Aggression Flashcards
Analyse Raine et al (1997) - Summary (Aim)
To investigate whether there is a difference in the brain activity of people who have committed murder and those who have not.
Raine wanted to determine if there was a biological reason for some people acting more aggressively than others.
Analyse Raine et al (1997) - Summary (Method)
Used 41 offenders who pled Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity and 41 non-offenders.
Participants were brought to the university of California and were injected with a glucose tracer to allow fora PET scan to find out which parts of the brain were active.
Participants were asked to complete a continuous performance task which was designed to force participants to use parts of the brain that researchers were interested in. such as the Amygdala and prefrontal cortex. They did this task 32 minutes before the PET scan.
The study used a matched participant design as participants were matched on age and gender and the schizophrenics were matched with schizophrenics from the other group.
Analyse Raine et al (1997) - Summary (Results)
It was found that in the NGRI group there was increased activity in the amygdala compared to control group and decreased activity in the prefrontal cortex.
There were no differences in some areas that were associated with mental illness but not violence.
There were abnormal asymmetries as there was reduced activity on the left and increased activity on the right which applies to some areas that have been identified to be linked with violence.
Analyse Raine et al (1997) - Evaluation (Strengths)
The participants participated under protocols and consent forms approved by the Human Subjects Committee of University of California which meant participants were protected from harm and gave informed consent.
Raine ensured there was methodological control by making sure participants were not taking any other medications that may have changed the PET scan results. The participants were also given time to familiarise themselves with the performance task before the study started which improves the reliability of the results.
Analyse Raine et al (1997) - Evaluation (Weaknesses)
The sample of aggressive people only contained murders who pled NGRI which means it doesn’t represent all types of violence so the results cannot be applied to all aggression.
The PET images were unclear and hard to read which reduces the reliability of the results.
It could be potentially be dangerous to apply the findings of the study to wider society. If it is suggested that brain structure leads to violent behaviour, it may lead to defense lawyers using this idea to defend their clients.
Analyse Raine et al (1997) - Link
The prefrontal cortex is responsible for decision-making and impulse control. Its main job is to control our emotional responses to stress. Damage to this part of the brain would reduced the inhibition of the amygdala resulting in higher levels of aggression.
Evidence of this is that neuropsychological tests have found impairment in the prefrontal cortex in juvenile offenders.
The amygdala is a brain structure located in the limbic system that controls our emotional responses. Because of this, the amygdala is strongly linked to feelings of anger or fear that can result in aggressive behaviours.
Analyse Raine et al (1997) - Comparison
Barroni et al did neuropsychological tests that found impairment in the prefrontal cortex in juvenile offenders which agrees with Raine’s findings that murderers who pled NGRI had reduced prefrontal cortex activity.
Summer (2007) found that the aggression levels of a girl who was showing extreme aggressive behaviour went back to normal once she had a tumour removed that was pressing on her amygdala which agrees with the results of Raine which found that murderers who pled NGRI had increased activity in the amygdala.
Gospic et al did FMRIs which found that increased activity in the amygdala was present in participants showing aggressive behaviour which agrees with Raine’s results.
King (1961) demonstrated that when the amygdala was electrically stimulated,
participants became threatening and verbally abusive which also agrees with Raine’s results.
Grafman et al found that vietnam veterans with prefrontal brain injuries demonstrate higher levels of aggression than that which they had shown before the injury which supports Raine’s results.
Bufkin did MRI and PET studies which have shown reduced volume and metabolism of the prefrontal
cortex in aggressive people which agrees with Raine’s findings that murderers who pled NGRI had reduced prefrontal cortex activity compared to the control group.
Analyse Raine et al (1997) - Implications
This could mean that both defense and prosecution lawyers could use brain scans on the accused in order to see whether their brain activity lines up with the brain activity present in violent people. However this could lead to negative consequences as if their brain activity is similar then it may make them seem like a more likely culprit however that isn’t necessarily the case as not as aggressive people are criminals.
Biological Influences - Neural (Limbic system)
The limbic system can affect aggression as it is the part of the brain which controls aggression which controls emotion, learning and memory.
