Aggression Flashcards
Neural and hormonal influences
EVIDENCE FOR THE ROLE OF THE AMYGDALA IN AGGRESSION: Pardini et al (2014) found thar reduced amygdala volume can predict the development of severe and persistent aggression. They carried out a longitudinal study of male participants from childhood to adulthood. Some 56 of the participants with varying histories of violence were subjected to a brain MRI at age 26. The results showed that participants with lower amygdala volumes exhibited higher levels of aggression and violence. The relationship between amygdala volume and aggressive behaviour remained even after confounding variables were controlled. This suggests that the amygdala plays an important role in evaluating the emotional importance of sensory information and that lower amygdala volume compromises this ability and makes a violent response more likely.
EVIDENCE FOR THE ROLE OF THE HIPPOCAMPUS IN AGGRESSION: Raine et al (2004) provided support for the role of the hippocampus in aggressive behaviour in their study of violent offenders. They studied two groups of violent criminals: some who had faced conviction (‘unsuccessful psychopaths’ as they had been caught) and some who had evaded the law (‘successful psychopaths’). The latter group were considered to be ‘cold, calculating’ criminals, whereas the former group had acted more impulsively, which is why they were caught. MRI scans revealed asymmetries in the hippocampus (part of the limbic system) in the ‘unsuccessful’ group. The hippocampus in either hemisphere of the brain in these individuals differed in size, an imbalance presumed to have arisen early in brain development. The researchers suggested this asymmetry might impair the ability of the hippocampus and the amygdala to work together, so that emotional information is not processed correctly, leading to inappropriate verbal and physical responses as a result.
RESEARCH SUPPORT FOR THE SEROTONIN DEFICIENCY HYPOTHESIS: Duke et al (2013) provided support for the serotonin deficiency hypothesis as an explanation for aggressive behaviour in human beings. They carried out a meta-analysis of 175 studies, involving 6500 participants. This analysis found a small inverse relationship between serotonin levels and aggression, anger and hostility. They also found that the magnitude of the relationship varied with the methods used to assess stereopticon in functioning, with year of publication (effect sizes tended to diminish with time) and with self-reported versus other-reported aggression. Only other reported aggression was positively correlated to serotonin functioning. This suggests that the relationship between serotonin and aggression is more complex than originally thought.
EVIDENCE FROM STUDIES OF NON-HUMAN SPECIES: Raleigh et al (1991) found that vervet monkeys fed on experimental diets high in tryptophan (which increases serotonin levels in the brain) exhibited decreased levels of aggression. Individuals fed on diets that were low In tryptophan exhibited increased aggressive behaviour. Rosado et al (2010) compared a sample of 80 dogs of various breeds that had been referred to Spanish veterinary hospitals for their aggressive behaviour towards humans with a control sample of 19 dogs of various breeds that did not show such aggressive behaviour. The aggressive dogs averaged 278 units of serotonin, while the non-aggressive dogs averaged 387 units. The findings of these two studies suggest that the different levels of aggression found could be attributed to the animals’ serotonin levels.
INCONSISTENT EVIDENCE: despite many studies showing a positive relationship between testosterone and aggression, other studies find no such relationship. For example, positive correlations have been reported between levels of testosterone and self-reported levels of aggression among person inmates (Albert et al 1994) and between testosterone levels and the likelihood of responding aggressively to provocation (olweus et al 1988). On the other hand, no correlation was found between testosterone levels and actual violent behaviour among male inmates in prison. This suggests that the relationship between testosterone and aggression in human remains unclear.
AGGRESSION OR DOMINANCE?: Mazur (1985) suggests that we should distinguish between aggression and dominance. Individuals act aggressively when their intent is to inflict injury, whereas they act dominantly if their wish is to achieve or maintain status over another individual. Mazur claims that aggression is just one form of dominance behaviour. In non-human animals the influence of testosterone on dominance behaviour might be shown through aggressive behaviour. In humans, however the influence of testosterone on dominance is likely to be expressed in more varied and subtle ways (e.go through status-striving behaviour). For example, Eisenegger et al (2011) found that testosterone could make women act ‘nicer’ rather than more aggressively depending on the situation. This lends support to the idea that, rather than directly increasing aggression, testosterone promotes status-seeking behaviour, of which aggression is one type.
