Analysing Helpful & Hurtful Behaviours

BY

Tirtha Nandi
18HS61022
MHRM, IIT Kharagpur
Prosocial behavior has long posed a challenge to social scientists seeking to understand why
people engage in helping behaviors that are beneficial to others, but costly to the individual
performing the action. In some cases, people will even put their own lives at risk in order to help
other people, even those that are complete strangers. Why would people do something that benefits
someone else but offers no immediate benefit to the doer?

Psychologists suggest that there are a number of reasons why people engage in prosocial behavior.
In many cases, such behaviors are fostered during childhood and adolescence as adults encourage
children to share, act kindly, and help others. Prosocial behaviors are often seen as being compelled
by a number of factors including egoistic reasons (doing things to improve one's self-image),
reciprocal benefits (doing something nice for someone so that they may one day return the favor),
and more altruistic reasons (performing actions purely out of empathy for another individual).

Survival of the fittest

Evolutionary psychologists often explain prosocial behaviors in terms of the principles
of natural selection. Obviously, putting your own safety in danger makes it less likely that you
will survive to pass on your own genes. However, the idea of kin selection suggests that helping
members of your own genetic family makes it more likely that your kin will survive and pass on
genes to the future generations. Researchers have been able to produce some evidence that
people are often more likely to help those to whom they are closely related
Evolutionary roots for prosocial behavior
Our evolutionary past may provide keys about why we help (Buss, 2004). Our very
survival was no doubt promoted by the prosocial relations with clan and family members, and, as
a hereditary consequence, we may now be especially likely to help those closest to us—blood-
related relatives with whom we share a genetic heritage. According to evolutionary psychology,
we are helpful in ways that increase the chances that our DNA will be passed along to future
generations (Burnstein, Crandall, & Kitayama, 1994)—the goal of the “selfish gene” (Dawkins,
1976). Our personal DNA may not always move on, but we can still be successful in getting
some portion of our DNA transmitted if our daughters, sons, nephews, nieces, and cousins
survive to produce offspring. The favoritism shown for helping our blood relatives is called kin
selection
But, we do not restrict our relationships just to our own family members. We live in groups that
include individuals who are unrelated to us, and we often help them too. Why? Reciprocal
altruism (Trivers, 1971) provides the answer. Because of reciprocal altruism, we are all better
off in the long run if we help one another. If helping someone now increases the chances that you
will be helped later, then your overall chances of survival are increased. There is the chance that
someone will take advantage of your help and not return your favors. But people seem
predisposed to identify those who fail to reciprocate, and punishments including social exclusion
may result (Buss, 2004). Cheaters will not enjoy the benefit of help from others, reducing the
likelihood of the survival of themselves and their kin.

The norm of reciprocity suggests that when people do something helpful for someone else, that
person feels compelled to help out in return. Essentially, helping others means that they might
help us in return. This norm developed, evolutionary psychologists suggest, because people who
understood that helping others might lead to reciprocal kindness were more likely to survive and
reproduce.

Situational Influences on Prosocial Behavior –

When and Why do people engage in helpful behavior?

Characteristics of the situation can have a powerful impact on whether or not people engage in
prosocial actions.

The bystander effect is one of the most notable examples of how the situation can impact
helping behaviors. The bystander effect refers to the tendency for people to become less likely to
assist a person in distress when there are a number of other people also present. For example, if
you drop your purse and several items fall out on the ground, the likelihood that someone will
stop and help you decreases if there are many other people present. This same sort of thing can
happen in cases where someone is in serious danger, such as when someone is involved in a car
accident. In some cases, witnesses might assume that since there are so many other people
present, someone else will have surely already called for help.

Lantane and Darley have suggested that five key things must happen in order for a person to take
action. An individual must:

1. Notice what is happening

2. Interpret the event as an emergency
3. Experience feelings of responsibility
4. Believe that they have the skills to help
5. Make a conscious choice to offer assistance

Other factors that can help people overcome the bystander effect including having a personal
relationship with the individual in need, having the skills and knowledge to provide assistance,
and having empathy for those in need

People often overestimate their willingness to help others in need especially when they
are asked about a hypothetical situation rather than encountering one in real life.