It also regulates our primitive urges such as sleep, appetite, fear and sex drive.
The amygdala is a brain structure located in the limbic system which controls our emotion responses. Because of this it is strongly linked to feelings of anger or fear that can result in aggressive behaviours.
Evidence of this is Summer (2007) which conducted a case study on a 14-year-old girl showing extreme aggressive behaviour as well as epileptic fits. MRI scans revealed a tumour pressing on her amygdala. After it was removed her aggression levels became normal.
Biological Influences - Neural (Prefrontal Cortex)
The prefrontal cortex is responsible for decision-making and impulse control. Its main job is to control our emotional responses to stress. Damage to the prefrontal cortex would reduce the inhibition of the amygdala resulting in higher levels of aggression.
Evidence of this is Barroni et al (2022) which did neuropsychological tests that found impairment in the prefrontal cortex in juvenile offenders.
Biological Influences - Hormones (Serotonin)
Serotonin helps maintain our mood and impulse control. A decrease or lack of serotonin disrupts this mechanism and can lead to an increase in impulsiveness and aggression.
Evidence of this is Virkkunen et al (1994) which found that violent, impulsive offenders have lower levels of serotonin than non-violent offenders.
Biological Influences - Hormonal (Testosterone)
Testosterone is the primary sex hormone in males. It is strongly associated with competition and aggression.
The challenge hypothesis suggests that testosterone promotes aggression when it would be beneficial for reproduction, such as mate guarding or fighting off challengers.
Evidence of this is Edwards (1968) which gave testosterone to female mice and found that they began to act with much more aggression than normal.
Biological Influences - Neural/Hormonal (strengths)
Research studies have found evidence to support the idea that high levels of testosterone can lead to aggression. For example, Van Goozen (1997) conducted a natural observation on people who were transitioning to the opposite sex. It was found that males who were given testosterone suppressants were less aggressive whereas females given testosterone boosters were more aggressive.
Most violent behaviours are carried out by men (who have more testosterone) which supports this idea.
Biological Influences - Neural and Hormonal (weaknesses)
It is unclear whether hormone imbalances cause aggression or aggressive behaviour causes hormone imbalance.
This explanation is reductionist. All aggression cannot be explained purely by biology.
Not all men are violent and if testosterone was the only reason, this would not be the case.
This explanation is deterministic and assumes humans have no free will or control of their aggressive behaviours. We know this is not true and not everyone with hormone/neurotransmitter imbalances will act on their aggressive thoughts.
Biological Influences- Genetic
One specific gene that has been identified to carry the aggression trait is Monoamine Oxidase A (MAOA) which is known as the “warrior gene” due to many research studies identifying a relationship between the gene and increased levels of violence.
MAO is a protein that helps nerve cells transfer serotonin, norepinephrine and dopamine.
MAOA leads to there not being enough MAO which means that there is too much serotonin, norepinephrine and dopamine in the body. This leads to too much adrenaline which causes the hypersensitivity of the fight or flight response.
Evidence of this is McDermott (2009) which found that those with the MAOA gene were much more likely to administer higher levels of hot sauce (causing them more harm and therefore showing more aggression) than those without the MAOA gene.
Biological Influences - Genetic (strengths)
Research evidence into both animals and humans supports the genetic explanation of aggression.
Biological Influences - Genetic (weaknesses)
The high concordance rate for aggression between MZ twins may be due to environmental factors, therefore reducing the validity of the genetic explanation.
The fact that the concordance for aggression in monozygotic twins was not 100% suggests there is another factor that is an influence, and this factor could be linked to the environment.
Another weakness of the genetic explanation of aggression is that it is deterministic. It takes a hard determinist stance that individuals do not choose to be aggressive, instead it is caused by factors beyond their control, i.e. their genetics.
Biological Influences - Evolutionary
Natural selection assumes that animals with the most successful traits for reproduction and survival will pass their genes on to offspring. Aggression can help as it can aid animals in protecting themselves, their families and their resources.