Genetic factors influencing aggression
PROBLEMS OF SAMPLING: many studies in this area have focused exclusively on individuals convicted of violent crime. Two difficulties arise when trying to draw meaningful conclusions from these studies. The first problem lies with the participant themselves. Convictions for violent crime are relatively few compared to the vast number of violent attacks by individuals that never result in a conviction. They therefore represent just a small minority of those regularly involved in aggressive behaviour. Second, contrary to popular belief, offenders designated as ‘violent’ on the basis of a court conviction are not necessarily the most serious, persistent offenders. For example, a convicted murderer would be designated as violent for one offence despite, perhaps, having otherwise had a lifetime free from crime. This might explain why so many studies have found little or no evidence or heritability for violence.
DIFFICULTIES OF DETERMINING THE ROLE OF GENETIC FACTORS: it is difficult to establish genetic contributions to aggressive behaviour for the following reasons: more than one gene usually contributes to a given behaviour, as well as genetic factors there are many non-genetic (i.e environmental) influences on the manifestation of aggressive behaviour. These influences may interact with each other. Genetic factors may affect which environmental factors have an influence, and vice versa (gene-environment interaction). This last point is demonstrated in the study by Caspi et al (2002) and highlights the problem of identifying the specific contribution of genetic factors to aggressive behaviour.
PROBLEMS OF ASSESSING AGGRESSION: many studies of aggression have relied on either parental or self-reports of aggressive behaviour, whereas other studies have used observational techniques. In the Miles and Carey meta-analysis reported on the facing page, mode of assessment was found to be significant moderator or aggressive behaviour in the 24 studies analysed. They found that genetic factors explained a large proportion of the variance in aggressive behaviour in studies that had used parental or self-reports. However, those that had made use of observational ratings showed significantly less genetic contribution and a greater influence of environmental factors. These inconsistencies in findings make it difficult to accurately assess the relative contributions of genetic and environmental factors in aggression.
EVIDENCE FOR THE INFLUENCE OF THE MAOA GENE: in many countries, majority of all violent crime is committed by a small group of persistent offenders. A recent study in Finland has added research support that the MAOA gene is implicated in severe violent behaviours such as murder. Tilhoen et al (2015) studied Finnish prisoners, revealing that the MAOA low-activity genotype (MAOA-L) in combination with another gene (the CDH13 gene) was associated with extremely violent behaviour. There was no substantial evidence for either of these genes among non-violent offenders, indicating that this combination of genes was specific for violent offendingas mor only. However, critics argue that although these genes may make it harder for som people to control violent urges, they do not predetermine violent behaviour.
THE MAOA GENE MIGHT EXPLAIN GENDER DIFFERENCES IN AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOUR: an advantage of MAOA gene research is that it offers an explanation for the uneven rates of violence for males and females. Niehoff (2014) suggests this may be a consequence of the differential genetic vulnerability that males and females have to the MAOA gene. This gene is linked to the X chromosome. Women have 2 X chromosome, whereas men only have one. When men inherit an X-linked gene from their mothers, they are more likely to be affected by it, whereas women inheriting the same gene are generally unaffected (as they also have a second X chromosome with a ‘normal’ gene for MAOA that prevents expression of the abnormal version of the MAOA gene). This could explain why males typically show more aggressive behaviour than females.
Ethnological explanations of aggression
CRITICISMS OF AN ‘INSTINCTIVE’ VIEW OF AGGRESSION: Lehrman (1953) criticised Lorenz’s instinctual explanation of aggressive behaviour. Lehrman believed Lorenz had underestimated the role of environmental factors in the development of species-typical aggressive behaviour patterns. These environmental factors, largely the result of learning and experience, interact with innate factors in complex ways. Nowadays, the term ‘fixed action pattern’ tends not to be used within ethology and has been replaced by the term ‘behaviour pattern’ to reflect the fact that these are not simply innate and can be modified by experience. As there are subtle variations between members of the same species in the production of aggressive behaviours, this suggests that pattern of aggressive behaviour are not as fixed as Lorenz claimed.
