The Learner was a confederate; shocks
were fake.
• The Experimenter (authority) insisted they
continue: ‘Please continue,’ ‘You must go
on.’
• Aim: Examine obedience when authority
conflicts with conscience.
 Key Findings
• 65% of participants reached maximum
voltage (450V).
• Many showed stress (sweating, trembling,
nervous laughter).
• Despite distress, participants obeyed
under pressure.
• Obedience driven by situational authority,
not personal cruelty.
 Factors Influencing Obedience
• Proximity to Learner: closer contact reduced
obedience.
• Proximity to Authority: remote commands
lowered obedience.
• Institutional context: prestige increased
obedience.
• Presence of dissenters: drastically reduced
obedience.
• Gradual escalation (‘slippery slope’) made
refusal difficult.
 Theoretical Explanations
• Agentic State (Milgram): individuals see
themselves as executing authority’s will.
• Legitimacy of authority increases
compliance.
• Diffusion of responsibility reduces moral
tension.
• Reicher & Haslam (2011): ‘Engaged
followership’—people obey when they
identify with authority’s goals.
 Ethical and Methodological
Issues
• Psychological distress among participants.
• Use of deception (belief in real shocks).
• Limited informed consent and withdrawal
rights.
• Generalization issues: lab obedience vs.
real-life settings.
• Prompted stricter ethical guidelines in
social psychology.
 Replications and Modern
Interpretations
• Burger (2009): replicated Milgram
ethically—similar obedience rates.
• Meta-analyses confirm robustness across
time and culture.
• Modern view: not blind obedience but
identification with authority.
• Focus on resistance and moral courage in
modern research.
 From Social Pressure to
Persuasion
• We’ve explored how others influence what
we DO — through conformity, compliance,
and obedience.
• Now, we turn to how others influence
what we THINK and FEEL.
• Social influence affects not only behavior
but also attitudes and beliefs.

Behavioral Influence vs. Attitudinal Influence

 What is Persuasion?
• Definition: Persuasion is the process by which
communication induces change in beliefs,
attitudes, or behavior.
• It involves internal acceptance rather than
external compliance.
• Key components (Kassin et al., 2023):
– The Source: Who delivers the message
– The Message: What is said and how it’s
structured
– The Audience: Who receives the message
 The Elaboration Likelihood
Model (ELM)
• The Elaboration Likelihood Model (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986)
Two main routes to persuasion:
• Central route:
– Careful, thoughtful consideration of arguments.
– Leads to enduring attitude change.
– Works when the audience is motivated and able to think.
• Peripheral route:
– Based on superficial cues (attractiveness, emotion, slogans).
– Leads to temporary, fragile change.
– Works when motivation or ability is low.
• [Link]
N7RYbw
Thank you for your attention!
PSYM114 Social Psychology 2

Rejection

Krisztina Borsfay, PhD

 Intergroup vs. intragroup rejection

• Between-group vs. within-group rejection

• Who rejects whom?
– Intergroup:
One group rejects members of another group.
e.g., different ethnic, national, political, or
religious groups
– Intragroup:
A group rejects one of its own members.
e.g., classmates, coworkers, teammates,
friend groups
 How does intergroup rejection
(conflict) happen?
• Intergroup
– prejudice, stereotype
– competition, threat
– Identity protection („us” versus „them”)

Consequences:
discrimination, exclusionary attitudes

„They don’t belong with us.”

 How does intragroup exclusion happen?
• norm violation
• being different or non-conforming
• hierarchy, status struggles
• conflicts, scapegoating

Consequences: ostracism, loneliness, bullying,

ignoring, gossip

„You don’t belong with us.”

 Ostracism
• Ostracism refers to being ignored,
excluded, or rejected by others, and it has
rapid and powerful effects on
psychological well-being. Research shows
that even brief experiences of ostracism
threaten four fundamental human needs:
belonging, self-esteem, control, and
meaningful existence (Williams, 2007)
 Ostracism
• Ostracism evolved as an adaptive behaviour that served
to strengthen and protect the group from burdensome
members (Gruter and Masters, 1986)
• Being ignored or rejected is an unpleasant experience
that causes the ostracized individual to experience, pain
discomfort and made to dislike the ostracizers
– Williams demonstrated through paradigms such as the Cyberball
experiment that exclusion produces immediate distress and
activates neural systems similar to physical pain (Williams,
2007).

[Link]
 Impact of ostracism
• The impact of ostracism is so strong because
– it violates the basic human motivation to form and maintain
interpersonal bonds (Need to Belong theory developed by Roy
Baumeister and Mark Leary - Baumeister & Leary, 1995).

When people experience repeated or chronic exclusion, it can lead

to persistent loneliness, social withdrawal, anxiety, depression,
or—depending on coping resources—aggression or attempts to
reconnect.
 What is bullying?
• Bullying is a form of aggressive behavior
characterized by intentional harm, repetition,
and power imbalance. It includes physical,
verbal, social, and identity-based harassment.
Victims typically feel threatened, distressed, or
humiliated.
• Forms of bullying :
– physical, verbal, social exclusion, extortion
(Wong et al 2008)
– online
• Who is at higher risk?
• Why don’t victims report bullying?
• Students who are “different” in appearance, clothing, weight, social
class, language skills, or cultural background.
• Newcomers or socially vulnerable children face significantly
increased risk.
• Why not:
– 67% never tell teachers
• Fear of retaliation (32%), Believe they can solve it
themselves (58%), Don’t want parents to worry (28%), Don’t
think teachers can help (23%), n 57% of reported cases,
teachers ask whether the victim “provoked” the incident
(Wong et al, 2007)
 Effective responses (Wong, 2004)

• Suppressive strategy: punishment, “zero

tolerance” → superficial, not effective long-
term
• Comprehensive strategy:
– social-skills training for bullies and victims
– educating parents and teachers about causes
– creating an „anti-violence school culture”
– strengthening group cohesion and mediation
 Loneliness
• Intimate, relational, collective (Cacioppo et
al., 2015)
– Intimate: absence of close emotional
connection with one special person (partner,
best friend, confidant)
– Relational: lack of quality friendships or family
connections (supportive social networks)
– Collective: lack of social identity and group
belonging
 The agony of loneliness:
shyness, anxiety,
• Loneliness affects mental & physical health (Hawkley et
al., 2009)
– depressive symptoms
– anxiety and social vigilance (hyper-alertness to social
threat)
– negative cognitive biases (rumination, negative
interpretation of social cues)
• Loneliness and social isolation are increasingly
recognized as significant risk factors for cardiovascular
disease (Xia and Li, 2017)
Cultural differences in the meaning of shyness and
loneliness
• The significance of shyness varies across cultural contexts.
Chen et al. (2009) and Liu et al. (2015) found that:
– In Western individualistic cultures, shyness is often viewed as a social
deficit linked to poor self-assertion and lower peer acceptance.
– In rural collectivistic contexts, shyness may be interpreted as socially
appropriate modesty, helping rather than hindering social integration.