Our limbic systems have evolved to allow us to behave in an aggressive manner should we feel the need to (in order to survive).
Sexual jealousy is a major motivator of aggressive behaviour in males as, unlike females, men can never be completely certain whether or not they have fathered a child. This paternity uncertainty is a result of the very real threat for the male cuckoldry, or having to raise offspring that are not his own.
The evolutionary theory suggests that bullying is an adaptive strategy to increase their chances of survival by promoting their own health and creating opportunities for reproduction. Volk (2012) argued that characteristics associated with physical and verbal bullying behaviours are attractive to the opposite sex.
Evidence of this is Shackleford (2005) which found that men who used guarding or negative inducements were more likely to use physical violence against their partners. These retention behaviours reliably predicted husbands’ use of violence against their wives.
Biological Influences - Evolutionary (strengths)
This theory is supported by research evidence that suggests aggression is an innate behaviour. If this is the case, more research should be conducted so that it can be used to help reduce aggression in society.
Biological Influences - Evolutionary (weaknesses)
This theory could be used to justify violence against women. Assuming men are behaving aggressively as a result of sexual jealousy or competition is a dangerous argument.
This is a reductionist view and does not consider other factors that could influence aggression, for example biological or genetic differences.
This theory is deterministic as it assumes we are controlled by our evolutionary needs - the existence of our prefrontal cortex highlights that we have the ability to make decisions on aggressive behaviour. We are not controlled by our primal needs.
Biological Influences - Ethological
The ethological explanation argues that aggression is an innate behaviour that has an adaptive function.
Aggression is explained as adaptive because it is beneficial to survival and reproductive success.
Aggression can occur because it is an automated response in the brain - animals have an innate neural structure that responds to an external stimuli with an automatic behavioural response.
Therefore if a human or animal is exposed to a threatening stimuli, it will automatically respond in an aggressive manner.
All species have fixed action patterns (FAPs) which are produced by innate releasing mechanisms (IRMS).
For example, when a cat runs, a dog will chase it. The IRMS is the cat running and the FAP is the dog chasing it.
Evidence of this is Tinbergen (1952) which investigated male sticklebacks by presenting them with unrealistic wooden models which either had red patches underneath (similar to red bellies of male sticklebacks) or realistic models without red bellies. All males attacked only the unrealistic wooden models with the red bellies which shows these patches act as a biological trigger to start an aggressive fixed action pattern (FAP) even when there was no threat.
Biological Influences - Ethological (strengths)
Research evidence has shown that our limbic system triggers aggression when in a threatening environment (IRM triggers FAP) which supports the ethological explanation.
Biological Influences - Ethological (Weaknesses)
This explanation is reductionist. The suggestion that genes and instincts control aggression ignores the free will of the individual and the ability of the individual to control their behaviour.
Research has suggested that sequences of behaviours that appear to be fixed and unchanging are greatly influenced by by environmental factors and learning experiences. So FAPs are more flexible than implied by the term “fixed”.
The idea that aggression has evolved into a fairly physically harmless ritual has been challenged by observations of chimpanzees at a national park in Tanzania. Male chimps from one community planned on slaughtering all the members of another group. They prepared this. The violence continued despite the victims showing signs of appeasement and defenseless. These signs did not inhibit the aggressive behaviour of the attacking chimps as predicted by the ethological explanation.
Social Influence - Analysis of Social Learning Theory (Summary)
Social Learning theory is based on the behaviourist model of psychology which argues our behaviours are shaped by our external environments.
Albert Bandura, the man who developed SLT, argued that the model ignored the inner person and that there was a deeper explanation for behaviour.
SLT argues that learned behaviours can be influenced by our social setting and that we learn from each other.
Bandura believed that four things need to happen for imitation of aggression to occur: attention, retention, reproduction and motivation.
Vicarious reinforcement is when a behaviour is more likely to be copied if it is rewarded.
Social Influence - Analysis of Social Learning Theory (Link)
This theory links to Dillon and Bushman as in that study the children who watched a violent movie used a gun which suggests that they learned this behaviour by observing the person in the movie.
