SOCIAL INTERACTION

MEANING OF INTERPERSONAL ATTRACTION

Interpersonal attraction refers to the positive feelings, emotions, or attitudes that prompt
individuals to be drawn to one another. It encompasses the desire to establish
connections, form relationships, and engage with others on various levels, ranging from
casual friendships to romantic partnerships. This attraction is often influenced by a
combination of factors, including physical, psychological, social, and situational
elements.

At its core, interpersonal attraction involves an individual's inclination or desire to

approach, interact with, and build relationships with specific people. It can be
experienced in different forms, such as:

1. Friendship: Attraction leading to the formation of platonic relationships based on

shared interests, values, or experiences.

2. Romantic Attraction: The desire for emotional and physical intimacy, often leading to
romantic relationships involving love, affection, and partnership.

3. Social Bonds: Attraction that fosters connections within groups, communities, or

social circles, contributing to a sense of belonging and camaraderie.

Interpersonal attraction is influenced by various factors, including physical

attractiveness, similarity, proximity, reciprocity, personality traits, communication styles,
and shared experiences.

NATURE OF INTERPERSONAL ATTRACTION

1. Need to belong
Motivation to bond with others in relationships that provide ongoing and positive
interaction and also to connect with others in enduring, close relationships.
According to Baumeister and Lary (1995), the need to belong is a basic human
motive, a persuasive drive to form and maintain at least a minimum quantity of
lasting, positive and significant interpersonal relationships.

DETERMINANTS OF INTERPERSONAL ATTRACTION

1. Need to affiliate
Concerned with establishing and maintaining, friendly relations
According to Duck (1988), we are ‘affiliative’ and inclined to seek others company
when we are anxious (new school) and in threatening situations (natural disaster)
2. Proximity (closeness or physical nearness)

Proximity does not necessarily spark attraction but to the intent that it increases
frequency of contact, it’s a good first step

Proximity: Proximity means physical closeness between two individuals with

respect to where they live and interact, where they sit in a classroom and where
they work and so on. There are many studies, which support the fact that proximity
leads to attraction.

Winerman and Swanson (1952) studied the friendship formations in students in

dormitories and found that the highest proportion of friendships occurred among
students who lived in rooms that were adjacent to each other.

Another systematic investigation of proximity and attraction was conducted by

Festinger, Schachter and Back (1950) at Westgate West, a housing project for
married students. The investigators examined relationship among married couples
in a university housing project, which consisted of 17 buildings of 10 apartments
spread over two floors. They found that the distance among people on the same
floor and on different floors was closely related to the friendship patterns, that is,
the closer the two couples lived to each other, the more likely they were to be
friends and felt attracted towards each other. Living at different floors that led to
the likelihood of forming friendship due to the increased physical distance that led
to reduction in proximity. Those whose apartments were located next to stairs or
mailboxes reported a closer friendship that did other couples located elsewhere.
The effect is not restricted to location within a building.

A recent article by Norton, Frost and Ariely challenged this view by stating that
“ familiarity tends to breed dislike.”
 3. The affective basis of interaction:

Affect means the emotional state that has an impact upon perceiving, thinking.
motivation, decision-making as well as liking or disliking towards others. Our
emotional state influences our interpersonal attraction.

Two most important characteristics of affect are intensity and direction.

Intensity indicates the strength of the emotion and direction indicates whether the
emotion is positive or negative, Positive intense affect leads to positive evaluations
of other people (strong liking), while negative intense affect leads to negative
evaluations (disliking) (Byrne, 1997; Dovidio et al., 1995).

Positive and negative affective states influence attraction both directly and
indirectly. Many experiments have confirmed the idea that a person likes stranger
most if the stranger does or says something pleasant as opposed to something
unpleasant. McDonald (1962) showed in his experiment that attraction towards
other person becomes less if he or she provides punishments in rating the
performance on a task rather than rewards. Likewise, our attraction towards a
stranger becomes less who invades one's personal space than one who remains a
comfortable distance Fisher and Bryne, 1975)

There is also indirect effect of associated effect of emotions on attraction. This

effect leads to occur when another person is simply present at the same time
when one's emotional state has been aroused by something w someone else. For
example, if you have just heard the news of being unsuccessful in the examination
and met with his neighbour shortly after that, you tend to like that person less than
someone you met immediately after winning a lottery of a huge amount of money.
- Reinforcement affect moel: (Byrne and Clore)
Proposes that we like a person because this person creates positive feelings in
us (directly or indirectly)
Explained in terms of operant (they directly affect our mood) or classical
conditioning (they indirectly affect our mood, the above example of another
event influencing our affect towards another person)
Positive feelings can also arise due to stereotypes, factual knowledge and
beliefs.

LIMITATIONS:

1. Shared misery can create a sense of solidarity that forms basis of

friendship
 2. Learning theory may not be able to account for all forms of bonding such as
family relationships, where we have an innate need to cherish our family
members

4. Physical attractiveness
One very important factor that affects or influences our initial response to others
is physical attractiveness. It has been found that people are likely to respond
positively to those when are physically attractive and negatively those who are less
attractive (Collins and Zebrowitz, 1995). One reason is the common stereotype
that attractive people have several other good qualities as well (Eagly en 1991).
Researches have shown that most people tend to believe that attractive people
are interesting, dominant, social, independent, exciting, well-adjusted, sexy,
socially skilled, successful, mere masculine (men), more feminine (women) than
unattractive persons (Dien and Dim, 1988; Hatfield and Sprecher, 1986 )

The effects of physical attractiveness are very wide ranging and being attractive
definitely brings some advantages.
- Cash et al. (1977) reported that among a group of supposed candidates for
employment, physically attractive applicants were comparatively more preferred.
- Likewise, Kulka and Kessler (1978) found that in a simulated courtroom situation,
physically attractive defendants treated more leniently.
- In education too, physical appearance counts. Landy and Sigall (1994) conducted
a study in which male students were asked to mark two essays of differing
standards. They paired each of the essay with a photo of either attractive female of
less attractive female. Results revealed that better grades were given to attractive
females.
 - Ever in childhood, the impact of physical attractiveness is obvious. Children prefer
to have physically attractive playmates and also assume that the less attractive
children do possess some unpleasant character traits (Dion et al., 1974)
- In choosing a sexual partner, the physical attractiveness is considered very
important

Individuals with physical disabilities are ones the targets of various types of stereotypes
about physical attractiveness. In a study conducted by Silverman and Klees (1989),
school students rated a student with a hearing aid as more introverted, afraid, depressed
and also insecure as compared to a non-disable student.

Likewise, in a study conducted by Fine and Asch (1988), college students associated the
general category woman with "lovable' soft', 'married", and 'intelligence', but they termed
disable woman as ugly", "lifeless crippled, lonely and someone to feel sorry for.

Social psychologists have also studied what makes some faces more attractive than
others. The greatest agreement among person in judging a face as attractive occurs when
men judge the attractiveness of women (Marcus and Miller, 2003).

In fact, the study of physical attractiveness has identified some types of women, who are
tod as the most attractive. One type it considered cute, having childlike features, large
widely spaced eyes and a small nose and chin. Another type of attractiveness is having
mature look high eyebrows, large pupils, prominent cheekbones and a big snide. Still
another type is the average face. Such average face is considered more attractive than
atypical. People like faces that are symmetrical.

Mealey, Bridgstock and Townsend (1999) conducted a study in which some college
students rated the attractiveness of photos of the faces of identical twins. Although the
identical twins looked very much similar, students assessed the twin with the mere
symmetrical faces as comparatively more attractive. In fact, beautiful faces seem to be
more balanced and well-proportioned, and therefore, more attractive.

Social psychologists have provided several reasons for having an association between
physical attractiveness and liking, which are as under :

1. There is a common stereotype that good-looking people have several good

qualities and this tends to enhance our liking for them.
2. When we meet with new people or strangers, we generally pay more attention
to physically attractive individuals, especially women than to the others less
good-looking persons
3. According in Langlois et al. (2000), the physical attractiveness may be an
important clue to good health and reproductive fitness. In other words, a
 physical attractive face may be a marker of good genes. This explanation is
based on the evolutionary principles
Still another reason for liking a physically attractive face in the radiating effect
of beauty. People, in general, like to be seen with a physically attractive lice
because they think it will enhance their public image and popularity.