• Lykes and Kemmelmeier (2014)

– People in collectivistic cultures are higher risk for loneliness than
Westerners (greater emphasis on relationships in these cultures)
– Those with more collectivistic value orientations in Western European
societies feel less lonely than those who hold more individualistic values
(Heu et al, 2019)
 Hikikomori
• severe loneliness and social withdrawal is
(originally identified in Japan).
• individuals with hikikomori withdraw into their
homes for months or years, often avoiding
nearly all social contact.
– due to academic pressure, family dynamics, and
sociocultural expectations (Tamaki, 2013; Krieg &
Dickie, 2013).
 Prevalence of loneliness
• Data of mental health survey
– among 248,000 13- to 17-year-old adolescents in 70
countries, the overall prevalence rate of loneliness:
11.7% (Igami et al., 2023).
– EU survey: 13% of respondents said they felt lonely
“most or all of the time” over the past four weeks, and
35% reported feeling lonely at least “some of the time
(EU-LS, 2022)
• Covid pandemic
– 5% increase in loneliness during pandemic (Ernst et al, 2022)
• Hammond (2018) and Clair et al. (2021)
– increasing loneliness in Western societies, especially in young
adults and older populations
Thank you for your attention!
PSYM114 Social Psychology 2

Group dynamics, group

performance, leadership
2, 9, 16 October, 2025

Krisztina Borsfay, PhD

Theoretical foundations: phases
of group development
• Group Development: Five-Stage Model of Group
Development (Tuckman & Jensen, 1977)

• Source: Based on information reported in Tuckman &

Jensen, 1977.
• [Link]
Gf8VsOg
The Five-Stage Model of Group Development
Forming Stage
The first stage in group development, characterized by much uncertainty. The
initial stage where the group is brought together. Members focus on
understanding roles, setting goals, and establishing relationships. Exploration
of group norms.

Storming Stage
The second stage in group development, characterized by intragroup conflict. A
period of conflict and competition as group members assert their opinions and
challenge authority. Power struggles. Resistance to task and group norms.

Norming Stage
The third stage in group development, characterized by close relationships and
cohesiveness. The group begins to find cohesion, trust develops, and members
align on roles and goals.
…Group Development (cont’d)
Performing Stage
The fourth stage in group development, when the group is fully functional. The
group achieves high performance, focusing on tasks and achieving goals
efficiently. Clear roles and responsibilities. Effective problem-solving and
decision-making. Minimal supervision is needed.

Adjourning Stage
The final stage where the group disbands after achieving its goals. Mixed
emotions (satisfaction, sadness, or relief). Reflection on successes and
challenges. Focus on closure and celebrating achievements.
 Group task: “The Leader’s Role
in Group Development Phases”
• Scenario context:

• Imagine that there are some students who are members of the
organizing team for „Imagine” Festival, a three-day outdoor music
and arts event expected to attract 5,000 people.
• The crew is made up of volunteers from different backgrounds —
some experienced, some completely new.
The team has six weeks to prepare everything: line-up, logistics,
communication, and safety.
A team leader has been chosen, but the group’s effectiveness
depends on how well they work together under stress, creativity, and
time pressure.
• Read the scenario and the phase
snapshot.
• Identify what is happening in the team
and what the leader should do.
• Write 3–4 bullet points on a paper under
the heading:
– “A leader’s task in this phase is to…”
 Forming
• Leader’s challenges:
– Channelling enthusiasm into action
– Avoiding confusion and overlapping responsibilities
• Leader’s strategies:
– Clarify the vision, concrete goals, and deadlines
– Assign small, clear roles early (logistics, PR, finance, etc.)
– Encourage contributions: “Let’s hear from everyone.”
– Build psychological safety and team spirit
 Storming
• Leader’s challenges:
– Managing conflict constructively
– Keeping the group focused on solutions, not blame
• Leader’s strategies:
– Acknowledge frustration: “We’re all stressed — let’s pause and
regroup.”
– Encourage problem-solving, not finger-pointing
– Clarify decision-making process
– Model calm, fairness, and accountability
– Remind everyone of the shared purpose: “We want this festival
to happen — together.”
 Norming
• Leader’s challenges:
– Maintaining accountability without micromanaging
– Avoiding “groupthink” (too much harmony)
• Leader’s strategies:
– Reinforce new norms (“We check budget weekly”)
– Encourage feedback and initiative
– Recognize effort and progress
– Balance friendliness with focus
 Performing
• Leader’s challenges:
– Avoiding over-intervention
– Sustaining energy and morale through long hours
• Leader’s strategies:
– Empower others to make on-the-spot decisions
– Offer encouragement, not control
– Celebrate small victories (a great concert, positive feedback)
– Keep focus on both performance and wellbeing (rest, food,
breaks)
 Adjourning
• Leader’s challenges:
– Managing emotional closure
– Extracting learning for future projects
• Leader’s strategies:
– Hold a final debrief: “What worked? What did we learn?”
– Acknowledge every contribution
– Celebrate achievements (a shared meal, photo slideshow,
playlist)
– Maintain contact — plant seeds for future collaboration
Leadership – trait & behavioural
approach
• Trait approach:
– Early view: leaders are born, not made.
– Traits like intelligence, confidence, and charisma predict
leadership potential
– Modern findings: personality helps, but context and perception
moderate effects. (Judge et al., 2002; Kassin et al., 2023; Lord
et al., 1986; Northouse, 2022).
• Behavioural approach
– Focus on what leaders do, not who they are (Kassin et al., 2023,
p. 514)
– Distinction between task-oriented and relationship-oriented
leaders.
– Effective leaders adjust behaviour to group needs (Northouse,
2022).
 Leadership: Contingency and
Situational Models
• Fiedler’s Contingency Model
– Leadership effectiveness depends on the fit between the leader’s style
and the degree of situational control (Fiedler, 1967; Kassin et al., 2023,
p. 515).
– Task-oriented leaders perform best in very favorable or unfavorable
situations; relationship-oriented leaders excel in moderate ones.
• Hersey–Blanchard Situational Leadership
– Leadership style should adapt to followers’ readiness and competence
(Hersey & Blanchard, 1982).
– S1 Directing, S2 Coaching, S3 Supporting, S4 Delegating.
– As groups mature, leaders reduce direction and increase autonomy
(Kassin et al., 2023, p. 516).
• [Link]
IVgOuA
 Transactional and
Transformational Leadership
• Transactional Leadership
– Based on exchange: reward for performance, punishment for
failure (Kassin et al., 2023, p. 517).
– Focus on structure, stability, and short-term performance (Bass,
1985).
• Transformational Leadership
– Inspires followers by articulating a vision and fostering
identification with group goals (Kassin et al., 2023, p. 518).
– Four components: idealized influence, inspirational motivation,
intellectual stimulation, individualized consideration (Bass,
1985).
– Linked to greater creativity, satisfaction, and team cohesion.
 Social Identity Theory of
Leadership
• Leadership arises when individuals become
prototypical representatives of the group (Hogg, 2001;
Reicher, Haslam, & Hopkins, 2005).
• Followers support leaders who embody “who we are”
(Kassin et al., 2023, p. 519).
• Leadership success depends on shared identity and
group alignment, not charisma alone.
• Example: in the Music Festival Crew, the best leader
mirrors the team’s collaborative, creative identity.
 Integrating Leadership and
Group Development
Group Phase (Tuckman, Situational Style (Hersey & Typical Leadership Type
Team Readiness
1965) Blanchard, 1982) (Kassin et al., 2023)

