HUMAN RELATIONSHIPSSocial ResponsibilityInterpersonal RelationshipsViolence

HUMAN RELATIONSHIPSSocial Responsibility

OUR ROLES AS HUMANS WITHIN SOCIETY

In 1978 Staub defined pro-social behavior as behavior that benefits another person or has positive social consequences. Considered vague because it doesn’t discuss the

motivation of the behavior, just the outcome. Helping behavior just what it sounds like!

(Behavior that intentionally helps/benefits another person) “Making a difference” CAS hours

Altruism is when one helps another with no reward and at some cost to oneself Risking one’s life so save another in a car accident

PSYCHOLOGICAL RESEARCH ON ALTRUISM

Evolutionary psychology

Kin Selection Theory “The selfish gene

theory” Reciprocal Altruism

Theory Prisoner’s Dilemma

Based off of cognitive psychology

Negative-State Relief Model

Empathy-Altruism Model Personal distress vs.

empathetic concern

BiologicalPsychological

(Cognitive)

KIN SELECTION THEORY The closer the relationship between the

helper and those being helped the more likely altruistic behavior will be displayed

Dawkins (1976): “The Selfish Gene Theory”

Innate drive that our genes compete; organisms try to maximize its “inclusive fitness” (number of genes copied globally, not individually)

Difficult to test under controlled conditions, does not explain why humans help complete strangers

RECIPROCAL ALTRUISM THEORY (“YOU SCRATCH MY BACK, I’LL SCRATCH YOURS”)

An animal may benefit from behaving altruistically if there is expectation that the favor will be returned in the future

Used to explain the evolution of altruism among non related individuals

Trivers (1971): Through mutual cooperation both will increase their chance of survival. Smaller fish cleaning a larger fish gills and mouth

PRISONER’S DILEMMA Axelrod & Hamilton (1981): Used a version of

the prisoner’s dilemma to test reciprocal altruism with humans

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IotsMu1J8fA Cooperate or defect If both cooperate, both receive a reward If both defect, neither receive a reward If players meet each other many times, they will

adjust their strategy to fit opponent’s last move “tit-for-tat”

HOW THE PRISONER’S DILEMMA EXPLAINS ALTRUISM

Axelrod & Hamilton believe that cooperation to this extent is an evolutionarily stable strategy.

Shows how actions determined by self-interest are not always in the group’s interest.

Thomas Hobbs: Social Contract Theory:“…uncontrolled pursuit of self-interest would

result in chaos and that governments have the responsibility of preventing this chaos.”

EVALUATION OF THE RECIPROCAL ALTRUISM THEORY

Can we use animal behavior to justify human behavior?

Human behavior is influence more conscious beliefs and desires as well as by culture than that of animals.

Generally, humans behave more altruistically towards close kin than non-relatives and we also like to repay the favor of people helping us.

Adoption however cannot be explained by the biological model since it does not benefit the kin.

PSYCHOLOGICAL EXPLANATION OF ALTRUISM

Lerner & Lichtman (1968): Working in pairs, one individual was the learner (receive electrical shocks) and the other was the control.

One person per group was the confederate (in on the experiment) and that person was always “randomly” assigned the role of the “learner.

When the confederate (learner) acted distressed the other person offered to switch roles, thus illustrating altruistic behavior.

NEGATIVE-STATE RELIEF Schaller & Cialdini (1988): As humans, we often

don’t like to see others in discomfort/distress. Egoistic motives cause us to help others in

negative circumstances in order to reduce the distress WE experience from watching THEM.

This also justifies why we walk away from situations rather than helping because it helps reduce distress.

EMPATHY-ALTRUISM MODEL: BATSON ET AL. (1981)

Anxiety & fear Leads to egoistic

helping

Sympathy, compassion, tenderness

Leads to altruistic behavior

Personal Distress Empathetic Concern

When you feel empathy towards someone you will help him/her regardless of any pay back. Relieving individuals from suffering is the biggest concern. When no empathy is felt, cost vs. benefit rules your decision to help.

FINDINGS OF BATSON’S STUDY

This study has been replicated multiple times with similar results thus supporting the idea that helping behavior based on empathy is unselfish.

Weaknesses: This study only looks at short-term altruism Also, personality factors have not been taken into

consideration Doesn’t measure the level of one’s empathy Although Batson argues that empathy is innate trait it

is undetermined why we do not experience predictable levels of empathy in a given situation.

Is one’s level of empathy learned or is there a biological connection?

KITTY GENOVESE CASE

March 13, 1964 Along a serene, tree-lined street in the Kew Gardens section of Queens, New York City, Catherine Genovese began the last walk of her life in the early morning hours of March 13, 1964. She had just left work, and it was 3:15 a.m. when she parked her red Fiat in the Long Island Railroad parking lot 20 feet from her apartment door. As she locked her car door, she took notice of a figure in the darkness walking quickly toward her. She became immediately concerned as soon as the stranger began to follow her. “As she got out of the car she saw me and ran,” the man told the court later, “I ran after her and I had a knife in my hand.” She must have thought that since the entrance to her building was so close, she would reach safety within seconds. But the man was faster than she thought. The man caught up with Catherine, who was all of  5'1” and weighed just 105 pounds, near a street light at the end of the parking lot.

“I could run much faster than she could, and I jumped on her back and stabbed her several times,” the man later told cops. “Oh my God! He stabbed me!” she screamed. “Please help me! Please help me!” Some apartment lights went on in nearby buildings. Irene Frost heard Catherine’s screams plainly. “There was another shriek,” she later testified in court, “and she was lying down crying out.”  Up on the seventh floor of the same building, Robert Mozer slid open his window and observed the struggle below.

“Hey, let that girl alone!” he yelled down into the street. The attacker heard Mozer and immediately walked away. There was quiet once again in the dark. The only sound was the sobbing of the victim, struggling to her feet. The lights in the apartment went out again. Catherine, bleeding badly from several stab wounds, managed to reach the side of her building and held onto the concrete wall. She staggered over to a locked door and tried to stay conscious. Within five minutes, the assailant returned. He stabbed her again. “I’m dying! I’m dying!” she cried to no one.

But several people in her building heard her screams. Lights went on once again and some windows opened. Tenants tried to see what was happening from the safety of their apartments. The attacker then ran to a white Chevy Corvair at the edge of the railroad parking lot and seemed to drive away.

