Aggression Flashcards
which two of the following statements are true
-aggression involved low MAOA gene activity
-MAOA gene influences levels of serotonin
MAOA gene
-determines the production of MAOA enzyme
-MAOA enzyme breaks down neurotransmitters in the brain after a nerve impulse has been transmitted from one neuron to another
-it breaks down neurotransmitters such as serotonin and dopamine
-Humans have various forms of the MAOA gene e.g MAOA-L (Warrior gene) leading to low levels of the MAOA enzyme
-low levels of this enzyme lead to abnormal levels of serotonin = more impulse and aggressive behaviour
Brunner et al
Brunner et al (1993):
-28 male members of a large dutch family involved in impulsive aggressive behaviours such as rape, attempted murder and physical assult
-found an association between MAOA deficiency and increased impulsive aggression
Twin studies
-herediability account for 50% of the variance in aggressive behaviour
-Emil Corraco et al (1997) = studied adult male MZ and DZ twins = concordance rates of aggression is 50% in MZ twins and 19% in DZ twins = physical aggression
adoption studies
-Rhee and Waldwin (2002) = carried out meta-analysis of adoption studies of direct aggression and antisocial behaviour = 41% of genetics = variance of aggression
gene-environment interactions
-low MAOA gene activity is only related to adult aggresison when combined with early life traumatic events
-Frazetto et al (2007) = found an association between higher levels of antisocial aggression and low activity of MAOA gene in adult males = diatheiss stress
strengths = genetic explanations of aggression
-research support for role of MAOA gene in aggression (empirical evidence) = Brunnert al al (1993)
-twin studies + adoption studies
-self-report method of measuring aggression
-There is evidence supporting a positive correlation between increasing MAOA activity levels and increasing levels of prosocial behaviour, as demonstrated by Mertins et al (2011) who found that participants with high MAOA activity levels behaved more compassionately in a money-lending game, often with fewer provocations or refusals of offers. Therefore, this suggests that the link between MAOA and aggression is valid because correlations in both directions (increasing and decreasing MAOA levels) are supported by research evidence.
-There is also evidence supporting the strong link between MAOA activity levels and concentrations of serotonin, which has been based upon animal studies where researchers are able to ‘switch off’ or prevent the expression of the gene coding for the MAOA enzyme, thus allowing the researchers to study its effects in isolation. For example, Godar et al (2014) found that when the MAOA gene was switched off in mice, these mice were ‘hyperaggressive’, potentially due to the increased stimulation of postsynaptic neurons due to an increased concentration of serotonin in the synaptic cleft. Therefore, alongside additional evidence that the serotonin agonist ‘fluoxetine’ reverses this effect, increases the validity of the MAOA-aggression link.
limitations = genetic explanations of aggression
-interactionism approach should be adopted
-deterministic
-gender bias = Brunner = only male + testosterone
-socially sensitive research = reduce impact of serious crimes due to genetics = make Victims harm feel inferior and unimportant
-diathesis stress
-— However, a major problem with the use of the diathesis-stress model is the difficulty in distinguishing between the effects of nature (MAOA genetic mutations) and nurture (childhood trauma), as well as determining which has a larger influence. For example, McDermott et al (2009) found that provocation in a money-lending game was key to triggering aggressive behaviour in individuals with low MAOA activity levels, whereas previously they displayed the same levels of aggression as the healthy, neurotypical control group. This suggests that although the interactionist approach may be a better explanation for aggression compared to biological determinism, there is still a lack of clarity over the role of the stressor.
aggression + reactive aggression
-Reactive aggression –> meaning they consistently overact to perceived threats
-greater activity in the amygdala is linked to fear
-lower activity in the prefrontal cortex is linked to reasoning and decision making
limbic system
-The limbic system (subcortial structures) is part of the brain involved in regulating our behavioural and emotional responses, especially when it comes to behaviours and we need for survivial; feeding, reproduction etc. The limbic system includes the hypothalamus, amygdala and parts of the hippocampus
amygdala
-the reactivity of the amygdala in humans and other mammals is an important predictor of aggression.
