Aggression Flashcards
What is aggression?
It is an act carried out with the intention to harm another person.
What is proactive aggression?
‘Cold-blooded’ – it’s a planned method of getting what you want and so it is less emotional e.g. bullying, domination, teasing, name-calling.
What is reactive aggression?
‘Hot-blooded’ – it’s angry and impulsive, and is accompanied by physiological arousal e.g. temper tantrums, vengeance. This type of aggression is probably responsible for a greater proportion of society’s problems and so psychologists tend to be more interested in it.
What are neural mechanisms of aggression?
Areas of the brain and how they communicate (e.g. neurotransmitters) that may be responsible for aggression.
What is the limbic system?
A set of subcortical structures in the brain that are thought to be closely involved in coordinating and regulating emotional behaviour, including aggression.
Which two brain structures in the limbic system are thought to be involved in aggression? For each structure, explain how they are involved in causing aggression.
The amygdala:
This is the most important structure in aggressive behaviour. The amygdala plays a key role in how an organism assesses and responds to environmental threats and challenges. It is responsible for quickly evaluating the emotional importance of sensory information and prompting an appropriate response. Greater reactivity (or stimulation) of the amygdala in humans is an important predictor of aggressive behaviour.
The hippocampus:
The hippocampus is involved in the formation of long-term memories, so an animal can compare the conditions of a current threat to similar past experiences. For example, if an animal had previously been attacked by another animal, the next time they encounter that animal they are likely to respond with aggression or fear.
Impaired hippocampal function prevents the nervous system from putting things into a relevant and meaningful context, and so the amygdala may respond inappropriately to sensory stimuli, resulting in aggressive behaviour.
Describe the full process of how the limbic system causes aggression.
Amygdala –> Quickly evaluates the emotional importance if sensory information –> Assesses and responds to environmental things and challenges –> More likely to interpret the sensory information as a threat –> Reactivity increases accordingly –> Greater reactivity = aggression
Hippocampus –> Involved in the formation of long-term memories –> Allows current threat to be compared to similar past experiences (goes in-between assesses and more likely) (Impaired hippocampus means sensory information is not put into a meaningful context)
What is serotonin?
Serotonin is an inhibitory neurotransmitter – it slows down and dampens neuronal activity.
What is serotonin’s function (job)?
Normal levels of serotonin are linked with reduced firing of neurons, and so inhibit responses to emotional stimuli that might otherwise lead to an aggressive response.
Therefore normal levels of serotonin are associated with a greater degree of behavioural self-control.
Serotonin typically inhibits the firing of the amygdala. Low levels of serotonin remove this inhibitory effect.
Describe how serotonin levels are thought to lead to aggression and why this is the case.
Same as above but low levels of serotonin removes the inhibitory effect (lowering self-control)
The neural explanations of aggression are biologically determinist. How?
The neural explanations of aggression are determinist in that they see aggressive behaviour as governed by internal, biological causes that we have no control over [you need to give examples of how here]. This has implications for our legal system and wider society. One of the rules of law is that offenders (aggressive or otherwise) are seen as legally and morally responsible for their actions. The links between serotonin, the amygdala and aggression, could complicate this principle. Additionally, this may lead to screening of the population to identify this susceptibility and discrimination against those people.
Why is it a problem that neural explanations of aggression are biologically determinist?
This has ethical implications for people with the biological predisposition (as they may be monitored in their daily activities which breaches their right to privacy) as well as victims of crimes where criminals may not take responsibility for the crimes that they have committed. Whilst this doesn’t challenge the validity of the explanations, it may make the less palatable explanations of aggression.
Counterargument: However, other psychologists suggest that if individuals discover that they have a biological predisposition for aggression, this gives them the opportunity to avoid environmental situations likely to trigger this predisposition or develop coping skills that would protect them from their influence.
The neural explanations (particularly the serotonin explanation) are reductionist. How?
Ignore
The links between biological mechanisms such as serotonin and the amygdala are well established in non-human animals. However, the position is not quite so clear in the case of humans. This is not to deny that such links exist, but rather that the complexity of human social behaviour means that a biological explanation for aggression is insufficient on its own to explain all the many different aspects of aggressive and violent behaviour because it is reductionist. For example, Bandura’s study demonstrates that humans can learn aggression through social learning theory [you need to describe how here]
Why is this a problem? What evidence do we have to support that aggression is more complex?
Ignore
This suggests that the neural explanations are incomplete on their own to explain all instances of aggression and so they are not completely valid explanations of all aggressive behaviour.
Counterargument: however, such reductionism does enable cause and effect to be established between serotonin and aggression, which has the potential to lead to effective drug therapies to reduce aggression in society by altering serotonin levels.
Describe what Charles Whitman did and how his case supports the neural explanations of aggression.
In 1966, Charles Whitman killed 13 people from an observation tower at Texas University, after killing his wife and mother. He left behind a note asking doctors to examine his brain as he was convinced that something was making him aggressive. He was found to have a tumour pressing against his amygdala.
This supports that the amygdala plays an important part in aggression in humans, with the tumour potentially making his amygdala more reactive triggering aggression, supporting the validity of the theory.
Why is Charles Whitman’s case not strong support for the neural explanations?
Charles Whitman also suffered childhood trauma (abuse from his father), was going through a number of stressful events (breakdown of his marriage and failing university) and he was raised in a home with guns (so could have learned aggressive behaviour). Therefore, the research can’t be taken as strong support for the internal validity of the theory as it isn’t possible to establish cause and effect between the amygdala and aggression.
Describe supporting evidence for the role of the limbic system. Explain exactly how it supports the limbic system leading to aggression.
Gospic et al. (2011) exposed some participants to mild provocation and their responses were recorded using an fMRI. When participants responded aggressively, the scans showed a fast and heightened response by the amygdala. They also found that a benzodiazepine drug (which reduces arousal of the autonomic nervous system) taken before the provocation had two effects - decreasing the activity of the amygdala and reducing the aggression (halving the rejections in the study).
This supports that there is a causal link between the amygdala and aggression, as when provoked, the amygdala showed greater reactivity and this was linked to aggressive responses, and when the amygdala reactivity was reduced, aggressive responses also decreased. Therefore this supports the internal validity of the limbic system as a causal factor in aggression.
Describe one study that supports or undermine the role of serotonin in leading to aggression. Explain exactly how it supports or undermines serotonin leading to aggression.
Berman et al. (2009) gave their participants either a placebo or a dose of paroxetine, a drug which enhances serotonin activity. Participants then took part in a laboratory-based game in which electric shocks of varying intensity were given and received in response to provocation. The paroxetine participants consistently gave fewer and less intense shocks than those in the placebo group. However, this was only true of participants who had a prior history of aggressive behaviour.
This supports that there is a causal link between serotonin and aggression in humans, as when serotonin levels were decreased, aggression increased and vice versa. Therefore this supports the internal validity of the role of serotonin levels impacting aggression.
Counterargument: however, this was only true in those who had a prior history of aggressive behaviour, suggesting that the theory may not be entirely valid on its own in explaining every instance of aggression (e.g. Where there is no prior history of aggressive behaviour).
What are hormonal mechanisms of aggression?
Chemical substances that circulate in the bloodstream that may be responsible for aggression.
What is testosterone?
The male sex hormone
How is testosterone linked to aggression? Including example study
It has a role in regulating social behaviour (including aggression) via its influence on certain areas of the brain implicated in aggression.
It is thought that higher levels of testosterone are related to aggressive behaviour.
For example, Dolan et al. (2001) found a positive correlation between testosterone levels and aggressive behaviours in a sample of 60 male offenders in UK maximum security hospitals.
What is progesterone?
Progesterone is a female ovarian hormone that is thought to play an important role in aggression in women.
How is progesterone linked to aggression?
Levels of progesterone vary during the ovulation cycle and are lowest during and just after menstruation.
Low levels of progesterone are linked to increased aggression in women.