Bandura used a study involving children and Bobo dolls to find evidence for this theory. The study found that the children who witnessed aggressive behaviour were more likely to be aggressive to the bobo doll. This links to SLT as it suggests that we learn our behaviours from watching other people.
Social Influence - Analysis of Social Learning Theory (Implication)
This could mean that children are becoming desensitized to violence when they are seeing it as they are observing the behaviour and learning it like SLT suggests.
This could be why there are PG ratings on films as this prevents children from being as able to view violence media and model their behaviour off of this.
This could also be why the 9PM watershed exists as this is a preventative measure to stop children from seeing violent media so they cannot model their behaviour off of this.
This approach implies that aggression is nurture over nature.
Social Influence - Analysis of Social Learning Theory (Comparison)
This theory agrees with Dysfunctional Institutions as prisoners and guards learn their role and model aggression which is something that SLT argues happens to cause aggression.
This theory agrees with computer games as people could learn violence from characters and the aim of the game.
This agrees with Cognitive Priming as cognitive priming suggests that people learn aggressive “scripts” from movies and TV like in SLT where people learn aggressive behaviours from observing others.
This disagrees with the Biological influences as SLT argues that aggression is learned not innate.
Social Influence - Analysis of Social Learning Theory (Evaluation - Strengths)
One strength of this theory is that it can be applied to the real world and can aid educators with appropriate practice in reducing aggressive behaviours in children.
Another strength of this theory is that it has important implications on the effects of media violence on children. If children’s behaviour is easily influenced by media then they should be kept away from all types of violent media.
One final strength of this theory is that social learning can be used to explain cultural differences in aggression as the theory suggests that because different cultures will be exposed to different levels of aggressive behaviour they will come to have different views on how acceptable certain violent behaviours are.
Social Influence - Analysis of Social Learning Theory (Evaluation - Weaknesses)
One weakness of this theory is that the majority of research that supports it is experimental with a high level of control which means that the studies lack ecological validity.
Another weakness of this theory is that it is a reductionist view of aggression because, whilst environment is a key factor in the development of aggressive behaviours, studies have found a large biological influence. This theory ignores this and places a strong emphasis on the behaviourist explanation of aggression.
Social Influence - Sykes’ Deprivation Model (Summary)
Sykes’ Deprivation Model of aggression argues that aggressive behaviour can be explained through situational factors.
The model focuses on aggressive behaviours in a prison environment.
It also argues that aggression comes from the institution itself rather than the individual.
The five deprivations in this model are: The deprivation of liberty, autonomy, goods and services, heterosexual partners and security.
Social Influence - Sykes’ Deprivation Model (Link)
Steiner (2009) found that inmate aggression increased when there was overcrowding. This links to the deprivation model because this overcrowding could cause them to feel unsafe and be deprived of security.
Cunningham (2010) found that motivations behind inmate homicides were linked to deprivations which links to the model as the inmates being deprived caused them to become more violent.
Social Influence - Sykes’ Deprivation Model (Implication)
The deprivation model implies that aggression is nurture over natural as the theory suggests that the aggression is a product of their environment.
Overcrowding in UK prisons leads to increased violence. If conditions improved then aggression might decrease.
Labour Govt. released 1000 inmates to reduce overcrowding in October 2024 which may cause a decrease in violence in prisons.
Social Influence - Sykes’ Deprivation Model (Comparison)
Agrees with Dysfunctional Institutions and the Importation model as all theories believe that prisons are aggressive environment.
Disagrees with importation model about why there is aggression in prisons as the importation model suggests that you bring your own traits from the outside world into prison so these people were already aggressive before going to prison whereas the Deprivation Model argues that aggression is more prevalent in prisons due to the environment.
Disagrees with the biological influences to aggression as the deprivation model argues aggression is due to the environment whereas the biological influences argue aggression is nature over nurture.
Social Influence - Sykes’ Deprivation Model (Evaluation - Strengths)
This theory has strong real-life applications and this model can be used to help reduce aggressive behaviours in prison settings.