Forming Low competence S1 Directing Task-oriented / Transactional

Moderate competence, low

Storming S2 Coaching Relationship-oriented
morale

Norming Competent, cohesive S3 Supporting Transformational

Performing High competence S4 Delegating Transformational / Shared

High competence, reduced

Adjourning Reflective coaching Identity-based leadership
motivation
 What can go wrong? – group
processes
• Groupthink (Janis, 1972)
• Social Loafing
• Group Polarization
• Role Ambiguity and Role Conflict
• Communication Breakdown
• Poor Leadership Fit
 Groupthink (Janis, 1972)
• Groupthink is a flawed decision-making process that occurs when
the desire for consensus and cohesion within a group overrides
critical evaluation of alternatives.
• The group seeks harmony at the expense of accuracy and good
judgment.
(Janis, 1972)
 Groupthink - symptoms
• Symptoms (Janis, 1972):
– Illusion of invulnerability - excessive optimism, taking risks
– Collective rationalization - dismissing warnings, justifying poor
decisions
– Belief in group’s morality - assuming the group is “right”
– Stereotyping outsiders - negative views of opponents
– Pressure on dissenters - conformity pressures, direct or indirect
– self-censorship - members withhold doubts
– Illusion of unanimity - silence misinterpreted as agreement
– Mindguards — individuals protect the group from dissenting
information
 Prevention strategies
• Encourage open criticism and dissent
• Leaders remain impartial early in discussion
• Assign a “devil’s advocate”
• Divide into subgroups, then reconvene
• Seek outside expert opinions
• Use structured decision-making techniques
(e.g., Delphi method)
(Janis, 1982; Esser, 1998)
 Classic examples
• Bay of Pigs invasion (1961) — U.S.
failed to critically examine plan, leading to
fiasco
• Challenger disaster (1986) — engineers’
concerns were suppressed in NASA
decision-making
 NASA - groupthink
• [Link]
C-s8GY
• [Link]
hj6oU60

While you’re watching, think about:

• What symptoms of groupthink can you notice?
• What could the group have done differently?
 Play
• “Let’s see how well we can spot the signs
of groupthink — and how to prevent it.
Join the Kahoot with the PIN on the
screen!”
 Group Polarization
• Definition: group discussion strengthens initial
tendencies
• Group polarization is the tendency for group discussion
to strengthen members’ initial attitudes, making their
positions more extreme in the direction they were
already leaning.
• Consequences:
– This can result in riskier or more cautious decisions depending
on the group’s starting point.
(Moscovici & Zavalloni, 1969)
 Risky shifts
• Risky shift: Groups often make riskier
decisions than individuals (early studies in
the 1960s)
• Later research showed polarization in
both directions (toward risk or caution),
depending on initial inclinations.
(Myers & Lamm, 1976)
 Explanatory Mechanisms - group
polarization
• Persuasive Arguments Theory:
Exposure to new arguments that support
one’s initial view strengthens that position.
• Social Comparison Theory:
People shift toward more extreme
positions to match (or exceed) the
perceived group norm.
(Myers & Lamm, 1976; Kassin, Fein, &
Markus, 2023)
 Discussion
• Please, bring examples on the following
statement.
• Social media has made it easier than ever to
connect with others, share ideas, and spread
awareness. It helps movements grow,
friendships form, and creativity flourish.
• Social media isolates people in digital bubbles. It
spreads misinformation, amplifies anger, and
makes users compare themselves to unrealistic
images.
• [Link]/watch?v=xQAGWFkYhQk

• [Link]
S5PvT8
 Applicaton & implication
• Online communities: Social media echo
chambers foster extreme views.
• Juries: Deliberation can lead to larger damage
awards than individuals alone would suggest.
(Kassin, Fein, & Markus, 2023)
– Group discussion tends to make juries more
generous (or extreme) in awarding money than
individual jurors would have been on their own
• Implications: Group decisions are not always
moderate; discussion can exacerbate biases
and conflicts.
Thank you for your attention!
 References
• Janis, I. L. (1972). Victims of groupthink: A psychological
study of foreign-policy decisions and fiascoes. Houghton
Mifflin.
• Janis, I. L. (1982). Groupthink: Psychological studies of
policy decisions and fiascoes (2nd ed.). Houghton Mifflin.
• Esser, J. K. (1998). Alive and well after 25 years: A
review of groupthink research. Organizational Behavior
and Human Decision Processes, 73(2–3), 116–141.
• Kassin, S., Fein, S., & Markus, H. R. (2023). Social
Psychology (12th ed.). SAGE Publications.
PSYM114 Social Psychology 2