-the amygdala has a key role in how animals assess and respond to environmental threats. When it is stimulated electrically, animals respond with aggression
-if the amygdala is removed then animals would not long respond to things that would have caused a fight or flight response (aggression) before
Gospic et al 2011
-lab method of assessing aggression known as the ultimatium game
-involves 2 ppts where one is given money and can decide how the split between the two
-an unfair offer was seen as a provocation. If the offer was rejected this was seen as an aggressive reaction
-when ppts rejected (acted aggressively) fMRI scans showed a fast and heightened response in the amygdala
-found that benzodapine drug (Reduces arousal in the autonomic nervous system) taken before the game had 2 effects on responses to unfair answers – it halved the number of rejections (reduced aggesssion)
orbitofrontal cortex and serotonin
-OFC is the area of the brain involved with decision making and regulation of behaviour
-serotonin is a neurotransmitter that allows the communication of impulses between neurons at the synapse
-it has inhibitory effects (slows and calms neural activity)
-normal levels of serotonin in the OFC are linked with reducing firing of neurons which in turn leads to greater behavioural self control
-low levels of serotonin disrupt this mechanisms, reducing self-control and leading to an increase in impulsive behaviour
Serotonin research
Virkkunen et al 1994:
-compared levels of serotonin breakdown product in the cerebrospinal fluid of violent impulsive and violent non-impulsive offenders. The levels were significantly lower in impulsive offenders
testosterone
-Testosterone is an androgen (male sex hormone) responsible for the development of masculine features such as facial hair, muscle mass etc. Has other roles as well on male typical behaviours such as regulating sex drive and increasing libido. Also been shown to play an important role in social behaviours such as cooperation and aggressive behaviours
testosterone research
Giammanco et al 2005:
-castration studies removing testes of animals reduces aggression in many species. Giving injections of testosterone to the same animal then restores aggressive behaviour
Dolan et al 2001
Dolan et al 2001:
-evidence of the role of testosterone comes from studies of prison populations and violent offenders. Dolan found a positive correlation between testosterone levels and aggressive behaviour in a sample of 60 offenders in a UK maximum security prison. These men mostly has personality disorder such as psychopathy and histories of impulsively violent behaviours
strengths = neural to aggression
-effects of drugs on serotonin –> drugs that increase serotonin also reduce levels of aggressive behaviour. Berman et al 2009 = gave their ppts either a placebo or dose of paroxetine. Ppts then took part in a lab-based game in which electric shocks of varrying intesnity were given and received in response to provocation. However, this was only true in ppts who had a history o aggressive behaviour.
limitations = neural to aggression
Limitations – neural:
-role of other brain structures –> amygdala does not operate in isolation in determing aggression. Appears in tandem with the OFC which is not part of the limbic system. Coccaro et al 2007 = in people with psychiatric disorders OFC activity is reduced. — There may be an over-reliance on the limbic system as an explanation for aggressive behaviour. For example, the orbitofrontal cortex (OFC) may also play a significant role, due to its link with the action of serotonin, as shown above. Therefore, as suggested by Gospic et al, it may be more effective to focus on the neural connections between the OFC and the limbic system, as opposed to looking at the two in isolation.
strengths hormonal to aggression
-Testosterone is an androgen (male sex hormone) present in significantly larger concentrations in men, compared to women, and is responsible for the production of male facial characteristics and reproductive organs, being secreted from the pineal gland. There may be a link between decreased testosterone levels and decreased levels of aggressive behaviour, a positive correlation demonstrated by castration studies.
limitations hormonal to aggression
-— Carre and Mehta (2011) suggest that, through their dual-hormone hypothesis, testosterone does not work alone in determining aggression, but rather has an antagonistic relationship with the stress hormone cortisol, where increased levels of aggression are associated with increased testosterone levels but only when cortisol is low. Therefore, this implies that different hormones have different predictive values for aggression and are part of a system when developing aggressive behaviour.