Social Influence - Sykes’ Deprivation Model (Evaluation - Weaknesses)
This theory only applies to prison inmates and doesn’t explain aggression in the outside world so it can’t be applied to the whole population.
Doesn’t consider biological influences on aggression. Dabbs (1995) found inmates convicted of violent crimes had higher testosterone levels than those who committed non-violent crimes. This shows that biological factors should be considered.
The model predicts that deprivation of freedom and heterosexual contact should lead to high levels of aggression. However research evidence doesn’t support this. For example Hensley et al (2002) studied 256 male and female prisoners of two prisons in Mississippi where conjugal visits are allowed and there was no link between involvement in these visits and aggression.
Social Influence - Analysis of Dysfunctional Institutions (Summary)
It is believed by some social psychologists that if the environment is dysfunctional then the greater chance there is of aggression in prisons.
Zimbardo suggested that prisons are dysfunctional because they are isolated from the outside world have their own set of values.
The organisation of power within an institution allows individuals to become aggressors because it is considered a social norm.
It is also argued that this increased aggression in individuals is due to situational attribution because prisoner and guard violence is due to the expectations of their social role as opposed to their personalities.
Social Influence - Analysis of Dysfunctional Institutions (Link)
Zimbardo’s Stanford prison experiment found that participants who were given a role of prison guard became extremely aggressive towards prisoners. This links to dysfunctional institutions as the “guards” were all psychologically normal which suggests that because of the social role of guards this led to them being more aggressive.
Social Influence - Analysis of Dysfunctional Institutions (Implications)
This implies that people are aggressive due to social context (nurture).
This could also explain why Nazi Soldiers were extremely violent in concentration camps.
This idea of these roles causing heightened aggression also explains prison violence on the whole.
This could also explain the Abu Ghraib prison where American soldiers tortured Iraqi POW’s.
Social Influence - Analysis of Dysfunctional Institutions (Compare)
Agrees with Social Learning Theory as both theories suggest that aggression is a learned behaviour that is then modelled by someone.
Agrees with the deprivation and importation models as they all say that prisons are aggressive environments.
Agrees with the agency theory as both believe that people will change behaviour if they believe someone else is responsible.
Disagrees with importation about why prisons are aggressive as importation believes that prisons are aggressive due to the traits that the inmates bring from the outside world whereas D.I believes this is because of the social roles of guards and prisoners.
Social Influence - Analysis of Dysfunctional Institutions (Evaluation - Strengths)
High ecological validity - can be used to reduce prison violence.
Social Influence - Analysis of Dysfunctional Institutions (Evaluation - Weaknesses)
It is too reductionist. Dabbs (1995) found inmates convicted of violent crimes had higher levels of testosterone than those convicted of non-violent crimes.
It is not applicable to the general population as it only applies to prison inmates’ aggression.
Social Influence - Analysis of the Importation Model (Summary)
The Importation Model was devised by Irwin and Cressey (1962).
This explanation suggests that prisoners import their own social histories and traits into prison.
Because of this it suggests that the inmates bring their aggressive behaviours into prison.
Therefore it suggests that the aggression evident in prison is no different to how they behave at home.
It also says that aggression is not specific to the institution of prison itself but is rather due to the personalities of the prisoners themselves.
Social Influence - Analysis of the Importation Model (Link)
Keller and Wang (2005) found that Prison violence is higher in high security prisons (more violent inmates) which links to the importation theory as the inmates would have committed more violent crimes to be sent there so they would be more prone to violent behaviour outside of prison.
Camp and Gaes (2005) found that 36% of inmates in high security prisons involved in aggressive behaviour compared to 33% of inmates in low security prisons which links to the importation model as it once again suggests that the more violent inmates have brought their violent behaviours into prison.
Social Influence - Analysis of the Importation Model (Implication)
This may mean that higher security prisons will have higher levels of violence as they have brought their aggressive traits in from the outside world.
This could mean that a solution to lowering aggression in prisons would be putting special measures in high security prisons to ensure the safety of prisoners/guards.