4. Similarity

The role of similarity in fostering interpersonal attraction is not generally accepted.

Empirical support for the similarity hypothesis has been gathered by Francis
Galton to obtain correlational data on married couples and found that spouses
resembles one another in many aspects.
Many of the initial experimental research done in this context was focused on
attitude similarity which means similarity of belief, values and interest as well as
similarity of attitudes.
It's not only attitude but also people tend to like others who are similar to
themselves with respect to many attributes

Why do similarity and dissimilarity affects attractions?

Similarity arouses positive affect while dissimilarity arouses negative effect. The
detailed explanation is given by balance which tries to explain us to why should
similarity and dissimilarity of another person causes us to react emotionally.
When two people like each other and find that their similar in some specific
respect their responses balance that is symmetry and balance is emotionally
pleasant
When two people like each other then find that they are dissimilar some specific
respect the result is imbalanced which is emotionally unpleasant.
In the latter case the strive to restore balance by one or the other attitude and
behaviour in order to be more similar by using the degree of dissimilarity always
simply declining to dislike each other.

5. Mutual linking/ Reciprocal Liking

Mutual evaluations are another factors that influence interpersonal attraction. In

general, we like all those people, whose behaviours or words indicate that they like
us. When we like someone, we generally assume that they like us in return
(Burleson, 1984)

Dittes and Kelley (1956) examined reciprocity-of-liking principles in series of

studies. They asked students to take part in small discussion groups and then gave
them written evaluations apparently from other members of the group, but actually
prepared by the experimenters. Results revealed that those students, who received
 negative evaluations disliked the group, while those, who received positive
evaluations, liked the group.

Although reciprocity-of-liking rule has much support (Gordon, 1996), there are
some exceptions. One exception relates to self-esteem. People with high self-
esteem tend to like themselves and people with low self-esteem tend to dislike
themselves. People with low self-esteem will not be susceptible to the reciprocity-
of-liking rule because they are very likely to dislike people they find liking them,
since they do not like themselves (Shrangher, 1975). Moreover, Dittes (1959) also
reported that the effect of being liked or disliked varied according to the levels of
self-esteem of the participants. Those students, who were high in self-esteem, are
not influenced by being liked or disliked by the group. However, for those with low
self-esteem, being liked led to very high levels of liking for the group, while being
disliked led to high level of dislike for the group. Another exception relates to
ingratiation. which is defined as a deliberate effort to gain favour often through
flattery. If an employee says his boss how much he likes him, the boss might feel
that he is being flattered for an ulterior motive. Consequently, the boss may resist
and begin to dislike the employee, rather than forming a positive opinion about the
employee.

Despite these exceptions, expressing positive feelings about others is apt to

produce reciprocated liking.

THEORIES OF INTERPERSONAL ATTRACTION

1. Balance Theory ( Fritz Heider, 1958)

Newcomb's adaptation of Heider's balance theory emphasizes how interpersonal

attraction and communication dynamics between two individuals (A and B) shape their
attitudes toward a shared subject (X). This model introduces a "persistent strain toward
symmetry", where A and B seek alignment in their orientations toward X to maintain
social equilibrium24. Here’s a breakdown of its core principles:

Key Components of Newcomb’s Symmetry Model

1. Triadic Structure (A-B-X)

o A and B: Two individuals engaged in communication. Their mutual

attraction (positive or negative) influences their willingness to align
attitudes46.

o X: A shared subject, idea, or object that serves as the focal point of

communication23.
 2. Balanced vs. Imbalanced States

o Symmetry (Balance): Occurs when A and B share similar attitudes toward

X. For example:

▪ A likes B, and both A and B like X (positive symmetry)16.

▪ A dislikes B, and both dislike X (negative symmetry)4.

o Asymmetry (Imbalance): Arises when A and B disagree about X. For

instance:

▪ A likes B but A likes X while B dislikes X.

This creates psychological tension, motivating communication to
restore balance.

Mechanisms of Social Equilibrium

• Role of Interpersonal Attraction:

The stronger A’s attraction to B, the greater the pressure to resolve discrepancies
about X. For example:

o If A values their relationship with B, they may adjust their attitude toward X
to match B’s views.

o Conversely, if attraction is weak, A might instead distance themselves from

B6.

• Communication as a Balancing Tool:

Newcomb posits that communication is driven by the need to reduce asymmetry.
For example:

o A coworker (A) might persuade a colleague (B) to adopt a shared stance on

a project (X) to maintain workplace harmony.

Contrast with Heider’s Balance Theory

While Heider focused on intra-personal cognitive balance (e.g., reconciling one’s own
conflicting thoughts), Newcomb’s model shifts to interpersonal dynamics:

• Heider’s triad (P-O-X) centers on individual psychology, whereas Newcomb’s A-B-

X framework highlights mutual influence and social coordination46.
 • Newcomb emphasizes communication as the primary mechanism for resolving
imbalance, whereas Heider emphasizes internal cognitive adjustments24.

Example of Symmetry in Action

Imagine two friends (A and B) discussing climate policy (X):

• Balanced State: Both support renewable energy initiatives. Their shared attitude
strengthens their bond23.

• Imbalanced State: If A supports a policy that B opposes, their disagreement

strains the relationship. To restore symmetry, they might either:

o Persuade each other to align their views on X5.

o Reduce their attraction to each other (e.g., drifting apart).

SOCIAL EXCHANGE THEORY ( Thibaut, Kelly)

This theory proposes that behavior is the result of an exchange process. The purpose of
this exchange is to maximise the benefits and minimize the costs.

OUTCOME= REWARDS-COSTS

COMPARISON LEVEL= Satisfaction with relationship

REWARDS - COSTS = OUTCOME

COMPARSION LEVEL FOR ALTERNATIVES=

Commitment to relationship

When costs outweighs the rewards, people will terminate or abandon that relationship.

Social exchange theory holds that how people feel that is positively and negatively about
their relationship will depend on

1. their perception of the rewards they received from their relationship

2. the perception of the cost they encourage
3. the perception of what kind of relationship they deserve (comparison level)
 4. Their perceptions of the probability that they could have a better relationship with
someone else (comparison levels for alternative)

- Rewards and costs of the relationship

Rewards: things that individual gets out the relationship such as friendship, fun,
companionship and social support
Costs: involving things that are seen as negative to individual such as having to put
time, money and effort into a relationship. 3 potential costs are:
a. Investment costs: represent the energy and personal cognitive or emotional
investment into an exchange by the actors involved.
b. Direct costs: time, financial resources. Can be seen
c. Opportunity costs: represents possible rewards that may be lost as a result of the
relationship or social exchange.
Eg: Parents sacrifice considerable +ve rewards or benefits in order to responsibly
raise children

- Comparison level reflects the quality of outcome a person expects or believes that he
or she deserves. It is a personal belief about what constitutes an acceptable
relationship and influences our satisfaction with the present relationship.

People with high comparison level expects a lot of rewards a few costs in their
relationships. They will be unhappy and unsatisfied if their relationship does not match
this expected comparison level.

People with low comparison level would be happy in relationship which provides few
rewards because they tend to expect relationship to be difficult and costly.

Present relationship will be judged as satisfactory if the outcome needs exceeds the
comparison level. Those who fall below the comparison level are dissatisfied.

- Comparison level of alternatives: It focuses on potential alternatives to the

relationship. It influences the person's degree of commitment.

People may have the perception that they could be in a better relationship than the
one they are currently in.
People who expect that the alternative could be worse than they already have, i.e., they
have low comparison level for alternative, be more likely to stay in a costly relationship.
 Criticisms:
1. Most of the research has been conducted on short-term relationships with student
samples and little on married relationships over a wide population.
2. In many relations, especially long- term sexual ones, people do not behave only by
maximizing their profits, but on other factors too

EQUITY THEORY (1965- Adams)

Equity theory explanation of interpersonal attraction takes into account not only own
outcome but also the outcome perceived to be attained by your partner in relationship.
This theory suggests that the individual expects resources to be distributed fairly.
Individuals compare their input and output in those obtained by others in concern. The
theory maintains that we seek to emphasize a balance between what we give and what we
receive on the one hand and what the partner gives on the other hand.

In case it is felt that the partner is receiving more or less than his or her just to the person
will experience distress and will try to restore equity by modifying his perception of what
he is getting out of the relationship or modifying his feelings for his partner.