Describe one study that supports testosterone being linked to aggression.
Dabbs et al. (1987) measured salivary testosterone in violent and non-violent criminals. Those with highest testosterone levels had a history of primarily violent crimes.
This supports that testosterone levels are linked with aggressive behaviour in humans, where higher levels are correlated with more aggressive behaviour, suggesting the explanation as some validity.
Counterargument: however, this is only a correlation, meaning that from the study we cannot strongly support the internal validity of the role of testosterone in aggression as we cannot determine cause and effect between testosterone levels and aggressive behaviour.
Explain one study that says that testosterone by itself does not cause aggression. What does it say leads to the aggression? What does this tell us about the theory?
There is mixed evidence of a link between testosterone and aggression in humans. Carre and Mehta (2011) developed a dual-hormone hypothesis to explain why. They claim that high levels of testosterone lead to aggressive behaviour, but only when cortisol levels (linked to stress) are low. When cortisol levels are high, testosterone’s influence on aggression is blocked. Therefore the combined activity of testosterone and cortisol may be a better predictor of aggression than either hormone alone and so the testosterone explanation may not be a completely valid explanation of aggression.
Describe one study that supports progesterone being linked to aggression.
Ziomkiewica et al. (2012) found a negative correlation between progesterone levels and self-reported aggression. This supports that progesterone levels are linked with aggressive behaviour in humans, where lower levels are correlated with more aggressive behaviour, suggesting the explanation as some validity.
Counterargument: however, this is only a correlation, meaning that from the study we cannot strongly support the internal validity of the role of progesterone in aggression as we cannot determine cause and effect between progesterone levels and aggressive behaviour.
When we say that aggression is genetic, what does this mean?
The propensity for aggressive behaviour lies in a person’s genetic make-up i.e. offspring inherit aggression from their parents via genes.
Describe the procedure and results of one twin or adoption study that suggests aggression is genetic. Explain how the results suggest aggression is genetic using the concordance rates and the % of genes the participants share.
Coccaro et al. (1997) :
They studied adult male monozygotic (MZ – identical) and dizygotic (DZ – non-identical) twins. For aggressive behaviour (defined as direct physical assault), the researchers found concordance rates of 50% for MZ twins and 19% for DZs. The corresponding figures for verbal aggression were 28% for MZ twins and 7% for DZ twins.
The results suggest that aggression is at least partly genetic because the concordance rate is higher for MZ twins than DZ twins and MZ twins have more genes in common than DZ twins. Therefore, the greater similarity in aggression could be inferred to be due to their greater genetic similarity.
Evaluation - environment must also play a role in aggression because the concordance rate for MZ twins who share 100% of their genes is not 100%.
Which gene is thought to play a role in aggression?
MAOA gene
How exactly is it thought that this gene leads to aggression? Mention which allele is involved and how this impacts the enzyme and therefore aggression.
Monoamine oxidase A (MAOA) is an enzyme which regulates the metabolism (breaking down of a neurotransmitter after a neural impulse has been transmitted from one neuron to another) of serotonin in the brain.
There is a gene responsible for producing this enzyme that has been associated with aggressive behaviour.
One low activity variant (allele) of the MAOA gene (nicknamed the ‘warrior gene’) leads to low MAOA activity in areas of the brain, and has been associated with various forms of aggressive behaviour.
Brunner et al. (1993) studied a Dutch family. What did they find. How does this support that aggression is genetic
Brunner et al. (1993) studied 28 members of a large Dutch family who were repeatedly involved in impulsively aggressive criminal behaviours such as rape, attempted murder and physical assault. They found that these men had abnormally low levels of MAOA in their brains and the low-activity version of the MAOA gene. It shows that the low levels of the gene cause aggression.
Explain one problem with using twin/adoption studies to support that aggression is genetic. What does this tell us about the theory if the studies aren’t well designed?
Twin and adoption studies make use of different research methods. Some use self-report techniques whilst others use observational techniques. For example, in the Miles and Carey (1997) meta-analysis, 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 make it difficult to accurately assess the relative contributions of genetic and environmental influences on aggression. Therefore from the research is difficult to strongly support the role of genetic factors in aggression.
The genetic explanation of aggression is biologically determinist. What does this mean?
The genetic explanation of aggression is determinist in that it sees aggressive behaviour as governed by internal, biological causes that we have no control over (i.e. We have no free will over our behaviour). This has implications for our legal system and wider society. One of the rules of law is that offenders (aggressive or otherwise) are seen as legally and morally responsible for their actions. The links between genes and aggression could complicate this principle. Some legal experts now question the assumption that a violent offender can exercise their free will when they have a genetic predisposition to violent crime i.e. the research could be used as evidence of a defendant’s diminished responsibility. Such a change may force us to revise our notions of moral and legal responsibility based on the findings of the research. Additionally, this may lead to genetic screening of the population to identify this susceptibility and discrimination against those people. This makes an awareness of the limitations of genetic research extremely important.
Why is this a problem? Include both the legal system and ethical implications for those who are identified as being genetically at risk.
This has ethical implications for people with the genetic predisposition (as they may be monitored in their daily activities which breaches their right to privacy) as well as victims of crimes where criminals may not take responsibility for the crimes that they have committed and so it may not be a palatable explanation of aggression. It appears that we should apply the theory with caution as currently there are so many flaws with the research, that it cannot be confidently concluded that genetics plays the greatest role in the determination of aggressive behaviour.
Counterargument: However, other psychologists suggest that if individuals discover that they have a genetic predisposition for aggression, this gives them the opportunity to avoid environmental situations likely to trigger this predisposition or develop coping skills that would protect them from their influence.
What evidence do we have that genes alone poorly predict behaviour and therefore being determinist is a significant issue?
Ignore
Morley and Hall (2003) argue that genes associated with aggression are deterministic and only poorly predict the likelihood that an individual will display higher levels of aggressive behaviour. Additionally, the presence or absence of environmental risk factors cannot be identified using a genetic test, making the accurate prediction of specific behaviours even less likely. This is supported by Caspi et al.’s study.
How can the MAOA gene explain why men are more aggressive than women? Why is this a strength?
Ignore
The MAOA gene research offers an explanation for the uneven rates of aggression and violence for males and females. Niehoff (2014) suggests that this may be due to the different genetic vulnerabilities that males and females have to the MAOA gene. The MAOA gene is linked to the X chromosome. Women have two X chromosomes, 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 the a second X chromosome with a ‘normal’ gene for MAOA that prevents expression of the abnormal version of the gene).
This could explain why males typically show more aggressive behaviour than females and so gives us more confidence in the validity of the explanation of aggression as it can explain real differences in rates of aggression.
Describe evidence other than Brunner et al. That supports that the MAOA gene leads to aggression. Explain how it supports the exact proposals of the theory.
Mertins et al. (2011) studied participants with low-activity and high-activity variants of the MAOA gene in a money-distributing game. Participants had to make decisions about whether or not to contribute money for the good of the group. The researchers found that males with the high-activity variant were more cooperative and made fewer aggressive moves than the low-activity participants.
This supports the importance of the MAOA gene in aggressive behaviour. It suggests that possession of the high-activity variant leads to the exact opposite behaviour (cooperation) to that associated with the low-activity variant (aggression). The two predictions of the MAOA explanation are opposite sides of the same coin. As both are confirmed by research evidence, this increases our confidence that the genetic explanation is a valid account of how genes influence aggressive behaviour.
What is ethology?
Ethology is the study of animal behaviour in natural settings. The findings are then extrapolated to humans because we are all subject to the same forces of natural selection.
According to the ethological explanation of aggression, how is aggression caused?
Ethological explanations suggest that aggression is an innate behaviour (instinct) that is mostly genetically determined.
When we say that aggression is adaptive, what do we mean?
Therefore, it is suggested that aggression is adaptive i.e. it is beneficial for survival, and therefore the animal is alive to reproduce.
How does aggression therefore get passed down?
