What is the social learning theory about aggression? 4
- We learn aggressive behaviour by observing models who we identify with. This can also be through vicarious reinforcement.
- Children create mental representations (expectancies) of future outcomes depending on behaviour. This then means that they make a ‘script’ which becomes internalised.
- Maintenance can be through direct reinforcement (rewards and punishments)
- Children also create a high level of self efficiency (confidence) if they successfully carry out aggressive behaviour.
What is the key study linked to social learning theory?
Banduras 1961 bobo doll study.
Evaluation of social learning theory linking to aggression?
+ Research support - Gee and Leith 2007 ice hockey players.
+ can explain inconsistences in aggression - explains a person only being aggressive in certain situations
+ lead to real world influences on parenting - Weymouth and Howe 2011 found parents were better in positive parenting after course
+ can account for cultural differences - !Kung San tribe.
- methodological issues with bobo study - lack of realism (bobo doll is not real and won’t retaliate, made to be hit).
- ignores biological factors.
What is de-individuation and how does it increase aggression?
Gustave Le Bon 1952 - individual is transformed when part of a crowd, creates a ‘collective mind’ - means that individual can act in ways that goes against their social norms because they are more anonymous and acting as a group.
- Zimbardo developed idea - happens in large crowds as it gives people a ‘cloak of anonymity’.
Being anonymous reduces inner restraints and minimises concern about evaluation by others.
What is the research on de-individuation?
Zimbardo’s 1972 Standford Prison Experiment study.
Zhong 2010 found that wearing mirrored sunglasses makes people feel greater anonymity, which increase de-individuation.
Evaluation of de-individuation?
+ real world application - Mann 1981 ‘baiting the crowd’ was more when crowd was large, building was far away and at night. - KKK lynching’s (Mullen 1986) .
+ research support - Rehm 1987 coloured t shirts.
+ cultural difference - Watson 1973 warriors.
- inconclusive support - Postmes and Spears 1998 meta analysis - actually increases people’s responsiveness to situational norms (pro social)
- individual differences more important - not all groups in uniforms turn violent.
What is the situational explanation for institutional aggression?
Aggression is the result of the stressful and oppressive conditions of the prison itself (Paterline and Peterson 1999)
Cooke 2008 said that violent prisoners are only violent in certain circumstances such as:
- Overcrowding (Yuma 2010 prison population density)
- Heat and noise (Griffit and Veitch 1971)
- Job burnout (Maslach 2001, deterioration of relationship with inmates).
What is the dispositional explanation for institutional aggression?
- Inmates bring with them to prison their violent pasts and draw on their experiences where toughness and physical exploitation are survival skills. (Irwin and Cressey 1962) - code of the street
- Gang membership is shown to increase violence - Drury and DeLisi 2011, those in gangs prior are more likely to commit offences in prisons.
- Other dispositional characteristics include:
- Anger, anti - social style and impulsivity - Wang and Diamond, anger best predictor.
- Low self-control - DeLisi 2003, short temper.
Evaluation of explanations of institutional aggression?
Dispositional:
+ research support - Mears 2013 code of street affects inmate violence (particularly those who lack family support or previously in gangs)
- challenges to gang membership - DeLisi, gang members no more likely to commit offences. - more isolated (Fischer 2001 - isolating them reduces assault rates by 50%).
Situational:
+ research support - McCorkle 1995 situational factors influences violence.
+ real world application - HMP Woodhill early 1990’s, David Wilson suggested reducing noise, heat and overcrowding - violence reduced.
- challenges - Harer and Steffensmeier 1996, race, age, criminal history only important factors.
What are the media influences on aggression? Violent films and TV (3) and violent video games (2) evidence?
Violent films and TV evidence:
- Bjorkqvist 1985 experiment - watching violence = increased aggression (Finnish children)
- Huesmann 2003 longitudinal study - early TV exposure was predictive of aggression in later life.
- Long term effects greater for children than adults and visa versa (Bushman and Huesmann 2003)
Violent computer games: interactivity can lead to even more aggression (operant conditioning)
- Anderson and Dill 2000 found that people were more aggressive after playing violent video game.
- Adachi and Willoughby 2013 - aggression may be due to competitiveness of video games.
What is the key study around media influences on aggression?
Greitemeyer and Mugge 2014 - meta analysis
Violent video games increased violence and decreased pro - social but pro - social games showed reduction in aggressive behaviour and increase in cooperativeness.
Evaluation of media influences on aggression?
- overstates influence - Ferguson and Kilburn 2009 when aggression is towards another person or violent crime - relationship is close to zero.
- too simplistic answer - actually complex
- Ignores other variables - Ferguson 2009 meta analysis - traits, family violence, mental health more important.
- problems with research - cannot measure real life aggression, extraneous variables, ignores long term effects
- game difficulty rather than content - Przybylski 2014, failure and frustration.
