After Chapter 10.1, you will be able to:
Social behaviors allow us to interact with others. These may flow from positive feelings, such as attraction or attachment, or they may flow from negative feelings, such as aggression.
Have you ever wondered what makes some people friends and others enemies? How second graders choose their best friends? Why you keep eyeing that cute person in your physics class? Social psychologists call this phenomenon of individuals liking each other interpersonal attraction. Researchers have found several factors that affect attraction, including similarity, self-disclosure, reciprocity, and proximity. Outward appearance also plays a role; the more symmetric someone’s face is, the more physically attractive we find him or her to be. Humans are also attracted to individuals with certain body proportions approximating the golden ratio (1.618:1).
Interpersonal attraction is influenced by many factors, including physical characteristics, similarity, self-disclosure, reciprocity, and proximity.
We tend to be attracted to people who are similar to us in attitudes, intelligence, education, height, age, religion, appearance, and socioeconomic status. One reason for this may be convenience: it’s easier to spend time together if you both want to go on a bike ride or if you both enjoy Thai food. Also, people are drawn to having their values and choices validated by another person. So why is there a cliché about opposites attracting? Social psychologists find that attraction also occurs if opposing qualities match up with each other; for example, a nurturer is attracted to someone who craves being nurtured. Notably, successful complementary relationships still have fundamental similarities in some attitudes that make the complementary aspects of the relationship work.
Another component of attraction lies in the opportunity for self-disclosure, or sharing one’s fears, thoughts, and goals with another person and being met with nonjudgmental empathy. Engaging in this behavior deepens attraction and friendship. This must be a reciprocal behavior, however. Revealing one’s innermost secrets creates a sense of vulnerability that, if not met by the other person, can be interpreted as being taken advantage of. Reciprocity is important in other aspects of interpersonal attraction as well. Reciprocal liking is the phenomenon whereby people like others better when they believe the other person likes them. Researchers have shown that even if we disagree with someone on important issues, we will have increased interest in them if we have indications that they like us.
Finally, proximity, or just being physically close to someone, plays a factor in our attraction to him or her. Studies have shown that we are more likely to form friendships with people in the same dorm as us or with the people who sit closest to us in class. Part of this is convenience; it’s easier to have conversations and make plans with people in the same area. Another explanation is the mere exposure effect or familiarity effect, which says that people prefer stimuli that they have been exposed to more frequently. You may have observed this in your everyday life: Have you disliked a song the first time you heard it, only to find yourself singing along and saying, I like this song! after hearing it many more times? This principle is also used in marketing: the more people hear the name of a product, the more likely they are to be attracted to and purchase that product.
Aggression is defined as a behavior that intends to cause harm or increase social dominance. Aggression can take the form of physical actions as well as verbal or nonverbal communication. Ethologists study aggression in terms of the interactions between animals in natural settings. Aggression in these settings can include bodily contact, as seen in Figure 10.1 but most displays of aggression are settled by threat and withdrawal without actual bodily harm. Threat displays are common in both animals and humans. Before a fight, a man might puff up his chest or pull back his fist to threaten another person. This display may or may not result in physical harm or violence. Other examples of aggression include a bully hurling insults at another child or a teenage gang member making threatening gestures to a member of another gang.
What is the purpose of aggressive behavior if it causes so much destruction? Evolutionarily, aggression offers protection against perceived and real threats. Aggression helped our ancestors fight off predators. It also helps organisms gain access to resources such as food, additional territory, or mates. In cases of limited resources, aggression could be the deciding factor that allows one to pass on genes.
From a biological perspective, multiple parts of the brain contribute to violent behavior. The amygdala is the part of the brain responsible for associating stimuli and their corresponding rewards or punishments. In short, it is responsible for telling us whether or not something is a threat. If the amygdala is activated, this increases aggression. However, higher-order brain structures, such as the prefrontal cortex, can place brakes on a revved-up amygdala, reducing emotional reactivity and impulsiveness. Reduced activity in the prefrontal cortex has been linked to increased aggressive behavior.
The prefrontal cortex is critically important to managing the limbic system, which is important in managing emotion and stress. These roles of the prefrontal cortex are discussed in Chapter 5 of MCAT Behavioral Sciences Review.
Aggression is also under hormonal control. Higher levels of testosterone have been linked to more aggressive behavior in both males and females. The higher levels of testosterone in men compared to women may explain the fact that men are generally more aggressive than women across cultures and that men commit a disproportionate majority of violent crimes.
Alcohol has been shown to increase aggressive behavior. Alcohol impairs judgment and limits one’s ability to control aggressive reactions. It also makes one feel less inhibited by social mores that would normally restrict aggressive behavior.
Beyond the biological contributions to aggressive behavior, studies have found many psychological and situational predictors of aggression. Do you find yourself snapping at people more when you’re in pain? Have you ever gotten annoyed with a waiter when you were extremely hungry? Our responses are accounted for by the cognitive neoassociation model, which states that we are more likely to respond to others aggressively whenever we are feeling negative emotions, such as being tired, sick, frustrated, or in pain. This can also be seen on a large scale: riots are more likely to happen on hot days than cool ones; drivers without air conditioning are more likely to honk at other drivers than those with air conditioning.