On the sixth floor Marjorie and Samuel Koshkin witnessed the attack from their window. “I saw a man hurry to a car under my window,” he said later. “He left and came back five minutes later and was looking around the area.” Mr. Koshkin wanted to call the police, but Mrs. Koshkin thought otherwise. “I didn't let him,” she later said to the press. “I told him there must have been 30 calls already.”  Miss Andre Picq, who lived on the second floor, heard the commotion from her window. “I heard a scream for help, three times,“  she later told the court, “I saw a girl lying down on the pavement with a man bending down over her, beating her.”

About 3:25 a.m., Catherine, bleeding badly, stumbled to the rear of  her apartment building and attempted to enter through a back entrance. The door was locked. She slid along the wall until she reached a hallway leading to the 2nd floor of 82-62 Austin Street but she fell to the vestibule floor. In the meantime, the man had returned again. “I came back because I knew I’d not finished what I set out to do,” he told cops later.

He walked along the row of doors and calmly searched for the woman. He checked the first door and didn’t find her. He followed the trail of blood to the doorway where Catherine lay bleeding on the tiled floor. And there, while the defenseless victim lay semiconscious, incoherent from pain and loss of blood, he cut off her bra and underwear and sexually assaulted her. He then took $49 in cash from her wallet. “Why would I throw money away?” he asked the court at his trial.

As Catherine moaned at his feet, probably unable to comprehend what had happened to her, the man viciously stabbed her again and killed her. The man, who had selected his victim purely at random, ran to his car still parked where he left it. The entire event lasted at least 32 minutes.

He said later that murder “was an idea that came into my mind, just as an idea might come into your mind, but I couldn't put mine aside.” Catherine was his third murder.

At about 3:50 a.m., a neighbor, Karl Ross, who lived on the second floor of Catherine’s building on Austin Street, finally called the police. But before he did, he called a friend in nearby Nassau County and asked his opinion about what he should do. After the police were notified, a squad car arrived within three minutes and quickly found Catherine’s body in the hallway on the first floor. She had been stabbed 17 times. Her torn and cut clothes were scattered about and her open wallet lay on the floor next to her. Her driver’s license identified her as Catherine Genovese.

Detectives from the 112 responded and began an exhaustive investigation. A canvass of the neighborhood turned up several witnesses, including the one who had notified the police. When cops finished polling the immediate neighborhood, they discovered at least 38 people who had heard or observed some part of the fatal assault on Kitty Genovese.

WHAT WOULD YOU HAVE DONE?

Have you ever been a bystander? What causes some people to stop to help others and some choose not to help?

BYSTANDER EFFECT Latane’ & Darley began research after the Kitty

Genovese murder (1964) to understand why some people do not help others…thus bystanderism was coined (The presence of others seems to determine whether or not others will intervene.)

2 factors cause individuals to either help or not: 1.) Diffusion of Responsibility 2.) Pluralistic Ignorance

BYSTANDERISM

People reason that somebody else can/should/will offer assistance.

Latane’ & Darley (1968): Interviews and a “choking”

victim: 4+ participants:31%

helped One other person 65%

helped Only person there 85%

helped

Diffusion of Responsibility Pluralistic Ignorance

•If there is an emergency and someone sees others not reacting, they will not either.•Look to others to know how to react (information social influence.)•Latane’ & Darley (1969):•Sitting in a waiting room and hears a women fall and cry out• Alone, reacted more often and

quickly• In a room with a confederate

(in on experiment) who didn’t react then they were less likely to react/help.

POST-EXPERIMENT INTERVIEW OF THE LATANE’ & DARLEY 1969 STUDY

Participants reveled that they felt anxious when thy heard the person fall but since others appeared calm they assumed there was no emergency.

In real life there is ambiguity about situations and it is hard to interpret what is going and if there are real emergencies.

Also, people are less likely to help in situations when they believe there is a relationship between the people (Domestic violence cases)

SOCIAL EXCHANGE THEORY Human relationships are based on a

subjective cost-benefit analysis When benefits (financial reward, esteem,

affection, avoidance of failure) outweigh the potential costs (humiliation, pain, financial loss) we are more likely to help

AROUSAL-COST-REWARD MODEL

Piliavan et al. (1969, 1981): Looked a both emergency and nonemergency situations

Considers an interaction of mood and cognition in determining behavior and arousal is the emotional response to the need or distress of others.

Bystanders are motivated to reduce arousal thus it is considered a motivational factor.

Agrees with the negative-state relief model The cost-reward factor should be seen in

terms of assessing possible costs and rewards associated with helping or not helping.

PILIAVIN ET AL. (1969) Observing an emergency situation always creates

emotional arousal in bystanders. Arousal can be increased by several factors

including empathy with the victim, proximity to the emergency, and the length of time that the emergency lasts.

Depending on the situation, arousal can perceived in many ways such as fear, disgust, or sympathy.

Ways arousal can be reduced: Helping Seeking help from others Leaving the scene Deciding that the person does not need/deserve help

COST-REWARD ANALYSIS Cost of helping: Effort, embarrassment,

possible physical harm Cost of not helping: Self-blame &

perceived censure from others Rewards of helping: praise from onlookers

& the victim Rewards of not helping: getting on with

personal business & not incurring the possible costs of helping

THE ROLE OF SOCIAL NORMS IN PRO-SOCIAL BEHAVIOR

Oliner & Oliner (1988): Civil Rights workers during segregation in the 1960s or Christians that sheltered Jews during WWII identified with parents that showed concern for others

Calosanto (1989): Those that are committed religiously were more likely to give time & money compared to non committed religious individuals.

Heroic Helpers Religion

FAMILY AFFAIR= NEGATIVE EXAMPLE OF PRO-SOCIAL BEHAVIOR

Shotland & Straw (1976): Staged attack of a man and woman

“I don’t know you!”= 65% prevented the “stranger’s” assault

“I don’t know why I ever married you!”= 19% helped because that thought it was a marital dispute

CAN SOCIAL NORMS CHANGE BYSTANDERISM?

2 groups, one watched a film about helping, the other did not.

2 weeks later each student from both groups were observed in a mock accident.

Those that watched the film= 43% helped

Did not watch film= 25% helped

Asked young children to do one of the three tasks

1.) Write a letter to other children in a hospital

2.) Tutor a younger child 3.) Make toys for chronically

ill children More likely to help in situations

where the helped was desired rather than in situations where the children had engaged in similar activities (making toys for themselves or studying with a friend)

Beaman (1978):

Staub (1983):

WHAT DO THESE STUDIES PROVE?