ethology
-Ethology is the scientific and objective study of animal behaviour, usually with a focus on behaviour under natural conditions, and viewing behaviour as an evolutionary, adaptive trait
-ethologists study aggression in non-human animals and generalise their findings to humans because they assume we are all subject to the same evolutionary forces (natural selection)
adaptive function of aggression
-describes aggression as an adaptive behaviour = contributes to an individuals survival or reproductive success and is thus subject to the forces of natural selection
why is aggression adaptive
1) aggression wins fights which leads to dominance and rising up in the hierarchy. This leads to mating rights and greater access to resources
2) A defeated animal is rarely killed and usually has to find territory somewhere else. Losers spread out over a wider area, discover new resources which reduces competition
ritualsitic aggression
-disocvered by Lorenz
-ethologists observe very little physical damage done in fights between animals. It is suggested that aggression is ritualistic
-usually involves signalling – baring teeth, threatening behaviour, voacalisation
-aggressive confrontations between animals often end is appeasement displays. These displays indicate acceptance of defeat, submissiveness and inhibit aggressive behaviour in the winner of the fight
research = ritualistic aggression
–> aggression acts as a method of increasing one’s social status within a hierarchy, as demonstrated by Pettit et al (1988) who found that young children use aggressive tactics in playgrounds to assert their authority, lead the others and have their way
-aggression increases the chance of survival of a species - through appeasement following an aggressive confrontation, the ‘loser’ will seek out new territory, increasing the scope of the resources of the species and so increasing their chances of survival
innate releasing mechanisms (IRM)
-biological structure or process in which the brain is activated by an external stimulus than in turn triggers a fixed action pattern
-aggression can be the result of an evolved automatic biological response in the brain
-animals have a built in neural structure which when exposed to specific stimuli such as teeth being shown will cause the release of an automatic behavioural response.
-animals studies are able to separate biological and social processes when studying aggressive behaviour
Fixed action pattern (FAP)
-A sequence of stereotyped pre-programmed behaviours triggered by an innate releasing mechanism
-universal = same in every individual of the species
-stereotypes = predictable and unchanging
-unaffected by learning
-ballistic = once triggered, follows its course and cant be changed before completitin
-single purpose = only used for one specific stimulus
-consequential aggressive behavioural sequence is called the FAP
-an environmental stimulus triggers the IRM which then released a specific sequence of behaviours
Stickleback research = ethological
Tinbergen (1951) - Stickleback research:
-sticklebacks highly territoral during mating seasons and develop red spot under their belly. If male enters territory, highly seterotyped sequence of behaviours aggressive initiated (FAP)
Procedure = presented wooden models with red spots and end observed reactions
Findings = regardless of shape, if a model had a red spot the other male would aggressively display and even attack. No red spot = no aggression. FAPS didn’t change from encounter once triggered he FAP always run its course.
strength of ethological explanations to aggression
-There is evidence to suggest that ritualistic aggression may not be displayed by all species and in all situations. For example, Goodall’s (2010) observation of chimpanzees in the Gombe Stream National Park found that rival communities slaughtered each other in a systematic fashion, despite appeasament and ritualistic signals being displayed by the victims. This supports the idea that once a releaser has triggered the IRM, this will always lead to a FAP, and so the releaser is a stronger predictor of aggressive behaviour than appeasement.
-+ There is also evidence supporting the biological, innate basis of IRM and FAP systems. For example, researchers have pointed to Brunners work (1993) on the link between the low MAOA activity and levels of aggression, as evidence for the heritability of IRM and FAP systems. This is due to aggressive behaviour being triggered by increased levels of testosterone which must have been preceded by exposure to a releaser or signal, which had triggered the IRM. Therefore, the role of the limbic system and the IRM can be considered as valid explanations of aggression. Innate bias + aggression is genetically determined and heritable
limitations of ethological explanation to aggression
-reductionist = human aggression may be more complex than animals. Cannot generalise animals and humans = over-simplify
-However, a more accurate description of FAPs may be ‘modal’ rather than ‘fixed’, as suggested by Hunt (1973). The researcher provided evidence that the duration of each behaviour within each FAP may vary between individuals as well as the specific other animal towards which it is targeted. Hence, environmental and social factors may have significant influences on the course of the FAP, resulting in lower validity of the universal nature of FAPs as part of an explanation for aggression.
-cultural differences in aggressions = Nisbett (1993) = found north-south divide in US for homocide rates. Killings more common for males in north. Culture overrides innate influences
aggression as adaptive
-Aggression is an adaptive behaviour bc it serves an important function in terms of both individual survival as well as reproductive potential
-Males who used aggression would have been successful in securing and retaining mates as they could fight any rivals and prevent their mates from sexual infidelity; consequentially they would be more likely to pass on their genes
male sexual jealousy
-greater in males because it is an evolved psychological mechanism to prevent cuckoldry
-cuckold = husband of an adulterous wife + males who are unwittingly investing parental effort in offspring that arent genetically their own
-females have 100% paternity certainty. Males have paternity uncertainty
-if a female cheats and becomes pregnant the male will end up wasting his resources raising another mans child
male retention strategies
-Wilson and Daly (1996)
-men have evolved strategies to avoid cuckoldry
-direct guarding –> males monitor their partners behaviour e.g stalking
-negative inducements –> threaten them to prevent them straying
-All these strategies are adaptive and helped in aiding males to pass on their genes to the next generation.