Another factor that contributes to aggressive behavior is exposure to violent behavior. The effects on children of media portrayals of violence continue to be a hot topic. Research findings are mixed but tend to show that viewing violent behavior indeed correlates to an increase in aggressive behavior. The contribution of modeling to violence in children was also explored in Albert Bandura’s Bobo doll experiment, described in Chapter 3 of MCAT Behavioral Sciences Review.
Attachment is an emotional bond between a caregiver and a child. Development of attachment begins during infancy. While parental figures are most common, emotional bonds can occur with any caregiver who is sensitive and responsive during social interaction. After World War II, psychiatrist John Bowlby noticed the negative effects of isolation on social and emotional development in orphaned children and started the study of attachment. In the 1970s, psychologist Mary Ainsworth expounded on this theory, saying that infants need a secure base in the form of a consistent caregiver during the first six months to two years of life from which to explore the world and develop appropriately. Four main types of attachment styles have been described: secure, avoidant, ambivalent, and disorganized.
In attachment, a secure base is a caregiver who is consistent, available, comforting, and responsive.
Secure attachment is seen when a child has a consistent caregiver and is able to go out and explore, knowing that he or she has a secure base to return to. The child will be upset at the departure of the caregiver and will be comforted by the return of the caregiver. The child trusts that the caregiver will be there for comfort, and while the child can be comforted by a stranger, he or she will clearly prefer the caregiver. Having a secure attachment pattern is thought to be a vital aspect of a child’s social development. Children with avoidant, ambivalent, or disorganized attachment can have deficits in social skills.
Avoidant attachment results when the caregiver has little or no response to a distressed child. Given the choice, these children will show no preference between a stranger and the caregiver. They show little or no distress when the caregiver leaves and little or no relief when the caregiver returns.
Ambivalent attachment occurs when a caregiver has an inconsistent response to a child’s distress, sometimes responding appropriately, sometimes neglectfully. As such, the child is unable to form a secure base as he or she cannot consistently rely on the caregiver’s response. The child will be very distressed on separation from the caregiver but has a mixed response when the caregiver returns, often displaying ambivalence. This is sometimes referred to as anxious–ambivalent attachment because the child is always anxious about the reliability of the caregiver.
Children with disorganized attachment show no clear pattern of behavior in response to the caregiver’s absence or presence, but instead can show a mix of different behaviors. These can include avoidance or resistance; seeming dazed, frozen, or confused; or repetitive behaviors like rocking. Disorganized attachment is often associated with erratic behavior and social withdrawal by the caregiver. It may also be a red flag for abuse.
As a physician, you will be a mandated reporter. This means that you are required by law to report suspected cases of child abuse. Remember: It is better to report and be incorrect than to miss a potentially fatal scenario.
In psychology, social support is the perception or reality that one is cared for by a social network. Social support can be divided into many different categories: emotional, esteem, material, informational, and network support. While social support is present at all times, it is often most pronounced—and necessary—when someone suffers a personal or family tragedy.
Emotional support is listening, affirming, and empathizing with someone’s feelings. It’s the I’m sorry for your loss condolence card or a trip to the hospital to visit a sick relative. Many people equate social support with emotional support, but other forms of support exist as well.
Esteem support is similar, but touches more directly on affirming the qualities and skills of a person. Reminding someone of the skills they possess to tackle a problem can bolster their confidence. For example, consider a friend who has missed a significant amount of school due to illness. Telling her that she should have no problem making up the work because she is smart and an efficient worker would be providing esteem support.
Material support, also called tangible support, is any type of financial or material contribution to another person. It can come in the form of making a meal for a friend after they have lost a loved one or donating money to a person in need.
Informational support refers to providing information that will help someone. You will spend much of your career providing informational support to patients as you explain their diagnoses, potential treatment options, and risks and benefits of those treatment options.
Network support is the type of social support that gives a person a sense of belonging. This can be shown physically, as demonstrated in Figure 10.2, or can be accomplished through gestures, group activities, and shared experiences.
No matter the form, all of these social supports offer many different types of health benefits. Social support helps reduce psychological distress such as anxiety and depression. People with low social support show higher levels of major mental disorders, alcohol and drug use, and suicidal ideation. Beyond these intuitive improvements in mental health, there are also improvements to our physical health. Studies have found that people with low social support have a higher mortality risk from many different diseases, including diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and cancer. Strong social support appears to correlate with immunological health, too: those with higher social support are less likely to get colds and recover faster when they do.
Many behaviors have neurological corollaries. Here, we will look at some specific behaviors and the brain regions that are implicated in causing them.
The behavior of foraging, or seeking out and eating food, is driven by biological, psychological, and social influences. Biologically, hunger is driven by a complex pathway involving both neurotransmitters and hormones. The sensation of hunger is controlled by the hypothalamus. Specifically, the lateral hypothalamus promotes hunger, while the ventromedial hypothalamus responds to cues that we are full and promotes satiety. Thus, damage to the lateral hypothalamus will cause a person to lose all interest in eating; meanwhile, damage to the ventromedial hypothalamus will result in obesity because the individual never feels satiated. Foraging is also impacted by genetics. Certain genes play a role in the onset of foraging behavior and the division of tasks between members of the same group. Some species forage together while others engage in solitary foraging.