Social norms play important roles in pro-social behavior

Social norms that one should not intervene in another’s personal life is perhaps stronger than the idea of helping someone Domestic violence cases

>

IS PRO-SOCIAL BEHAVIOR COMMON CROSS-CULTURALLY?

Nurturing and helping behavior of children ages 3-11 in 6 countries Kenya, Mexico, and Pilipino

scored high United States scored the

lowest Pro-social behavior correlates

with children’s involvement in the responsibilities of family life

Helping is least likely in societies were completing school is held higher than being assigned to help with farming and household chores

Taking on the role of a caregiver at a young age provides children with the opportunity to learn how to behave in a pro-social manner.

Pro-social behavior can be learned in environments that models and has social norms that expect all members of the family to contribute for the common good

Whiting (1979) Graves & Graves (1985)

SOCIAL IDENTITY THEORY The desire to provide help for those that we

perceive to be similar to us (members of our in-group) Katz (1981): People are more likely to help those in

their own ethnic group that others that are not Bond & Leung (1988): Chinese and Japanese helped

more than US to those whom they perceived to be from an in-group, however, they were less likely than Americans to help others from an out-group

More extensive research needs to be conducted to confirm that this difference is unique

HUMAN RELATIONSHIPS

INTERPERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS

WHAT IS A RELATIONSHIP? INVOLVING STRONG AND FREQUENT INTERDEPENDENCE (THOUGHTS, EMOTIONS AND BEHAVIORS THAT INFLUENCE OTHERS IN MANY DOMAINS OF LIFE

 The condition or fact of being related; connection or association. Connection by blood or marriage; kinship. A particular type of connection existing between people related to or having dealings with each other. (siblings, classmates, peer groups)A romantic or sexual involvement.

IS A RELATIONSHIP A NEED OR A WANT?

According to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, relationships are necessary to have a fulfilled life.

RELATIONSHIPS NOT ONLY HELP OUR EMOTIONAL WELL-BEING, BUT OUR HEALTH IS IMPACTED AS WELL

Married people report being happier and healthier than those who are single (Steinhauser 1995)

Compared to those in troubled marriages, those that are happily married have immune systems that ward off infections more effectively (Kiecolt 1987)

Steven Cole (2007) found that chronic loneliness increased gene activity linked to inflammation, and reduced gene activity associated with antibody production and antiviral responses.

WHAT IMPACTS ATTRACTION?

Proximity: Geographic nearnessGreater availability to meet,

familiarity

MERE EXPOSURE EFFECT: The phenomenon that repeated exposure to novel stimuli increase liking of them.

Studies have shown that we are more attracted to things/people that we have seen more than once.

ANOTHER IMPACT OF ATTRACTIONPhysical attractiveness:

APPEARANCE plays a major role…unfortunately as humans we are superficial!

Predicts frequency of dating, feelings of popularity, and initial impressions of their personality.

Attractive people are PERCIEVED to be healthier, happier, more sensitive, more successful, and more socially skilled, however not more honest or compassionate. (Eagly & others, 1991)

LAST FACTOR OF ATTRACTION

Similarity: Humans tend to have healthier relationships with those that are similar (have similar interests, personalities, etc.)

Friends and couples are far more likely to share common attitudes, beliefs and interests. (Rosenbaum, 1986)

In “real life” opposites retract NOT attract.

WHAT PURPOSE DOES ATTRACTION SERVE? Evolutionary theories argue that the purpose of

attraction is for procreation (biological level of analysis)

The extent to which one perceives another person to be similar to themselves then the likelihood of that person finding that person attractive is higher. (cognitive level of analysis)

People that tend to live closer to each other tend to have the same social and cultural norms and they also tend to share the same ways of contacting and interacting with one another. (sociocultural level of analysis)

LOVE…WHAT IS IT AND DOES IT HAVE A PURPOSE?

A deep, tender, ineffable feeling of affection and solicitude toward a person, such as that arising from kinship, recognition of attractive qualities, or a sense of underlying oneness.

A feeling of intense desire and attraction toward a person with whom one is disposed to make a pair; the emotion of sex and romance.

A person who is the object of deep or intense affection or attraction; beloved. Often used as a term of endearment

PASSIONATE LOVE VS. COMPANIONATE LOVE

(BERSCHEID AND HATFIELD, 1972)

Complete absorption in another that includes sexual feelings and intense emotion.

Gradually replaced by companionate love.

Women tend to be more statisfied with their marriage when they feel sparks of passionate love, males are not affected (Aron and Hankemyer, 1995)

Warm, trusting, tolerant affection for another whose life is deeply intertwined with one’s own life.

Passionate Love Companionate Love

TRIANGULAR THEORY OF LOVE(ROBERT STERNBERG, 1988)

Passion, intimacy, and commitment work together

SCIENCE OF ATTRACTION

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuometYfMTk

ORIGINS OF ATTRACTION: BIOLOGICAL LOA

Obsession: Not being able to turn off their thoughts about the one they love/admire.Biochemical “cocktail” of a human’s

romantic passion can be blamed on a combination of dopamine, serotonin, and adrenaline.

Romantic love is NOT an emotion but rather a motivation system (need or craving) that our brain has been hardwired due to years of evolution in order to mate. (Fischer)

SEROTONIN…HOW DOES IT IMPACT LOVE? Helps focus on the one you love In 1999, Marazitti et al. conducted a study

that looked at the serotonin level of 20 people that have fallen in love within the past 6 months and 20 people with untreated OCD, and 20 normal individuals who were not in love (control group) and compared their serotonin level in blood samples…

RESULTS: The low serotonin levels in the blood of those fallen in love in 6 months and those with OCD were equivalent.

SO WHAT? IT’S THE BRAIN THAT MATTERS! In 2004, Fischer argued that until

research on serotonin levels are measured in specific parts of the brain then there is not any proof that serotonin impacts romantic love.

ADRENALINE...HEART IS RACING!Stress hormone Fischer (2004) argues that when you are

around that “special someone” and you have an increased level in adrenaline it can contribute to those “butterflies in your stomach” feelings of… Sweaty palms Heart racing Mouth going dry High energy Less need for sleep and food And focused attention on that “loved one”

“A BEAUTIFUL PICTURE OF THE BRAIN IN LOVE”

In 2003, Fischer investigated the blood flow in the brain by using fMRI brain scans of people in love. 20 people were shown a picture of their beloved for 30

seconds and then their brain was scanned. They were then given a distracting task followed by

viewing another photo of a neutral person, once again their brain was scanned. Each part repeated 6 times.