The aggression is then passed down to the offspring via natural selection.
What is ritualistic aggression?
Ritualistic aggression is a series of aggressive behaviours carried out in a set order.
What is a threat display and how is this aggression adaptive? And how does it get passed down?
Lorenz noted that fights between conspecifics involve very little physical damage. Instead, most aggressive encounters consisted of a period of ritualistic signalling in the form of threat displays. E.g. baring claws and teeth, beating chest etc. Such aggression is adaptive because it enables competitors to assess their relative strength before deciding to escalate a conflict. They are intended to intimidate an opponent and make them back down. This makes costly and dangerous physical aggression less likely to occur ensuring the survival of the species.
They survive and then pass genes down via natural selection
What is a ritual appeasement display and how is this adaptive? And how does this get passed down?
Lorenz pointed out that aggression between conspecifics end with ritual appeasement displays which indicate acceptance of defeat e.g. wolves exposing their jugulars. This is adaptive because in signalling defeat, it inhibits further aggression by the victor, preventing further damage or death of the loser, again ensuring the survival of the species.
They survive and then pass genes down via natural selection
How is being aggressive (fighting) adaptive? Explain the two ways, making sure to include how the aggression therefore gets passed down.
One adaptive function of aggression is to establish domin0ance hierarchies with the winners of conflicts climbing the social hierarchy. This increased status leads to other benefits such as access to mates. Therefore aggression is adaptive because dominance over others brings benefits such as access to resources (aiding survival) and mates (reproduction – so aggression is naturally selected).
Aggression is also beneficial to survival because a defeated animal is rarely killed. Instead, they are forced to establish territory elsewhere. Therefore, individuals that win conflicts have greater access to resources as there is less direct competition for things such as food. As such, aggression is adaptive in that it aids survival and so is naturally selected. It also has the added benefit of spreading the members of a species out over a wider area, reducing the possibility of starvation for all.
What is an innate releasing mechanism?
Innate releasing mechanisms are a key part of the ethological explanation of aggression. They are hard-wired networks of neurons in the brain that respond to an environmental stimulus (a sign or releaser such as a facial expression) by initiating a fixed action pattern.
What is a fixed action pattern?
A fixed action pattern is a set sequence of behaviours (in this case, aggression). These behaviours are stereotyped to occur only in specific conditions and do not require learning (i.e. they are innate).
Name and define the six characteristics of fixed action patterns
- They are stereotyped – they are relatively unchanging sequences of behaviours
- They are universal – the same behaviour is found in every individual of a species.
- They are unaffected by learning – they are the same for every individual regardless of experience.
- They are ‘ballistic’ – once the behaviour is triggered, it follows an inevitable course and cannot be altered before it is completed.
- They are single-purpose – the behaviour only occurs in a specific situation and not in any other.
- They are a response to an identifiable specific sign stimulus (or if it involves communication between members of the same species, it is known as a releaser).
What is an environmental stimulus?
A sign or releaser triggers
How are fixed action patterns triggered?
Environmental stimulus (a sign or releaser triggers) –> Innate releasing mechanism (hard wired set of neurones in brain that responds to this by triggering…) –> Fixed action pattern (a set sequence of behaviours - aggression)
Describe Tinbergen’s procedure and findings. Make sure to identify what the environmental stimulus, innate releasing mechanisms and fixed action pattern were.
Ignore
Identify the environmental stimulus.
Red underbelly of the stickleback fish
What is the fixed action pattern that occurs?
Aggression - attacks the other stickleback fish (head butts)
Explain how the fixed action pattern shown by the stickleback matches the characteristics of FAPs.
- They are stereotyped – they are relatively unchanging sequences of behaviours - head butts the other fish until it leaves
- They are universal – the same behaviour is found in every individual of a species. - this happens in every male stickleback fish
- They are unaffected by learning – they are the same for every individual regardless of experience. - they will always attack a fish with a red underbelly no matter what they’re taught
- They are ‘ballistic’ – once the behaviour is triggered, it follows an inevitable course and cannot be altered before it is completed. Male stickleback fish will continue to attack the other fish until the fish leaves (can’t be altered or stopped before it’s finished)
- They are single-purpose – the behaviour only occurs in a specific situation and not in any other. When it sees the red underbelly of the other fish
- They are a response to an identifiable specific sign stimulus (or if it involves communication between members of the same species, it is known as a releaser). - When it sees the red underbelly of the other fish
Based on the theory, what occurs between the environmental stimulus and FAP?
Innate releasing mechanism - hard wired set of neurons that respond to the red underbelly (environmental stimulus) by triggering the aggression (fixed action pattern)
Male sticklebacks are highly territorial during mating season, where they also develop a red spot on their underbelly. If another male enters their territory, a fixed action pattern is initiated. The sign stimulus that triggers the innate releasing mechanism is the sight of the red spot.
Tinbergen presented sticklebacks with a series of wooden models of different shapes, some with red spots on their underbelly and some without.
Regardless of shape, if the model had a red spot the stickleback would aggressively display and even attack it. But if there was no red spot, there was no aggression, even if the model looked realistically like a stickleback.
Tinbergen also found that these aggressive FAPs were unchanging from one encounter to another, and once triggered they always ran their course to completion.
How does Brunner et al.’s study support the ethological explanation?
Ignore
There is lots of evidence to support the ethological explanation. For example, Brunner et al. (1993) found that the low-activity variant of the MAOA gene is closely associated with aggressive behaviours, suggesting an innate basis. Additionally, research on the relationship between the limbic system and aggression provides evidence for the existence of innate releasing mechanisms for aggression in the brain in humans and other animals. This supports the validity of the ethological explanation of aggression as the evidence supports its suggestion that aggression is genetically determined, heritable and adaptive [you need to explain how for the study that you have chosen].
What evidence is there to support that ritualistic aggression occurs in humans? How does this therefore support the ethological explanation?
Anthropological evidence suggests that the benefits of ritualistic aggression are also present in human cultures. For example, Hoebel (1967) found that among Inuit Eskimos, song duels are used to settle grudges and disputes. This supports that rituals have the effect of reducing actual aggression and preventing injury or death of the combatants as predicted by the ethological explanation, supporting that the results from animals may be generalisable to humans as we are subject to the same forces of natural selection.
Goodall (2010) observed chimpanzees during a four year war. What did they find and how does this undermine the ethological explanation?
Goodall (2010) observed chimpanzees at the Gombe Stream National Park in Tanzania. During the ‘four year war’, male chimps from one community set about systematically slaughtering all members of another group. They did this in a coordinated and predetermined fashion. On some occasions, a victim was held down by some rival chimpanzees while others hit it and bit it in an attack lasting up to 20 minutes. The violence continued like this despite the fact that victims were offering signals of appeasement and defencelessness. In other species such as lions, males will often kill off the cubs of other males, and male chimpanzees will routinely kill members of their group.
The appeasement signals did not inhibit the aggressive behaviour of the attacking chimpanzees as predicted by the ethological explanation and cast doubt on the claim that much of animal aggression is ritualistic rather than real. Additionally, the killing was systematic rather than accidental which goes against the prediction that a defeated animal is ‘rarely’ killed in order to ensure the survival of the wider species and spread the species out over a wider area to reduce competition pressure for resources. Therefore, this calls into question the validity of the ethological explanation as an explanation of aggression.
What evidence is there to undermine the ethological explanation from a study of humans?
Nisbett (1993) found that there was a north-south divide in the United States for homicide rates, with killings being much more common amongst white males in southern states than in the northern states. In a lab study, Nisbett et al. (1996) found that when white males from the south were insulted in a research situation, they were more likely than northern white males to become aggressive. Because this was only true of reactive aggression, Nisbett concluded that this difference was due to a ‘culture of honour’ i.e. the aggression is a learned social norm. It is difficult for the ethological explanation, with its view of aggression as instinctive, to explain how culture can override innate influences. This calls into question the validity of the explanation as a complete explanation of aggression.