-IPV = intimate partner violence
-Wilson et al = women who reported mate retention strategies agreed their partners who want to be with them at all times. 53% women said they feared for their lives.
evoltuionary explanatiosn fo aggression
Evolutionary explanations of aggression suggest that aggression serves an important function in terms of reproductive potential. Evolved as it was beneficial for our survival. Sexual jealousy (more experienced in males than females) = evolved psychological mechanism in preventing female infidelity. Ensures male paternity so he can pass his genes on to the next generation.
evolutionary explanation of bullying
-Bullying occurs bc of a power imbalance (more powerful individual uses aggression deliberatly against a weaker person)
-Tony Volk et al 2012 = argue that the characteristics associated with bullying behaviour are attractive to females and has the benefit of warding of potential rivals.
strengths of evolutionary characteristics to aggression
-Research support –> Shackleford (2005) studied intimate partner violence in heterosexual couples. He gave questionnaires to couples and found a strong positive correlation between male reports of their mate retention strategies and female reports of their partners use of physical violence against them
-Evolutionary theories are useful because they can provide an explanation for gender differences in aggression. For example, Campbell (1999) suggested that females are more likely to engage in acts of verbal, as opposed to physical, aggression as this ensures that their own survival, as well as the survival of their offspring, is not endangered. Such tactics also prevents females from being involved in life-threatening physical confrontations with their partners, and so further increases their chance of survival through the use of non-aggressive methods of resolving conflicts (Bess and Shackleford). This utility increases the validity of the evolutionary explanation of aggression.
-However, there is research supporting the link between sexual jealousy and aggression. The main example of this would be Shackleford’s 2005 study which found that male retention strategies are a method of expressing sexual jealousy, which leads to aggressive behaviour both towards females and other partners. This increases the reliability of evolutionary theories as a method of explaining aggression, due to this supporting evidence.
-real world applications –> change bullying = deflect aggressive behaviours into activites and sports rather than against other people
limitations of evolutionary characteristics to aggression
-methodological issues = evolutionary hypotheses are difficult to test bc behaviours evolved in the past. Therefore evolutionary psychologists must rely on correlational research e.g finding an association between mate retention strategies and aggression in Shacklefords study.
- There are methodological issues associated with the use of evolutionary theories to explain current examples of aggression. For example, predominantly such studies are correlational, meaning that there is only a correlation between aggression and the use of male retention strategies. This means that the research may suffer from the ‘third factor problem’, where there may be a third contributory factor which has not been studied. These studies may also jump to make causal conclusions, when really correlations can never demonstrate a ‘cause and effect’ relationship.
-cultural differences = aggressive behaviour can be accepted or rejected in different cultures
amygdala =
determines the emotional meaning of events in the envrionment
decides whether an event is good or bad
if events are bad the amydala sends nerve impulses to the hypothalamus causing aggressive behaviour
limbic system =
amydala, hypothalamus, hippocampus working toegther
frontal cortex
The frontal cortex sends electrical signals that inhibit neurons in the amygdala = inactivity in the frontal cortex doesnt inhibit signalds from amygdala = increased aggression
adequate levels of serotonin
reduce/inhibit aggressive behaviour
evidence for role of the amydala =
MRI scans
frustration aggression hypothesis
-Dollard (1939) came up with the frustration aggression hypothesis “frustration always leads to aggression and aggression is always the cause of frustration” = based on psychodynamic concept of catharsis
catharsis
-the frustration-aggression hypothesis is based on the psychodynamic concept of catharsis. It views aggression as a psychological drive akin to biological drives such as hunger
-when achieving a goal is blocked, we will feel frustration. Aggression is a psychological drive when this happens
-this leads to a violent fantasy, verbal outburst or actual aggression
-the aggressive behaviour then leads to catharsis, a feeling of statisfaction that reduces drive
reasons why we cant always express aggression
The situation may be abstract e.g climate change or economic situation
We may fear punishment
Source may just be unavailable at the time
-when we cant take out our anger on the source of our aggression is displaced onto a different object/thing or person