RESULTS: The blood flow in the brain’s reward system (activated by a pleasant stimulus) during the beloved picture was more intense than during the neutral pictures.

http://www.ted.com/talks/helen_fisher_studies_the_brain_in_love.html

ROLE OF HORMONES IN BONDING

Moving from passionate love to intimate love…attachment is formed.Feelings of comfort, security, and

relatedness In 1969, Bowlby argued that our ability to

create attachments is an innate quality; specific behaviors and physiological responses are attachment behaviors.

Hormones involved in attachment:1.) Oxytocin2.) Vasopressin

OXYTOCIN VERY powerful Hormone released during

sex and touching; helps deepen and intensify feelings of attachment.

It is also released during childbirth, thus forming close attachments with the mother and infant. Lab rats that had their oxytocin blocked/inhibited

rejected their young and did not demonstrate nurturing behaviors.

VASOPRESSIN Another sex released hormone that is

important for long-term commitment. In a study that increased the level of

vasopressin in prairie voles, these animals formed stronger bonds and had more sex (other than for reproduction) just like humans.

When vasopressin was inhibited, the males lost devotion to their mate and did not protect them from potential mates. Evidence that vasopressin plays an important

role in attachment and mating behavior.

JEALOUSLY…IT PLAYS AN IMPORTANT ROLE TOOBUSS (1996) ARGUES THAT JEALOUSY IS BIOLOGICALLY

BASED AND THAT HUMAN SEXUAL BEHAVIOR IS GROUNDED IN THE NEED TO OPTIMIZE THE POTENTIAL REPRODUCTION.

Estrogen levels are low

Women are more SEXUALLY jealous

Fears the male will seek out other females to mate with since she is unable to have intercourse.

Estrogen levels are relatively high

Women are more EMOTIONALLY jealous

Since impregnating is possible, she fears the male will develop an emotional attachment to another female, thus hindering the security of the potential child.

During menstruation During ovulation

PHYSICAL ATTRACTIVENESS & HORMONES

Buss (1993) found that in areas of the world where levels of pathogen stress is high, then that importance of physical attractiveness was rated more important as opposed to areas in the world with lower levels of pathogen stress.

Schackerlford and Watson (1987) concluded that men were found less attractive when their facial features were not symmetrical and they had more symptoms of depression and more physical problems (colds, headaches, gastrointestinal)

Lower levels of androgen during puberty, stunted the development of prominent cheekbones and masculine chins which are viewed as facial features that are physically attractive.

ORIGINS OF ATTRACTION: COGNITIVE LOA

Similarity is the key factor in the cognitive level of analysis for arguing why individuals are attracted to each other. Couples tend to be similar in:

Age Religion Social class Cultural background Personality Education Intelligence Physical attractiveness Attitudes

STUDIES TO SUPPORT THE COGNITIVE LOA

Bryne (1971) believes that other people’s support for one’s own views and attitudes boosts the self-esteem and therefore is rewarding and reassuring.

In 2007, Morry coined the idea of the attraction-similarity model which ties into an individuals perceptions or relationships; people tend to see friends and partners similar to themselves so attraction predicts perceptions of similarity. (similar physical features causes us to perceive that an individual is similar to us in beliefs about relationships.)

ANOTHER STUDY… Markey et al. conducted a study using questionnaires to

gather information about psychological characteristics such as values and attitudes of their ideal romantic partner.

They were then asked to describe themselvesRESULTS: The way they describe themselves and the things they

looked for in their dream partner were extremely similar. Follow-up study: 212 married/committed people filled

out a questionnaire about their own psychological characteristics and then about their partner’s and the results were the same as the previous study (similar beliefs and values for both partners.)

Confirms that people want partners similar to themselves!

RECIPROCITY…HOW DOES IT IMPACT RELATIONSHIPS?

Reciprocity happens when you like those who show interest in you.

This increases self-enhancement (making a partner feel good about oneself)

People seek feedback that mirrors and supports their self-concepts…this process is known as self-verification

With Romantic Relationships, people view their partner more favorable than the partner views him/herself however when the views are matched/equal, the relationship will progress (Markey et. al, 2007).

ORIGINS OF ATTRACTION: SOCIOCULTURL LOA

Interaction with others lead to liking: Comparing our feelings and reactions to

others help us better understand ourselves. Provides us with connectedness and

attachment. Basic human need

Familiarity is more likeable than the unfamiliar. 1971: Zajonc et al.

Participants evealuated photos of strangers and the photos that were shown repeatedly were rated more positively….Mere exposure effect gives us a sense of trust.

CULTURAL NORMS: FORMING AND MAINTAINING RELATIONSHIPS

Moghaddam (1993): Believed that much research on cultural norms is a reflection of US culture and more cross-cultural research must be conducted.

According to Goodwin (1995), passionate love is largely a western society idea. Love is seen as the result of a loving relationship. In societies with arranged marriages, love and

marriage is reversed; marriage, then love. 1992: Gupta & Singh: Couples in India that

married for love had their feelings of love diminish after 5 years, but those that had arranged marriages had higher levels of love.

MORE PROOF THAT WESTERN-CULTURES “HAVE IT ALL WRONG.”

1986: Simmons et al: Compared to Japanese culture, romantic love is valued more in the US and Germany. Romantic love is valued less in cultures with

strong extended family bonds. Dion & Dion (1993) In traditional societies is

viewed more than just a union of two people but rather a union of two families; Americans view marriage as lifetime companionship between two people IN LOVE; Other cultures view marriage as a partnership created to have children and provide social and economic support.

BACK TO BUSS… 1995, Levine et al. Individualistic countries

rate love as a key factor for the establishment of marriage and the lack of love warrants the decision to end a marriage.

1994 (Buss): 10,000 participants from 37 cultures All 37 cultures, men preferred younger mates,

women preferred older. 23 cultures men felt chastity (virginity) was more

important than women did. Buss concluded that mate selection preferences

is universal which is derived from evolutionary selection and pressure on males and females.