Prosocial behavior

20 November 2025
Krisztina Borsfay, PhD
 Prosocial behavior
• Prosocial behavior refers to voluntary
actions intended to benefit others, such as
helping, comforting, sharing, or
cooperating (Kassin, Fein, & Markus,
2023). These behaviors play a central role
in social psychology because they support
social cohesion, foster trust, and
contribute to the functioning of groups and
communities.
 Prosocial behavior vs. Altruism
• Prosocial behavior
– Any voluntary action intended to benefit someone
else.
The motivation doesn’t matter — it can be
helpful even if the helper also gains something (good
feelings, social approval, rewards).
• Alturism
– A subset of prosocial behavior.
Helping purely to benefit someone else, with no
expectation of personal gain, sometimes even at
personal cost.
 Key characteristics
• Voluntary action: The helper chooses freely to act,
without coercion
• Other-oriented motivation: The primary aim is to
improve another person’s well-being
– Altruistic motivation, empathic concern, contrast with
egoism (Batson, 1991).
• Multiple behavioral forms: Prosociality includes
everyday acts—offering assistance, sharing resources,
emotional support, or helping strangers (Eisenberg &
Fabes, 1998).
 Why do people help others?
• People help others for a variety of
reasons, involving both emotional and
cognitive processes, as well as
evolutionary and social influences.
Research shows that prosocial behavior is
shaped by multiple, interacting motives
(Kassin, Fein, & Markus, 2023).
 Because we feel empathy
• Empathy—both perspective-taking and
empathic concern—is one of the strongest
predictors of helping. When people feel
compassion for someone in need, they are
motivated to reduce the other’s distress
(Batson, 1991).
• This often leads to altruistic helping,
even when helping involves personal cost.
 Because helping feels good
• Prosocial behavior can improve mood,
reduce stress, and generate a “warm
glow” of satisfaction (Kassin et al., 2023).
People help because:
– it enhances their emotional state,
– promotes a sense of competence and
connection,
– aligns with personal or moral values.
 Because we expect social or personal
rewards
• Helping can lead to gratitude, social
approval, increased status, or reciprocal
benefits in the future.
• This follows a cost–benefit logic: people
consider the potential rewards versus the
costs (Penner et al., 2005).
 Because of evolutionary
advantages
• Humans are biologically predisposed to
help (Hamilton, 1964; Trivers, 1971),
especially when the beneficiary is:
– a genetic relative (kin selection), or
– someone with whom we may exchange
benefits later (reciprocal altruism).
These tendencies promote survival and group
cohesion over evolutionary time.
 Because of social norms and
cultural expectations
• People internalize norms such as:
– the norm of social responsibility,
– the reciprocity norm,
– cultural expectations around warmth,
cooperation, or obligation.

These norms shape when and how helping is

appropriate (Kassin et al., 2023).
 Because situations encourage
or allow it
• Helping is much more likely when Latané & Darley,
1968; Darley & Batson, 1973; Milgram, 1970; Fischer et
al., 2011):
– the need is clearly recognized,
– personal responsibility is felt,
– time pressure is low,
– others are not present to diffuse responsibility.

Situational barriers (e.g., the bystander effect) can

inhibit helping even when motivation is high.
 Types of Prosocial Behavior
• Prosocial behavior describes a wide range
of intentional actions aimed at
benefiting others (Kassin, Fein, &
Markus, 2023). Researchers typically
distinguish several major forms:

Helping / Assistance, Sharing and Resource Giving,

Comforting and Emotional Support, Cooperation,
Volunteering and Long-Term Helping, Altruism (Selfless
Helping)
 „Create a Prosocial Scene”
• You will work in small groups (2–4
students) to create a very short, 30–60
second scene that illustrates one type of
prosocial behavior.
• Your goal is to show a clear, recognizable
example of your assigned behavior type —
without naming the category in the scene.
• 1. Helping / Assistance
• Directly supporting someone in need — lifting objects, giving directions, providing first aid.
Occurs in everyday interactions and emergency situations (Latané & Darley, 1970).
• 2. Sharing and Resource Giving
• Offering material or non-material resources (money, food, time, information).
Common in childhood and strongly linked to empathy development (Eisenberg & Fabes, 1998).
• 3. Comforting and Emotional Support
• Providing empathy, reassurance, or care to reduce another person’s emotional distress.
Often motivated by empathic concern (Batson, 1991).
• 4. Cooperation
• Working together with others toward a shared goal, often requiring trust, reciprocity, and fairness.
Seen as an evolutionarily adaptive form of prosociality (Trivers, 1971).
• 5. Volunteering and Long-Term Helping
• Sustained, organized prosocial actions such as tutoring, caregiving, or community service.
Typically driven by a mix of altruistic and egoistic motives (Penner et al., 2005).
• 6. Altruism (Selfless Helping)
• Helping with no expectation of reward, sometimes at personal cost.
According to the empathy–altruism hypothesis, altruism is driven by empathic concern (Batson,
1991).
 When do people help?
• People are more likely to help when the
situation supports noticing,
interpreting, and acting on another
person’s need. Helping is not only about
motivation — context strongly shapes
behavior (Kassin, Fein, & Markus, 2023).
 Key situational factors
• Clear, unambiguous need → People help more when the
emergency is obvious (Latané & Darley, 1970).
• Low time pressure → Rushing dramatically reduces helping
(Darley & Batson, 1973).
• Low personal cost → People help more when assistance is easy,
safe, or requires few resources (Penner et al., 2005).
• Perceived responsibility → Feeling personally responsible
increases helping (Latané & Darley, 1968).
• Competence/skills → People help more if they feel capable of
assisting (Kassin et al., 2023).
• Helping is therefore deeply dependent on context, not only
personality or morality.
The desicion making process of helping
Decision-making model (Latané, Darley, 1970):

Noticing the need for help

(Do I have to intervene?)

Taking personal responsibility

(Do I have to take responsibility?)

Weighing costs and rewards

Decision: How to help

Why People Do Not Help in the
Presence of Others?

• Diffusion of responsibility
• Ambiguous interpretation of the situation
• Assumption that someone else will act

[Link]
p0ac
 The Bystander Effect
• The bystander effect refers to the finding that people are less likely to help
when others are present (Latané & Darley, 1968).
The presence of others changes how we perceive, interpret, and respond
to emergencies.
• Core mechanisms
– Diffusion of responsibility
Each person assumes others should take action (Latané & Darley,
1968).
– Pluralistic ignorance
When others appear calm, people interpret the situation as non-
emergency (Latané & Darley, 1970).
– Evaluation apprehension
People fear embarrassment if they misinterpret the situation
– Reduced attention / overload
In busy or crowded environments, individuals may not even notice the
need (Milgram, 1970).
 When the Bystander Effect
Disappears
• Modern research shows that the bystander effect is not universal
— certain conditions reverse it (Fischer et al., 2011):

– Dangerous situations → people help more when others are present

– High group cohesion → friends, teammates, classmates
– Clear emergencies → no ambiguity
– Assigned roles → someone takes charge (“You call 112!”)
– Online environments sometimes amplify, sometimes reduce the effect