There could be two situations that is

- over benefited and

- under benefited -less satisfied and less attracted

Equity is not equality

The benefits that the two person receive from one another need not have to be equal but
the ratio between the benefit and contribution must be equal

Equation emphasize perceived benefits and contribution. The only person who can judge
how much he is giving or receiving is the person himself. An outsider might see the
relationship has been highly equitable whereas the partners themselves may not be very
happy in it.

In long term relationships

- The notion of equity does not operate in long term relationships the same way it
does in new or less intimate relationships.
- The more we get to know someone, the more reluctant we are to believe that we
are simply exchanging Favors and the less inclined we are to expect immediate
compensation for a favor done.
PRO- SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR
Prosocial behavior is defined as doing something that is good for other people or for
society as a whole. Prosocial behavior includes behavior that respects others or allows
society to operate. In a nutshell, prosocial behavior builds relationships. It includes any
action that helps or is designed to help others, regardless of helper’s motives.

There are two types of pro social behaviour: Altruistic prosocial behaviour is motivated
purely by the desire to increase another person’s welfare; egoistic prosocial behaviour is
motivated by the desire to increase one’s own welfare or that of one’s group or cause
through helping others. In this kind of helping the helper expects nothing in return for
offering help.

Research shows that people in rural areas are more helpful as compared to city people
are city people live in a more stimulating surrounding and have less time to interact.

DETERMINANTS OF PRO SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR

1. Evolutionary perspective
According to Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection, genes that enhance an
individual's survival and increase the likelihood of producing offspring are more likely
to be passed down to future generations. Evolutionary biologists, including Wilson and
Darwin, use this principle to explain social behaviors like aggression and altruism.
He realised that altruistic behavior posed a problem for his theory: “If an organism acts
altruistically, it may decrease its own reproductive fitness.” This is known as: “ Paradox
of Altruism”.

- Kin selection/ Inclusive fitness theory- It states that people have evolved to favour
others who are genetically related to them. Thus, there is a preference for helping
blood relatives because this will increase the chances for the helper’s genes to pass
onto successive generations.
Relatives receive more help than non- relatives, especially if the helps involves
considerable costs, such as donating kidney.

- Reciprocal Helping- According to this principle, people are likely to help strangers if it
is understood that the recipient is expected to return the favor at some time in the
future. In such a world of reciprocal helping, the "cost" of aiding another is more than
offset by the later returned help (Vos & Zeggelink, 1997). Trivers contended that for
reciprocal helping to evolve, the benefit to the recipient must be high and the cost to
the helper must be relatively low. In addition, the likelihood of their positions being
reversed in the future must also be high, and there must be a way to identify
"cheaters"—those who do not reciprocate help.
 SOCIO-PSYCHOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE

2. Empathy- Altruism hypothesis

One explanation of prosocial behavior involves empathy—the capacity to be able to
experience others’ emotional states, feel sympathetic toward them, and take their
perspective. In other words, we help others because we experience any unpleasant
feelings they are experiencing vicariously, and want to help bring their negative feelings
to an end. This is unselfish because it leads us to offer help for no extrinsic reason, but
it is also selfish, in one sense, since the behavior of assisting others helps us, too: it
can make us feel better.
Reflecting these basic observations, Batson, Duncan, Ackerman, Buckley, and Birch
(1981) offered the empathy-altruism hypothesis, which suggests that at least some
prosocial acts are motivated solely by the desire to help someone in need Such
motivation can be sufficiently strong that the helper is willing to engage in unpleasant,
dangerous, and even life-threatening activities Compassion for other people
outweighs all other considerations

3. Social Exchange
Social exchange theory explains prosocial behavior through the lens of cost-benefit
analysis. According to this framework, individuals help others primarily when the
perceived benefits outweigh the costs of helping. When deciding whether to engage in
prosocial acts, people mentally calculate potential rewards—such as increased
likelihood of receiving future help, reduced personal distress, enhanced self-worth,
and social approval—against costs like time, energy, and resources.
This calculation process is highly subjective; what represents a significant cost to one
person may seem minimal to another. The norm of reciprocity, which underpins social
exchange, creates expectations that good deeds will be repaid in kind, thereby
motivating prosocial actions. However, this transactional view contrasts with the
empathy-altruism hypothesis, which suggests that when people feel genuine empathy,
they may help without expectation of reward. Both perspectives help explain why
people engage in prosocial behavior, with social exchange emphasizing the rational,
reward-oriented foundation of human helping behavior.

4. Effect of Positive Mood

People who are in a good mood are more likely to help. North, Tarrang, & Hargreaves
(2004) found that people are more likely to help others when in a good mood for a
number of other reasons, including doing well on a test, receiving a gift, thinking happy
thoughts, and listening to pleasant music. Good moods can increase helping for three
reasons: good moods make us interpret events in a sympathetic way; helping another
prolongs the good mood, whereas not helping deflates it; good moods increase self-
 attention, and this in turn leads us to be more likely to behave according to our values
and beliefs (which tend to favor altruism)

5. Negative-State Relief:

Helping Sometimes Reduces Unpleasant Feelings Another possible motive for helping
others is, in a sense, the mirror image of empathy: Instead of helping because we care
about the welfare of another person (empathic concern), understand their feelings
(empathic accuracy), and share them (emotional empathy), we help because such
actions allow us to reduce our own negative emotions. In other words, we do a good
thing in order to stop feeling bad. The knowledge that others are suffering, or more
generally, witnessing those in need can be distressing.
To decrease this distress in ourselves, we help others. This explanation of prosocial
behavior is known as the negative-state relief model. Research indicates that it doesn’t
matter whether the bystander’s negative emotions were aroused by something
unrelated to the emergency or by the emergency itself. That is, you could be upset
about receiving a bad grade or about seeing that a stranger has been injured. In either
instance, you engage in a prosocial act primarily as a way to improve your own negative
mood. In this kind of situation, unhappiness leads to prosocial behavior, and empathy
is not a necessary component,

6. Empathic Joy:

Helping as an Accomplishment It is generally true that it feels good to have a positive

effect on other people. This fact is reflected in the empathic joy hypothesis , which
suggests that helpers enjoy the positive reactions shown by others whom they help.
For instance, do you recall how good it felt seeing someone you care about smile and
show pleasure when you gave them a gift? That is an example of empathic joy.
An important implication of this idea is that it is crucial for the person who helps to
know that his or her actions had a positive impact on the victim. If helping were based
entirely on emotional empathy or empathic concern, feedback about its effects would
be irrelevant since we know that we “did good” and that should be enough. But it would
not guarantee the occurrence of empathic joy. To test that prediction, Smith et al.
(1989) asked participants to watch a videotape in which a female student said she
might drop out of college because she felt isolated and distressed. She was described
as either similar to the participant (high empathy) or dissimilar (low empathy). After
participants watched the tape, they were given the opportunity to offer helpful advice.
Some were told they would receive feedback about the effectiveness of their advice
while others were told that they would not be able to learn what the student eventually
decided to do. It was found that empathy alone was not enough to produce a prosocial
 response. Rather, participants were helpful only if there was high empathy and they
also received feedback about their action’s impact on the victim.

7. Why Nice People Sometimes Finish First: Competitive Altruism

This view suggests that one important reason why people help others is that doing so
boosts their own status and reputation and, in this way, ultimately brings them large
benefits, ones that more than offset the costs of engaging in prosocial actions. Why
might helping others confer status? Because often, helping others is costly, and this
suggests to other people that the individuals engaging in such behavior have desirable
personal qualities; they are definitely the kind of people a group—or society—wants to
have around. For the people who engage in prosocial actions, the gains too may be
substantial. High status confers many advantages, and people who engage in
prosocial behavior may be well compensated for their kind and considerate actions.

BYSTANDER EFFECT

It is finding that the greater the number of bystanders who witness an emergency, the less
likely any one of them is to help.