THE ROLE OF COMMUNICATION: ATTRIBUTION THEORY: HOW WE TRY TO UNDERSTAND PEOPLE AND MAKE SENSE OF THEIR BEHAVIOR

Blaming the situation Analyzing the person’s

action with regards to the situation he/she is in

Culture & environment Ex: Late work/missing

assignments= genuine issue such as a family/personal issue

Blaming the person A person’s behavior is

influenced by internal characteristics

Personality, beliefs, attitude

Ex: Late work/missing assignments= Lazy & irresponsible and never finishes work on time

Situational Dispositional

HOW DOES THIS IMPACT RELATIONSHIPS?

Attributions are positively based:

Positive behaviors are viewed as

DISPOSITIONAL & negative behaviors

are seen as SITUATIONAL.

Attributions are negatively based:

Negative behaviors are viewed as

DISPOSITONAL & positive behaviors are

viewed as SITUATIONAL.

Leads to phrases such as, “You always…” and “You never…”

Happy Relationships

Unhealthy Relationships

WHAT CAUSES A RELATIONSHIP TO END?

Bradbury & Fincham (1990): Poor marital quality in a couple = dispositional

attributions to negative behaviors & situational attributions to positive behaviors.

1992: Attributions a married couple make, correlates to their behavior towards each other. Wives that linked dispositional attributions about their

husbands in negative situations behave negatively towards their husband

Opposite held true for in wives who made dispositional attributions about their husband in positive situations.

Unhappy couples have neg. attributions and behave neg. towards each other

Quality of relationship leads to negative communication?

Attributional style leads to the end of a

relationship?

MARITAL SATISFACTION

Bradbury & Fincham (1992): Type of attibutions made by the couple in the

beginning of the study helped predict marital satisfaction at the end of the study (12- month longitudinal study)

LEVEL of satisfaction at the beginning of the study did NOT predict what kinds of attributions the couple made at the end of the study.

Possible indication: Kinds of attribution which influence the behavior of couples rather than the other way around. Falls in line with the theory of idealization and

positive illusions of the partner

NEGATIVE FEELINGS/COMMUNICATION =PROBLEMS

In 2003, Flora & Segrin found that negative feelings of women towards their partner predicted marital problems and for men, when their partners expressed negative feelings that leads to problems.Attributions that partners make about

each other correlate to the levels of satisfaction with the relationship as well as their behavior towards each other.

TO SUMMARIZE… Attributions that partners make about each

other correlate with the level of satisfaction of the relationship as well as the type of behavior they display towards each other.

Negative communication leads to marital dissatisfaction which can lead to the end of the relationship.

COMMUNICATION IS THE KEY! Social penetration theory: Close

relationships are formed by a gradual process of self-disclosure. Altman & Taylor

Closeness will develop as the couple proceed from superficial conversations to intimate levels; this is associated with attraction.

Leads to self-disclosure: Sharing facts about one’s life with a loved one including inner thoughts, feelings and emotions. “I don’t know if I am qualified enough to get the

new position I applied for.”

COLLINS & MILLER (1994) Disclosing information about yourself makes both

strangers and friends like you more and leads to self-validation (the feeling of being truly known and ACCEPTED by the listener.)

1.) People who disclose more intimate information about themselves are more liked than those that do not.

2.) People tend to disclose more personal information to those they like.

3.) As people disclose more information to a person, they like that person more (attraction grows) Disclosure is crucial for establishing and

maintaining relationships!

MEN AND WOMEN DO NOT COMMUNICATE THE SAME!

Reis 1986 :Women self-disclose more than men (more women to women than men to men)

Deborah Tannen 1990: Respond to negative feelings with understanding and acceptance. “I know, it’s as though

you are not in control of your body.”

Tannen 1990: Men often take the initial disclosure as a complaint and try to give advice to solve the problem. “You could always

join a gym to get back into shape!”

Females Males

MEN AND WOMEN HAVE CONVERSATIONS DIFFERENTLY!

Use more language tags (yup, uh-huh, right, no kidding) along the side of the main speaker to show SUPPORT (overlapping speech) “I understand”

Ask others for their opinion

View those tags as “I agree”

Interrupt and change subjects more frequently

Women Men

FRAMING CONVERSATIONS TO AVOID CONFLICT

It’s better to be positive and express our own feelings as opposed to point the blame.“You always wait until the last

minute to do things!” Leads the partner to want to defend her/himself

which leads to an argument.

“I feel anxious when I think we are going to be late.” Better approach

WHY DO RELATIONSHIPS END OR CHANGE?THE “ECONOMIC” THEORIES

Kelley & Thibaut (1959): The costs of the relationship must not outweigh the benefits; the more one “invests” then the greater the return.

Equivalence must be maintained (non-equivalence may be tolerated for short-term but balance must be established for it to last)

Elaine Walster: The perception of equality is what determines if the relationship will last.

Used to explain infedelity Hatfield (1979): 2000

couples, those deprived/under-benefited had extramarital sex sooner and with more partners than those that who felt fairly treated.

Social Exchange Theory Equity Theory

CONCLUSION & CRITICAL ANALYSIS

Under and OVER benefited felt just as doubtful about the security of their relationship compared to those that had EQUITABLE relationships.

Critical analysis: 1.) Exchange theories do not take into account

emotions which tend to override the “profit motive”

2.) Culturally bound, more common in capitalistic societies.

3.) Difficult to place quantity on costs and rewards in relationships in order to test the theory.

PATTERNS OF ACCOMMODATION: THE PROCESS OF RESPONDING TO A PARTNER’S NEGATIVE BEHAVIOR INTERTWINE WITH THE MAINTENANCE OF THE RELATIONSHIP RUSBULT ET AL. (1991):

Discussing problems openly & honestly, waiting for situations to improve naturally, and forgiving each other

Silent treatment, recounting lists of past failures, and physical avoidance.

Constructive Destructive

However, in domestic violence/abusive relationships, constructive ideas may not work like it would in healthy relationships.

WHAT LEADS TO CONSTRUCTIVE ACCOMMODATIONS?

Idealization: Those with positive illusions of one’s partner

Murray & Holmes (1997): Those with positive illusions reported less conflict and few destructive patterns of conflict resolution.

Feeling of commitment: Helps overlook flaws Engage in open communication or concerns and

needs Express willingness to change behavior in order

to mend relationship

ATTACHMENT STYLE ALSO PLAYS A ROLE

Securely attached: Tend to engage in constructive conflict resolution.

Simpson (1996): Questionnaire measuring attachment style

Couples discussed a major problem in relationship

Those that were insecure tended to be anxious and used negative strategies during the discussion which led to negative feelings and harm to the relationship.