The ethological explanation argues that aggression is innate. What evidence do we have from the rest of the topic to argue this isn’t entirely the case? What does this tell us about the ethological explanation of aggression?
Ignore
Ethologists argue that aggression is an innate instinct. An important implication of this view is that humans will inevitably be aggressive and fight each other. Lorenz argued this inevitability was caused by FAPs. [you could then add the determinism argument here]. However, other approaches argue that aggression is not inevitable because it is more under rational control than instinctive. It is also less innate and more affected by learning experiences than ethologists accept. [describe Bandura’s findings here to support this]. Hunt (1973) also found that FAPs are greatly influenced by environmental and learning experiences. For instance, an aggressive FAP is typically made up of several behaviours in a series. The duration of each one varies from one individual to another and even in the same individual from one encounter to another.
This suggests that whilst the ethological explanation of aggression may have some validity, because it is does not account for learning and cognitive processes influencing aggressive behaviour, it cannot be considered a complete explanation of human aggression. FAPs are much more flexible than Lorenz thought, especially in humans.
According to evolutionary explanations of human aggression, how is aggression caused? Make sure to include all key evolution terms in your answer.
Evolutionary explanations of human aggression focus on the adaptive nature of aggression. They suggest that aggression enhanced survival and reproduction and was therefore naturally selected. This means that aggressive genes are passed on to successive generations and so aggressive behaviour becomes more widespread in the population. (Two mark definition of evolutionary explanation)
There are a number of evolutionary explanations of aggression:
- Competition for resources
- Sexual competition - Intimidating or eliminating rivals for females.
Sexual jealousy - deterring mates from sexual infidelity.
According to the sexual jealousy explanation, what motivates male aggression towards their partners?
Sexual jealousy suggests that male aggression (violence) against their partners is motivated by jealousy to ensure their own paternity and genetic success.
Unlike women, men can never be certain that they fathered a child. This paternity uncertainty gives rise to the threat of cuckoldry – that the man raises an offspring that is not his own and so contributes to the survival of a rival’s genes and is left with fewer resources to invest in his own offspring in the future.
Men in our evolutionary past who could avoid cuckoldry were more reproductively successful. So male aggressive strategies evolved (were adaptive) to help them to retain their mates and deter them from sexual infidelity.
Name and define the two mate retention (aggressive) strategies used by men to solve this adaptive problem.
Direct guarding (strategies to restrict freedom) – involves male vigilance over a partner’s behaviour e.g. checking where she’s been, who she’s been with, coming home early, installing tracking apps on her mobile etc.
Negative inducements (strategies to deter infidelity) – threats of the consequences of infidelity (e.g. “I’ll kill you”) or violence to prevent her from straying.
Therefore how is aggression adaptive according to this theory and how does aggression get passed down?
Therefore, aggression was adaptive in our evolutionary history as it would have made it more likely that males would reproduce successfully by solving the adaptive problems of sexual infidelity and cuckoldry.
This means that aggressive genes for males to be aggressive towards their partners are passed on to successive generations and so aggression becomes more widespread in the population.
According to the competition for resources explanation, why are men aggressive?
Aggressive individuals (particularly men) would have been more able to compete (against other men) for resources such as food.
How is this adaptive and how does aggression get passed down?
Therefore, aggression enhanced their survival and likelihood of reproducing successfully (especially as women are attracted to men with resources), and so is an adaptive behaviour that is naturally selected to solve the adaptive problem of gaining resources.
This means that aggressive genes are passed on to successive generations and so aggression becomes more widespread in the population.
According to the sexual competition explanation, why are men aggressive?
Ancestral men seeking access to females would have had to compete with other males (sexual competition).
How is this adaptive and how does aggression get passed down?
Aggressive men would have been more able to compete with other men for access to mates, making it more likely that they would reproduce successfully and so is an adaptive behaviour that is naturally selected to solve the adaptive problem of rivals for females.
This means that aggressive genes for males to be aggressive towards other males are passed on to successive generations and so aggression becomes more widespread in the population.
What evidence is there to support the sexual jealousy explanation? Describe the procedure and results and which exact parts of the theory it supports
Ignore
Shackelford et al. (2005) studied intimate partner violence (IPV) in heterosexual couples. Men and women in 107 married couples completed different questionnaires. All of the participants had been married less than one year. The men completed the Mate Retention Inventory, which assessed mate retention behaviours in various categories (e.g. direct guarding). The women completed the Spouse Influence Report, which measured the extent of their partner’s violence in their relationship. There was a strong positive correlation between men’s reports of their mate retention behaviours and women’s reports of their partners’ physical violence. According to the researchers, the retention behaviours reliably predicted husbands’ use of violence against their wives.
This supports that there is a clear link between the greater risk of infidelity, cuckoldry and aggression because it appears that the males were aggressive as a result of their jealousy in order to avoid cuckoldry. This jealousy seemed to lead to mate retention strategies to deter the infidelity of their partners and is linked to the aggression experienced by the partners. This supports predictions derived from the evolutionary explanations concerning the adaptive value of aggression, as the aggression would ensure the genetic success of the male and so been passed down by natural selection and aggression became more widespread in the population.
What real-world application does the sexual jealousy theory have? How is this a strength of the theory?
An important implication of the research in this area is that mate-retention tactics may be seen as early indicators of potential violence against a female partner. The use of mate-retention tactics can alert friends and family members to the danger signs that might lead to future violence in relationships. Relationship counselling may then be used before the situation escalates to the type of violence seen in research studies.
This supports the external validity of the evolutionary explanations of human aggression as they can be used to help to reduce aggression in relationships.
What evidence do we have to support the competition for resources explanation? Describe the findings and which exact parts of the theory it supports.
Daly and Wilson (1988) found that many tribal societies bestow increased status and honour to men who have committed murder. Campbell (1993) found that this was also the case in industrialised societies such as the USA. The most violent gang members often have the highest status among their peers.
This supports that aggression may have evolved in response to the adaptive problem of access to resources, as individuals who are aggressive gain status and resources and so are more likely to survive and reproduce successfully. This means that aggressive genes are passed down to subsequent generations. As the results are similar in many diverse cultures, this implies that aggression may have evolved rather than being a result of cultural learning, as proposed by the theory.
Why is it difficult to test hypotheses about evolutionary explanations of aggression?
It is extremely difficult to test hypotheses about the evolution of behaviours to solve problems of adaptation in our evolutionary past. Most of the research is therefore correlational, for example finding relationships between mate retention behaviours and aggression. This does not enable us to draw cause and effect conclusions. Even a very strong correlation between aggressive behaviours and evolutionarily influenced characteristics does not allow us to conclude that sexual jealousy, for instance, causes aggressive behaviour.
Because these two variables are just measured and not manipulated, correlational research can never rule out the effects of other factors on aggressive behaviour (cultural differences, for example). Therefore from the research, it is difficult to strongly support the internal validity of the evolutionary explanations of human aggression.
Describe one piece of evidence to undermine the evolutionary explanations of human aggression? Explain exactly how it undermines the proposals of the theory.
Humans can be incredibly cruel. For example, there was wide-scale slaughter of whole groups in the Rwandan genocide in 1994. Humans will also torture and mutilate their opponents when they have already been defeated and no longer cause a threat. Anthropological evidence suggests that this may be more of a consequence of deindividuation effects than of evolutionary adaptations.
This suggests that the evolutionary explanations may not be entirely valid as they cannot explain all instances of human aggression. In this case, if the aggression were to solve the adaptive problems proposed by the theory, the aggression would have stopped after the opponent was defeated and no longer caused a threat to the male’s resources or partner’s fidelity. This was clearly not the case and so the theory cannot be considered to be completely valid as an explanation of aggression.
What are the three social-psychological explanations of aggression?
The frustration-aggression hypothesis
The social learning theory
The deindividuation theory
Which approach is the frustration-aggression hypothesis based on? Give examples to support your answer.