• These findings highlight that helping behavior is dynamic and

context-sensitive.
 Helping behavior and culture
• Levine’s Cross-Cultural Research
• Levine argues that helping tendencies in
large cities can be understood as part of a
city’s “urban personality”.
• Method: large-scale field experiments in
real urban environments.
Cities Included in the Study
Austria (Vienna), Brazil (Rio de Janeiro), Bulgaria (Sofia), China (Shanghai), Costa Rica (San José),
Czech Republic (Prague), Denmark (Copenhagen), El Salvador (San Salvador), Hungary (Budapest),
India (Calcutta), Israel (Tel Aviv), Italy (Rome), Malawi (Lilongwe), Malaysia (Kuala Lumpur), Mexico
(Mexico City), Netherlands (Amsterdam), Romania (Bucharest), Singapore, Spain (Madrid), Sweden
(Stockholm), Taiwan (Taipei), Thailand (Bangkok), USA (New York City).
 Helping Scenarios (Field
Experiments)
• 1. Blind pedestrian scenario
• A confederate, wearing dark sunglasses and holding a white cane,
acts as a blind person who needs help crossing the street.
What percentage of passersby assist?
• 2. Injured leg scenario
• A confederate with a very visible leg brace limps heavily, drops a
large stack of papers, and struggles to pick them up.
How many people offer to help?
• 3. Dropped pen scenario
• A well-dressed young man “accidentally” drops a pen while walking
without noticing.
How often do pedestrians pick up the pen and return it to him?
 Predictors of helping
• Population size
– Large cities (especially above ~300,000 inhabitants) show lower rates of
helping.
• Economic factors (GDP, purchasing power)
– High levels of poverty or frustration can reduce helping.
– In economically strong cities, people may be more focused on personal efficiency
and performance → less attention to others.
• Cultural values (Individualism/Collectivism, Simpatía)
– Collectivist cultures may help more within the ingroup, but not necessarily
strangers.
– Simpatía cultures emphasize warmth, politeness, and prosocial emotional
expression toward strangers.
• Cognitive factors — Pace of life
– Milgram’s (1970) urban overload hypothesis:
Fast-paced cities create sensory overload → people filter out nonessential stimuli
→ less attention to others’ needs.
 Cultural Values in detail
• Simpatía / Simpático
– (Spanish & Latin American cultures)
A proactive socio-emotional orientation emphasizing friendliness,
politeness, and concern for others’ well-being — even strangers.
Implicit expectation to act:
→ warm, courteous, helpful.
• Individualism–Collectivism
– Collectivists may help ingroup members more, but may not assist outgroup
members to the same extent because group boundaries are salient.
– Individualists might help strangers out of personal principles or moral norms.
 Findings of the study
• Although there are exceptions, the general pattern is:
– Cities that score high on social responsibility (relative to
personal achievement) tend to show more helping.
– Cities with a slower pace of life, lower GDP, and lower
purchasing power often report higher helping rates.
(But note exceptions like Vienna, Copenhagen, Madrid = high
helping despite strong economies.)
– Cultures emphasizing simpatía / simpático display higher
prosocial behavior.
 Reasons Why People Help or
Don’t Help
• Reasons NOT to help
– Approaching strangers may feel risky
– Lack of time
– Fear that unsolicited help will be rejected
– Situation seems unclear or ambiguous
• Reasons TO help
– Norm of helping / social responsibility
– Positive emotions (“doing my good deed for the day”)
– Reciprocity expectations
– Empathy or concern for the person in need
Thank you for your attention!
PSYM114 Social Psychology 2

Close relationships

27 November 2025
Krisztina Borsfay, PhD
 Warm-up – group work
• Find three things that you think makes a
relationship close!

• How did you meet your closest friend?

• What do you think? Is it easy or is it hard

to form friendships in your culture?
• What are close relationships?
• How do close relationships form?
• Love & attachment
• Maintaining close relationships
• Culture and close relationships
 Examination of close social relationships
• Interpersonal relationship – examination of close social
relationships
– Significance:
– The smallest social unit
– Important in everyday life - significant socio-social
consequences, has a significant impact on the
individual
• Social psychology of close relationships
– Determinants of friendship, affection, love
– Cultural differences in close relationships
 What are close relationships?
• A close relationship is a long-lasting
connection between two people that
includes emotional attachment,
psychological need fulfillment, and
interdependence (Clark and Mills,1988,
Rusbult, & Van Lange, 2003).
– It is more than just spending time together —
it involves deep emotional significance,
mutual influence, and personal meaning.
 Emotional attachment
• Emotional attachment involves deep feelings of affection,
care, closeness, comfort and security in a relationship.
• Close relationships are those where partners share
emotional intimacy and mutual influence — which
requires emotional attachment (Clark & Reis, 1988)
 Examples – emotional
attachment in close relationship
• In romantic relationships: love, passion, care, mutual
support.
• In friendships: feeling safe to share personal
thoughts/feelings; caring during good and bad times.
• In family bonds (e.g. siblings): emotional closeness,
shared history, sense of loyalty.
• Thus, emotional attachment is the affective backbone
of closeness — without it, a relationship might be familiar
or cooperative but not “close.”
 Psychological Need Fulfillment
(Belonging & Support)
• Ongoing interaction and mutual dependence
enable relationships to serve important
psychological functions — support, cooperation,
shared identity, trust (Interdependence Theory,
Kelley & Thibaut, 1978)
• People rely on close others for emotional
support in stress, illness, loss, decision-making,
life transitions
– Sense of belonging/identity
 Interdependence
• A relationship exists when two individuals’
behaviors, emotions and thoughts are
mutually and causally interconnected. A
relationship is “close” when this
interdependence is strong, frequent, and
diverse over a significant period (Kelley
& Thibaut, 1978)
• Each person’s mood, health, or life events
affect the other’s well-being.
 How do close relationships form?

• What qualities determine who we get into close

relationships with?
• What are the most important things, list 6, that you look
for in a romantic partner (boyfriend/girlfriend)?
• What are the most important things, list 6, that you
(would) look for in a spouse?

• Short answer (see longer answer later)

– Western-urban cultural context: “abstract qualities” (honesty,
kindness)
– More traditional, rural communities in collectivist societies:
pragmatic qualities (money, family ties, religion)
 How do close relationships form?

• Close relationships rarely begin as close. They develop

gradually through a set of psychological mechanisms
that make some people more likely to connect, build
trust, and maintain long-term intimacy. Research shows
that three factors most strongly predict who we
develop close relationships with:
– Physical attractiveness
– Interaction frequency (proximity and familiarity)
– Similarity