Defining the situation: The role of pluralistic ignorance

The decision to help is not a simple yes/no proposition. In fact, a series of questions must be
addressed before help is given—even in emergencies in which time may be of the essence. To
define ambiguous situations (including many emergencies), potential helpers may look to the
action of others to decide what should be done. Relying on others to define the situation and to
then erroneously conclude that no intervention is necessary when help is actually needed is
called pluralistic ignorance When people use the inactions of others to define their own course
of action, the resulting pluralistic ignorance leads to less help being given.

Diffusion of responsibility
Simply being with others may facilitate or inhibit whether we get involved in other ways as well.
In situations in which help is needed, the presence or absence of others may affect whether a
bystander will assume personal responsibility to give the assistance.

Knowing that someone else could help seems to relieve bystanders of personal responsibility, so
bystanders do not intervene.

On the other hand, in an incident at the 2013 Boston Marathon, after two bombs exploded on the
race track, despite the presence of many spectators, , the yellow-jacketed race officials
immediately rushed to give aid and comfort to the victims of the blast Each one no doubt felt a
personal responsibility to help by virtue of their official capacity at the event; fulfilling the
obligations of their roles overrode the influence of the diffusion of responsibility effect

Cost Benefit Analysis of Helping

The nature of the help needed plays a crucial role in determining what happens next.
Specifically, potential helpers engage in a cost–benefit analysis before getting involved. If the
needed help is of relatively low cost in terms of time, money, resources, or risk, then help is
more likely to be given. Lending a classmate a pencil is easy; confronting the knife-wielding
assailant who attacked Kitty Genovese is an entirely different matter. As the unfortunate case of
Hugo Alfredo Tale-Yax demonstrates, intervening may cost the life of the helper.

The potential rewards of helping someone will also enter into the equation, perhaps offsetting the
cost of helping. Gratitude from the recipient of help may be a sufficient reward. If helpful acts
are recognized by others, helpers may receive social rewards of praise or monetary rewards.
Even avoiding feelings of guilt if one does not help may be considered a benefit. Potential
helpers consider how much helping will cost and compare those costs to the rewards that might
be realized; it is the economics of helping. If costs outweigh the rewards, helping is less likely. If
rewards are greater than cost, helping is more likely.
Personal Mood
Mood and prosocial behavior are closely linked. People often experience the "feel good-do
good" phenomena, where being in a good mood increases helping behaviors. Being in a good
mood helps us to see the "good" in other people, and prolongs our own good mood. For example,
mood and work behaviors have frequently been examined in research; studies show that positive
mood at work is associated with more positive work-related behaviors (e.g., helping co-workers)

Other research suggests that cultivating positive emotions, such as gratitude, may also facilitate
prosocial behavior. A study by Bartlett & DeSteno examined the ability of gratitude to shape
costly prosocial behavior, demonstrating that gratitude increases efforts to assist a benefactor
even when such efforts are costly (i.e., hedonically negative), and that this increase is
qualitatively different from efforts given from just general positive affective state. They also
show that gratitude can increase assistance provided to strangers, not just close social
ties. Awe is another positive emotional state that has been closely linked to inspiring generosity
and prosocial behavior.

"When people experience awe they really want to share that experience with other people,
suggesting that it has this particularly viral component to it... awe binds people together—by
causing people to want to share their positive experiences collectively with one another."

Competence
Perceived competence of the person to deal with the situation at hand influences their willingness
to help

Prosocial Personality Traits –

One of the Big Five personality dimensions, Agreeableness is a core trait that includes such
characteristics as being sympathetic, generous, forgiving, and helpful, and behavioral tendencies
toward harmonious social relations and likeability.

Agreeable people seem to expect that others will be similarly cooperative and generous in
interpersonal relations, and they, therefore, act in helpful ways that are likely to elicit positive
social interactions.

However than focusing on a single trait, a somewhat broader perspective is taken and identified
as what is called the prosocial personality orientation. Research indicates that two major
characteristics are related to the prosocial personality and prosocial behavior.

