3.3 Social Psychological Explanations of Aggression

Question 1

What do the social psychological explanations of aggression suggest?

Answer 1

Any theory that argues aggression is the result of an interaction between an individuals characteristics and the features of the situation

Question 2

What is the frustration-aggression hypothesis as suggested by Dollard (1939)?

Answer 2

A theory that argues that anger, hostility and even violence are always the outcome when we are prevented from achieving our goals

Question 3

Describe the fustration-aggression hypothesis

Answer 3

• Frustration occurs when our attempts to achieve our goal are blocked by an external factor
• An aggressive drive is created, leading to aggressive thoughts/behaviour
• This removes the negative emotion catharsis
• The aggression created by frustration is satisfied reducing the drive

Question 4

What are the 3 reasons why aggression is not always expressed directly against the source of frustration?

Answer 4

• Cause of frustration may be abstract e.g economic situation
• Cause may be too powerful (may risk punishment by aggressing against it)
• Cause may be unavailable at the time

Question 5

What is the result of not being able to express aggression directly against the source of frustration?

Answer 5

The aggression is deflected/displaced onto an alternative (one that is not abstract, is weaker or available e.g inanimate object/pet)

Question 6

Describe Berkowitz’s (1989) research into the weapon effect

Answer 6

• Presence of aggressive cues in the environment make acting on it more likely
• Demonstrated weapon-effect in laboratory study
• Participants given real electric shocks by confederate, creating anger and frustration
• Participants had later opportunity to give fake shocks to confederate
• Number of shocks greater when there were two guns on the table compared to none

Question 7

Describe Geen’s (1968) research into frustration-aggression

Answer 7

• Male university students completed a jigsaw
• Frustration levels experimentally manipulated in three ways
• For some the puzzle was impossible to solve
• Others ran out of time because a confederate kept interfering
• In the third group, confederate insulted participant as they failed to solve the puzzle
• All participants later had chance to give confederate electric shocks
• Insulted participants gave strongest shocks on average, followed by the interfered group and then the impossible task
• All 3 groups selected more intense shocks than non-frustrated control group

Question 8

AO3 for frustration-aggression hypothesis

Answer 8

1. Research support: Newhall et al (2000) meta-analysis of 49 studies of displaced aggression, investigated aggression being placed on human target rather than source of frustration, frustrated participants who were provoked but unable to retaliate against source more likely to aggress against innocent party than people who were not provoked, shows frustration can lead to aggression against weaker/available target

2. Role of catharsis: aggression may not be cathartic, Bushman (2002) found participants who vented anger by repeatedly hitting punchbag become more aggressive rather than less, doing nothing was more effective than venting, central assumption of frustration-aggression link invalid

3. Frustration-aggression link: the link is complex, early research into the hypothesis makes it clear that frustration does not always lead to aggression, aggression can occur without frustration, the link is not ‘automatic’, someone who is frustrated may behave in a range of different ways, rather than being aggressive they may be helpless or determined, hypothesis is inadequate as it only accounts for some situations

Question 9

What does Bandura’s social learning theory suggest about aggression?

Answer 9

Aggression can be learned directly through mechanisms of operant conditioning involving positive and negative reinforcement and punishment

Question 10

What is the effect of direct reinforcement?

Answer 10

Direct reinforcement rewards a childs behaviour and makes it more likely that the child will repeat their aggressive behaviour

Question 11

What is observational learning?

Question 12

What is the role of vicarious reinforcement?

Answer 12

If a models aggressive behaviour is rewarded then the child learns aggression is effective (makes it more likely observing child will imitate aggressive models behaviour)

Question 13

Whatare the 4 cognitive conditions suggested by Bandura needed for social learning?

Answer 13

- Attention: observer pays attention to models aggressive actions
- Retention: observer remembers aggressive actions
- Reproduction: observer transforms mental representation of aggressive behaviour into physical action
- Motivation: observer needs a reason to imitate behaviour, depends on expectations of aggression

Question 14

What is self-efficacy?

