Aggression Flashcards
(AO1) neural mechanisms
*Papez (1937) and Maclean (1972) claimed limbic system involved with aggression. Limbic system = hypothalamus, amygdala and part of hippocampus
*Gospic (2011) said high activity in the amygdala is linked to aggressive behaviour.
*Denson et al (2012) found low serotonin disrupts firing of neuron’s in orbit frontal cortex
(AO3) neural mechanisms
*Limitation. Non limbic structures involved with aggression. OFC involved with impulse regulation and inhibition of aggressive behaviour. Coccaro et al (2007) saw OFC activity is reduced in those psychiatric disorders that feature aggression. Shows neural regulation of aggression is more complex than just amygdala
*Strength for serotonin. Paroxetine increases serotonin and reduce aggression. Berman et al (2009) gave ppts placebo/paroxetine. Paroxetine group gave less and fewer shocks
(AO1) hormonal mechanisms
- (T) Daly and Wilson (1988) found men most aggressive at 20 years old when testosterone is at highest level.
- (T) Gimmanco et al (2005) castration studies found reducing testes of animals reduced aggression
- (T) Dolan et al (2004) found p correlation with testosterone levels and aggression in prison of 60 violent offenders in uk hospitals
- (P) Ziomkiewicz et al (2012) found negative correlational in progesterone levels and self reported aggression. Low progesterone = high aggression
(AO3) hormonal mechanisms
*Strength for testosterone. Gimmanco et al (2005) studied male rhesus monkeys and found high testosterone during mating season was linked with high aggression. Also, injected female rats with testosterone and this increased mouse killing.
*Limitation. Duel-hormone hypothesis. Carre and Mehta (2011) developed duel-hormone hypothesis. High testosterone = high aggression but only when cortisol is low. When cortisol is high, testosterone influence is blocked demonstrating cortisol plays significant role.
(AO1) genetic factors
*Coccaro et al (1997) studied MZ and DZ twins concordance rate of physical assult. 50% for MZ and 19% for DZ. Also, verbal aggression was 28% for MZ and 7% for DZ. Demonstrates genetic factors.
*Rhee and Waldman (2002) MA of adoption studies of aggressive behaviour. Found genetic factors account for 41% of aggression.
*MAOA gene controls production of MAO-A which regulates serotonin. MAOA-L = high aggression
(AO3) genetic factors
*Limitation. Frazzeto et al (2007) found association with high antisocial aggression and MAOA-L gene variant but only those who had trauma in their first 15 years.
*limitation of twin studies. hard to separate nature/nurture. mz twins treated more similarly than dz twins. concordance rates inflated
*strength. mertins et al (2011) studied men with MAOA-L and MAOA-H gene in money distributing game. found those with MAOA-H were more co operative and less aggressive in the game
(AO1) ethological explanation ****
*dominance heiraches. beneficial for territory but never really ends with killing.
*ritualistic- series of behaviour carried out in a set order. Lorenz (1966) found animal fights led to lower physical damage and higher ritual signals. Confrontations end with ritualistic appeasement displays.
*Lea (1984) FAP. 1)stereotyped 2)universal 3)unaffected by learning 4)ballistic 5)single purpose 6)response
*Tinbergen (1951) sticklebacks. Found that regardless of shape, if there was a red dot the stickleback would attack regardless defending territory. FAPs unchanged per encounter.
(AO3) ethological explanations ****
*Limitation. Aggressive behaviour differs in different countries. Nisbett (1993) found 1 type of homicide more common in white US south men than north. This overrides the innate predisposition explanation
*Limitation. Same species aggression not just ritualistic. Goodall (2010) 4 year war. Male chimps would kill and torture others from other communities
*Limitation. FAPs outdated. Hunt (1973) said FAPs are influenced by the environment and learning experiences. Each encounter with a FAP was different.
(AO1) evolutionary explanation
*sexual jealousy. men never 100% sure that the child is theirs. any effort into offspring that is not theirs is a waste of resources and strengthens opponent genes.
*Wilson and Daly (1996) found male retention strategies : direct guarding (stalking) and negative inducements (will kms if you leave)
*Wilson et al (1995) found women with stalker men are 2x more likely to be abused. 73% needing medical attention and 53% fearing for life
*evo explanation for bullying also. males = Volk at al (2012) says bullying is attractive for females. shows dominance and good natural selection traits. females = control partner and secure partners fidelity
(AO3) evolutionary explanation
*Limitation. cultural differences. Thomas (1958) studied Kung San tribe and found they don’t like the use of aggression in the tribe. demonstrates that it isn’t innate.
*strength for bullying. real life improvements to reduce bullying. Ellis et al (2016) said bullying is adaptive and there needs to be a different role to feel dominant in order to reduce bullying.
(AO1) frustration-aggression hypothesis (social psychological explanation of aggression)
*Dollard (1939) states frustration always leads to aggression. Frustration occurs when our goal is blocked by external factor. Sometimes you can’t always be aggressive so it is displaced.
*the weapon effect - Berkowitz and LePage (1967) found ppts gave average of 6.07 shocks when a gun was on the table compared to 4.67 when there was no weapon.
(AO3) frustration-aggression hypothesis (social psychological explanation of aggression)
*Strength. Newhall et al (2000) conducted meta analysis of 49 studies. found that frustrated ppts who were provoked but unable to retaliate against the source were significantly more likely to be aggressive against innocent party rather than control group.
*Limitation. role of catharsis. Bushman (2002) found ppts who vented anger by hitting punchbag became more aggressive. shows that the theory isn’t valid.
(AO1) social learning theory (social psychological explanation of aggression)
*Bandura. Learn through OC. PR, NR and punishments. Observational learning. acquire specific aggressive behaviours through observing models. vicarious reinforcement also increases aggression. aggression might be deemed okay/ cool in tv shows
*cognitive conditions. ARMM. self-efficacy (extent to which we believe our actions will reach desired goal). aggression might bring rewards and therefore aggressive behaviour grows. self-efficacy increases with each successful outcome.
*Also Bandura 1961 bobo doll. imitate aggressive behaviour. boys same sex
(AO3) social learning theory (social psychological explanation of aggression)
*Strength. Poulin and Boivin (2000) found 9-12 aggressive boys befriended other aggressive boys. reinforced aggressive behaviour through modelling . rewarded approval. this is predicted by SLT.
*strength. can help reduce aggression in real life. provide and advertise non aggressive role models. this can encourage non aggression and end up helping society
*limitation. underestimates biological influences. instinctive urge to be aggressive. clear hormonal/neural/genetic influences on aggression which SLT does not acknowledge therefore incomplete explanation.
(AO1) de-individuation (social psychological explanation of aggression)
*Le Bon (1895) found behaviour of individuals in crowds. A crowd means less restraint and more freedom. This therefore disregards social norms.
*Zimbardo (1969) de-individuated behaviours are emotional, impulsive, irrational, disinhibited, loose self awareness. these behaviours are made worse through the use of alcohol, masks, drugs etc. the bigger the crowd, the more anonymous feeling
*Dunn and Rogers (1982) aggression is due to consequences of anonymity. private self awareness and public self awareness both decrease when in a crowd.
*Dodd (1985) also illustrated de-individuation. Asked 229 undergraduate psychology students ‘if you could do anything humanely possible without being caught what would it be’ . Dodd found that 36% responses involved some form of antisocial behaviour. 26% criminal acts. Only 9% were prosocial behaviours. shows link between anonymity, de-individuation and aggressive behaviour.