Psychodynamic
Explain how aggression occurs according to the frustration-aggression hypothesis.
When we are prevented from achieving our goals by an external factor, frustration occurs. This creates an aggressive drive, a physiological drive (from the id) that needs release.
This then leads to aggressive behaviour. This is cathartic because the aggressive drive created by the frustration is satisfied, which makes further aggression less likely.
Aggression can be displaced onto a weaker, non-abstract alternative if the source of the frustration is abstract, too powerful (and so we risk punishment by aggressing against it) or not available.
Frustration only creates a readiness for aggression. But the presence of cues in the environment (e.g. a gun) make acting upon this much more likely.
Attempt to achieve a goal
Obstacle to the goal by an external factor
Frustration
Aggressive drive
Environmental cues
Either aggressive behaviour or displaced aggressive behaviour
Catharsis
The frustration-aggression hypothesis is determinist. Which kind? How? And why is this a problem?
The frustration-aggression hypothesis suggests that aggression is out of the control of the individual. The theory proposes that whenever a goal is blocked by an obstacle, frustration occurs and this inevitably leads to aggression (directly or displaced) which is cathartic. This is an example of psychic determinism whereby behaviour is controlled by unconscious factors (such as catharsis) that are beyond our control. This has implications for our legal system as it proposes that aggression is not due to an individual’s free will, and our legal system is based on this assumption. This could lead victims of aggressive crimes to feel that their perpetrators are not taking responsibility for their crimes, and so makes the frustration-aggression hypothesis a less palatable theory of aggressive behaviour.
What real-world application does the frustration-aggression hypothesis have? How is this a strength of the theory?
The frustration-aggression hypothesis has important real-world applications. For example, some states in the USA allow ‘open carry’ where a gun does not have to be concealed. The gun could act as an environmental cue, making aggression more likely in those who are frustrated (and so have an aggressive drive).
It should be noted that the open carry does not cause gun violence in itself. Individuals are still responsible for the use of their weapons, even when they are frustrated. However, such knowledge of how the gun acts as an environmental cue is useful as it can be used to contribute towards changes in policies to try to reduce aggression (and particularly gun violence), supporting the external validity of the theory.
Describe at least one study that supports the frustration-aggression hypothesis. Describe the procedure and results and exactly which parts of the theory it supports.
There is research evidence to support the frustration-aggression hypothesis. Geen (1968) found that participants who failed to solve a puzzle because they were insulted by a confederate gave the strongest electric shocks to the confederate subsequently, followed by those who failed to solve the puzzle because the confederate interrupted them and then those failed to solve the puzzle because it was impossible. All three groups selected more intense shocks than a non-frustrated group.
This suggests that the more the participants were frustrated (due to the obstacle to achieving the goal of completing the puzzle), the more this led to an aggressive drive and its cathartic release through being aggressive (delivering the shocks). This supports the validity of the frustration-aggression hypothesis as an explanation of aggressive behaviour.
Describe one study that undermines the frustration-aggression hypothesis. Describe the procedure and results and exactly which parts of the theory it undermines.
Bushman (2002) found that participants who vented their anger by repeatedly hitting a punch bag actually became more angry and aggressive rather than less. He found that doing nothing was more effective at reducing aggression than venting anger.
This outcome is significantly different to that expected by the frustration-aggression hypothesis as participants should have felt the cathartic release of their frustration by punching the bag. As they did not, this casts doubt on the validity of the central assumption of the theory that aggression is cathartic.
Define role model
A person who carries out (or ‘models’) an attitude or behaviour to be learned. They become this when they are seen to possess similar characteristics to the observer or are attractive or of a higher status.
Define identification
The extent to which an individual relates to a role model and feels that they are similar to them, so want to be like a role model e.g. they may both be female, be about the same age, the role model may have something the observer really wants e.g. fame, fortune etc.
Define modelling
This is when a role model precisely demonstrates a specific behaviour so that it can be imitated by an observer
Define observational learning
Learning through imitation
Define vicarious reinforcement
Reinforcement that is not directly experienced, but occurs through observing someone else being reinforced for a behaviour
Define vicarious punishment
A type of social learning in which people do a behaviour less often after they’ve seen someone else behave that same way and experience negative consequences as a result.
Define meditational processes
Cognitive (mental) processes occur between stimulus (the observation of the role model’s behaviour) and response (imitation) that affect whether the learned behaviour is produced
Define attention
Noticing and paying attention to the behaviour of the person they want to imitate.
Define retention
Remembering the behaviour so that they can do the same.
Define reproduction
Consideration of our own ability to perform the behaviour.
Define motivation
The will or desire to perform the behaviour (usually linked to vicarious reinforcement).
Define self-efficacy
The extent to which we believe our actions will achieve a desired goal
Define imitation
Using someone as a model and copying their behaviour. It is sometimes called modelling
Use all of the key terms above to explain how aggression is caused according to social learning theory.
Emphasises learning aggression through the observation of a role model that we identify with because of their status or some aspect that we have in common with them e.g. gender or age.
The role model models (demonstrates) an aggressive behaviour which the observer then learns (observational learning).
If the role model is rewarded for their aggressive behaviour, the observer is more likely to imitate it (vicarious reinforcement).
However, learning doesn’t always mean that the observer will imitate the aggressive behaviour (learning and performance are different).
Meditational processes (mediating cognitive factors) come between the observation of the aggressive behaviour and imitation of the aggression and will affect whether the aggression will be performed:
Attention – the observer must pay attention to the role model’s aggressive actions
Retention – the observer must remember the role model’s aggressive actions (form a mental representation)
Reproduction – the observer must be able to transform the mental representation into a physical action key note: this means that they are capable of doing it, not that they actually do it. Actually doing it is imitation.
Motivation – the observer needs a reason to imitate the behaviour (depends on self-efficacy and vicarious reinforcement)
Self-efficacy (the extent to which we believe our actions will achieve a desired goal) also impacts whether the observer will imitate the role model’s aggression. If the observer is confident that their aggression has been effective in the past, they will continue to be so in the future because it works and they’re good at it.
Describe the procedure and results of Bandura et al.’s study.
Bandura et al.’s (1961) Bobo doll study supports social learning theory. Young children individually observed an adult role model assaulting an inflatable plastic toy called a ‘Bobo doll.’ The aggressive behaviours included throwing, kicking, hitting with a mallet and were accompanied by verbal outbursts such as ‘sock him in the nose.’ There followed a short period during which the children were not allowed to play with some attractive toys, which created a degree of frustration. They were then taken to another room where there was a Bobo doll, plus some other toys that the adult role model had used. Without being instructed to do so, many of the children imitated the behaviour they had seen performed by the role model, both physically and verbally. The imitation was very close in some cases, with a virtually direct copy of what the children had observed, including the use of specific objects and verbal phrases. Boys reproduced more imitative physical aggression than girls, but there was no gender difference in the imitation of verbal aggression. There was another group of children who had observed an adult interacting non-aggressively with the doll and the aggressive behaviour towards the Bobo doll by these children was virtually non-existent.
Explain how the study supports SLT using the key terms in Q84
This supports that the children observed the aggressive behaviour of the role model and imitated it, potentially due to having high self-efficacy and vicarious reinforcement [you need to explain how here]. Therefore, this suggests that the theory is a valid explanation of aggression.
Bandura et al.’s study has been criticised for lacking mundane realism. How? Why is this a problem for the theory?
There are significant methodological problems with the Bobo doll studies. A doll is not a living person, and does not retaliate when hit. This raises questions about whether such studies tell us much about the imitation of aggression towards other human beings who do these things. This suggests that the studies may not be entirely valid ways of measuring aggression via social learning and so from such research we cannot strongly support the theory as an explanation of aggression
What evidence does Bandura have to counterargue this? What does this tell us about SLT?
However, Bandura countered this with a study which had children watch a film of an adult role model hitting a live clown. When the children were subsequently let into the room with the clown, they proceeded to imitate the same aggressive behaviours they had seen in the film. This is better support for the theory because it more validly measures aggression and so supports that the theory is a valid explanation of aggression.