WELL-BEING RELATES TO PERCEPTION OF THE RELATIONSHIP

Flora & Segrin (2003): Longitudinal Study & self-Report 66 young couples (6 months of dating) & 65

young couples (married for 4 years) Does the amount of common interests and

activities & the desire to spend time together predict the quality of the relationship? Results:

Men: Common interests and activities and spending time meant more

Women: The quantity of their OWN negative feelings (relation to disappointment with their partner) determined whether they would stay in the relationship

FACTS ABOUT RELATIONSHIPS

Women end relationships more than men (Gray & Silver, 1990)

Marriages in which partners are younger than the average tend to be unstable (Duck, 1998)

Marriages between couples from lower economic groups and lower educational levels tend to be more unstable (Pringle, 1986)

RULES: ARE THEY NECESSARY? Fatal attraction Theory: The trait that initially

cause the attraction leads to the termination of the relationship; Felmlee (1995)

Duck (1992): Predictability provides comfort, when crisis occurs, predictability is disrupted. Having children, moving to a new city, or

“breaking the rules” Argyle & Henderson (1984): Rules help maintain the

goals of the relationship; helps minimize the potential for conflict RULES: Respecting each others privacy, not talking

to others about disclosed information, being emotionally supportive, and not being deceitful (most important)

“FALLING OUT OF LOVE” Sprecher (1999) Longitudinal study over several

years; self-report Broken relationships were due to

general dissatisfaction and frustration with the relationship, but there wasn’t any change of feelings of love. FRUSTRATION outweighs positive

feelings of LOVE. Breaking up is a painful process.

HUMAN RELATIONSHIPS:VIOLENCE

ONE LEADS TO THE OTHER…

Sequence of behavior in which the goal is to dominate or harm another individual

Part of human condition according to Hogg (1995)

Everyone is affected by it indirectly or directly

An aggressive act in which the perpetrator abuses individuals directly or indirectly.

Verbal, physical, and psychological

Individuals, groups, institutions, nations

Sometimes random, but most are ongoing and routine (domestic violence & bullying)

Aggression Violence

LOW-BASE RATE BEHAVIOR “Relatively rare;” Difficult to observe and easy to

miss Multifactorial in origin: No single explanation as to

the cause When observing in natural environments it may be

possible to not observe a violent act for a long period of time, however this does not mean it never happens.

Jane Goodall witnessed raiding parties of chimps (usually peaceful mammals)Hunted down and brutally killed members of another

community, also cases of infanticide and rape.Like chimps, most humans are not aggressive, but

at times, violence occurs for no SPECIFIC reason.

BIOLOGICAL LEVEL OF ANALYSIS Evolutionary psychologists argue that violent

behavior serves the purpose to protect offspring or for breeding purposes.

TESTOSTERONE: Sexual arousal and aggression

Level of testosterone in males positively correlates with the level of aggression.

Bernhardt (1997): High testosterone levels and antisocial behavior in males with low socio-economic status…link is not cut & dry and sociocultural and cognitive aspects need to be taken into consideration.

TESTOSTERONE IS NOT AN AGGRESSION HORMONE

Mazur & Booth (1998): Testosterone is relates to status-seeking and dominance

Testosterone rises before competitive matches, even chess matches, had higher levels of testosterone than those that lose. (measured in their saliva)

Cohen (1998): Young US males in urban street cultures where honor was valued had higher levels of testosterone.

Hyper-responsive to insults to maintain status and respect

People from southern states who display more of an honor culture have higher testosterone response to challenges then those in northern states who are not part of an honor culture.

PERMISSIVE EFFECT The presence of the hormone is enough

to allow for aggressive behaviorSapolsky (1998): With animals,

castration=aggression declined, injected with testosterone, 20%-200%=returned to “normal aggressive levels”

Testosterone alone IS NOT RESPONSIBLE for the level of aggressive behavior, other factors are involved.

SEROTONIN: NEGATIVE CORRELATION BETWEEN SEROTONIN LEVELS AND AGGRESSION

Low levels=highly irritable, aggressive, easily frustrated, impulsive, fast-track anger (act first, think later)

Bernhardt (1997): Low levels of serotonin (irritability) + high levels of testosterone (dominance-seeking behavior) = AGGRESSION

Environmental stimuli (childhood physical abuse=fewer serotonin receptor sites) can make levels of testosterone rise and serotonin levels fall

FRONTAL LOBE ABNORMALITIES

Grafman et al (1996): 57 normal (control) & 279 veterans suffering from penetrating head injuries from Vietnam.

Self-report, family observations, scales and questionnaires measuring violent & aggressive attitudes and behaviors

Those with frontal lobe lesions displayed violence scale scores significantly higher than the control group.

MURDERERS (NOT GUILTY BY REASON OF INSANITY)

Raine et al. (1997): A study using PET scans (positron emission tomography) found:

lower activity (glucose metabolism) in the prefrontal cortex & corpus callosum Problem integrating information necessary to modify

behavior and control impulse asymmetry in the amygdala, & the medial temporal

lobe including the hippocampus Problem forming and using emotionally laden perceptions

and memories Increased activity in the right-hemisphere However, biology alone cannot determine

violent acts…social, psychological, cultural, and situational factors but be taken into consideration.

COGNITIVE LEVEL OF ANALYSIS

Fiske & Taylor 1991: Antisocial behavior and aggression are linked to deficits in cognitive functioning such as: Attention Cognitive flexibility Self-regulation

Growing up in violent family can affect the way the brain processes information Stressors Learning Or both

Violent acts are caused by previous experiences that have shaped cognitive processing, more so cognition related to social information

Social Cognition: The way people make sense of and respond to their social world.

SOCIAL COGNITION PROCESSING AFFECTED BY RISK FACTORS

Cognitive schemas about the world are influenced by experience (self & social schemas)

Bowlby (1973): inner working models: Cog. Schemas of what

people expect from others and the emotions linked to those expectations

Linked with attachment

The way a person interprets social situations and makes judgments about a person’s motives (attribution) as well as how a person decides to respond.