The first characteristic is called other-oriented empathy: People high on this dimension have a
strong sense of social responsibility, empathize with and feel emotionally tied to those in need,
understand the problems the victim is experiencing, and have a heightened sense of moral
obligation to be helpful. This factor has been shown to be highly correlated with the trait of
agreeableness discussed previously.

The second characteristic, helpfulness, is more behaviorally oriented. Those high on the
helpfulness factor have been helpful in the past, and because they believe they can be effective
with the help they give, they are more likely to be helpful in the future.

Prosocial Behavior Versus Altruism

Altruism is sometimes seen as a form of prosocial behavior, but some experts suggest that there
are actually different concepts. While prosocial behavior is seen as a type of helping behavior
that ultimately confers some benefits to the self, altruism is viewed as a pure form of helping
motivated purely out of concern for the individual in need.

Others argue, however, that reciprocity actually does underlie many examples of altruism or that
people engage in such seemingly selfless behaviors for selfish reasons, such as to gain the
acclaim of others or to feel good about themselves

Egoistic motivation for helping

Evolutionary forces may provide a general inclination for being helpful, but they may not
be as good an explanation for why we help in the here and now

In truth, the reasons why we help may be more about ourselves than others: Egoistic or selfish
motivations may make us help.

There are two major theories that explain what types of reinforcement helpers may be seeking.
The negative state relief model (e.g., Cialdini, Darby, & Vincent, 1973; Cialdini, Kenrick, &
Baumann, 1982) suggests that people sometimes help in order to make themselves feel better.
Whenever we are feeling sad, we can use helping someone else as a positive mood boost to feel
happier. Through socialization, we have learned that helping can serve as a secondary
reinforcement that will relieve negative moods (Cialdini & Kenrick, 1976).

The arousal: cost–reward model provides an additional way to understand why people help
(e.g., Piliavin, Dovidio, Gaertner, & Clark, 1981). This model focuses on the aversive feelings
aroused by seeing another in need. If you have ever heard an injured puppy yelping in pain, you
know that feeling, and you know that the best way to relieve that feeling is to help and to comfort
the puppy. Similarly, when we see someone who is suffering in some way (e.g., injured,
homeless, hungry), we vicariously experience a sympathetic arousal that is unpleasant, and we
are motivated to eliminate that aversive state. One way to do that is to help the person in need.
By eliminating the victim’s pain, we eliminate our own aversive arousal. Helping is an effective
way to alleviate our own discomfort.

The egoistically based negative state relief model and the arousal: cost–reward model see the
primary motivation for helping as being the helper’s own outcome. Recognize that the victim’s
outcome is of relatively little concern to the helper—benefits to the victim are incidental
byproducts of the exchange (Dovidio et al., 2006). The victim may be helped, but the helper’s
real motivation according to these two explanations is egoistic: Helpers help to the extent that it
makes them feel better.

Although many researchers believe that egoism is the only motivation for helping, others suggest
that altruism—helping that has as its ultimate goal the improvement of another’s welfare—may
also be a motivation for helping under the right circumstances. Batson (2011) has offered
the empathy–altruism model to explain altruistically motivated helping for which the helper
expects no benefits. According to this model, the key for altruism is empathizing with the victim,
that is, putting oneself in the shoes of the victim and imagining how the victim must feel. When
taking this perspective and having empathic concern, potential helpers become primarily
interested in increasing the well-being of the victim, even if the helper must incur some costs that
might otherwise be easily avoided

The empathy–altruism model does not dismiss egoistic motivations; helpers not empathizing
with a victim may experience personal distress and have an egoistic motivation, not unlike the
feelings and motivations explained by the arousal: cost–reward model. Because egoistically
motivated individuals are primarily concerned with their own cost–benefit outcomes, they are
less likely to help if they think they can escape the situation with no costs to themselves. In
contrast, altruistically motivated helpers are willing to accept the cost of helping to benefit a
person with whom they have empathized—this “self-sacrificial” approach to helping is the
hallmark of altruism (Batson, 2011).
Although there is still some controversy about whether people can ever act for purely altruistic
motives, it is important to recognize that, while helpers may derive some personal rewards by
helping another, the help that has been given is also benefitting someone who was in need. The
residents who offered food, blankets, and shelter to stranded runners who were unable to get
back to their hotel rooms because of the Boston Marathon bombing undoubtedly received
positive rewards because of the help they gave, but those stranded runners who were helped got
what they needed badly as well. “In fact, it is quite remarkable how the fates of people who have
never met can be so intertwined and complementary. Your benefit is mine; and mine is yours”
(Dovidio et al., 2006, p. 143).