John Darley and Bibb Latané, two social psychologists who thought long and hard about
this issue after learning of a famous murder in New York City. In this tragic crime, a young
woman(Kitty Genovese) was assaulted by a man in a location where many people could
see and hear what was going on; all they had to do was look out of their apartment
windows. Yet, despite the fact that the attacker continued to assault the victim for many
minutes, and even left and then returned to continue the assault later, not a single person
reported the crime to the police. When news of this tragic crime hit the media, there
was much speculation about the widespread selfishness and indifference of people
in general or, at least, of people living in big cities. Darley and Latané, however, raised a
more basic question: Common sense suggests that the greater the number of witnesses
to an emergency (or in this case, a crime), the more likely it is that someone will help. So
why wasn’t this the case in the tragic murder of Kitty Genovese.

They hypothesized that, paradoxically, it might have the larger number of bystanders that
witnessed the murder of Kitty Genovese
They conducted an experiment too, where participants were seated in two separate
booth: booth A and Booth B and they were talking to someone else on the call. As they
listened to each other, one of the participants acted that they are having a seizure.

The experimenter manipulated how many other participants the subjects believed were
there

Darley and Latane, 1970, proposed that likelihood of a person in a prosocial behaviour at
is determined by a series of decision that must be made quickly by those who witnessed
emergency a by standard progress through a five step decision making process

1. Noticing, or failing to notice, that something unusual is happening. An emergency is

obviously something that occurs unexpectedly, and there is no sure way to anticipate that
it will take place or to plan how best to respond. We are ordinarily doing something else
and thinking about other things when we hear a scream outside our window, observe that
a fellow student is coughing and unable to speak, or observe that some of the other
passengers on our airplane are holding weapons in their hands. If we are asleep, deep in
thought, concentrating on something else, we may simply fail to notice that something
unusual is happening. The passengers on Flight 93 saw the weapons of the hijackers and
learned from the captain that the plane was being taken over by these people. In addition,
they used their cell phones to learn of the other attacks (e.g., on the World Trade Center),
so they knew that something very terrible was occurring, and this made it easier for them
to take action.

2. Correctly interpreting an event as an emergency. Even after we pay attention to an

event, we often have only limited and incomplete information as to what exactly is
happening. Most of the time, whatever catches our attention does not turn out to be an
emergency and so does not require immediate action. Whenever potential helpers are
not completely sure about what is going on, they tend to hold back and wait for further
information. After all, responding as if an emergency is occurring when one is not can
lead to considerable embarrassment. It’s quite possible that in the early morning when
Kitty Genovese was murdered, her neighbors could not clearly see what was happening,
even though they heard the screams and knew that a man and a woman were having a
dispute. It could have just been a loud argument between a woman and her boyfriend. Or
perhaps the couple were just joking with each other. Either of these two possibilities is
actually more likely to be true than the fact that a stranger was stabbing a woman to
death. With ambiguous information as to whether one is witnessing a serious problem or
something trivial, most people are inclined to accept the latter, and take no action
(Wilson & Petruska, 1984).

This tendency for an individual surrounded by a group of strangers to hesitate and do

nothing is based on what is known as pluralistic ignorance. Because none of the
bystanders knows for sure what is happening, each depends on the others to provide
cues. Each individual is less likely to respond if the others fail to respond. It interferes
with the ability to recognise that we are witnessing an emergency situation we often look
to others for kids to the acceptable social response and if we see that others are not
responding it makes us less likely to take action

3. Deciding that it is your responsibility to provide help. In many instances, the

responsibility for helping is clear. Firefighters are the ones to do something about a
blazing building, police officers take charge when cars collide, and medical personnel
deal with injuries and illnesses. If responsibility is not clear, people assume that anyone
in a leadership role must take responsibility—for instance, adults with children,
professors with students. As we have pointed out earlier, when there is only one
bystander, he or she usually takes charge because there is no alternative.

Diffusion of responsibility- the greater the number of potential helpers the less
responsible any one individual will feel and the more each will assume that someone else
will do it

This suggests that the presence of multiple witnesses may inhibit helping not only
because of the diffusion of responsibility. If the person is alone they are more likely to
help the other person

4. Deciding that you have the knowledge and/or skills to act. Even if a bystander
progresses as far as Step 3 and assumes responsibility, a prosocial response cannot
occur unless the person knows how to be helpful. Some emergencies are sufficiently
simple that almost everyone has the necessary skills to help. If someone slips on the ice,
most bystanders are able to help that person get up. On the other hand, if you see
someone parked on the side of the road, peering under the hood of the car, you can’t be
of direct help unless you know something about cars and how they function. The best you
can do is offer to call for assistance. When emergencies require special skills, usually
only a portion of the bystanders are able to help. For example, only good swimmers can
assist a person who is drowning. With a medical emergency, a registered nurse is more
likely to be helpful than a history professor (Cramer, McMaster, Bartell, & Pragma, 1988).

5. Making the final decision to provide help. Even if a bystander passes the first four steps
in the decision process, help does not occur unless he or she makes the ultimate
decision to engage in a helpful act. Helping at this final point can be inhibited by fears
(often realistic ones) about potential negative consequences. In effect, potential helpers
engage in “cognitive algebra” as they weigh the positive versus the negative aspects of
helping (Fritzsche, Finkelstein, & Penner, 2000). As we note in a later discussion, the
rewards for being helpful are primarily provided by the emotions and beliefs of the helper,
but there are a great many varieties of potential costs. For example, if you intervened in
the Kitty Genovese attack, you might be stabbed yourself. You might slip while helping a
person who has fallen on the ice. A person might be asking for assistance simply as a
trick leading to robbery or worse (Byrne, 2001).

Audience inhibition in psychology refers to the phenomenon where the presence of

others inhibits an individual's willingness to act, especially in an emergency or
ambiguous situation. This inhibition stems from the fear of being evaluated negatively by
the audience, potentially leading to embarrassment or social awkwardness.

In sum, deciding to help in an emergency situation is not a simple, one-time decision.

Rather, it involves a number of steps or decisions and only if all of these decisions are
positive does actual helping occur.

AGGRESSION
Most social psychologists define human aggression as any behavior intended to harm
another person who is motivated to avoid the harm. This definition includes three
important features.

- First, aggression is a behavior— you can see it. Aggression is not an emotion, such
as anger. Aggression is not a thought, such as mentally rehearsing a murder
- Second, aggression is intentional (not accidental), and the intent is to harm. For
example, a dentist might intentionally give a patient a shot of Novocain (and the
shot hurts!), but the goal is to help rather than hurt the patient.
- Third, the definition stipulates that the victim wants to avoid the harm. Thus, again,
the dental patient is excluded, because she or he is not seeking to avoid the harm.

Accidental harm is not aggressive because it is not intended. Harm that is an incidental
by-product of helpful actions is also not aggressive, because the harm-doer believes that
the target is not motivated to avoid the action (e.g., pain experienced during a dental
procedure). Similarly, the pain administered in sexual masochism is not aggressive
because the victim is not motivated to avoid it. Indeed, the pain is actively solicited in
service of a higher goal (Baumeister 1989).

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

at harming people and/or objects. In this definition harm has implicitly been defined as
hurting someone physically, e. g. by kicking. However, other forms of harm, like
psychological harm, e.g. humiliating, and relational harm such as malicious gossiping,
are just as important. In addition to physical aggression, two other forms of
aggression are currently recognised, namely psychological aggression and relational
aggression.
The forms of types of aggression that are reviewed consist of the clinical classification,
the stimulus-based classification, the instrumental versus hostile classification,
and the positive versus negative classification.

The clinical classification- This type of aggression is defined as a violent response to

physical or verbal aggression initiated by others that is relatively uncontrolled and
emotionally charged. In contrast, the second form of aggression is referred to as
“predatory,” “instrumental,” “proactive,” or “cold-blooded” aggression. This type of
aggression is characterised as controlled, purposeful aggression lacking in emotion that
is used to achieve a desired goal, including the domination and control of others.

- Instrumental versus Hostile Aggression

Instrumental aggression is used as a means to achieve a specific, often non-
harmful, goal, like winning a game or obtaining money. Hostile aggression, on the
other hand, is motivated by anger and a desire to cause harm or pain.

- Proactive and Reactive Aggression- Proactive aggression is planned, goal-

oriented, and often driven by a desire for personal gain, while reactive aggression
is a response to a perceived threat, provocation, or frustration, and is typically
impulsive and emotionally driven.

CAUSES OF AGGRESSION

Aggression, much like other social behaviors, is often a response to the actions or words
of people around us. It is not an isolated reaction but is typically triggered by something in
the social environment. One of the most commonly cited causes of aggression is
frustration.