SLT has been criticised for underestimating biological factors. Describe one piece of evidence to suggest biological factors are important in aggression. What does this tell us about SLT?
SLT is criticised for underestimating the influence of biological factors. Bandura accepted that there is an urge to be aggressive which is instinctive, but that aggression is primarily learned. There is evidence to suggest that this may not be the case and that evolutionary, neural and hormonal mechanisms influence aggression. [you then need to select evidence from lessons 1-4 to support the idea that biology is important in aggression]Social Learning Theory barely acknowledges these influences and certainly doesn’t explain them. As such, SLT is an incomplete explanation of aggression as it cannot explain all cases of aggression (where biological factors are needed to do so).
What real-world application does SLT have? How is this a strength of the theory?
Children readily imitate role models when they observe them being rewarded (vicarious reinforcement) for their actions (including aggressive ones), especially when they identify with them. Huesmann and Eron (2013) argue that media portrayals of aggressive behaviour can be powerful influences on a child’s acquisition of aggression. This is especially true if a character is rewarded for being aggressive, and if the child is able to identify with the character in some way (e.g. they have desirable characteristics like popularity). Under these conditions, vicarious reinforcement experienced by the children observing the violent behaviour by media characters may be just as influential in encouraging imitate as it is in real life. Therefore, one way to reduce aggression is to provide rewarded non-aggressive role models. The same process of social learning can then produce non-aggression e.g. Encouraging children to form friendships with children rewarded for non-aggression gives them more opportunities to observe modelled non-aggressive behaviour. The knowledge of SLT’s influence on aggression has led to the development of programmes to try to modify aggression. For example, the ACT Against Violence is an intervention programme 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 completing the programme, parents demonstrated increases in positive parenting and discontinuation of physical punishment.
This supports the theory’s external validity because this real-world application confirms the relevance of social learning concepts, such as role models, vicarious reinforcement and modelling [you would need to explain how here]. This supports the power of social learning in explaining aggression as it can be used effectively to decrease it, supporting its external validity.
How can the !Kung San tribe be used as both evidence to support and undermine SLT?
Ignore
Different cultures have different norms about which behaviours should be reinforced. In some cultures such as the !Kung San of the Kalahari desert, direct reinforcement of children’s aggression is unlikely because social norms do not encourage it, and parents tend not to use it to discipline their children. This also means that role models of aggression are unavailable for children to observe, and certainly vicarious reinforcement is a rare experience.
Social learning theory can therefore generally explain cultural differences in behaviour. This is because children imitate the behaviours they observe being reinforced (e.g. Very little aggression in the !Kung San tribe), regardless of the culture in which the behaviours occur, suggesting the theory has external validity.
However, social learning theory would have some difficulty in explaining that there is some displays of aggressive behaviour among the !Kung San. The theory predicts that an absence of aggressive models should result in very little aggressive behaviour being imitated. The fact that people do behave aggressively in !Kung San society suggests that there is more to aggressive behaviour than social learning and so it cannot explain all instances of aggression. Perhaps it is instinctive and therefore a biological explanation would be more appropriate to explain this particular cultural finding [again you would need some evidence to back up that biology can play a role in aggression here].
Define deindividuation
A loss of self-identity and personal responsibility
Define private self-awareness
Our own beliefs and feelings
Define public self-awareness
Accountability, caring how others see us
Give three examples of situations where our anonymity is increased.
Alcohol
Uniform
Crowds
Explain how aggression is caused according to deindividuation theory.
Normally, we are in an individuated state so are constrained by social norms (not aggressive) –> Increase in anonymity –> Loss of public self-awareness and loss of private self-awareness –> Deindividuation –> Responsibility is shared throughout the group (group identity) so more aggression and Behaviour is less constrained by social norms (more aggressive)
(Include definitions when explaining the explanations and the end how it leads to aggression)
Describe at least two studies that support deindividuation leading to aggression. Include the procedure, results and exactly which parts of the theory they support.
Add other shock one with the KKK and the nurses
Dodd (1985):
He asked 229 undergraduate psychology students in 13 classes this question: ‘if you could do anything humanly possible with complete assurance that you would not be detected or held responsible, what would you do?’ The students were aware that their responses were completely anonymous. Three independent raters who did not know the hypothesis decided which categories of antisocial behaviour the responses belonged to.
Findings: 36% of participants suggested some form of anti-social behaviour. 26 students suggested a criminal act, of which robbing a bank was the most common. 9% suggested a prosocial behaviour. This is because the anonymity means that people lose their private self-awareness (less self-critical and evaluative) and public self-awareness (feel less judged by others and accountable for actions). This leads to deindividuation (lose their self-identity and personal responsibility) so they feel less constrained by social norms and so propose doing aggressive behaviours. Therefore this suggests that the theory is valid.
Zimbardo (1969):
Groups of four female undergraduates were required to deliver electric shocks to another student to ‘aid learning.’ Half of the participants wore bulky lab coats and hoods that hid their faces, sat in separate cubicles and were never referred to by name. The other participants wore their normal clothes, were given large name tags and were introduced to each other by name. They were also able to see each other when seated at the shock machines.
Findings: Participants in the hooded condition were more likely to press the button that they believed would shock another person and held down the button for twice as long as the identifiable participants. This is because the anonymity means that people lose their private self-awareness (less self-critical and evaluative) and public self-awareness (feel less judged by others and accountable for actions). This leads to deindividuation (lose their self-identity and personal responsibility) so they feel less constrained by social norms and so are more aggressive. Therefore this suggests that the theory is valid.
What real-world application does the theory have? How is this a strength?
Deindividuation theory can help us to understand aggressive behaviour online, including online gaming services such as Xbox Live. These services have many features that promote a psychological state of deindividuation. There is a reduction of personal identity, with players using ‘handles’ to identify themselves; game-playing in such an environment is arousing and immersive; there is the presence of a ‘crowd’ in the form of a (potentially worldwide) audience. Douglas and McGarty (2001) found a strong correlation between anonymity and ‘flaming’ (posting hostile messages). Trolling and bullying (cyberbullying) are increasingly common online behaviours. This can be discriminatory in its more extreme forms. For example, women and girls, people with disabilities, gay people and people from ethnic minorities can be bullied particularly harshly. There are some features of online communication that de-individuate its users.
Online anonymity in particular makes cyberbullying more widespread [you need to explain how here using the flow diagram] and potentially harmful. It means that bullies are unaccountable for what they post because they are very unlikely to face any consequences for their behaviour. But even when posting under real identities online communication can be de-individuated because it is communication ‘at a distance’ rather than face-to-face. It is also much easier to communicate aggressively in writing rather than by voice. You have time to compose what you want to say, without having to listen to others. This supports the external validity of the theory as it has important real-world applications in explaining online aggression.
What is institutional aggression?
Institutional aggression is aggressive or violent behaviour that takes place within a formal organised setting or context, such as a prison.
What do we mean by a dispositional explanation?
Any reason for behaviour that highlights the importance of the individual’s characteristics/personality (disposition) rather than any aspect of the situation they are in i.e. internal.
What do we mean by a situational explanation?
Any reason for behaviour that highlights the importance of the environment in which the behaviour occurs (including other people) rather than any aspect of the individual’s characteristics/personality i.e. external.
Is the importation model a dispositional or situational explanation of aggression?
Dispositional
Is the deprivation model a dispositional or situational explanation of aggression?
Situational
Explain how prison aggression is caused according to the importation model. Make sure to include mediating factors.
Irwin and Cressey (1962) suggested the importation model. This claims that inmates who enter prison bring with them a subculture of criminality and so are more likely to engage in interpersonal violence (aggression). Inmates import (bring in) aggressive behaviours into prison as a means of negotiating their way through the unfamiliar and frightening prison environment in which existing inmates use aggression to establish power, status, influence and access to resources.