What are the explanations of media influences?
Desensitisation - the more violence watched, then more normal it becomes - removes anxiety around it
Disinhibition - media violence changes the standards of acceptable behaviour and legitimises it.
Cognitive priming - refers to a temporary increase in the accessibility of thoughts and ideas which are activated when watching violence.
Evaluation of explanations of media influence?
Desensitisation:
+ research support - Carnagey 2007, more exposure to violent video game, reduced anxiety about watching violence.
- Bushman and Anderson - being ‘numb’ to violence is bad for society.
Disinhibition:
- depends on other factors - social factors play role, Heath 1989, family attitudes.
- consequences make violence more likely - Goranson 1969 boxing match consequences.
Cognitive priming;
+ research support - Bushman 1998, aggressive words.
- less likely with less realistic media - Atkin 1983, game realism.
What are the neural influences on aggression? Limbic system and neurotransmitters?
Limbic system help coordinate behaviours which satisfy motivational and emotional needs and fear - key structures associated with aggression is:
- The amygdala - responsible for quickly evaluating sensory information and how to respond
- The hippocampus - involved in formation of long term memories, so allows to compare conditions of current threat with past experiences.
Serotonin - low levels means less control over impulsive and aggressive behaviour. (Mann 1990 depleted serotonin in males led to more aggression.
Dopamine - high levels lead to aggression.
What are the hormonal influences on aggression?
Testosterone produces male characteristics such as aggression.
Sapolsky 1998 removing source of testosterone in species resulted in lower levels of aggression.
Evaluation of neural and hormonal influences?
+ evidence for role of amygdala - - Kluver and Bucy 1937, destruction of amygdala in a dominant monkey led to him loosing place in group.
+ evidence for role of hippocampus - Boccardi 2010 found violent inmates showed abnormalities of hippocampus.
- animal studies reductionist.
- inconsistent evidence - no correlation found between testosterone levels and aggression.
- aggression or dominance - Mazur 1985.
What are the genetic factors in aggression? Twin and adoption studies?
– Twin studies: MZ and DZ twins.
Coccaro (1997) - studied adult twins and found that 50% concordance rate in MZ twins.
– Adoption studies: nature vs nuture.
Hutchings and Mednick (1975) - studied 14,000 adoptions in Denmark and found that those who had criminal convictions, also had a biological father with violent convictions.
What is the ‘MAOA’ gene? Evidence?
Known as aggression gene - however a protein, not a gene.
It regulates serotonin which is associated with aggressive behaviour.
– Caspi (2002) - variant of gene: MAOA-H (high levels) and MAOA-L (low levels) and found that those with MAOA-L were more likely to show anti-social behaviour BUT only if they had been maltreated as a child.
Evaluation of genetic factors?
- sampling problems - convicted crimes are relatively few compared to violence that goes unreported (small minority)
- difficulties determining role of genetics - not just one gene, environmental factors (may interact with each other - Caspi)
+ evidence for influence of MAOA - Tiihonen (2015) Finnish prisoners, MAOA-L and another gene created extreme aggression.
+ MAOA able to explain gender differences - Niehoff (2014) differential vulnerability, MAOA comes from X chromosome so women are less affected.
What is the ethological explanation of aggression? 2
STUDIES ANIMAL KINGDOM.
Function of aggression is adaptive to survive.
– Ritualistic aggression = not all aggressive behaviour involves fighting but threat displays (to make opponent back down as killing each other would eventually lead to extinction. e.g. gorillas, wolves.
– Innate release mechanisms (IRM) are innate structures that can be triggered by the environment which create fixed action patterns (FAP)
What are the characteristics of FAP? 5
Lea (1984).
- Stereotyped: always the same.
- Universal: same behaviour is all members of that species.
- Independent of individual experience: innate, no learning.
- Ballistic: once triggered, cannot be stopped.
- Specific triggers: only occurs in certain situation with specific trigger.
What are the key studies with the ethological explanation? 2
- Wolves and Doves (Lorenz 1952).
Wolves have the weapons with instinct not to use them against own species but doves have not got weapons but don’t have instincts not to fight own kind. – humans are like doves however technology has caught up (have weapons with no instincts). - Male stickleback fish (Tinbergen 1951). IRM and FAP.
Male sticklebacks very territorial - also attacked fake fish which had a red spot, regardless of whether the fish looked real.
Evaluation of ethological explanation?
+ supporting research - biological/genetic factors support this idea.
- can’t explain cultural differences - Nisbett (1993), southern American males more aggressive than Northern males.
- evidence against ritualistic behaviour - Goodall (2010) chimpanzees.
- FAP’s not always fixed - more influence on environment (duration of each patterns varies between encounters).
- can’t generalise to human - no studies on mammals.