Each of these influences early attraction and increases the likelihood that
meaningful relationships will form.
 Physical attractiveness
• “What is beautiful is also good” (Dion et al, 1972)
• Physical attractiveness significantly increases the social
competence attributed to a person, but has a less positive effect on
judgments of a person’s concern for others (less warmth, kindness,
or caring toward others)
• physical attractiveness is associated with strong stereotypes in
many cultures, but the exact nature of these stereotypes depends
on the values ​of the given society
• a symmetrical, average face is attractive
– Evolutionary psychological explanations: symmetry, averageness, and sex
hormone salient features are reliable indicators of physical fitness
– These features may signal physical health or strong immune function (e.g.,
heterozygosity → pathogen resistance), making them evolutionarily adaptive
cues.
 Interaction frequency: proximity and familiarity
• One of the most powerful predictors of who we will get
along with is physical proximity, which generates
familiarity (also, comfort, predictability)
– college students are more likely to date people who
live nearby (nearby room, building) (Festinger,
Schachter & Back, 1950; later replicated in 1973)
– dormitory study: friendships were strongly predicted
by room location, hallway layout, and chance
encounters.
– the “mere exposure effect”: repeated exposure to a person
increases liking — even without direct interaction. This happens
because familiarity breeds safety, predictability, and cognitive
fluency (the ease of processing familiar stimuli).
 Similarity
• Strong and most consistent predictor of relationship formation is
perceived similarity.
– People are attracted to those who are similar to them
• Similarity operates on several levels:
– Values and attitudes (political views, religion, moral beliefs); personality traits
(introversion, openness); lifestyle preferences, communication style;
background (education, SES)
– Similarity reduces conflict potential and increases understanding
– Perceived similarity increases trust, validation, and rapport.
– Similar people provide self-verification (confirmation of our self-concept).
– Similarity makes interactions easier and more predictable.
• Empirical findings
– Newcomb’s (1961) classic study demonstrated that students randomly assigned
as roommates were more likely to become friends if they shared values and
attitudes.
 Love & attachment: development and types of
intimate relationships

• Arranged relationships vs. committed relationships

– Cultural differences
• After initial attraction, relationship deepens and solidifies
– Mutual reward
– Intimacy, commitment increase
• Differences between self and other blur; shared social identity develops,
partner becomes part of self

• Different forms of close romantic relationships exist (see

next slide)
 Sternberg’s Triangular Theory of Love

• Three components of love:

• 1. Intimacy
– Emotional closeness
– Feeling connected, understood, supported
• 2. Passion
– Physical attraction, desire, excitement
– Infatuation, “chemistry,” sexual energy
• 3. Commitment
– Decision to stay together
– Long-term orientation, loyalty, stability
• (Sternberg, 1986; 1988)
• Love is not one thing — it’s made of different components
– Relationships change over time. Passion often decreases. Intimacy
and commitment may increase
Source of picture: [Link]
 Love styles
• Sternberg – the triangular theory of love
• Love styles (Lee, 1973, 1988)
– eros – romantic, passionate
– ludus – playful love (avoidance of intensity and intimacy)
– storge – friendly, companionate love (shared values, attitudes)
– mania (eros+ludus) – possessive, dependent love
– pragma (ludus+storge) – logical, practical love
– agapé (eros+storge) – altruistic, selfless love

• The role of early attachment patterns

– Early attachment patterns are actually more significant in shaping attitudes about
love than cultural differences, e.g. anxious-ambivalent attachment scores high on
the passionate love (eros) scale; avoidant attachment score lowest on the
passionate love scale
 Adult attachment styles
• Attachment = the way we connect, trust, and respond to
closeness in relationships. (Hazan and Shaver,
1987)(Based on childhood patterns, but can change
through experience.)
• Secure
– „I’m okay, you’re okay, we can be close.”
• Anxious
– „I want closeness, but I’m afraid you’ll leave.”
• Avoidant
– „I don’t want to depend on you — or for you to depend on me.”
Secure Anxious Avoidant
Comfortable with closeness Fears rejection and Uncomfortable with
abandonment emotional closeness

Open communication Needs reassurance Values

and closeness independence
strongly

Trusts partner, stable Sensitive to signals of Withdraws during

relationships distance conflict

Balances independence and Emotional highs and Keeps emotional

intimacy lows distance
 Maintaining close relationships
• Communication and self-disclosure
• Self-disclosure means sharing personal information
about yourself with another person:
– Thoughts, feelings, fears, hopes, experiences, personal history
– It includes both what you say (content) and how deeply you
reveal yourself (emotional openness).
• Self-disclosure is reciprocal:
One person opens up → the other feels safe → they
open up too → intimacy grows.
• Self-disclosure creates intimacy by
signals trust, creates emotional closeness,
encourages empathy, makes the relationship unique
 Social Penetration Theory (Altman & Taylor, 1973)

• The “onion” model of intimacy.

– Relationships develop through deeper and deeper layers of self-disclosure.
• Two key dimensions:
– Breadth: How many topics you talk about
(e.g., work, family, hobbies, fears, dreams)
– Depth: How personal or emotional the conversation is
(surface → private → vulnerable)
• Pattern of development:
– Early stages → wide breadth, low depth
– Later stages → smaller breadth, greater depth
• Problems with self-disclosure
Early self-disclosure must be matched — too much, too soon can
feel uncomfortable.
 Conflict Patterns – negative affect reciprocity
• Negative affect reciprocity
– This means responding to negativity with more negativity.
• How it works:
– One person criticizes, the other responds with anger
– When this pattern repeats itself, a negative spiral will be starting
– This turns minor issues into major battles, because both partners mirror the
other’s negative emotions.
• Negative consequences of this pattern
– Prevents emotional repair
– Increases stress
– Creates hostility and resentment
– Predicts breakup and marital dissatisfaction
• What can be done to break the negative spiral?
– Take a pause (“time-out”) – time for emotional regulation (calming down)
– “I-messages” instead of “You-messages”- I-messages” reduce defensiveness
and prevent escalation
– Focusing on the present issue only
– Validate the other person’s feelings - validation lowers emotional intensity
 Conflict patterns: demand-withdrawal
• One partner demands, the other withdraws (shuts down).
• Typical pattern:
– One partner: criticizes, pressures, pushes for change
– The other partner: avoids, denies, gets silent, physically leaves
• Consequences of this pattern:
– The demander feels unheard
– The withdrawer feels overwhelmed or attacked
• Why it’s dangerous:
– Reinforces itself:
more demand → more withdrawal → more demand…
– Conversations go nowhere
– Partners feel stuck and alone
• How to break the cycle:
– Demander: slow down, ask questions instead of ordering things, avoid
overwhelming, give time to prepare, schedule time to talk about issues
– Withdrawer: ask for time/clear time frame, don’t disappear
 Discussion
• To what extent can individualistic
values ​help or hinder love?
 Close intimate relationships and culture
• Based on a standard cross-cultural comparison sample, romantic
love existed in almost 90% of 166 samples, but the extent to which
love is expressed and the extent to which marriage is based on it
varies significantly from culture to culture (Jankowiak and Fischer,
1992).
• Question: To what extent can individualistic values ​help or hinder
love? Two positions:
– 1) individualism and love are incompatible
• individualism for its own sake is negatively correlated with
care for and trust in a partner
– 2) love complements individualism
• romantic love provides a solution to alienation by replacing
weak family and other group ties.
• It is characteristic of collectivist societies that the quality of marriage
determines psychological well-being less, and the latter is influenced
much more by relationships with parents and siblings
 Lovie choice (mate selection) – cross-
cultural research
• Buss et al. (1994) large-sample cross-cultural comparison of mate preferences
– 37 countries, more than 10,000 people
• In most cultures, the desirable trait is: “mutual attraction– love”, mutual attraction, love
• Additional desirable traits
– Ability to be attached (dependable character), emotional stability and maturity, cheerfulness
– Gender differences:
• For men: physical attractiveness, age (young age)
• For women: wealth, social status
– Are cultural or gender influences more important?
• Wallen (1989) this may vary by trait (gender in the case of physical appearance, wealth;
cultural influence is stronger in the case of shyness, ambition, age)
• Other cultural aspects:
– In Western, individualistic societies: “abstract” characteristics are primarily emphasized
(honesty, kindness)
– Abstract expectations are opposed by pragmatic expectations (income, kinship obligations) –
e.g. in the Chinese rural cultural context
– Overall, kindness, understanding, a sense of humor, as well as expressiveness and
openness were the most desirable characteristics, and similarity of attitudes
 Arranged marriage
• Societies around the world can be depicted on a continuum with
completely arranged marriages at one end and completely free
marriages at the other.
– E.g. India: There are many different marriage customs, from mutually free to
arranged.
• The most common way of choosing a partner is by prior
arrangement, with marriages primarily between groups and not
individuals.
• Arranged marriages
– potential benefits for society: they support the preservation of the social order;
they allow elders to maintain control of the family; they promote political and
economic ties between families.
• Arranged marriages are usually early, the couple meet only a few
times, and in some communities the option of "girl abduction"
(escape from marriage) is still accepted.
 Arranged marriages vs. love
marriages?
• “Love marriages start hot and then cool down, while
arranged marriages start cold and then heat up.” (Xiaohe
and Whyte, 1990, cited in Goodwin, 2006, 305).
– There are research findings that support this idea, for
example, in a study of Hindu couples, when
comparing different couples, older, arranged couples
reported the highest satisfaction (Good et al., 1997).
– There are also findings that contradict this: in both
arranged and love marriages, satisfaction gradually
decreases over the years (Blood, 1967)
 Relational mobility