Cognitive skills play a role in the success of both solitary and group foraging. These skills include spatial awareness, memory, and decision making. In species that forage as a group, foraging is primarily a learned behavior. Young individuals learn through observation how to find and consume food and determine what is safe to eat, as shown in Figure 10.3. Animals also learn how to hunt by watching others. Some animals, such as wolves, hunt in packs that have strict rules regarding the order in which individuals are allowed to eat after a successful hunt.
A mating system describes the organization of a group’s sexual behavior. Mating systems seen among animals include monogamy, polygamy, and promiscuity. Monogamy refers to an exclusive mating relationship. Polygamy involves a male having exclusive relationships with multiple females (polygyny) or a female having exclusive relationships with multiple males (polyandry). Promiscuity refers to a member of one sex mating with any member of the opposite sex, without exclusivity. In most animal species, there is one dominant mating system; however, humans exhibit more flexibility. In humans, mating behavior is highly influenced by both biological and social factors. Humans also differ from animals by having formal relationships to correspond with mate choice. Mating may or may not be associated with these social relationships, such as marriage or dating.
Direct benefits provide advantages to the mate. Indirect benefits provide advantages to offspring.
Mate choice, or intersexual selection, is the selection of a mate based on attraction. Mate bias refers to how choosy members of the species are while choosing a mate. This bias is an evolutionary mechanism aimed at increasing the fitness of the species. It may carry direct benefits by providing material advantages, protection, or emotional support, or indirect benefits by promoting better survival in offspring.
There are five recognized mechanisms of mate choice:
Altruism is a form of helping behavior in which the person’s intent is to benefit someone else at some cost to him- or herself. Helping behavior can be motivated by selflessness, but can also be motivated by egoism or ulterior motives, such as public recognition. Empathy is the ability to vicariously experience the emotions of another, and it is thought by some social psychologists to be a strong influence on helping behavior. The empathy–altruism hypothesis is one explanation for the relationship between empathy and helping behavior. According to this theory, one individual helps another person when he or she feels empathy for the other person, regardless of the cost. This theory has been heavily debated, and more recent conceptions of altruism posit that an individual will help another person only when the benefits outweigh the costs for the individual.
Game theory attempts to explain decision-making behavior. The theory was originally used in economics and mathematics to predict interaction based on game characteristics, including strategy, winning and losing, rewards and punishments, and profits and cost. A game is defined by its players, the information and actions available to each player at decision points, and the payoffs associated with each outcome.
In the context of biology, game payoffs refer to fitness. Game theorists studying sex ratios in various species developed the concept of the evolutionary stable strategy (ESS). When an ESS is adopted by a given population in a specific environment, natural selection will prevent alternative strategies from arising. The strategies are thus inherited traits passed along with the population, with the object of the game being becoming more fit than competitors.
One of the classic evolutionary games is the Hawk–Dove game. The game focuses on access to shared food resources. In each round, a player chooses one of two strategies: hawk or dove. The hawk exhibits a fighter strategy, displaying aggression and fighting until he wins or is injured. The dove exhibits a fight avoidance strategy, displaying aggression at first but retreating if the fight escalates. If the dove is not faced with a fight, he will attempt to share the food resources. There are three potential outcomes. If two hawks compete, one will win and one will lose. If a hawk and a dove compete, the hawk will invariably win. If two doves compete, they will share the food resources. The payoff in this case is based on both the value of the reward and the cost of fighting: If the reward is significantly larger than the cost of fighting, then hawks have an advantage. If the cost of fighting is significantly larger, doves have an advantage. There thus exists an equilibrium point where, based on the magnitude of the reward and the cost of fighting, the hawk and dove strategies can coexist as evolutionary stable strategies.
The Hawk–Dove game represents pure competition between individuals. However, social influences apply in nature and can result in four possible alternatives for competitors when dealing with strategic interactions. The four alternatives are shown in Figure 10.5 and are:
Other common strategy games, like rock–paper–scissors and chicken, can also be explained by game theory.
In evolutionary psychology, inclusive fitness is a measure of an organism’s success in the population. This is based on the number of offspring, success in supporting offspring, and the ability of the offspring to then support others. Early descriptions of evolutionary success were based solely on the number of viable offspring of an organism. However, contemporary theories take into account the benefits of certain behaviors on the population at large. For example, the existence of altruism could be supported by the observation that close relatives of an individual will share many of the same genes; thus, promoting the reproduction and survival of related or similar individuals can also lead to genetic success. Other species show examples of inclusive fitness by protecting the offspring of the group at large. By sacrificing themselves to protect the young, these organisms ensure the passing of genes to future generations. Inclusive fitness therefore promotes the idea that altruistic behavior can improve the fitness and success of a species as a whole.
Altruism creates a bit of a problem for the traditional Darwinist model of evolution. Why would an organism sacrifice its own fitness for the fitness of another? Evolutionary biologists still wrestle with this question, but inclusive fitness offers at least one potential solution.