1. Frustration occurs when an individual is blocked from achieving a desired goal or

outcome, leading to feelings of irritation or annoyance.

The frustration-aggression hypothesis, first proposed by Dollard and colleagues in

1939, suggested that frustration always leads to aggression and that all aggression
stems from frustration. According to this original theory, whenever someone’s efforts
to reach a goal are thwarted, an aggressive drive is created, which may result in
aggressive behavior. This aggression can be directed at the source of frustration or, if
that is not possible or safe, displaced onto a more accessible or less threatening
target. For example, a person who is humiliated at work but cannot retaliate against
their boss might go home and express anger toward family members instead.
 However, research and later revisions have shown that this hypothesis overstates the
role of frustration. People do not always respond to frustration with aggression; they
may also experience sadness, despair, or try to overcome the obstacle in non-
aggressive ways. In fact, aggression is just one of many possible reactions to
frustration, and not all aggressive acts are caused by frustration. Many other factors,
such as environmental cues, personal history, and social context, can also lead to
aggression.

Modern perspectives, such as those introduced by Berkowitz, emphasize that

frustration creates a readiness for aggression but does not automatically result in
aggressive behavior. Whether frustration leads to aggression depends on additional
factors, such as whether the frustration is perceived as unjust or illegitimate, the
presence of aggressive cues, and the individual’s ability to control their emotions. For
instance, if a student feels they deserved a better grade and perceives the outcome as
unfair, they may become angry and act aggressively toward the teacher. But if they
believe the grade was fair, aggression is less likely.

2. Provocation

Direct provocation—such as criticism, insults, or teasing—is one of the most powerful

triggers of human aggression. While many religious and moral teachings encourage us
to avoid retaliation and "turn the other cheek" when provoked, research shows that
this is not easy in practice. When people feel attacked, whether verbally or physically,
they often respond with aggression, sometimes matching or even exceeding the level
of the original provocation.
Certain types of provocation are especially likely to provoke aggressive responses.
Condescension, or being treated with arrogance and disdain, is particularly powerful.
Harsh, unjustified criticism—especially when it targets a person's identity rather than
just their behavior—can quickly lead to anger and retaliation. Teasing, even when
playful, can also provoke aggression, especially if the person being teased believes the
intention is to embarrass or hurt them. The more someone perceives teasing or
criticism as hostile, the more likely they are to respond aggressively.
A common outcome of provocation is a cycle where aggression breeds more
aggression. When one person retaliates, the other may escalate, leading to a spiral
that can turn verbal exchanges into physical confrontations. This escalation is often
fueled by the belief that the other person intended harm, making it difficult to simply
ignore or forgive the provocation5.
Research also shows that threats to one's status or public image are significant
triggers for aggression. Many people report that their aggressive actions were
motivated by a desire to defend their reputation or self-identity. Thus, perceived
threats to how we are viewed by others can be just as provocative as direct insults or
criticism.
 Emotions play a role in this process, as people are more likely to act aggressively when
feeling angry or threatened. However, studies suggest that while negative emotions
increase with provocation, they are not the only factor—how we interpret the other
person's intentions and the social context also matter.
In summary, direct provocation is a strong cause of aggression, especially when it is
perceived as intentional or as a threat to one’s self-image. This can lead to cycles of
escalating aggression, making it a key factor in many conflicts.

SOCIAL CAUSES OF AGGRESSION

Social exclusion, or being rejected by others, is a deeply painful experience that affects
both our emotions and cognition. Neuroscientific research shows that social exclusion
activates areas of the brain associated with physical pain, making the experience of
rejection feel intensely distressing. Beyond the emotional hurt, exclusion damages our
self-image, signaling that we may possess undesirable traits since others do not want us
around. Interestingly, aggressive individuals are often excluded because of their behavior,
but exclusion itself can increase the likelihood of aggression, creating a vicious cycle
where exclusion leads to aggression, which in turn causes further rejection.

One might assume that the aggression following social exclusion is primarily driven by
emotional distress. However, studies have shown that negative emotions alone do not
fully explain why excluded individuals become aggressive. Instead, social exclusion
appears to trigger a hostile cognitive mindset. This mindset involves interpreting
ambiguous or neutral actions by others as hostile and viewing aggression as a common
and appropriate response in social interactions. Evolutionary theory supports this idea,
suggesting that because humans historically depended on group cooperation for survival,
exclusion was perceived as a serious threat, prompting defensive aggression.

Experimental evidence supports the role of hostile cognitive bias in linking social
exclusion to aggression. In one study, participants who were actively rejected by a partner
were more likely to complete ambiguous word fragments with aggressive words,
indicating heightened aggressive cognition. Another study found that individuals told they
would experience social isolation in the future were more likely to interpret ambiguous
actions by strangers as hostile. These participants also rated the stranger more negatively
when given the opportunity to evaluate them, even though the stranger was not
responsible for the exclusion. This demonstrates that social exclusion can generalize
hostile perceptions and aggressive tendencies toward others beyond the original source
of rejection.

Overall, the research indicates that social exclusion is a powerful antecedent of

aggression because it fosters a hostile cognitive bias. This bias leads excluded individuals
to perceive others’ actions as intentionally harmful, increasing the likelihood of
aggressive responses. While rejection causes emotional pain, it is the cognitive
changes—how people interpret social cues—that most strongly drive aggressive
behavior. Thus, social exclusion not only hurts emotionally but also reshapes thinking
patterns in ways that promote aggression, often perpetuating a negative cycle of rejection
and hostile responses.

EFFECTS OF MEDIA VIOLENCE

Media violence, as seen in films, television shows, and video games, is a common feature
of today’s entertainment landscape. Many popular movies, such as "Avatar," contain a
significant amount of violence, with much of the on-screen action involving characters
attacking or harming others. Surveys of recent media content confirm that violence is
frequent in what the mass media offers to the public.

This widespread presence of violence in media raises an important question: Does

exposure to media violence increase aggression in children and adults? Decades of
research have addressed this question, and the findings are clear. Exposure to media
violence is one factor that contributes to higher levels of aggression in societies where
such material is widely viewed. Neuroimaging studies further support this, showing that
exposure to media violence in childhood can alter the way the brain controls emotions
and behavior.

Leading experts have drawn several important conclusions from this body of research.
First, exposure to violent television, movies, video games, and music significantly
increases the likelihood of aggressive behavior in those who consume them. Second,
these effects are both immediate and cumulative, building up over time. Third, the impact
of media violence on aggression is substantial—comparable to the effects of some
medical interventions considered important by doctors.

Many types of research support these conclusions. Laboratory experiments have shown
that children and adults exposed to violent films or television programs display more
aggression than those exposed to nonviolent content. Classic studies, such as those by
Bandura and colleagues, demonstrated that children who observed an adult behaving
aggressively toward a toy were more likely to imitate that aggression themselves. This
suggests that children learn new ways of aggressing from what they see in media and
come to view aggression as acceptable behavior.

Longitudinal studies, which follow the same individuals over years, also show that the
more violent media children watch, the more aggressive they tend to be as teenagers and
adults. This pattern has been found in various countries and cultures, indicating that the
effects are widespread. The influence of media violence is not limited to fictional
programs; it is also found in news programs, music with violent lyrics, and video games.

Violent video games have received particular attention because they are very popular and
are played by millions worldwide. Research consistently shows that playing violent video
games increases aggressive thoughts, feelings, and behaviors, while reducing empathy
and prosocial actions. These effects are seen in both short-term experiments and long-
term studies.

Interestingly, the appeal of violent video games does not seem to come from the violence
itself. Studies suggest that people enjoy these games because they provide a sense of
autonomy and competence—players feel in control and able to exercise their skills. Even
highly aggressive individuals are drawn to violent games more for these reasons than for
the violent content.

Overall, the evidence indicates that media violence is a significant factor in increasing
aggression. Its effects are real and lasting, with important implications for society and the
well-being of individuals. While media violence is not the only cause of aggression, it is a
powerful contributor, and understanding its impact is crucial for everyone involved in
media consumption and production.