Relational mobility refers to the extent to which individuals in a

society can freely form and dissolve relationships based on
personal choice (Yuki & Schug, 2020)

“the amount of opportunities people have to select new

relationship
partners in a given society or social context” (Yuki et al., 2007, p.
3).

▪ socioecological variable
▪ varies across cultures and influences social behavior
▪ historical and societal factors contribute to these differences
 Low-High relational mobility
Low relational mobility
• mostly fixed relationships, less flexible interpersonal relationships and networks
– people have stable and long-lasting relationships
• little choice when it comes to friends, family, and romantic partners
• relationships are formed mostly based on circumstances not on active choice
• fewer opportunities to leave unsatisfying relationships and form new ones instead

High relational mobility

• High relational mobility societies work like free agent markets
• Relationship options are abundant, people can freely seek out new partners, select
partners based on self-interest
• People leave old friends more easily behind
• Relationships are based on mutual contract and are less guaranteed
• Higher homophily (similarity among friends/romantic partners – opportunities to have
like-minded friends/partners)
 Relational mobility and cultural
variables
• Correlating with
– loose cultural norms
– openness to multiple religious viewpoints (religious syncretism)
– independent self-construal
– less hierarchy
– valuing competition and personal improvement (performance orientation)
– less fate control

• These correlations suggest that places with higher relational mobility tend to
have cultures that emphasize individual autonomy toward relationships and
group memberships.
 Relational mobility around the
world (Thompson et al 2018)
• Where do you think relational mobility is high? Give us some tips!

• And where is relational mobility low?

– High in North America

– Low in East Asia
– Western Europe has high relational mobility then Latin America, whereas the Middle East, North Africa, and
South Asia has lower relational mobility
– Relational mobility is highest in Mexico and Puerto Rico
– Relational mobility is the lowest in Japan and Malaysia
(Thompson et al 2018)
Thank you for your attention!
PSYM114 Social Psychology 2

Aggression

Krisztina Borsfay, PhD

 What is aggression?
• Aggression is behaviour intended to
harm another person, defined by the
immediate intention to hurt.
• Human show two types of aggression:
– Proactive/Reactive aggression
– Instrumental aggression (proactive):
• harming someone for personal gain, attention, or even self-
defense
• an aggressive behaviour intended to achieve a goal,
aggression is used as a tool
– Hostile/emotional aggression (reactive): springs from
anger/emotions and aim to injure
• reactive aggression is often impulsive, carried out in the heat
of the moment.
 Some theories of aggression
• Aggression as a biological phenomenon
– Instinct theory and evolutionary psychology
• Innate, unlearned behavior pattern exhibited by all members
of a species – paralel with Freud’s idea: aggressive drive is
inborn and inevitable
• Evolutionary psychology - aggression is a strategy for gaining
resources, defending against enemies
– Neural influences
• No particular brain area responsible, but prefrontal cortex
might be important
– Genetic Influences
• There is no one type of aggressiveness. Genes predispose some
people to be more sensitive and responsive to aggressive cues (e.g.
maltreatment)
 Some theories of aggression
• Aggression as a Biological Phenomenon (biochemical influences)
– Alcohol: it unleashes aggression and reduces self-awareness. It
also makes people tend to interpret unclear acts as provocations
(ne itiyosun kavgası).
– Testosterone: testosterone and human aggressiveness does
correlate
• Testosterone relates to dominance, status, and reactive
aggression, not simple “rage.” (Archer, 2006)
• After age 25 the testosterone levels diminish and so does
violent behavior
– Low Serotonin: low level of the neurotransmitter serotonin, for
which the impulse-controlling frontal lobes have many receptors.
 Some theories of aggression
• Aggression as a Response to Frustration
– Frustration-Aggression hypothesis (Dollard et al,
1939): frustration increases the likelihood of
aggression.
• Frustration: blocking of goal-directed behaviour
– Frustration-Aggression Theory Revised (Berkowitz,
1989):
• Frustration produces anger, an emotional
readiness to aggress
• Berkowitz’s cognitive neoassociation theory
aggressive cues (weapons, symbols) amplify
aggressive responses
 Some theories of aggression
Cognitive neoassociation theory, Berkowitz, 1989
Aggression cues: weapons, aggressive symbols, aggressive behaviour
of others (contagion effect)