DO HUMANS HAVE FIXED ACTION PATTERNS FOR AGGRESSION?: because the environment in which humans exist changes so rapidly, Eibl-Eibesfeldt suggests FAPs such as aggression are no longer adaptive in modern times. The flexibility of human behaviour and the ability to respond to an ever-changing environment has proved more effective than the production of stereotypical, fixed patterns of behaviour. This suggests that, although non-human species may respond aggressively to specific sign stimuli, human behaviour is far more varied and less predictable.
A PROBLEM FOR THE HYDRAULIC MODEL: a problem for the hydraulic model was the issue of feedback. Lorenz’s argument was challenged by the work of Von Holst (1954). Lorenz believed that when levels of ASE reached a critical point, this would lead to performance of an FAP (the aggressive action). This would then lead to a reduction in biological energy and a corresponding reduction in the likelihood of aggressive behaviour. However, Von Holst showed that the performance of an aggressive behaviour could itself provide a further stimulus, which, rather than reducing the likelihood of further aggressive behaviour, made it more likely.
THE BENEFITS OF RITUALISED AGGRESSION: in non-human species, the main advantage of ritualised aggression is that it prevents conflicts escalating into potentially dangerous physical aggression. Anthropological evidence suggests this advantage is also evident in human cultures. Chagnon (1992) describes how among the Yanomamo people of South America, chest pounding and club fighting contests can settle a conflict short of more extreme violence. Similarly, Hoebel (1967) found that, among inuit Eskimos, song duels are used to settle grudges and disputes. This shows that, even in moderately to high violent cultures such as the Yanomamo rituals have the effect of reducing actual aggression and preventing injury, to or death of, the combatants.
KILLING CONSPECIFICS IS NOT THAT RARE: a problem for the ethnological explanation of aggression concerns the claim that predator species must also have instinctive inhibitions that prevent them using their natural weapons against members of their own species. The argument that among such species the killing of members of the same species would occur only by accident is not borne out by evidence on animal behaviour. In some predator species, the killing of conspecifics is more systematic than accidental. For example, male lions will kill off the cubs of other males, and males chimpanzees will routinely kill members of another group. These findings pose a challenge for the ethnological explanation of aggression as they cast doubt on the claim that much of animal aggression is ritualistic rather than real.
Evolutionary explanations of human aggression
GENDER DIFFERENCES IN AGGRESSION MAY BE BETTER EXPLAINED BY SOCIALISATION: Prinz (2012) argues that differences in the aggressive behaviour of males and females may also be the product of different socialisation experiences. Smetana (1989) found that parents are more likely to physically punish boys for bad conduct, whereas when girls misbehave parents tend to explain to them why their actions were wrong. This, suggests Prinz, could increase male physical violence. As girls learn they are less powerful than boys they may adopt social forms of aggression (e.g behaviours designed to harm another person’s social status or self-esteem) rather than physical aggression. This casts doubt on the claim that males alone have evolved aggression as a way of dealing with rivals, as females have simply developed a different form of aggressive behaviour.
AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOUR MAY NOT ALWAYS BE ADAPTIVE: one problem with seeing aggressive behaviour as being an effective way to meet the challenges of social living is that violent or aggressive behaviour can result in social ostracism, injury or even death in extreme cases. For example, violent males might be rejected as mates and warriors might die in battle, therefore aggression might be considered more maladaptive than adaptive in some cases. However, Duntley and Buss (2004) point out that the benefits of aggression must only have outweighed the costs on average relative to other strategies in the evolutionary past. If this is the case, then natural selection will favour the evolution of aggressive behaviours, eventually making them fundamental components of human nature.
SUPPORT FOR THE LINK BETWEEN AGGRESSION AND STATUS: the claim that increased aggression confers great status is supported by anthropological evidence that many tribal societies bestow increased status and honour to men who have committed murder (daly and Wilson 1988). This phenomenon is also evident in industrialised societies such as the United States, where the most violent gang members often have the highest status among their peers (Campbell, 1993). Males also display a heightened sensitivity to perceived affronts to their status and reputation, such as that many acts of male-on-male violence result from one male perceiving a slight to his status from another male (Buss, 2005). This suggests that not only is aggression an important way of gaining status among males, but it is also a consequence of threats to that status.