According to this theory, aggression is not a product of the situation itself, but rather of the characteristics of individuals who enter such institutions i.e. People who are aggressive, angry, bully outside of prison will bring these behaviours into the prison with them and so be aggressive.
This importation also includes violent values, attitudes, norms and a history of learning experiences, as well as other personal characteristics such as gender, ethnicity and class that inmates bring into the prison with them which may influence aggression (these are called mediating factors). For instance, Black prisoners are thought to enter prison from more impoverished backgrounds with higher rates of violent crime. The willingness of inmates to use violence inside prison to settle disputes reflects their lives before they were imprisoned.
Explain how prison aggression is caused according to the deprivation model. Make sure to give examples of factors inmates lose in prison and how the prison regime impacts aggression.
The deprivation model was proposed by Clemmer (1958). This model claims that it is the characteristics of the prison itself that accounts for prison violence. Theorists who subscribe to this model do not deny the possibility that inmates enter prisons with certain cultural norms that are more or less permissive of violence. However, they argue that it is primarily the harsh experience of imprisonment that causes inmates extreme stress and frustration, who have to cope by resorting to aggressive behaviour.
In prison, there are specific deprivations (things that inmates lose) that might be linked to an increase in violence towards other inmates or prison staff. These include loss of freedom, loss of independence, loss of goods and services, loss of safety, loss of heterosexual intimacy, loss of personal space from overcrowding, boredom, discomfort, loneliness and high temperatures.
According to the model, as inmates experience these ‘pains’ of imprisonment, they engage in violence as a reaction to the hurt that they feel. Deprivation of material goods also increases competition amongst inmates which is then linked to aggression. However, it should be noted that others may choose to deal with the ‘pains’ in other ways e.g. withdrawing through seclusion in their cell or living space.
Aggression is also influenced by the nature of the prison regime. If it is unpredictable and regularly uses ‘lock ups’ to control behaviour, this creates frustration, reduces stimulation by barring other more interesting activities and reduces even further access to ‘goods’ (e.g. television). This then leads to aggression as a means of dealing with the frustration.
Which theory is better at explaining violence between inmates and which is better at explaining violence towards prison staff?
Importation model better at explaining violence between inmates and the deprivation model (situational) is better at explaining violence towards prison staff
What is it called when the models of nature and nurture are combined to explain aggression? Why might this be a better explanation of prison aggression than either one alone?
Interactionist approach
What real-world application does the deprivation model have? What evidence is there to support this? How is this a strength of the theory?
In the early 1990s, Prison Governor David Wilson reasoned that if the deprivation model is valid, reducing the temperature, noise and crowding of HMP Woodhill should reduce institutional aggression. Wilson set up two units for violent prisoners that were less claustrophobic and ‘prison-like’ and gave a view to the outside. The typical noise associated with prison life was reduced and masked by music from a local radio station. Temperature was lowered so it wasn’t stiflingly hot. These changes virtually eradicated assaults on prison staff and other inmates (Wilson, 2010).
This provides powerful support for the claim that situational variables are the main cause of aggression due to the cause and effect established between changing these variables and the reduction in institutional aggression. Therefore, this supports the internal validity of the deprivation model because when the environment was changed, the prisoners experienced fewer losses (e.g. They didn’t lose personal space, or experience hot temperatures) and so were in less ‘pain’ and so less likely to respond to this with aggression. Additionally, it supports the external validity of the model as it suggests that we can apply the model to the real-world to reduce rates of institutional aggression so that all prisoners experience fewer losses, less ‘pain’ and therefore are less likely to respond to this with aggression. However, due to the ethical implications of the research (e.g. victims and society feeling that perpetrators are not sufficiently ‘punished’ for their crimes), it is unlikely that these changes will become widespread in prisons, limiting the utility of the findings of the research.
Describe at least two studies that have studied institutional aggression. Make sure to cover both the importation and deprivation model. Describe the procedure and results of each study and explain exactly which parts of the theory each one supports or undermines.
Add other study
Camp and Gaes (2005)
They studied 561 male inmates with similar criminal histories and predispositions to aggression. Half were randomly placed in a low-security Californian prison and half were randomly placed in a high-security prison. Within two years, there was no significant difference between prisons in the number of prisoners involved in violent misconduct (33% and 36%).
Supports importation model because it suggests that the inmates bring in (import) the aggressive behaviour with them as seen through their similar criminal histories and predispositions to aggression. Therefore they are aggressive to negotiate their way through the unfamiliar and frightening prison environment, suggesting the model is valid.
Undermines deprivation model because if the prison environment was responsible for aggression, the high security prison should have resulted in greater losses and therefore more ‘pains’ of imprisonment. As such, they should have been more likely to respond to these pains with aggression than those in the low security prison who had fewer losses (and so less pain). As this wasn’t the case, this suggests that the theory isn’t a completely valid explanation of institutional aggression
Define media
Communication channels through which news, entertainment and data are made available
Define media influences on aggression
Changes in behaviour (aggression) that are attributed to exposure to media. Key note: when defining this, you will need to include the definition of media.
Define computer games
A game generally played on-screen using a keyboard, mouse or other controller. Types include simulations, first-person shooters, adventures, sports and role-playing games, often conducted using an online service.
Describe Bandura et al.’s procedure and results of media influences on aggression.
Procedure: They replicated their Bobo doll study but instead of the role model being live, the children watched a film of the adult role model being aggressive towards the Bobo doll.
Results: They found very similar results to the original experiment with children imitating the aggressive behaviour of the role model (and also of a cartoon version).
Conclusion: This suggests that children learn aggressive behaviour via social learning that occurs via the media as well as face-to-face.
Describe Bartholow and Anderson’s procedure and results of media influences on aggression.
Procedure: This study examined how playing a violent video game affected levels of aggression displayed in a laboratory. A total of 43 undergraduate students (22 men and 21 women) were randomly assigned to play either a violent (Mortal Kombat) or nonviolent (PGA Tournament Golf) video game for 10 minutes. Then they competed with a confederate in a reaction time task (called the Taylor Competitive Reaction Time Task or TCRTT) that allowed for provocation and retaliation. This blasts white noise at volumes chosen to by the winner to punish the opponent. Punishment levels set by participants for their opponents served as the measure of aggression.
Results: Those who played the violent game selected significantly higher noise levels (5.97 decibels) compared with non-violent players (4.6 decibels). This effect was larger for men than for women. They concluded that violent video games lead to more aggressive behaviour.
Describe De Lisi et al.’s procedure and results of media influences on aggression.
Procedure: They studied 277 juvenile offenders, all with histories of serious aggressive behaviours such as hitting a teacher/parent/gang fighting. Using structured interviews, they gathered data on several measures of aggression and violent computer game-playing.
Results: They found that the offenders’ aggressive behaviour was significantly correlated with how often they played violent computer games and how much they enjoyed them. They argued that aggression should be a public health issue like HIV/AIDS.
What is the benefit of using laboratory experiments to investigate how computer games influence aggression?
Experimental studies allow us to establish a causal link between media aggression and aggressive behaviour, supporting the internal validity of the suggestion that the media influences aggression
Laboratory experiments of media influences on aggression tend to lack mundane realism. How? Why is this a problem?
However, the measures of aggression in a laboratory are often accused of being unrealistic and artificial, such as the use of the Taylor Competitive Reaction Time Task which measures how much loud noise is selected, which is not like typical aggression that would occur after playing a computer game ordinarily. Additionally, the aggression does not involve any fear of retaliation like there would be in the real world
Therefore, the studies can only measure the short-term effects of media influences on aggression, and not in a way that is externally valid. This implies that from the research, it is difficult to support the causal link between media aggression and real-life aggression as the studies cannot measure aggression in a way that it occurs in outside of the laboratory setting. This can be overcome by longitudinal studies to observe real-life patterns of behaviour, but in such studies participants may be exposed to other forms of media violence or other sources of violence in real life, meaning that the effect of one particular form of media on aggression would be uncertain.