SITUATIONAL FACTORS

IN THE HEAT OF ANGER: TEMPERATURE AND AGGRESSION

Aggression is shaped not only by social and personal factors but also by situational
determinants such as heat, alcohol, and the availability of weapons. One significant
situational factor is uncomfortably high temperatures. Common expressions like “boiling
mad” and “hot-tempered” reflect the belief that heat increases aggression. Research
supports this idea, showing that people often feel more irritable and short-tempered on
hot days. Early laboratory studies found that extremely high temperatures could actually
reduce aggression, as people focused on escaping discomfort. However, these studies
only exposed participants to heat briefly, unlike real-life situations.

More comprehensive research, such as analyses of long-term temperature and crime

records, found that hotter years are linked to higher rates of violent crimes like aggravated
assault and homicide, but not to property crimes or rape. For example, a study of 50 U.S.
cities over 45 years found a clear connection between higher average temperatures and
increased violent crime rates, even after accounting for factors like poverty. Other studies
showed that for each one-degree Celsius rise in annual temperature, homicide rates
increased by about 6 percent, especially in African countries. However, some researchers
argue that factors like income inequality and gender ratios also influence these patterns.

Overall, research suggests that heat can increase irritability and aggression, especially as
global temperatures rise. However, efforts to reduce violence should also address other
social issues, such as income inequality, alongside climate factors.

ALCOHOL AND AGGRESSION

Alcohol and aggression are often linked, as seen in the frequent violence in bars and
nightclubs. While other factors like competition and crowding may contribute, systematic
research confirms that alcohol itself increases aggressive behavior. Experiments have
shown that people who consume enough alcohol to become legally drunk behave more
aggressively and respond more strongly to provocations than those who do not drink. For
instance, in one study, participants who drank alcohol were more likely to deliver stronger
electric shocks to an opponent in a reaction-time game, especially after being provoked.
This effect was seen in both men and women, though it was stronger for men.

Why does alcohol have this effect? It is not just that alcohol lowers inhibitions, making
people act impulsively. Alcohol also impairs higher-order cognitive functions such as
evaluating others' intentions and considering the consequences of one’s actions. This
means that intoxicated individuals may find it harder to process positive information or
apologies from someone they dislike, making them more likely to continue acting
aggressively even if the other person tries to make peace. Alcohol also reduces self-
control, making it harder for people to inhibit aggressive responses after being provoked.
Overall, alcohol creates a dangerous combination by both lowering inhibitions and
impairing judgment, leading to an increased risk of aggression.

GUN AVAILABILITY

The availability of guns has a significant impact on violent crime and homicide rates.
Studies across multiple countries have shown that when laws restrict access to firearms,
there are notable reductions in intimate partner homicides and unintentional deaths
among children. Social psychological research identifies two main ways gun availability
affects violence: it can increase the intention to commit violent acts and raise the
likelihood that such intentions result in lethal outcomes.

Experimental research has demonstrated the “weapons effect,” where simply seeing or
handling a gun can trigger more aggressive thoughts and behaviors. For example,
individuals exposed to a gun in a laboratory setting acted more aggressively than those
exposed to neutral objects. Handling a gun has also been shown to increase testosterone
levels and subsequent aggression, especially in people who are already angry.

When it comes to actual violence, guns are far more effective at causing death than other
methods. This means that where guns are more available, intentions to harm are more
likely to result in homicide. Contrary to the belief that gun ownership provides protection,
evidence indicates that having guns in the home increases the risk of both homicide and
suicide. Across developed nations, higher levels of gun availability are consistently
associated with higher homicide rates, regardless of other factors. Thus, easier access to
firearms enables more frequent and more deadly acts of violence.

WHY SOME PEOPLE ARE MORE AGGRESSIVE THAN OTHERS?

HOSTILE ATTRIBUTIONAL BIAS

One key factor is known as hostile attributional bias. This refers to the tendency some
individuals have to perceive hostility in others, even when it may not actually be present.
People who are high in hostile attributional bias often interpret even innocent or
ambiguous actions as deliberately hostile. For example, if someone accidentally bumps
into them, they might assume it was done on purpose, leading them to respond
aggressively.

Research has shown that there are significant differences among people in how much
hostility they see in others. Some people seem to view almost everyone as a potential
threat, while others rarely see others as hostile. Most people fall somewhere in the
middle, recognizing that while some people may be hostile, most are not. However, those
with a strong hostile attributional bias are much more likely to expect aggression from
others and, as a result, are quicker to respond with aggression themselves.

This tendency to see the world through a hostile lens can have a powerful impact on
behavior. When individuals believe that others are out to get them, they are more likely to
strike first or react defensively, even in situations that do not actually warrant such a
response. This can create a cycle where their aggressive behavior provokes negative
reactions from others, further reinforcing their belief that the world is a hostile place.

NARCISSIM

Narcissism is a personality trait where individuals hold extremely positive—often

unjustified—views of themselves. The term comes from the Greek myth of Narcissus,
who was so captivated by his own reflection that he fell into a pool and drowned. In
modern terms, narcissism describes people who see themselves as virtually perfect and
superior to others.

Interestingly, narcissism often leads to aggression, especially when others challenge or

question these inflated self-views. When someone dares to doubt their superiority,
narcissistic individuals can experience what is called “narcissistic rage.” In these
moments, they feel threatened and seek revenge against those who have provoked them.

Research shows that narcissism has two main parts: grandiosity and vulnerability.
Grandiosity refers to showing off and behaving arrogantly, while vulnerability involves
being bitter, defensive, and prone to complaining. Recent studies suggest that it is the
vulnerability component of narcissism that is related to aggression. People high in
vulnerable narcissism are the ones who react with rage when their inflated self-views are
questioned.

For example, in a study by Krizan and Johar (2015), participants’ levels of grandiose and
vulnerable narcissism were measured, as well as their tendencies to respond to conflict
with direct or displaced aggression. The results showed that only vulnerable narcissism
predicted aggressive responses. In another experiment, participants were provoked by
being made to taste a very bitter liquid chosen by a partner. When given the chance to
retaliate, those high in vulnerable narcissism were more likely to assign an extremely hot
sauce to their partner, compared to those low in this trait.

These findings show that when provoked, people high in vulnerable narcissism feel a
strong need to punish those who threaten their sense of superiority. In summary,
individuals with inflated egos who are also vulnerable can be especially aggressive when
their self-image is challenged.

THEORIES OF AGGRESSION

1. INSTINCT THEORY

Sigmund Freud argued that human motivational forces, such as sex and aggression,
are based on instincts. An instinct is an innate (inborn, biologically programmed)
tendency to seek a particular goal, such as food, water, and sex. In his early writings,
Freud proposed the drive for sensory and sexual gratification as the primary human
instinct. He called this constructive, life-giving instinct eros. After witnessing the
horrific carnage of World War I, however, Freud concluded that a single life force could
not be responsible for so much violence. He proposed, therefore, that humans also
have a destructive, death instinct, which he called thanatos.

Some sociobiologists and ethologists have also attempted to explain human

aggression in terms of instincts. According to Konrad Lorenz (1963), whose studies of
animal behavior won him the Nobel Prize, aggressive behavior in both humans and
nonhumans comes from an aggressive instinct. This instinct presumably developed
during the course of evolution because it promoted survival of the species. Because
fighting is closely linked to mating, the aggressive instinct helped ensure that only the
strongest individuals would pass on their genes to future generations.

2. Drive Theories: The Motive to Harm Others

When social psychologists rejected the instinct views of aggression proposed by Freud
and Lorenz, they countered with an alternative perspective: That aggression stems
mainly from an externally elicited drive to harm others. This view is reflected in several
different drive theories of aggression. These theories propose that external
conditions—especially those that create frustration—arouse a strong motive to harm
others. When an aggressive drive is activated it can, in turn, lead to overt acts of
 aggression. Such an aggressive drive can be initiated by several factors discussed here
(e.g., provocations from others), or even by the presence of a weapon in the room
(Anderson, 1998).

By far the most famous of these theories is the frustration-aggression hypothesis

(Dollard, Doob, Miller, Mowerer, & Sears, 1939),this theory suggests that frustration—
anything that prevents us from reaching goals we are seeking—leads to the arousal of
a drive whose primary goal is that of harming some person or object—particularly the
perceived cause of frustration (Berkowitz, 1989). Furthermore, the theory suggested
that frustration is the strongest, or perhaps the only, cause of aggression.