The power of the situation that operates on potential helpers in real time is not fully considered.
What might appear to be a split-second decision to help is actually the result of consideration of
multiple situational factors (e.g., the helper’s interpretation of the situation, the presence and
ability of others to provide the help, the results of a cost–benefit analysis) (Dovidio et al., 2006).
We have found that men and women tend to help in different ways—men are more impulsive
and physically active, while women are more nurturing and supportive. Personality
characteristics such as agreeableness and the prosocial personality orientation also affect
people’s likelihood of giving assistance to others. And, why would people help in the first place?
In addition to evolutionary forces (e.g., kin selection, reciprocal altruism), there is extensive
evidence to show that helping and prosocial acts may be motivated by selfish, egoistic desires;
by selfless, altruistic goals; or by some combination of egoistic and altruistic motives.

Social exchange theory

According to the social-exchange theory, people help because they want to gain goods from the
one being helped. People calculate rewards and costs of helping others, and aim at maximizing
the former and minimizing the latter, which is known as a “minimax” strategy.
Rewards are incentives, which can be materialistic goods, social rewards which can improve
one’s image and reputation (e.g. praise) or self-reward. Rewards are either external or internal.
External reward is things that obtained from others when helping them, for instance, friendship
and gratitude. People are more likely to help those who are more attractive or important, whose
approval is desired Preceding helping behavior, people consciously calculate the benefits and
costs of helping and not helping, and they help when the overall benefit of helping outweigh the
cost

Helper's high
Psychologists have shown that helping others can produce "feel-good" neurotransmitters such
as oxytocin and that, similar to any other pleasurable activity, the act of volunteering, giving and
behaving pro-socially can become addictive.
Some work has been done on utilizing this principle through the concept of helper therapy, in
which therapeutic benefits are gleaned from assisting others. Community health workers have
been found to gain helper benefits that include positive feelings about self, a sense of belonging,
valuable work experience, and access to health information and skills through their prosocial
vocation, which may buffer against the various stressors inherent in this line of work.
In addition, Helper therapy may also be highly beneficial for distressed adolescents experiencing
suicidal thoughts. Studies indicate that when help-seeking youth use online community forums,
the help-seekers often begin to provide support for other help seekers, and develop a reciprocal
prosocial community battling depression together
Anti-Social Behaviour
Why and When do people engage in harmful behavior
NATURE AND CAUSES OF AGGRESSION