GENDER BIAS: evolutionary explanations for aggression in warfare demonstrate a gender bias as they do not adequately reflect the behaviour of women in this process. Adams (1983) claimed that the idea of the woman warrior is almost unheard of within most societies. Even within those societies that allow women to participate in war, they are always the rare exception. Women would have considerably less to gain from fighting in near-certain-death situations and considerably more to lose (in terms of loss of their reproductive capacity). This is fundamental to women’s exclusion from warfare as women simply do not increase their fitness as much as men do. Our understanding of the physical aggressive displays typically found in warfare, is limited to the behaviour of males rather than females.
LIMITATIONS: explanations of aggression that are based on mating success, sexual jealousy, or the acquisition of status in warfare fail to explain the astonishing levels of cruelty that are often found in human conflicts yet are not evident among non-human species. For example, they do not explain the wide scale slaughter of whole groups, as was evident in the Rwandan genocide in 1994. Nor do they tell us why humans torture or mutilate their opponents when they have already been defeated and no longer pose a threat. Anthropological evidence (e.g Watson 1973) suggests this may be a consequence of de-individuation effects than of evolutionary adaptations.
The frustration- aggression hypothesis
AGGRESSION IS NOT AN AUTOMATIC CONSEQUENCE OF FRUSTRATION: social learning theorists (e.g Bandura 1973) have argued that aggressive behaviour is only one possible response to frustration. They claim that frustration produces only generalised arousal in the individual and that social learning determines how that arousal will influence an individual’s behaviour. An individual may respond to frustration by engaging in aggressive behaviour if it has been effective for them before (e.g direct conditioning) or if they have observed it being effective in others (i.e social learning). This alternative view states that rather than frustration always leading to some form of aggression, as claimed by the frustration-aggression hypothesis, an individual learns to produce aggressive actions and also learns the circumstances under which they are likely to be successful.
LACK OF RESEARCH SUPPORT FOR THE CENTRAL CLAIMS: early critics of the frustration-aggression hypothesis claimed that many of the predictions made by Dollard et al simply had no support, either in research or in real life. The concept of catharsis, for example, that aggression reduces arousal so that people are less likely to be aggressive, has not been supported by research. Some researchers (e.g Bushman 2002) have found that behaving aggressively is likely to lead to more aggression in the future. Bushman found aggressive behaviour kept aggressive thoughts and angry feelings active in memory and made people more angry and more aggressive. Bushman’s research directly contradicts the claim that catharsis reduces aggression.
NOT ALL AGGRESSION ARISES FROM FRUSTRATION: a problem for the frustration-aggression hypothesis is that not all aggression arises from frustration. Frustration is only one of a large number of aversive events (others include pain, extreme temperatures and other noxious stimuli) that can lead to aggression. In a study of baseball games in the US, Reifman et al (1991) found that, as temperatures increased, so did the likelihood that pitchers would display aggressive behaviour towards the batters, with balls often thrown at 90mph direct at the batter’s head. This doers, however, offer some support for the revised frustration-aggression hypothesis in that extreme temperatures, as with frustration, are aversive stimuli that tend to make people angry, which in turn increases the likelihood of aggression.
REAL-WORLD APPLICATION: FRUSTRATION AND MASS KILLINGS: Staub (1996) suggests that mass killings are often rooted in the frustration caused by social and economic difficulties within a society. These frustrations typically lead to scapegoating (e.g finding someone to blame) and then discrimination and aggression against this group. Following WW1, many Germans blamed the Jews for both the loss of the war and the severe economic problems that followed. Although ordinary Germans were not directly responsible for the subsequent murders, some historians (e,g Goldhagen 1996) have argued that they condoned the violence towards Jews, seeing them as being responsible for Germany’s plight. This shows that the widespread frustration, particularly when skilfully manipulated by a propaganda machine, can have violent consequences for a scapegoated group.