Answer 14

The extent to which we believe our actions will achieve a desire goal

Question 15

Describe the role of self-efficacy in aggression

Answer 15

• A child’s confidence in their ability to be aggressive grows as they learn it can bring rewards
• They notice they have the necessary motor skills to be aggressive
• A child’s sense of self-efficacy develops with each successful outcome
• They become confident that as it has been effective in the past, it will continue to be in the future

Question 16

Describe Bandura et al’s research (1961) into social learning theory

Answer 16

• Young children observed adult model assaulting inflatable ‘bobo doll’
• This included throwing, kicking and hitting it with a mallet as well as verbal outbursts
• A short period followed where children could not play with attractive toys, creating frustration
• Without instruction, many children imitated behaviour they had seen performed (physically and verbally)
• In some cases, the imitation was a direct copy of the observation
• Boys imitated physical aggression more than girls
• In control group where children viewed adult behaving non-aggressively, aggression was non-existent

Question 17

AO3 for social learning theory in aggression

Answer 17

1. Research support: Poulin and Boivin (2000) found aggressive boys aged 9-12 formed friendships with other aggressive boys, friendships mutually reinforced each boys aggression through modelling, boys would observe each other using proactive aggression which provides reinforcement, frequently exposed to models of physical aggression and its positive consequences, boys also gain reinforcement from rewarding approval of rest of the ‘gang’

2. Real-world application: SLT can reduce aggression, children readily imitate models when they observe them being rewarded for any behaviour especially when they identify, aggression can be reduced by providing rewarded non-aggressive models e.g media/tv characters, gives more opportunities to model non-aggressive behaviour, SLT offers practical steps to reduce aggression

3. Biological influences: SLT underestimates influence of biological factors, Bandura unclear that form of aggression is primarily learned and outcome of nurture, well established that there are powerful genetic, evolutionary and hormonal influences on aggression, SLT barely acknowledges or explains them, SLT incomplete explanation as it underplays role of biology

Question 18

What is de-individuation?

Answer 18

A psychological state in which an individual loses their personal identity and takes on the identity of a social group

Question 19

What is the difference between individuated and de-individuated states as suggested by Zimbardo (1969)?

Answer 19

- Individuated state: behaviour is rational and normative
- De-individuated state: emotional, impulsive, irrational, anti-normative

Question 20

What is the role of self-awareness in aggression and the 2 types?

Answer 20

• Reduced self-awareness as a part of de-individuation creates greater likelihood of aggression

1. Private self-awareness: concerns how we pay attention to our own feelings and behaviour (when part of a crowd we pay less attention to our own beliefs/feelings)
2. Public self-awareness: how much we care about what other people think of our behaviour (no longer care how other people see us so we become less accountable for our aggression)

Question 21

Describe the research into de-individuation by Dodd (1985)

Answer 21

• 229 undergraduate students asked ‘If you could do anything humanly possible without detection or responsibility, what would you do?’
• The students knew their responses would be anonymous
• 3 independent raters unaware of hypothesis ranked responses into catagories of antisocial behaviour
• Found 36% of responses involved a form of antisocial behaviour
• 26% were criminal acts e.g stealing
• A few students opted for murder, rape or assassination
• 9% were prosocial behaviours e.g helping others

Question 22

AO3 for de-individuation

Answer 22

1. Research support: Douglas and McGarty (2001) looked at aggressive online behaviour in chatrooms and instant messages, found strong correlation between anonymity and hostile messages, found most aggressive messages sent by those who hid real identities, this behaviour has been implicated in cases of self-harm/suicide, supports link between anonymity and aggression a key element of de-individuation

2. Real-world de-individuation: can explain the behaviour of ‘baiting crowds’, Mann (1981) investigated suicidal jumpers, identified 21 cases reported in US newspaper of crowd gathering to encourage a person to jump, these incidents tended to happen in dark, large crowds, these were conditions predicted to lead to a state of de-individuation, suggests a validity to the hypothesis

3. Role of norms: de-individuated behaviour is normative rather than anti-normative, the theory states we behave in ways contrary to norms and we are less aware of our private identity, Spears and Lea (1992) de-individuation leads to behaviour that conforms to group norms, happens because anonymity shifts attention from private identity to social identity as group member, those in de-individuated state remain sensitive rather than ignorant to norms

Question 23

Describe the effect of crowd behaviour on aggression

Answer 23

• We lose our senses of individual self identity and responsibility for our behaviour
• Responsibility becomes shared throughout the crowd so less personal guilt about harmful aggression is experienced

Question 24

How does de-individuation promote aggression?

Answer 24

• The conditions of de-individuation which promote aggressive behaviour include: darkness, drugs, alcohol, masks
• Less fear of retribution as we are a small and unidentifiable part of a faceless crowd (anonymity)