Social psychological theories of aggression

Social learning theory (SLT)
We learn both aggressiveness and how to express aggression through direct reinforcement
(conditioning theory) and indirect reinforcement (social learning).
Bandura (1977) suggested that there are four steps in the modelling process.
• Attention. If a person (model) is prestigious or similar you will pay more attention.
• Retention. Actions must be remembered (i.e. cognitive processes involved).
• Reproduction. Vicarious reinforcement is not enough, imitation requires skills.
• Motivation. Imitation depends on direct and indirect reinforcements and punishments.
Research evidence
Bandura et al. (1961, 1963) showed that, if children watched someone else behave aggressively
towards Bobo-the-doll (punching it, shouting at it and hitting it with a hammer), they were more
likely to be aggressive and to imitate specific actions when they were placed on their own with
the doll (after being mildly frustrated). Other findings and later variations found that imitation
was even more likely if:
• the model was rewarded
• the model had high status, for example, a favourite hero or heroine on TV
• the child identified with the model, for example same sex
• live models were more effective than a film or a cartoon
• the person had low self-esteem.
Evaluation
• Research findings may be due to demand characteristics in an unfamiliar social situation (the
children had to look for cues of what to do with Bobo).
• Can explain media influences
• Can explain influence of coercive home environments. Parents solve disputes ggressively,
children model their behaviour on this (Patterson et al., 1989).
• Can account for cultural and individual differences between people.
• It explains the fact that people imitate specific acts of violence.
• Oversimplified. People are not consistently rewarded for aggression, often they are punished.
• Environmental determinism. Suggests that aggression is externally caused.
Deindividuation
The presence of a crowd (or group) leads individual members to feel anonymous and act
according to a different set of rules than they would normally.
Zimbardo (1969) suggested that:
• individuated behaviour is rational, consistent with personal norms - deindividuated behaviour is
unrestrained, acting on primitive impulses, leads to antisocial acts.
Research evidence
Zimbardo (1963) repeated Milgram’s (1963) obedience experiments with participants either
wearing a name tag (individuated) or in a hood (deindividuated). The latter gave more shocks.
Diener et al. (1976) observed the behaviour of over 1000 children on Halloween; the house
owner asked some of the children to give their names. Those who remained anonymous were
more likely to steal some money and/or extra chocolate when briefly left alone (i.e. behave anti-
socially).
Evaluation
• In some instances deindividuation leads to increased pro-social behaviour .
• As with obedience, an individual can elect whether to behave autonomously.
Relative deprivation theory
The gap between what one has and what one feels one deserves leads to feelings of relative
deprivation and aggression.
Runciman (1966) distinguished between two forms of relative deprivation:
• egotistic deprivation – derived from comparison with other similar individuals
• fraternalistic deprivation – derived from comparisons with other groups.
Research evidence
Abeles (1976) interviewed over 900 poor Blacks living in the US to find out why,
when socioeconomic conditions were improving for Blacks, there were still so many urban riots.
The respondents felt they were still worse off when compared with White counterparts whose
incomes had also increased. They also had increased expectations.
Evaluation
• Can explain feelings of aggression expressed by a whole group.
• Can explain why some well-off members of minority groups continue to feel
relative deprivation (fraternalistically rather than egotistically).
Effects of environmental stressors
Research evidence
Overcrowding: Calhoun (1962) described ‘behavioural sink’, a pathological response
to overcrowding in rats. Co et al. (1984) studied prison populations and found as
density increased so did disciplinary problems and death rates.
Temperature: Baron and Ransberger (1978) linked collective violence in the US and heat, up to a
point. When it becomes very hot, people become lethargic.
Pain: Berkowitz et al. (1979) placed participants’ hands in cold or warm water. They caused
greater harm to a partner in the cold water condition.
Noise: Glass et al. (1969) found that unpredictable noise has a ‘psychic’ cost because it required
attention, whereas constant noise can be ‘tuned out’. Noise led to frustration.
Lack of control: Glass et al. (1969) found that when some participants were given a button,
ostensibly to control the noise, they showed greater task persistence.
Donnerstein and Wilson (1976) found angered participants gave greater shocks except when they
had a control button.
Frustration-aggression hypothesis
Environmental stressors may increase frustration. Dollard et al. (1939) suggested that frustration
always leads to some form of aggression and aggression is always the result of frustration.
Research evidence
Frustration triggers aggression. Geen and Berkowitz (1967) frustrated their participants using
insoluble puzzles. If the participant then watched an aggressive film and the confederate used a
name from the film (‘Kirk’ as in Kirk Douglas) then the number of shocks given to the
confederate was greater.
Cues also trigger aggression. Berkowitz and LePage (1967) showed that when students received
electric shocks from a confederate and then were given the opportunity to do the reverse, level of
shocks were higher when a gun was close to the shock machine.
Evaluation
• General levels of arousal may be a better explanation (arousal-aggression hypothesis) since
environmental stressors are physiologically arousing.
• Some events are physiologically arousing but lead to positive behaviour, such as loud music.
Stressors may amplify mood (density-intensity hypothesis).
• This explanation combines biological and social factors (physiological arousal and learned
responses to cues).