REAL-WORLD APPLICATION: SPORTS VIOLENCE: Priks (2010) found supporting evidence for the frustration aggression hypothesis in a study of violent behaviour among Swedish football fans. He used teams’ changed position in the league as a measure of frustration and the number of objects (missiles, fireworks etc) thrown as a measure of aggression. The study showed that, when a team performed worse than their fans expected, its supporters threw more things onto the pitch. A one-position drop in the league led to a 5% increase in such unruly behaviour. Priks also found that supporters were more likely to fight with opposition supporters when the team performed worse than expected. These findings suggest that supporters become more aggressive when expectations of good performances are frustrated, thus supporting the frustration-aggression hypothesis.
Social learning theory
LACK OF REALISM IN RESEARCH: early research on social learning relied heavily on the sort of experimental study carried out by Bandura et all, described opposite. However, these are significant methodological problems with the Bobo doll studies. A doll is not a living person and does not retaliate when hit. This raises the question whether these studies tell us much about the imitation of aggression towards other human beings (who of course may well retaliate). Bandura responded to this criticism by having children watch a film of an adult model hitting a live clown. The children later proceeded to imitate the same aggressive behaviours they had seen in the film, suggesting the imitation of aggressive behaviour is also likely towards other human beings.
RESEARCH SUPPORT FOR SOCIAL LEARNING THEORY: Gee and Leith (2007) carried out a study of ice hockey players supporting SLT. They analysed penalty records from 200 games o the National Hockey League, North America’s main ice hockey league, including top players from many different counties. Gee and Leith believed that players born in North America would have been exposed to more aggressive models on TV when young and less likely to have been punished for their aggressive play compared to players born in Europe. In line with these beliefs, and the predictions of SLT, Gee and Leith found that players born in North America were much more likely to be penalised for aggressive play and fighting than players born in other countries.
EXPLAINING INCONSISTENCIES IN AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOUR: a strength of this theory is that it can explain inconsistencies in an individual’s use of aggressive behaviour. For example, a young male may behave aggressively when out with friends, but not respond in the same way when at school or work. SLT would explain this difference in terms of the consequences of acting aggressively in the two situations. When out with friends, acts of aggression may be more likely to receive positive consequences (e.g status, encouragement), whereas positive consequences for aggressive behaviour would be less likely at school or at work. Therefore, the expectation of consequences in each situation determines the likelihood of aggression being used. As a result, this means we can predict whether or not aggression is likely in a particular situation by knowing its likely consequences.
CULTURAL DIFFERENCES IN AGGRESSION: SLT can be used to explain cultural differences in aggression. Among the !Kung San of the Kalahari desert, aggression is comparatively rare. This is, in part, due to their child-rearing practises. When the children argue of fight, parents neither reward nor punish them, but physically separate them and try to distract their attention on to other things. Parents do not use physical punishment, and aggressive postures are avoided by adults and devalued by the society as a whole. Consequently, the absence of direct reinforcement of aggressive behaviour and the absence of aggressive models mean there is little opportunity or motivation for the !Kung San Children to acquire aggressive behaviours through social learning.
THE CONSEQUENCES OF SOCIAL LEARNING: the belief that aggressive behaviour can be learned through social learning has raised concerns about the widespread availability of aggressive models in young people’s lives. The American Psychological Association (APA) believes that if aggression can be learned in this way, then it can also be modified. ACT against violence is an intervention programme sponsored by the APA that aims to educate parents and others about the dangers of providing aggressive role models and to encourage parents to provide more positive role models instead. Weymouth and Howe (2011) found that after competing the programme, parents demonstrated increases in positive parenting and discontinuation of physical punishment, thus showing that the power of social learning can be used to decrease aggressive behaviour.
De-individuation
GENDER DIFFERENCES: Cannavale et al (1970) found that male and female groups responded differently under de-individuation conditions. An increase in aggression was obtained only in all male groups and not in all female groups. This was also the finding of Diener et al (1973) who found greater disinhibition of aggression (i.e removal of normal inhibitions that prevent aggression) in de-Individuated males than in de-individuated females. One possible reason for these gender differences is that males tend to respond to provocation in more extreme ways than do females and these tendencies are magnified under de-individual ion conditions (Eagly, 2013)
ANNONYMITY AND DE-INDIVIDUATION: Rehm et al (1987) found support for Zimbardo’s de-individuation concept through an investigation of the effect of increased anonymity on aggressive behaviour in sport. They observed 30 games of handball in German schools. One team in each game wore the same orange shirts, while the other team wore their own different-coloured shirts. The researchers found that the uniformed teams showed significantly more aggressive acts during the game than did the teams without uniforms. The results support the claim that de-individuation through increased anonymity leads to more aggressive acts.