Social psychologists now realize that this theory is misleading, but it still enjoys
widespread acceptance outside our field, and you may sometimes hear people refer to
it in such statements as: “He was so frustrated that he finally blew up,” or “She was
feeling frustrated, so she took it out on her roommate.” We will explain here why such
statements are often misleading.

3. Modern Theories of Aggression

Unlike earlier views, modern theories of aggression (Anderson & Bushman, 2002;
DeWall & Anderson, 2011) do not focus on a single factor (instincts, drives, and
frustration) as the primary cause of aggression. Rather, they draw on advances in many
areas of psychology in order to gain added insight into the factors that play a role in the
occurrence of such behavior.

SOCIAL LEARNING PERSPECTIVE

One such theory, known as the social learning perspective (e.g., Bandura, 1997),
begins with a very reasonable idea: Human beings are not born with a large array of
aggressive responses at their disposal. Rather, they must acquire these in much the
same way that they acquire other complex forms of social behavior: through direct
experience or by observing the behavior of others (i.e., social models—live persons or
characters on television, in movies, or even I video games who behave aggressively;
Anderson et al., 2010; Bushman & Anderson, 2002).

Thus, depending on their past experience and the cultures in which they live,
individuals learn
(1) various ways of seeking to harm others,
(2) which people or groups are appropriate targets for aggression,
(3) what actions by others justify retaliation or vengeance on their part, and
(4) what situations or contexts are ones in which aggression is permitted or even
approved.
In short, the social learning perspective suggests that whether a specific person will
aggress in a given situation depends on many factors, including the person’s past
experience, the current rewards associated with past or present aggression, and
attitudes and values that shape this person’s thoughts concerning the appropriateness
and potential effects of such behavior.

THE GENERAL AGGRESSION MODEL (GAM)

The general aggression model (GAM) (Anderson & Bushman, 2002) builds on the social
learning perspective and provides a more complete account of human aggression.
According to this theory, a chain of events that may lead to overt aggression can be
started by two main types of input variables:
- factors relating to the current situation (situational factors) and factors relating to
the people involved (person factors). Situational factors include frustration,
provocation from another person (such as an insult), exposure to other people
behaving aggressively (aggressive models, real or in the media), and anything that
causes discomfort, such as uncomfortably high temperatures, physical pain, or
disrespectful treatment.
- Person factors include traits that predispose some individuals toward aggression
(like high irritability), certain attitudes and beliefs about violence (for example,
believing that it is acceptable and appropriate), a tendency to perceive hostile
intentions in others’ behavior, and specific skills related to aggression (such as
knowing how to fight or use various weapons).

According to the GAM (General Aggression Model), certain things around us

(situational variables) and things about us (personal variables) can make us act
aggressively. They do this by affecting three main things inside us:

1. Arousal: This means getting more physically excited or tense, like your heart
beating faster.

2. Affective states: This means feeling angry or hostile, which might show on your
face.

3. Cognitions: This means having angry or aggressive thoughts, or remembering

beliefs that support aggression.

After these feelings and thoughts happen, how a person acts depends on how they
understand the situation and what stops them from acting out. For example, if police
are nearby or the person they might be aggressive toward seems scary, they might
control their anger and think carefully (thoughtful action). But if they don’t hold back,
they might act quickly and aggressively (impulsive action).
Bushman and Anderson (2002) expanded this theory to explain why individuals
exposed to high levels of aggression, either directly or in films and video games, may
become increasingly aggressive. Repeated exposure strengthens knowledge
structures related to aggression—beliefs, attitudes, schemas, and scripts—making it
easier for these to be activated by situational or person variables. As a result, people
become “primed” for aggression.

The GAM is more complex than earlier theories of aggression, such as the frustration-
aggression hypothesis (Dollard et al., 1939). Because it reflects recent progress in
understanding that what people think is crucial in determining what they do, it is more
likely to provide an accurate view of human aggression. It has proven valuable in
helping us understand the many causes of various forms of aggression (Bushman et
al., 2016).

This diagram shows how a person might end up acting aggressively or thoughtfully,
depending on different factors and their current state of mind.

Step-by-step explanation with an example:

1. Input Variables
These are things that can influence how you feel and act. They are divided into two
types:

o Situational Factors: Things happening around you, like someone being

rude to you (provocation), feeling frustrated, seeing others act aggressively,
or being in an uncomfortable situation.
 o Person Factors: Things about you as a person, such as being easily
irritated, already feeling negative, having beliefs that aggression is okay, or
having a tendency to interpret things as hostile.

Example: Imagine you are stuck in traffic (situational factor: frustration), and you are
already in a bad mood because you had a rough day at work (person factor:
irritability).

2. Current Internal State

These factors affect your internal state, which includes:

o Affect: Your emotions (e.g., anger, frustration).

o Cognition: Your thoughts (e.g., "People are so inconsiderate!").

o Arousal: Your physical state (e.g., heart beating faster).

Example: Because of the traffic and your bad mood, you start feeling angry (affect),
thinking negative thoughts about other drivers (cognition), and your body feels tense
(arousal).

3. Appraisal and Decision Processes

Your internal state leads you to make a decision about how to act. You can either:

o Take time to think and choose a thoughtful action (e.g., calming yourself
down, listening to music).

o Act on impulse, leading to impulsive action (e.g., yelling at another driver

or honking aggressively).

Example: If you pause and think, you might decide to relax and not react (thoughtful
action). If you act on impulse, you might shout or honk angrily (impulsive action,
possibly aggression).

In summary:
The diagram explains how both what's happening around you and your personality
combine to influence your feelings and thoughts, which then lead to either calm or
aggressive actions, depending on how you process the situation.

4. SCRIPT THEORY

Script Theory, as proposed by Huesmann (1986, 1998), suggests that when children
observe violence in the mass media, they learn aggressive scripts. Scripts are mental
frameworks that define situations and guide behavior. When faced with a situation, a
person selects a script to represent it and then takes on a role within that script. Once
a script is learned, it can be retrieved later and used as a guide for behavior.
 This approach offers a more specific and detailed explanation of social learning
processes. They’re sets of linked ideas stored in memory, including goals, actions, and
cause-effect relationships (like "if X happens, do Y"). For example, watching TV shows
might teach a child a "conflict resolution script" where arguments are solved with guns

Even a few rehearsals of a script can change a person’s expectations and intentions for
important social behaviors (Anderson 1983, Anderson & Godfrey 1987, Marsh et al.
1998). A script that is practiced frequently gains strength in two ways: first, multiple
rehearsals create more links to other concepts in memory, increasing the number of
ways it can be activated; second, Strong scripts apply to many situations. A "gun
solution" script learned from TV could influence behavior during school conflicts,
sports disagreements, or road rage.

For example, a child who has seen thousands of instances of using a gun to settle
disputes on television is likely to have a very accessible script for that behavior, which
can generalize to many situations. In this way, the script becomes chronically
accessible.
Script Theory is especially useful for explaining how social learning processes can
generalize and how complex perception, judgment, decision, and behavioral
processes can become automatic and simplified through repeated rehearsal of
scripts.

5. SOCIAL INTERNATION THEORY

Social interaction theory (Tedeschi & Felson 1994) interprets aggressive behavior (or
coercive actions) as social influence behavior, meaning that an actor uses coercive
actions to produce some change in the target’s behavior. Coercive actions can be used
by an actor to obtain something of value, such as information, money, goods, sex,
services, or safety. They can also be used to exact retributive justice for perceived
wrongs, or to bring about desired social and self identities, such as toughness or
competence.
According to this theory, the actor is a decision-maker whose choices are directed by
the expected rewards, costs, and probabilities of obtaining different outcomes. Social
interaction theory provides an explanation of aggressive acts motivated by higher level
(or ultimate) goals. Even hostile aggression might have some rational goal behind it,
such as punishing the provocateur in order to reduce the likelihood of future
provocations.
This theory provides an excellent way to understand recent findings that aggression is
often the result of threats to high self-esteem, especially to unwarranted high self-
esteem (i.e., narcissism)
INTERVENTION TO REDUCE AGGRESSION

Prevention and Control of Aggression: Simple Explanation

Aggression is not something that has to happen or cannot be changed. It happens

because of a mix of how people think, the situations they are in, and their personal traits.
This means we can prevent or reduce aggression by using the right techniques.