Social Influence - Analysis of the Importation Model (Comparison)
Agrees with The deprivation model and Dysfunctional Institutions as all explanations say that prisons are an aggressive environment.
Disagrees with Dysfunctional Institutions as to why there is aggression in prisons as importation believes that prisons are aggressive due to the traits that the inmates bring from the outside world whereas D.I believes this is because of the social roles of guards and prisoners.
Social Influence - Analysis of the Importation Model (Evaluation - Strengths)
High ecological validity so it can be used to help reduce prison violence.
More aggression is found in high security institutions, where the most violent criminals are held.
Social Influence - Analysis of the Importation Model (Evaluation - Weaknesses)
The explanation is not applicable to all types of aggression as it only applies to prison inmates’ aggression.
The sample is biased as most research has been tested on male-only prisons and cannot be applied to female aggression.
Media Influence - Analysis of Computer Games (Summary)
Computer games can mould young people to behave aggressively due to the active participation in the activity.
First person games like COD can have an effect. In the game you are rewarded for behaving aggressively which can lead to aggression being seen positively by the young person.
Media Influence - Analysis of Computer Games (Link)
Bartholow (2002) had students play violent or non violent games and then had them carry out TCRTT. The study found that those who played the violent game selected significantly higher noise levels to punish their opponent compared with the nonviolent players which links to the idea that violent videos games can make you more aggressive.
Delisi (2013) found a correlation between juvenile offenders’ violent behaviour and how much they enjoyed violent games which links to the idea that violent games can make you more aggressive.
Media Influence - Analysis of Computer Games (Implication)
This could be the reason why ratings are put on violent games as this limits the exposure that young people will get to these games which may prevent them from becoming less violent.
This implies that research could help educators understand and tackle the potential harm from video games and could prevent young people from being as violent.
This implies game developers should focus on creating non-violent games with non-violent role models so young people may not be as aggressive.
Media Influence - Analysis of Computer Games (Comparison)
Agrees with SLT as both agree that people observe and model aggressive behaviour.
Agrees with Cognitive Priming as both suggest that media such as video games gives people “scripts” about aggressive.
Agrees with Disinhibition as both suggest that people are led to believe that violence is socially acceptable.
Media Influence - Analysis of Computer Games (Evaluation - Strengths)
Supporting studies used experimental methods which allows them to establish cause and effect between video games and violence which increases the objectivity and internal validity of the research.
Media Influence - Analysis of Computer Games (Evaluation - Weaknesses)
The experimental methods used were artificial which means that the studies used as evidence lack ecological validity.
Evidence for the theory is conflicting and does not show clear cause and effect.
Conflicting evidence: Durkin and Barber (2002) found that 16 year olds who regularly played video games were as well adjusted as their peers and no more prone to engaging in risky behaviour.
There are two conflicting hypotheses: the socialisation hypothesis - aggressive computer games cause people to become more aggression or selection hypothesis - people who are already aggressive select aggressive media such as violent computer games.
Media Influence - Analysis of Cognitive Priming (Summary)
Aggression in the media provides people with “scripts” for their behaviour when they perceive an environmental stimulus as aggressive.
There is a priming effect of media on previously learnt behaviours and can activate memories and make aggression more likely.
Violent games may increase the likelihood of aggression players who have learned aggressive responses. They have learned the way to “win” in a situation, real life or game, is to be aggressive.
Media Influence - Analysis of Cognitive Priming (Link)
Fischer (2006) found that male participants who had been exposed to aggressive song lyrics about women were more likely to give spicier hot chilli sauce to female confederates which links to the idea that media can give you “scripts” for aggressive behaviour.
Bushman (1998) showed people 15 minute video clips from two movies, one violent and one non-violent and then gave them a word association task. It was found that those who watched the violent clip were more likely to make the association with the violent words.
Josephson (1987) made hockey players deliberately frustrated then showed them a violent or nonviolent film. In the next hockey game the boys behaved more aggressively if they watched the violent film which links to the idea that violent media can give people “scripts” for how to act towards people.