No theory can provide a complete explanation for aggression and there are many variables hat
can influence aggressive characteristics in humans.
Personal Factors – These include Characteristics of the individual like age gender, culture,
experiences , emotional triggers like grief, provocation, drug use etc.
Circumstances of the aggressor- Discomfort, physical environment- e.g – riots are more likely to
occur in hotter temperatures, traffic is prone to precipitate road rage etc..
Perceived disadvantage- Comparison of one’s social economic disadvantage to others who are
perceived to be better off than themselves- eg vandalism, burglary, assault -this is especially true
when an improvement in circumstances cannot be achieved legitimately.

Conformity to norms – where people behave in ways that society accepts and expects- some
communities accept and permit aggression more than others.

Reduction in aggressive behavior is very difficult to achieve if one focuses on the biological
causes. Many aspects of the environment are also difficult to change, which is why most
programs aimed at curbing antisocial behavior tend to apply social learning theory.
Teaching self control through social skills, modelling non aggressive behaviours
Rewarding pro social behaviours, and not rewarding without punishing anti social behavior
Effective Methods include observing non aggressive models – displaying non aggressive ways of
responding alternative non aggressive ways of responding when confronted with a a situation
that could trigger aggression
Displaying unpredictable responses- humour and empathy.
Teaching use of cognitive strategies- teaching people to respond not react- stop and think before
acting including developing an awareness of other people.
The use of cognitive behavior therapy has been effective in teaching children and adults o
control anger and frustration.

Cognitive Behavioural Therapy

Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), is a highly effective, evidence-based therapy, in relation to

anti-social behaviour. This type of treatment focuses on enabling the patients to create an
accurate image of the self, allowing the individuals to find the trigger of their harmful actions
and changing how individuals think and act in social situations. Due to their impulsivity, their
inability to form trusting relationships and their nature of blaming others when a situation
arises, individuals with particularly aggressive anti-social behaviours tend to have maladaptive
social cognitions, including hostile attribution bias, which lead to negative behavioural
outcomes. CBT has been found to be more effective for older children and less effective for
younger children. Problem-solving skills training (PSST) is a type of CBT that aims to recognize
and correct how an individual thinks and consequently behaves in social environments. This
training provides steps to assist people in obtaining the skill to be able to evaluate potential
solutions to problems occurring outside of therapy and learn how to create positive solutions to
avoid physical aggression and resolve conflict.
Therapists, when providing CBT intervention to individuals with anti-social behaviour, should
first assess the level of the risk of the behaviour in order to establish a plan on the duration and
intensity of the intervention. Moreover, therapists should support and motivate individuals to
practice the new skills and behaviours in environments and contexts where the conflicts would
naturally occur to observe the effects of CBT.

Behavioural Parent Training

Behavioural parent training (BPT) or parent management training (PMT), focuses on changing
how parents interact with their children and equips them with ways to recognize and change their
child's maladaptive behaviour in a variety of situations. BPT assumes that individuals are
exposed to reinforcements and punishments daily and that anti-social behaviour, which can be
learned, is a result of these reinforcements and punishments. Since certain types of interactions
between parents and children may reinforce a child's anti-social behaviour, the aim of BPT is to
teach the parent effective skills to better manage and communicate with their child. This could be
done by reinforcing pro-social behaviours while punishing or ignoring anti-social behaviours. It
is important to note that the effects of this therapy can be seen only if the newly acquired
communication methods are maintained. BPT has been found to be most effective for younger
children under the age of 12. Researchers credit the effectiveness of this treatment at younger
ages due to the fact that younger children are more reliant on their parents. BPT is used to treat
children with conduct problems, but also for children with ADHD.
According to a meta-analysis, the effectiveness of BPT is supported by short-term changes on
the children's anti-social behaviour. However, whether these changes are maintained over a
longer period of time is still unclear.