Punishment as a Way to Reduce Aggression

• Punishment means giving someone an unpleasant consequence for their

aggressive behavior, like fines, prison, or even harsher penalties in some
countries.

• Societies punish aggression for two main reasons:

o First, people believe that those who harm others deserve to be punished.
The punishment should match how much harm was caused, and should
also consider if there was a good reason for the aggression, like self-
defense.

o Second, punishment is used to stop the person (and others) from doing the
same thing again in the future. This works best if the crime is easy to detect
and if the punishment is public, especially in places where public shame is
a big deal.

Research shows that most people think the most important thing is that the punishment
fits the crime.

There is also another reason for punishment: keeping dangerous people away from others
by putting them in prison, so they can't hurt anyone else outside.

Does Punishment Actually Work?

Punishment can reduce aggression, but only if:

1. It happens right after the aggressive act.

2. It is certain to happen.

3. It is strong enough to be very unpleasant.

4. The person being punished thinks it is fair and deserved.

In reality, these conditions are rarely met. Punishments are often delayed, not everyone
gets caught, the strength of punishment varies, and sometimes it doesn’t seem fair.
When people feel the punishment is unfair, they might see it as aggression against them,
which can make them even more aggressive.

Because these conditions are not usually met, punishment—even very harsh
punishment—does not usually stop violent crime. So, relying on severe punishment to
stop aggression is not realistic. Other methods, especially those based on how people
think and act in social situations, can be much more effective.

Here’s a simple explanation of Self-Regulation: Internal Mechanisms for Controlling

Aggression using only the given text:

What is Self-Regulation?

Self-regulation (or self-control) means our ability to control our own behavior, including
aggressive actions. Even though aggression can sometimes help us (for example, in
competition), living peacefully in society means we must often hold back our anger and
aggressive urges.

Why Do We Sometimes Fail to Control Aggression?

• Self-regulation takes effort: Controlling our aggression uses up mental energy. If

we’re tired or have used a lot of self-control on other tasks, we might not have
enough left to stop ourselves from acting aggressively.

• Depleted self-control: Studies show that when people use up their self-control
(like resisting a tasty donut), they are more likely to act aggressively afterward.

What Helps Us Control Aggression?

• Positive attitudes: If we have a good attitude about controlling our emotions, it

can be easier and feel more natural to hold back aggression.

• Prosocial thinking: Thinking about helping or caring for others can make us less
likely to be aggressive, even when provoked.

How Can We Get Better at Self-Regulation?

• Learn from others: Watching people who stay calm and don’t react aggressively,
even when provoked, can help us do the same.

• Training: We can practice and train ourselves to strengthen our self-control.

• Recognize our limits: If we know when our mental energy is running low, we can
be more careful and avoid situations where we might lose control.

In Short
Everyone has the ability to control aggression, but it can be hard when we’re mentally
tired. We can get better at self-regulation by learning from calm role models, practicing
self-control, and being aware of when we’re running low on mental energy. Thinking about
helping others also helps us stay non-aggressive.

How to Reduce Aggression in Social Psychology

Reducing aggression involves changing thoughts, feelings, and environments that lead to
aggressive behavior. Social psychology suggests several effective strategies:

1. Strengthen Self-Control

• Self-control is the ability to override automatic aggressive thoughts and reactions.

• Training in self-control, such as practicing patience and resisting temptations, can

help people manage anger and reduce aggressive outbursts.

2. Encourage Pro-Social Experiences

• Pro-social behaviors, like helping others and showing gratitude, are the opposite of
aggression.

• Activities that promote kindness, empathy, and cooperation (such as volunteering

or playing pro-social games) can lower aggressive tendencies.

• Observing or interacting with non-aggressive role models also encourages

peaceful behavior.

3. Use Cognitive Strategies

• Cognitive strategies involve changing how people think in situations that might
trigger aggression.

• Teaching people to reinterpret situations (for example, assuming an insult was

unintentional) can prevent aggressive responses.

• Apologizing and practicing forgiveness can break the cycle of anger and retaliation.

• Mindfulness exercises, such as focusing attention on the present moment, can

help people stay calm when provoked.

4. Reduce Environmental Triggers

• Aggression is more likely in frustrating, noisy, or crowded environments.

• Reducing sources of frustration and creating calm, fair, and organized settings can
help prevent aggressive behavior.

• Limiting exposure to violent media and aggressive role models also reduces
aggression.
5. Social Skills Training

• Some people act aggressively because they lack effective ways to communicate
or solve problems.

• Teaching assertiveness, conflict resolution, and emotional regulation helps

individuals handle disagreements without resorting to aggression.

6. Appropriate Use of Punishment

• Mild, fair, and consistent punishment (like social disapproval or scolding) can
deter aggression, especially if it follows the aggressive act quickly and is seen as
justified.

• Harsh or delayed punishment is less effective and can sometimes make

aggression worse.

7. Promote Positive Self-Esteem

• Boosting self-esteem in healthy ways (such as self-affirmation exercises) can

reduce aggression, especially in people who are sensitive to ego threats.

• Encouraging people to reflect on their values and strengths helps them feel secure
without needing to act aggressively.

8. Cultural and Social Influences

• Different cultures have varying norms about aggression. Societies that value
cooperation and discourage violence tend to have lower aggression rates.

• Community programs and education that promote empathy, respect, and

peaceful conflict resolution can help shape these norms.

9. Avoid Catharsis

• Contrary to popular belief, “blowing off steam” through aggressive actions (like
hitting objects or yelling) does not reduce aggression in the long term. It can
actually make aggressive feelings stronger.

Reduce their aggression (Indian perspective- Gandhi's Non- Violence)

Indian philosophy has a long history of non-violence, and there are many techniques that
can be used to reduce aggression from an Indian perspective.

Some of these techniques include:

Meditation: Meditation is a mind-body practice that involves focusing your attention on

the present moment. There are many different types of meditation, but all of them can
help to calm the mind and body. When you meditate, you are training your mind to let go
of thoughts and feelings that are not helpful. This can help to reduce stress and
anxiety, which can lead to aggression.

Yoga: Yoga is a physical and mental practice that combines postures, breathing
exercises, and meditation. Yoga can help to reduce aggression in a number of ways. The
physical postures help to release tension in the body, and the breathing exercises help to
calm the mind. Yoga also teaches you how to focus your attention on the present
moment, which can help to reduce stress and anxiety.

Practicing ahimsa: Ahimsa is the principle of non-violence, and it is a central tenet of

Indian philosophy. Practicing ahimsa means avoiding violence in all its forms,
including physical violence, verbal violence, and emotional violence. This can be
challenging, but it is possible to learn how to respond to difficult situations in a non-
violent way.

Developing compassion: Compassion is the ability to feel empathy for others,

and it is a powerful antidote to aggression. When we feel compassion for others, we
are less likely to want to harm them. There are many ways to develop compassion, such
as volunteering your time to help others, practicing mindfulness, and reading books
about compassion.

Seeking help from a therapist: If you are struggling to control your aggression, you may
want to seek help from a therapist. A therapist can help you to understand the root of your
aggression and develop healthy coping mechanisms.

In addition to these techniques, there are also some specific principles of Gandhi's Non-
Violence that can be helpful in reducing aggression. These principles include:

Awareness: The first step to reducing aggression is to become aware of your own triggers.
What are the things that make you angry? Once you know your triggers, you can start to
develop strategies for dealing with them in a non-violent way. For example, if you know
that you tend to get angry when you are stressed, you can start to develop relaxation
techniques that you can use when you start to feel stressed.

Responsibility: When you are feeling angry, it is important to take responsibility for your
own actions. Don't blame others for your anger. Instead, focus on what you can do to
calm down and respond in a non-violent way. This might mean taking some time to cool
down before you respond, or walking away from the situation altogether.

Compassion: As mentioned above, compassion is a powerful antidote to aggression.

When you feel compassion for others, you are less likely to want to harm them. Try to see
things from the other person's perspective, and imagine how they might be
feeling. This can help you to understand why they are behaving the way they are, and
it can make it easier for you to respond in a non-violent way.
Non-attachment: When you are attached to your thoughts and feelings, it is more likely
that you will react in an aggressive way. Try to let go of your attachments, and focus on the
present moment. This can be challenging, but it is possible to learn how to do it with
practice. By following these techniques and principles, you can reduce your aggression
and live a more peaceful life