General Knowledge Structures Information Processing

COGNITIVE PROCESSES ARE LINKED TO AGGRESSIVE AND VIOLENT ACTS

Dodge et al. (1990): General knowledge structures and information processing link abuse, social rejection, & violence by peers to being at risk for developing antisocial behaviors

Baumeister et al. (1996): Link between negative views about oneself and aggression

BRADSHAW (2004) Stronger link between aggression and an

individual’s negative view of others Negative attributional style could be linked to

aggression and violent behavior 125 male & female adolescents from NY(average age 19.9)

Aggression is mediated by negatively socially biased information processing as well as childhood exposure to violence (Bandura’s social learning theory)

Conclusion: Through self-reports, hostile attribution, self-reported aggressive response reaction, and justification of aggression positively correlates to negative view of others; however there is no relationship between view of oneself and aggression Remember, self-reports can be unreliable!

COGNITIVE PROBLEMS RELATED TO BRAIN INJURIES Leads to frustration which can cause violent

verbal and physical aggression outbursts which is usually directed towards family members or close friends/significant others.

COGNITIVE-BEHAVIORAL THERAPY & ANGER MANAGEMENT

Demark & Gemeinhardt (2002) Once trigger situations are identified, a person is

helped to reduce the level of arousal and apply an alternative solution to the problem.

Used to indentify and deal with maladaptive thinking patterns

Combined with special behavior techniques to focus on building pro-social behaviors

CULTIVATION THEORY, SOCIAL LEARNING THEORY AND VIOLENCE

Gerbner et al (1994): Use the cultivation theory to argue that media violence gives children a perception that the world is hostile and violent and that violence is normal and acceptable behavior thus leading them to believe that violence solves problems.

Merrill (1996): Believes that through the social learning theory, domestic violence comes from three factors:Direct instruction by others to act

violent/threatening waysModeling violent/controlling behaviorRewards for threatening, controlling, or abusive

behavior

THEORY OF THREATENED EGOTISM

Baumeister & Bushman (1998): When someone threatens, questions, or undermines one’s self-concept, those with inflated or unstable forms of high self-esteem (narcissist) are more likely to act aggressively because of distorted self-schema and their social information processing is affected.

SOCIOCULTURAL LEVEL OF ANALYSIS

Vygotsky believed that violence is a result of power differences between different social groups (gender, social class, or ethnicity)

Examples include: Men being more likely to be violent towards women

rather than the opposite Extreme violence where violent behavior was

accepted by a large group within the community without feelings of guilt or remorse: Persecution of the Jews during the Holocaust Genocide in Rwanda & Bosnia

If social norms allow violent actions to be acceptable than it is likely that people will be violent Example: Spanking children

SOCIAL NORMS AND VIOLENCE

The purpose of social norms is to provide guidance for individuals and how emotions should be expressed.

Using survival mechanisms as a reason, it can be argued that communities breed violent behaviors via social learning theory.

DEINDIVIDUATION THEORY When individuals join crowds or large groups, the

psychological state of deindividuation is aroused. This is due to the diminished awareness of self

and individuality. Large groups allows an individual to avoid

responsibility for his/her actions because a degree of anonymity is provided…thus one becomes more impulsive, irrational, aggressive, and violent.

Examples: Football (soccer) hooliganism Zimbardo experiment (1969)

DEINDIVIDUATION & CHILDREN Diener et al. (1976): Used trick-or-treaters to

measure validity 8% of children individuated (asked names and

addresses) took more than one pieced of candy 80% of children deindividuated (dressed up in

costumes and not asked names/addresses) took more candy.

Results: Indicates the importance of deindividuation on self-consciousness and feelings of responsibility.

MORE SUPPORT FOR DEINDIVIDUATION

Reicher (1987): Norms of a group become guiding the force for one’s behavior because of increased group identity.

Johnson and Downing (1979): Variation of Zimbardo’s experiment. Ku Klux Klan outfit=stronger shocks vs. nurse’s

outfit=lower level of shocks. Group identity and its social norms determined the

level of violent behavior exhibited.

COLLECTIVE BEHAVIOR

Reicher: Social identity of the

group provides indications as to what is and is not acceptable (social norms)

Crowd members look to the members of the core group for guidance on to behave Example: Football

hooligans

Oaks et al. (1993): People look for other

individuals in the group with whom they can identify with Police vs. rioters acting

different within the same environment.

Social Identity TheorySelf-categorization

Theory

HUMAN RELATIONSHIPSViolence: Bullying

OLWEUS’S BULLYING CIRCLE

WHAT IS BULLYING? Bullying is when a person is exposed repeatedly over

time to negative actions on the part of one or more people

Bullying can be direct (physical/verbal threats) or indirect (social isolation/exclusion)

Bullying can happen to people of all ages, from the playground to the office cubicle

Nansel et al. (2001): 17 percent of US high school students between ages 12 and 17 who were surveyed reported that they had been bullied, boys were more likely to bully than girls

Bullying can be found in many countries: Kim(2006) reported that 21.9% of elementary school and 24.4% of high school students in Japan had bullied others

FACTS ABOUT BULLYING Dan Olweus’s Study (1993) 1 in 10 students have been the victim of

bullying The percentage of students who are bullied

decreases with age Girls were more exposed to indirect and more

subtle forms of bullying Boys carried out a large part of the bullying

to which girls were subjected Teachers and parents were often unaware of

bullying

NANSEL ET AL. STUDY (2000)

Study of 15,686 students aged 10-15 17% been bullied 19% bullied others 6% both Bullies, bystanders and victims all contribute

to problem of bullying Social contagion-diffusion of responsibility

CYBER BULLYING Cyber bulling- online, email bullying, harming

others without face to face contact Not being face to face allows a bully to be

more bold or behave differently(Patchin & Hinojosa)

Less likely to be caught online (Brown et al.) Happy slapping- online bullying

ELEY ET AL. (1999)

-1500 pairs of British and Swedish twins were studied. Identical twins were more likely than fraternal twins to show aggressive antisocial behavior-Male identical and fraternal twins were just as likely to exhibit symptoms of non-aggressive antisocial behavior. Suggests link to environmental factors.-Females’ antisocial behavior was more linked to genetics

Does not prove bullying is related to genetics, yet violent behavior to some extent could be related to genetic make-up

LIEU AND RAINE (2004)-14 year study of 1,000 children of different backgrounds-focused on nutrition of children at age 3, looked at vitamin, protein and mineral deficiency. Cognitive level and risk factors (income, health, parent occupation) were also taken into account

-At age 8, 11, and 17, when compared to a control group of children, there was a major increase in aggressive, antisocial, and violent behavior in malnourished children

-Malnutrition is a risk factor for developing children’s health, cognitive development, and behavior

MORE STUDIES ON BULLYING Olweus (1993): The roots of bullying are a

combination of aspects of a child’s home environment, parental influence, and problems with anger management.