6
 Some theories of aggression
• Aggression as learned social behaviour
– Social Learning Theory (Bandura et al., 1961)
• Observation & imitating
– Observation of rewarded aggression
increases copying
– Bobo doll experiments (Bandura et al, 1961,
1963)
• children imitate aggressive adult behaviour after observing it
• aggression is also learned through video/symbolic models
Triggering factors – what makes aggression
more likely?
Environmental factors:
• Heat (heat–aggression hypothesis,
Anderson et al., 1996)
• Alcohol → disinhibition, impaired judgment
• Crowding, noise, unpleasant stimuli
(odours, pollution) (Berkowitz & LePage,
1967)
• Weapon availability → weapons effect
 Triggering factors – what makes aggression
more likely?
Personality and individual differences
• Impulsivity
• Hostile attribution bias (Dodge & Coie, 1987)
– a social-cognitive tendency in which a person is more likely to
interpret ambiguous social situations as hostile, threatening, or
intentionally harmful, even when the intent is unclear or innocent.
– this bias is a core part of reactive aggression
• Physical strength / ability to aggress → lower perceived costs
• Narcissism, threatened ego
(e.g., threatened egotism theory, Baumeister et al, 1996))
– Aggression is most likely when a person has inflated, unrealistic, or unstable self-
esteem,
– and that self-image is challenged (e.g., insulted, criticized, or not admired).
– People with fragile ego structures lash out to protect their self-view.
• narcissistic personalities, people with unstable self-esteem, who relyon
external validation
 Dark Triad
• [Link]
5Z2cU
 Discussion
• Crowds and unusual behaviour
– Why do people sometimes behave differently
in a crowd than when they are alone?
– What aspects of the environment (e.g., noise,
darkness, excitement) might reduce self-
awareness or increase impulsivity?
 What do you think, which situation might end up in
aggression and why?

A B
A group of university students is A group of university students is waiting
waiting for a delayed bus after an for a bus after a local football match.
evening class. The stop is moderately crowded, and
several groups are wearing team scarves.
The stop is fairly quiet. People are a
Some people are excited, talking loudly,
bit annoyed because the bus is late, and occasionally swearing about the rival
but most are scrolling on their team.
phones. The bus is late, and as more people arrive,
Two people in the group complain they start pushing closer together.
about the schedule but no one raises Someone bumps into another person and
their voice. mutters “watch where you’re going.”
A stranger accidentally bumps into
someone, then quickly apologizes.
A B
• Frustration: yes (delay) • Frustration: yes (delay)
✘ Crowding: low Crowding: increasing
✘ Arousal: low Arousal: moderate
Norms: polite, calm (post-match energy, loud
environment)
Group norms: more
permissive of loud/hostile
talk
Provocation: mild
verbal tension (“watch
where you’re going”)
Triggering factors – what makes
aggression more likely?
Group processes
• Aggressive Models in the Group (Social Learning / Contagion)
– One person aggresses → others quickly imitate
→ establishes that aggression is “normatively acceptable”
• Norm Formation and Emergent Norms
– Groups create temporary norms in ambiguous situations: “Everyone else is doing
it, so it’s fine.” (Turner & Killian, 1957; 1987)
– Aggression becomes perceived as the correct response.
– Emergent norms are a crucial part of crowd behavior.
• Reduced Cognitive Processing Under Arousal
– Group arousal → less systematic thinking → impulsive action
– With less careful thought, angry cues dominate, increasing aggression.
• Decreased Perceived Costs in Groups
– Being in a crowd increases anonymity, reduces accountability, reduces fear of sanctions, increases
perceived rewards (group approval)
• Amplification Through Group Identity
– Groups competing for status, respect → aggression as a way to maintain group
face.
 Aggression & gender
• Physical aggression
– Men show more physical aggression across cultures (Archer, 2004)
– physical size and strength - lower cost of physical confrontation for men
• testosterone levels: testosterone relates to dominance behavior, not
“rage,” but can amplify aggression when provoked
• social norms - masculine roles encourage: assertiveness,
toughness, defending honor
• Indirect, relational aggression:
– Women often use more indirect or relational aggression
– Women are less physically aggressive on average, but often show
equal or higher levels of
• Gossip, social exclusion, rumour spreading, silent treatment,
relational manipulation, online relational aggression
– Different socialization patterns – social norms for women are:
• maintain relationships, avoid open conflict, prioritize harmony
 Aggression & culture
• Culture of Honor
– refers to societies where individuals are expected to protect their reputation
through aggressive retaliation when they perceive disrespect or threat to their
social standing
– Some cultures (e.g., U.S. South, Brazil, Mediterranean regions)
endorse aggressive retaliation to restore honor.
• higher weapon carrying and school violence in culture-of-
honor U.S. states (Nisbett & Cohen, 1996)
• Norms about acceptable aggression
– Culture-specific norms highlight the role of learned scripts and
justification patterns. Culture shapes
• what counts as provocation - small insults may be perceived as major
threats in honor cultures
• what responses are appropriate - defending honor vs. “ignore and walk
away”
• whether aggression signals strength or immorality
 Cultures of Honor
• [Link]
QF_hjg&list=WL&index=3
Thank you for your attention!
PSYM114 Social Psychology 2

Applying social
psychology within a
community context
Krisztina Borsfay, PhD
 What is community-level social
psychology?
• Using social psychological principles to
promote well-being, participation, and
empowerment within communities.
• Emphasis on context, collective
processes, and systems, not just
individuals.
– Community psychology uses an ecological
perspective to examine how individual,
social, societal, and global factors interact.
 Ecological perspective
• The ecological perspective says that
human behaviour is shaped not only by
individual factors, but by multiple layers of
the environment — from family to society
to culture.
• People are always embedded in systems.
• Classic theoretical model:
– Bronfenbrenner Ecological Systems Theory
(1977)
Bronfenbrenner –
Ecological systems model
• Microsystem
– The immediate environments a person participates in.
• Mesosystem
• Exosystem
– Systems that act on the person indirectly, even if
they are not physically present.
• Macrosystem
– Broader cultural, economic, societal factors.
• Chronosystem
– The role of time: life transitions and historical
changes.
• „For example, a psychologist interested in
juvenile delinquency prevention could
investigate characteristics and circumstances
(e.g., mental health problems), family dynamics
(e.g., conflict and parenting skills),
neighbourhood parameters (e.g., social support
systems), economic influences (e.g., stresses of
poverty) and societal norms (e.g., emphasis on
materialism).”
/source: [Link]/
 Case study – group work
• Budapest – „Livable City”

– perspective of a student
– perspective of a woman/man
– perspective of a person living with special
needs
 Concepts - examples
• Group level processes
– Social identity - Identifying as a “Budapest resident”
(or district resident) shapes how people behave in
public spaces and how much they care about the city.
• Cultural level processes
– Acculturation strategies: international residents
adopt various strategies (integration, separation,
assimilation). These patterns shape community
cohesion and inclusion.
 Concepts - examples
• Behavior and well-being
– Stress & coping: cities can generate stress
(noise, crowds), but also offer coping
resources (parks, culture, social connections).
• Ecological framework
– Microsystem / mesosystem / exosystem /
macrosystem: helps analyse how personal
experiences (e.g., stress during commuting)
stem from institutional and societal structures.
Thank you for your attention!