Why might it not be the violence of the computer game that leads to aggression? What evidence do we have that it may be something else? Why is this a problem for the studies?
Ignore
It is frequently claimed that it is the violent content of video games that creates feeling of aggression in players which then spills over into aggressive behaviour in their own lives. However, research suggests that this may not be the case. Przybylski et al. (2014) had players play either Marathon 2 (a violent first-person shooter game) or Glider Pro 4 (where a player flies a paper aeroplane). They found that it was not the storyline or imagery, but the lack of mastery and difficulty players had in completing the game that led to frustration and aggression. This was evident across both violent and non-violent games (i.e. Both games led to aggression).
This suggests that aggressive behaviour may be linked to a player’s experience of failure and frustration during a game rather than the game’s violent storyline (for the very top marks explain this using the frustration-aggression hypothesis). Therefore, our understanding of the link between computer games and aggression is too simplistic by suggesting that violent video games cause aggression because of their violent nature, as even non-violent games can lead to aggression if they are poorly designed or too difficult.
What is the problem with using correlational studies to investigate the link between the media and aggression?
Ignore
Whilst correlational studies allow us to investigate realistic forms of aggression, we cannot draw causal conclusions from them because no variables are manipulated and there is no random allocation of participants to violent or non-violent media conditions. Therefore, a positive correlation between viewing or playing of violent media and aggressive behaviour could be because aggressive media causes people to become more aggressive or because people who are already aggressive select aggressive media.
The directional of causality cannot be settled by correlational studies and as such from this evidence we cannot strongly support the internal validity of the suggestion that the media influences aggressive behaviour.
What benefits does playing violent computer games have? How is this an evaluation idea?
Ignore
Granic and Lobel (2013) found that playing violent shooter games can improve a player’s capacity to think about objects in 3D, develop problem-solving skills and enhance creativity.
This suggests that playing violent computer games does not always have anti-social consequences (aggression) and that playing such games could have important implications for education and career development, as research has established the power of spatial skills for achievement in STEM subjects.
Other risk factors may be the primary cause of aggression rather than media exposure. Give a couple of examples of other risk factors.
Ignore
Many studies of media influences on aggression fail to account for other variables that explain why some people display aggressive behaviour and why those same people may choose to play violent video games. For example, Ferguson et al. (2009) found 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.
This suggests that these other risk factors, rather than exposure to media violence, are the primary causes of aggressive behaviour. As such, the research may not be able to strongly support the validity of the proposal that media influences lead to aggressive behaviour.
Describe how desensitisation explains how exposure to violent media leads to aggression.
Repeated exposure to media violence –> Reduced physiological arousal associated with SNS (so heart rate doesn’t increase as much, don’t sweat as much etc) i.e. less physiologically anxious and reduced psychological arousal e.g. belief that aggression is socially acceptable, less empathy for victims, injuries minimised or dismissed, less negative attitudes towards violence –> Aggression is more likely
Describe the procedure and results of one study that supports desensitisation. Explain how this supports desensitisation theory.
Weisz and Earls (1995) showed their participants the film Straw Dogs, which contains a prolonged and graphic scene of rape. Participants then watched a re-enactment of a trial. Their results were compared to those who watched a non-sexually violent film. Compared to those who watched a non-sexually violent film, male viewers of Straw Dogs showed a greater acceptance of rape myths and sexual aggression, expressed less sympathy towards the rape victim in the trial and were less likely to find the defendant guilty. There was no such effect of film type on female participants.
This supports predictions made by desensitisation. Participants who are exposed to violent media show reduced psychological arousal associated with anxiety [give specific examples here], supporting the validity of desensitisation as an explanation of media influences on aggression.
[You can note here that it doesn’t actually demonstrate that they become more aggressive].
What implications does the desensitisation theory have? How is this a strength of the theory?
Desensitisation can be adaptive for individuals. For example, desensitisation to the horrors of combat can make troops more effective in their role. However, desensitisation to violent stimuli may also be detrimental for both the individual and society. Bushman and Anderson (2009) found that violent media exposure can reduce helping behaviour that might otherwise be offered to others in distress. They claim that people exposed to media violence become ‘comfortably numb’ to the pain and suffering of others and are consequently less helpful.
This suggests that there are important implications for society of desensitisation through media violence, in that society will become more accepting of pain of others, potentially making aggression more likely, supporting the external validity of the theory as an explanation of media influences on aggression. If we accept this, there are then important implications for society in order to try to counteract this, for instance through media regulation of aggressive programmes. This could lead to decreased aggression, but whether this would occur is unlikely given that people have the right to choose what they watch and don’t watch.
Describe at least one study that supports disinhibition. Describe the procedure and results and exactly how it supports the theory.
Goranson (1969) showed participants a film of a boxing match where there were two alternate endings. In one ending, there were no apparent consequences. In the 2nd ending, the loser of the fight was seen to take a bad beating and die. 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 that disinhibition may be more likely in violent media where the negative consequences are not made apparent or are not understood by viewers as this makes aggressive behaviour seem more socially acceptable (new social norms) weakening the restraints against being aggressive, making it more likely to occur. This suggests it is a valid explanation of media influences on aggression.
How does age and family background influence disinhibition? Why is this a problem for the theory?
The likelihood of disinhibition taking place is determined by a number of factors. For example, 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. Additionally, children who grow up in households with strong norms against violence are unlikely to experience sufficient disinhibition for them to exhibit aggressive behaviour even when they are exposed to violent media.
This suggests that the relationship between media violence and disinhibition is not a straightforward one, and is mediated by a number of individual and social characteristics. As such, it is unlikely that disinhibition alone can explain media influences on aggression.
Describe how cognitive priming explains how exposure to violent media leads to aggression.
Repeatedly seeing violent media creates an aggressive schema that is stored in memory –> When we are exposed to aggressive images or cues in the media (priming stimuli) the schema is triggered –> We have greater access to the aggressive thoughts and ideas in the schema –> This activates other aggressive thoughts in memory –> When we are exposed to priming in situations we perceive to be aggressive, it triggers the schema leading us to be aggressive –> This can be specific (the same aggressive act as viewed) or more general (tendency to generally be more aggressive)
Describe at least one study that supports cognitive priming. Describe the procedure and results and exactly how it supports the theory.
Fischer and Greitmeyer (2006) looked at the priming of aggressive scripts in memory by investigating a neglected form of media violence – song lyrics. Male participants listened to songs featuring aggressively derogatory lyrics about women. Compared with when they listened to neutral lyrics, participants subsequently recalled more negative qualities about women and behaved more aggressively towards a female confederate. This procedure was replicated with female participants using ‘men-hating’ song lyrics, with similar results.
This supports that the exposure to the derogatory lyrics acted as priming stimuli, making participants ready to be aggressive, as it led to more aggressive thoughts (which is why they remember more negative things about her). This then led to their aggressive behaviour towards the female confederate. This supports the validity of the explanation of how the media influences aggression.
Why might the theory not apply to all kinds of violent media? What evidence is there for this? Why is this a problem for the theory?
Atkin (1983) found that higher levels of aggression resulted from the viewing of more realistic or realistically perceived violence. The fictional violence in some computer games, may not have the same priming effects as in games with more realistic violence
This suggests that exposure to more realistic or intense forms of media aggression (compared with cartoon or animated forms of aggression) might influence the types and intensity of activated thoughts and ideas, which may then manifest themselves in different ways. Consequently, this suggests that the cognitive priming explanation may not be able to explain aggression from all forms of aggressive media, only more realistic ones, and therefore it may not be an entirely valid explanation of how media violence influences aggression.
Describe how disinhibition causes aggression
Repeated exposure to violent media weakens the restraints (inhibitions) —> Aggression appears normative, socially sanctioned (especially if seems justified, victims pain is minimised, violence is rewarded or not punished) —> Aggression is temporality socially acceptable (new social norms) making aggression more likely