Media Influence - Analysis of Cognitive Priming (Implications)
This implies that people could be primed into non-aggressive behaviour as positive images, stories, roles could be used to encourage empathy.
9pm water shed.
PG ratings.
Media Influence - Analysis of Cognitive Priming (Comparison)
Agrees with SLT that individuals observe and model aggressive behaviour.
Agrees with Disinhibition as both believe media can lead people to think violence is socially accepted.
Media Influence- Analysis of Cognitive Priming (Evaluation - Strengths)
Could be used to reduce aggressive behaviour from violent media.
Media influences - Analysis of Cognitive Priming (Evaluation - Weaknesses)
It is deterministic as there are millions of people who regularly play video games and do not behave more aggressively than others. The argument disregards free will of humans.
Media Influence - Analysis of Disinhibition (Summary)
Our normal restraints are loosened after exposure to media violence.
Aggression becomes normalised.
Aggressive behaviour as a revenge response is particularly accepted and justified.
The effect of exposure to violent behaviour in the media desensitises individuals to aggression and makes them more prone to act aggressively.
Cartoon violence is often unpunished and seen as a socially normative response. This means children can learn aggression is rewarding and will help them to achieve their goals. This encourages imitation.
Media Influence - Analysis of Disinhibition (Link)
Berkowitz (1973) found that participants who watched a film depicting aggression as vengeance gave more “electric shocks” to a confederate. This links to the idea of our normal restraints being loosened and us being more desensitised to violence after watching violent media.
Media Influence - Analysis of Disinhibition (Implications)
This implies that since cartoon violence is seen as socially normal then children may be led to think aggression is rewarding.
This could also mean that police should be trained on disinhibition to de-escalate aggressive confrontation.
Media - Analysis of Disinhibition (Comparison)
Agrees with SLT that people observe and model violent behaviour and think it is acceptable.
Agrees with cognitive priming that media gives people “scripts” that will lead people to think aggression is ok.
Dillon and Bushman (2017) - Aim
To see if children who watched a movie involving guns would handle a real gun.
Dillon and Bushman (2017) - Method
There were 104 children aged 8-12.
Children were given a 20 minute film clip to watch - one group watched a clip with a gun in it and the other watched one without a gun.
The children were then left in a room with lots of toys and a cabinet with a real gun that was disabled and unloaded.
This gun had a sensor to see how often the trigger was pulled.
Dillon and Bushman (2017) - Results
Of the 87% of children who found the gun, none of the children who watched the clip with guns pulled the trigger. The children who watched the clip with guns pulled the trigger 2-3 times.
Dillon and Bushman (2017) - Link
Links to cognitive priming as the children who watched the clip with guns were primed to use the gun.
Links to disinhibition as the children were desensitised into believing that the violent act of using a gun was acceptable.
Links to social learning as they observed the use of guns and modelled their behaviour based on this, copying the aggressive behaviour.
Dillon and Bushman (2017) - Implications
This could be why PG ratings are in place so children are limited from watching as much violent media so they do not model their behaviour off of this media as much.
This implies that parents should not allow their children to watch movies involving guns/aggression so they don’t model their behaviour off of this.
This could also be why the 9PM watershed is in place as this also limits how much violent media children are exposed to.
Dillon and Bushman (2017) - Strengths
It is a lab experiment which means that there was a high level of control as the researcher could control the extraneous variables that could affect the results.
Dillon and Bushman (2017) - Weaknesses
The study is unethical as it involves children who cannot fully consent. As well as this giving children access to a real gun could cause them distress despite the fact it didn’t work.
This was a lab experiment meaning it lacked ecological validity. The task was artificial as in the real world it is unlikely children would have access to a gun so the application of these results is limited.
Dillon and Bushman (2017) - Comparison
This agrees with Bushman (1998) as both studies found that watching violent media can cause people to act more aggressively.
This agrees with Josephson (1987) as both studies also show that watching violent media can cause people to behave more aggressively.
This agrees with Fischer (2006) as both studies once again show that violent media can cause people to be more aggressive.