INCONCLUSIVE SUPPORT FOR DE-INDIVIDUATION: a meta-analysis of 60 studies of de-individual ion (Postmes and Spears, 1998) concludes that there is insufficient support for the major claims of de-individuation theory. Postmes and spears found that disinhibition and antisocial behaviour are not more common in large groups and anonymous settings. Rather, they found that de-individuation increases people’s responsiveness to situational norms, i.e what most people regard as appropriate behaviour in a given situation. This may lead to aggressive behaviour, but it could also lead to increased pro social behaviour. Spivey and Prentice-Dunn (1990) found that when prosocial environmental cues were present (such as prosocial model), de-individuate participants performed significantly more altruistic acts (giving money) and fewer antisocial acts (giving electric shocks) compared to a control group. This shows evidence for de-individual in theory is mixed and it doesn’t always lead to aggressive behaviour.
REAL-WORLD APPLICATION: THE BAITING CROWD: Mann (1981) used the concept of de-individuation to explain a bizarre aspect of collective behaviour- the ‘baiting crowd’ and suicide jumpers. Mann analysed 21 suicide leaps reported in US newspapers in the 1960s and 1970s. In 10 of the 21 cases where a crowd had gathered to watch, baiting occurred (the crows had urged the potential suicide jumper to jump). These incidents mostly occurred at night, when the crowd was large and some distance from the person being taunted (particularly when the ‘jumper’ was high above them). All these features were likely to produce a state of de-individuation in the members of the crowd. The power of the baiting crowd was also evident in an analysis of 60 lynchings in the US between 1899 and 1946 (Mullen, 1986). The more people there were in the mob, the greater the savagery with which the perpetrators killed their victims. These two studies led support to the notion of the anonymous crowd as a ‘de-individuated ‘mob’.
CULTURAL DIFFERENCES: dramatic support for the deadly influence of de-individuation comes from a study by anthropologist Robert Watson (1973). He collected data on the extent to which warriors in 23 societies changed their appearance prior to going to war and the extent to which they killed, tortured or mutated their victims. Those societies where warriors changed their appearance (e.g through war paint, tribal costumes etc) were more destructive toward their victims compared to those who did not change their appearance. The results of the study reveal a significant relationship between de-individuation and aggressive behaviour in warfare.
Institutional aggression in prisons
RESEARCH SUPPORT FOR THE IMPORTATION MODEL: this model has received some research support Mears et al (2013) tested the view that inmate behaviour stems in part from the cultural belief systems that they import with them into prison. They measured the ‘code of the street’ belief system and the prison experiences of inmates. Their results supported the argument that a ‘code of the street’ belief system affects inmate violence. This effect is particularly pronounced among those inmates who lack family support and are involved in gangs prior to incarceration. Mears et al conclude that although the ‘code of the street’ does not directly cause violent behaviour, it does call for proactive responses to perceived insults and provocations. In a prison setting this is likely to involve violence as a way of commanding respect.
CHALLENGES TO THE IMPORTATION MODEL: evidence from DeLisi et al (2004) challenges the claim that pre-prison gang membership predicts violence while in prison. They found that inmates with prior street gang involvement were no more likely than other inmates to engage in prison violence. Neither street gang nor prison gang membership significantly predicted involvement in prison violence. The lack of an association found in this study, however, can be explained by the fact that violent gang members tend to be isolated from the general inmate population, therefore greatly restricting their opportunities for violence. For example, Fischer (2001) found that isolating known gang members in a special management unit reduced the rates of serious assault by 50%.
