Aviva Bannerman Middlebury College
14
Behavioral Effects of Unique Perspective Taking Methods in Mildly Aggressive Situations between Strangers Aviva Bannerman Middlebury College
description
Behavioral Effects of Unique Perspective Taking Methods in Mildly Aggressive Situations between Strangers . Aviva Bannerman Middlebury College. 4 Response Categories. Positive Voice Loyalty Negative Exit Neglect. Aggression. Zillmann’s (1988) cognitive-excitation hypothesis - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Transcript of Aviva Bannerman Middlebury College
Behavioral Effects of Unique Perspective Taking Methods
in Mildly Aggressive Situations
between Strangers
Aviva BannermanMiddlebury College
4 Response Categories• Positive– Voice– Loyalty
• Negative– Exit– Neglect
Aggression
• Zillmann’s (1988) cognitive-excitation hypothesis
• How can we inhibit aggressive responses?
Perspective Taking
Imagine-Self Imagine-Other
Taking another person’s point of view
Method
• Behavioral differences
• Hypothesis
• Participants: 87 Middlebury students
• 3 conditions
Method• Imagine-Self– Imagine how you would think, feel, and behave if you were
the other person in each story
• Imagine-Other– Imagine what the other person is thinking and feeling in each
story
• Control– Imagine how you would think, feel, and behave if something
like this really happened to you
Questionnaire
Bumped by a StrangerWhile walking down the street, a pedestrian, X,is texting on a cell phone and bumps right intoyou. Instead of apologizing, X acts like it’s yourfault. How likely are you to engage in each of thefollowing responses?
Responses• Voice: I’d gently indicate that it was X who hadn’t paid
attention but show it was all right • Loyalty: I’d let the comment pass and hope X’s anger
would soon subside
• Exit: I’d comment on X’s rudeness and keep on walking
• Neglect: I’d ignore X and keep walking
Behavioral Measure
• “Research assistant”
• 8-minute wait
• Out of time
• Survey
Results - Questionnaire
Exit Neglect Voice Loyalty0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Imagine-Self
Imagine-Other
Control
Response Type
Mea
n R
espo
nse
F(2, 83) = 2.40, p < .10
Results - Behavioral
Series10
5
10
15
20
25
30 Imagine-SelfImagine-OtherControl
Surv
eys
Ret
urne
d
ConditionX2 (2, N=81) = .22, P > .05
Discussion Points
• No differences between groups
• Neglect Finding
• Why?– Manipulation Check
• Future directions
Acknowledgments
• Professor Gurland• Committee Members– Prof. Kimble– Prof. Campbell
• Yuki Shinoda• Joanna Wood• Psychology Department• Senior Work Fund• Tara Panthi - Illustrations