Use in life
Dispositionism: describes a perspective common to personality psychologists, which asserts that
our behavior is determined by internal factors, such as personality traits and temperament
Situationism: describes a perspective that behavior and actions are determined by the immediate
environment and surroundings; a view promoted by social psychologists
Removal of fundamental attribution error
According to some social psychologists, people tend to overemphasize internal factors as
explanations—or attributions—for the behavior of other people. They tend to assume that the
behavior of another person is a trait of that person, and to underestimate the power of the
situation on the behavior of others. They tend to fail to recognize when the behavior of another is
due to situational variables, and thus to the person’s state. This erroneous assumption is called
the fundamental attribution error (Ross, 1977; Riggio & Garcia, 2009). To better understand,
imagine this scenario: Greg returns home from work, and upon opening the front door his wife
happily greets him and inquires about his day. Instead of greeting his wife, Greg yells at her,
“Leave me alone!” Why did Greg yell at his wife? How would someone committing the
fundamental attribution error explain Greg’s behavior? The most common response is that Greg
is a mean, angry, or unfriendly person (his traits). This is an internal or dispositional explanation.
However, imagine that Greg was just laid off from his job due to company downsizing. Would
your explanation for Greg’s behavior change? Your revised explanation might be that Greg was
frustrated and disappointed for losing his job; therefore, he was in a bad mood (his state). This is
now an external or situational explanation for Greg’s behavior.
People from an individualistic culture, that is, a culture that focuses on individual achievement
and autonomy, have the greatest tendency to commit the fundamental attribution error.
Individualistic cultures, which tend to be found in western countries such as the United States,
Canada, and the United Kingdom, promote a focus on the individual. Therefore, a person’s
disposition is thought to be the primary explanation for her behavior. In contrast, people from a
collectivistic culture, that is, a culture that focuses on communal relationships with others, such
as family, friends, and community (Figure 3), are less likely to commit the fundamental
attribution error
The actor-observer bias is the phenomenon of attributing other people’s behavior to internal
factors (fundamental attribution error) while attributing our own behavior to situational forces
(Jones & Nisbett, 1971; Nisbett, Caputo, Legant, & Marecek, 1973; Choi & Nisbett, 1998). As
actors of behavior, we have more information available to explain our own behavior. However as
observers, we have less information available; therefore, we tend to default to a dispositionist
perspective.

The just-world hypothesis is the belief that people get the outcomes they deserve (Lerner &
Miller, 1978). In order to maintain the belief that the world is a fair place, people tend to think
that good people experience positive outcomes, and bad people experience negative outcomes
One negative consequence is people’s tendency to blame poor individuals for their plight. What
common explanations are given for why people live in poverty? Have you heard statements such
as, “The poor are lazy and just don’t want to work” or “Poor people just want to live off the
government”? What types of explanations are these, dispositional or situational? These
dispositional explanations are clear examples of the fundamental attribution error. Blaming poor
people for their poverty ignores situational factors that impact them, such as high unemployment
rates, recession, poor educational opportunities, and the familial cycle of poverty (Figure 6).
Other research shows that people who hold just-world beliefs have negative attitudes toward
people who are unemployed and people living with AIDS (Sutton & Douglas, 2005). In the
United States and other countries, victims of sexual assault may find themselves blamed for their
abuse. Victim advocacy groups, such as Domestic Violence Ended (DOVE), attend court in
support of victims to ensure that blame is directed at the perpetrators of sexual violence, not the
victims.
Social comparison theory argues that people naturally make comparisons to other people. And
these comparisons often make us feel worse about ourselves or better about ourselves. As we
generally prefer to feel good, we are prone to making downward comparisons, or comparisons
that enable us to look down on other people. Moreover, research based on this theory also
supports the notion that people are more negative towards others when they have been insulted
or belittled, and that this can make people feel better about themselves (it can help restore self-
esteem). In one study, when people were told they were unattractive (using fake feedback),
compared to being told they were attractive, they rated others not only as less attractive but also
less intelligent and less kind. Put succinctly, being insulted made people more likely to demean
others.
Whether it is as a means of promoting our groups or ourselves, we tend to be more aggressive
when our self-worth has been challenged and we are not feeling particularly positive about
ourselves. When our self-esteem is threatened, we are more likely to compare ourselves to
people we think are worse off than us, to see other people as having more negative traits, to
degrade people who aren't members of our groups, and to become more directly aggressive
towards people in general.

When you insult or criticize someone else, it may say more about how you are feeling about
yourself than the other person.

Insecurity over ourselves drives much of the cruelty in the world.