RESEARCH SUPPORT FOR THE DEPRIVATION MODEL: there is substantial research evidence to support the claim that peer violence is a response to the deprivation experienced in institutional cultures, such as prisons. McCorkle et al (1995) in a major study of 371 US prisons, found that situational factors such as overcrowding and lack of privacy significantly influenced inmate-on-inmate assaults and inmate-on-staff assaults. Prisons in which a major percentage of the prison population involved itself in educational or vocational programmes had a lower incidence of violence against staff and inmates. This suggests that depriving inmates of meaningful activity increases the likelihood of violent behaviour, as predicted by the deprivation model.
CHALLENGES TO THE DEPRIVATION MODEL: the link between situational factors and institutional aggression is challenged by the findings of one of the most exhaustive studies of prison violence (Harer and Steffensmeier 1996). They collected data from more than 24,000 inmates from 58 prisons across the US. They included importation variables (e,g race and criminal history) and deprivation variables (e.g staff to prisoner ratio and security level) and tested which of these variables predicted the individual likelihood of aggressive behaviour while in prison. Harer and Steffensmeier concluded that race, age and criminal history were the only significant predictors of prison violence, whereas none of the deprivation variables were significant in this respect.
REAL-WORLD APPLICATION: PRISON AND THE DEPRIVATION MODEL: a real world application of the deprivation model happened at HMP Woohill in the early 1990s. Prison Governor David Wilson reasoned that if most violence occurs in environments that are hot, noisy and overcrowded, then this could be avoided by reducing these three factors. Wilson set up two units for violent prisoners that were less claustrophobic and prison like and gave a view to outside. The typical noise associated with prison life was reduced and masked by music from a local radio station. Temperature was lowered so that it was no longer stiflingly hot. These changes virtually eradicated assaults on prison staff and other inmates, providing powerful support for the claim that situational variables are the main cause of prison violence (Wilson, 2010).
Media influences on aggression
MEDIA VIOLENCE RESEARCH: some critics point out that, although many stifles claim a ‘satisitically significant’ relationship between media violence and violent behaviour, this is an overstatement of the case. Studies that have found an affect attributable to exposure to violent media have typically reported only small to medium effect sizes. However, very few of these have actually measured aggression against another person. Ferguson and Kilburn (2009) note that when aggression towards another person or violent crime is the measure of aggression used in research, the relationship between exposure to media violence and aggressive behaviour is actually close to zero.
SIMPLE QUESTIONS BUT COMPLEX ANSWERS: Livingstone (1996) claims that asking ‘does violent media increase aggressive behaviour in viewers’ appears to be a simple question, but answers are much more complex. As most studies are American, the generality of findings to counties with different media and cultural histories is problematic. Effects research has also mostly tended to use unrepresentative samples (e.g male students) and then made generalisations about all viewers. Livingstone argues that there is a need for better methodologies in more natural viewing conditions. She suggests that field experiments conducted with better experimental controls and a longer follow up period would provide the most convincing evidence.
FAILURE TO CONSIDER OTHER CAUSAL VARIABLES: many studies in this area fail to account for other variables that explain why some people display aggressive behaviour and why those same people may choose to play violent computer games. For example, Ferguson et al (2009) claims that much of the research on the effects of computer game violence has failed to control for other variables known to influence aggressive behaviour. Their meta-analysis showed that the effects of violent media content on aggressive behaviour disappears when other potential influences such as trait aggression, family violence and mental health are taken into consideration. The researchers suggest that these other risk factors, as opposed to exposure to media violence, are the primary cause of aggressive and violent behaviour.
PROBLEMS WITH RESEARCH ON THE EFFECTS OF COMPUTER GAMES: a major weakness of lab experiments in this area is that researchers cannot measure ‘real-life’ aggression. Therefore, they must use measures of aggressive behaviour that have no relationship to real life aggression and can only measure short term effects. These alternative ‘measures’ of aggressive behaviour include administering noise blasts or even hot chilli sauce to another participant, neither of which have much to do with actual aggressive behaviour. Longitudinal studies are able to observe real life patterns of behaviour and document both short and long term effects. However, a problem for most longitudinal studies in this area is that participants may be exposed to other forms of media violence (e.g on tv) during the course of the study meaning that the effect from violent video game exposure alone is uncertain.