Eron (1987): The parents of bullies are strict and often authoritarian and use physical methods of punishment. Bullies carry aggression with them into an unsuccessful

adulthood Dodge (1980): Children are always ready to defend

themselves, especially when they feel threatened 8 yr old bullies = ¼ chance of having criminal record by

30 yrs (others have a 1/20 chance)

Bullying may be a symptom of antisocial behavior, rather than the cause.

EFFECTS OF BULLYING ON THE INDIVIDUAL

Studying the effects of bullying on an individual can be difficult because…

1. Students/subjects are rarely measured before the bullying occurs

2. The data is gathered through self-reports

EFFECTS OF BULLYING ON THE INDIVIDUAL

Olweus (1992): Found correlation between frequent bullying in middle school and low self-esteem/depression by age 23

Short Term Long Term

Anger Lingering feelings of anger/bitterness

Depression Difficulty trusting people

Higher rate of illness Fear/avoidance of new social settings

Lower grades than non-bullied peers

Increased tendency to be a loner

Suicidal thoughts and feelings Decreased self-esteem

EFFECTS OF BULLYING ON THE INDIVIDUAL

Delville (2002): Studied effects of bullying on health and brain development

o Used adolescent hamsterso Placed male hamsters in a cage with others for 1 hr/day for 2 weekso Resulted in hostility (hamsters chased and bit each other)o Caused increase in cortisol (stress hormone)

Impacts memory Too much cortisol prevents brain from laying down new memory

or accessing old memories

Elliot and Kirkpatrick (1999): Administered surveys in regards to suicide attempts

o several thousand UK students o 20% that were bullied had attempted suicideo 3% participants not bullied had attempted suicide

STUDIES ON CORTISOL LEVELS IN RELATION TO BULLYING

Carney & Hazler (2007): Measured cortisol levels in saliva of 94 6th graders aged 9-14 then filled out questionnaire on bullyingCortisol levels in AM and before lunchBullying causes spike in cortisol levelsOver time, cortisol deficiency linked to chronic

fatigue, pain, and PTSDGreenburg & Ruback (1992)

Downward Comparison: comparing oneself to those worse off Victimization didn’t leave major physical scarsNegative models aren’t immediately available,

victims created worse scenarios

BULLYING AND PERCEPTIONS

Kliewer et al. (2004) : Spanish college students direct relationship between victim’s perceptions of control over bulling experience and extent of long term difficulties they experience as a result of bullying. Bullied students who believe they are able

to influence or escape their bullies reported fewer negative long term affects

Perception of control is KEY

EFFECTS OF BULLYING ON MENTAL HEALTH Joseph (2003) :

331 English adolescent students Up to 1/3 of the bullied students suffered from post- traumatic stress

disorder despite form of bullying. Disproves the myth that physical bullying is the worst

Instances of Aggression and Victimization Snyder (2003):

266 children from kindergarten to elementary school Boys who were bullied were more likely to display depression and

antisocial behavior Aggression is a short-term way to avoid bullying but increases long-term

risks of victimization by peers Antisocial behaviors made girls targets for future bullying

Friend/ Family support often lessens the impact of bullyingIndividual receives positive messages on their worth and the negative

messages from the bully are less likely to be validated and take over self- esteem.

THE CASE OF GAY AND LESBIAN STUDENTSHUMAN RIGHTS WATCH REPORT (2001)

•Gay/ Lesbian youth are 2-3 times more likely to attempt suicide than those that are heterosexual. 30% are committed annually and it is the leading cause of death for this group.•28% of gay/lesbian high school students across the country were assumed to have dropped out of school due to harassment over their sexual orientation• 45% of gay males and 20% of lesbians report

having experienced such harassment.• 53% of students report hearing homophobic

comments made by school staff

•26% of gay youths are forced to leave home due to familial conflict over their sexual orientation

VIOLENCE WITH OTHERS IN SOCIETY

Dodge(1981): Found that children who have problems processing social cues tend to display bias in their reactions to ambiguous harmful actions they tend to react in a hostile manner.

Feshbach and Feshbach (1982): Trained students to put themselves in the other

persons shoes in order to recognize the feelings of others and try to share their emotions.

Children who engaged in this empathy training were less aggressive in everyday activities.

VIRTUAL REALITY AND BULLYING

Recent Research use virtual reality to improve empathy

Figueiredo et al. (2007): Tested long term effects of computer game in which each child takes the role of an invisible friend of victimized character, discussing problems and exploring possible solutions and coping strategies. Goal is to encourage students to be more

reflective about bullying and test out strategies

REDUCING VIOLENCE AND BULLYING

When Jamaica implemented strict gun-control and censored gun scenes from television, robbery and shooting rates dropped dramatically (Diner and Crandell 1979)

Bullying and exclusion has a long term effect on society and victims.

Strategies used to reduce bullying: Counseling to deal with anger management and

developing empathy Altering perception of others and situations Teaching students to take time to process (like

counting to 10)

SOCIAL SKILLS IN RELATION TO BULLYING

Toch (1980): Believed that those who lack social skills account for a high proportion of the violence occurring in any given society.

Schneider (1991): Responded to Toch by suggesting that social-skills training can be effective in reducing the likelihood of a person being either the source or the target of aggressive behavior.

LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS AND BULLYING

Showed that the use of the “jigsaw classroom” or cooperative learning lowers the rate of bullying in schools and increases positive interaction between out-groups during play or free periods. classroom works on the

idea that everyone has something to contribute to the learning process and that by working together towards a common goal, everyone is valued.

Argues that jigsaw classrooms

and peer mediation may be

appropriate in resolving

conflict between students with

equal power. However, he

believes bullying is a form of

victimization

It is not a conflict, but a form of

abuse and therefore should be

addressed as such

Elliot Aronson (1979): Limber (1992):

SCHOOL INTERVENTION

Found that bullying can be

curbed

Common methods of

addressing the problem

such as classroom

discussions and role-playing

are ineffective

Whole school interventions

involving teachers and

administrators are the most

effective

Developed a whole-school

program for schools in

Norway

Teachers are trained to

recognize and deal with

bullying through cooperative

learning

Teachers and administrators

model non-aggressive

conflict-resolution strategies

in the classroom

Vreeman (2006) Olweus (1972)

AND…

BREATHE

WORKS CITED Crane, J. & Hannibal, J. (2009) Psychology:

Course Companion, 258-301.