GAME DIFFICULTY RATHER THAN CONTENT MAY LEAD TO AGGRESSION: a study by Przybylski et al (2014) suggests that aggressive behaviour may be linked to a player’s experiences of failure and frustration during a game rather than the game’s violent storyline. They found that it was not the storyline or imagery, but the lack of mastery and difficulty players had in competing the game, that led to frustration and aggression. This was evident across both violent and non-violent games. The researchers suggest that we tend to have fairly simplistic views when it comes to the link between video games and aggression, as even non-violent games can leave players feeling aggressive if they are poorly designed or too difficult.
Explanations of media influences
RESEARCH SUPPORT FOR DESENSITISATION: Carnagey et al (2007) provided evidence for the claim that playing violent computer games produces physiological desensitisation, i.e showing less physiological arousal to violence in real world after exposure to computer game violence. Participants played either a violent or non-violent video game for 20 mins and then watched a 10min film clip containing scenes of real life violence while HR and skin conductance response were monitored. Those participants who had previously played the violent computer game had a lower HR and skin conductance response while viewing the filmed real-life violence. This demonstrated a physiological desensitisation to violence as predicted by this explanation..
THE GOOD AND BAD OF DESENSITISATION: desensitisation can be adaptive for individuals. For example, for troops, desensitisation to the horrors of combat makes these individuals more effective in their role. However, desensitisation to violent stimuli may also be detrimental for both the individual and society. Bushman and Anderson (2009) suggest that there are worrying consequences when individuals are desensitised to violence after exposure to violent media. They found violent media exposure can reduce helping behaviour that might otherwise be offered to others in distress. This suggests that people exposed to media violence become ‘comfortably numb’ to the pain and suffering of others and are consequently less helpful.
THE DISINHIBITION EFFECT DEPENDS ON OTHER FACTORS: the likelihood of disinhibition taking place is determined by a number of factors, some of which relate to the viewers themselves, and some to the context in which media is viewed. Younger children are more likely to be affected because they are more likely to be drawn into high-action violent episodes without considering the motives or consequences of the violence (Collins 1989). Children growing up in households with strong norms against violence are unlikely to experience sufficient disinhibition for them to exhibit aggressive behaviour, whereas the disinhibition effect is stronger in families where children experience physical punishment from their parents and where they identity more with violent heroes. (Heath et al 1989). This demonstrates that the relationship between media violence and disinhibition is not a straightforward one and it mediated by a number of individual and social characteristics.
NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES MAKE DISINHIBITION LESS LIKELY: research suggests disinhibition is less likely when viewers are also exposed to the negative consequences of violent behaviour. Goranson (1969) showed people a film of a boxing match where there were two alternative endings. In one ending, there were no apparent consequences, but in the second ending, the loser of the fight was seen to take a bad beating and he ended up dying. Participants who did not see the negative consequences were more likely to behave aggressively after viewing the fight than were those who did see the consequences. This supports the suggestion that disinhibition may be far more likely in violent media where the negative consequences are not made apparent to, or understood, by viewers.
RESEARCH SUPPORT FOR COGNITIVE PRIMING: Bushman (1998) provided support for the cognitive priming explanation in a study of 200 male and female undergraduate students of psychology. Participants watched either a 15 minute segment of a violent film (Karate kid III) or a non violent film (Gorillas in the Mist). Participants who watched the violent film subsequently had quicker reaction times to aggressive words than did those who had sen the non-violent film. Video content did not, however, influence reaction times to non-aggressive words. These findings provide support for the cognitive priming explanation for media-related aggression. Scenes of violence in the media prime aggressive thoughts in memory, making them more accessible to viewers.
PRIMING IS LESS LIKELY WITH REALISTIC MEDIA: Atkin (1983) suggests film of game realism is an important factor in the relationship between exposure to violent media and the priming of aggressive thoughts and behaviours. He found higher levels of aggression resulted from the viewing of more realistic violence. The fictional violence in some computer games, for example, may not have the same priming effects as in games with more realistic violence. This suggest exposure to more realistic and intense forms of aggression versus cartoon or animated forms of aggression may influence the types of intensity of activated thoughts and ideas, which may then manifest themselves in different ways.