the role of environmental cues
-Berkowitz (1989) suggested that frustration merely creates a readiness for aggression. Then the prescence of aggressive cues in the environment make acting upon this more likely
-the weapons effect = lab studies have found ppts gave more shocks if there weapon (gun) present in the room
-procedure = arranged for student ppts to be given electric shocks in a lab situation creating anger and frustration
-presence of guns = administer more shocks = influence of weapons
research into frustration aggresison hypothesis
-Russell Geen (1968) –> male uni students were given the task of completing a jigsaw puzzle = level of frustration was manipulated 3 ways = impossible to solve, ran out of time due to interfering confederate, insulting confederate
-findings = insulted participatnts gave strongest shocks to the confederate
strengths of frustration aggression hypothesis
-research support = Marcus-Newhall et al (2000) = conducted a meta-analysis of 49 studies of displaced aggression. These studies investigated situations in which aggressive behaviour had to be directed against a target other than the one that caused frustraton. Displaced agression = reliable phenomenon
-real life application = Berkowitz’s hypothesis = appear in US gun law debate
-+ Berkowitz’s Negative Affect Theory may be a more comprehensive explanation of aggression, as opposed to the original ‘readiness’ approach. Berkowitz suggested that aggression is only one of several stimuli which can trigger aggression, and so aggression is not always the consequence of frustration but just negative feelings in general e.g. pain and jealousy. Conversely, this also means that such stimuli can lead to unpleasant consequences other than aggression e.g. an individual feeling depressed and in despair upon losing their partner. This is a positive because it means that current theories are accommodating new approaches to explaining all types of aggression. + There is a real-life application arising from Berkowitz’s emphasis of the role of environmental cues, and this role is in the gun-debate. Some argue that guns should not be readily given to individuals and carried in public in plain sight, because these guns may act as stimuli for aggressive behaviour. This is particularly the case when considering the results of Berkowitz’s original 1989 study!
limitations of frustration aggression hypothesis
-Lack of validity = Bushman (2002) = ppts who vented their anger on a punchbag became more angry and aggressive rather than less. In fact doing nothing was more effective
-— Research, such as that conducted by Dill and Anderson (1995), suggests that all types of frustration are not universal in leading to aggression, but rather that some types are more important than others. For example, unjustified aggression (such as a confederate rushing through an origami presentation because their girlfriend is waiting for them) has been proven to elicit more aggressive behaviour than justified aggression (such as a confederate rushing through an origami presentation because their boss told them to do so). Therefore, it is important to make the distinction between these different types of aggression and how they contribute to its development.
deindividuation
Deindividuation is a psychological state that occurs when we are in a crowd. IT causes us to lose our personal identity and take on the identity of thr group
-in a deindivudated state we ignore social norms and stop regulating our behaviour which becomes impulsive, irrational and disinhibited
-drugs/alcohol, darkness, uniform can all increase the chances we enter a deindivudated state
how does deindividuation lead to aggression
-a major factor is anoynmity = we are less scared of the consequecnes of our actions because we are a small unidentifiable part of a large crowd
-provides fewer opporunities for people to judge use negatively
-according to Prentice Dunn and Rogers (1982) we become aggressive not due to anonymity directly but due to the consequences of anonymity
private vs public self awareness
Reduced private self-awareness = when de-individuated we pay less attenton to our own behaviour = less self-critical
Reduce public self-awareness -== we care less about what others think of us = we become less accountable –> Prentice Dunn and Rogers (1982)
crowd behaviour
Crowd behaviour = Le bon (1985) = when part of a crowd we loose these social norms and indiviudal responisbility . Dixon “anonyminity shapes crowd behaviour”
exam technique
-Gender bias, reductionism, ethical implications, nature vs nurture, animal studies, determinism, ethnocentric
-GRENADE acronynm
strengths - deinivudation
-Research support for deindivudation = Douglas and MacGarty (2001) = looked at online aggressive behaviour = strong correlation between anonymity and online bullying = true identities are hidden.
-real world applications = role of media and prosocial behaviour
limitations = deindiduation
-lack of support = deindivudation doesn’t always lead to aggression = Gergen et al (1973) = Gergen (1973) = placed eight strangers in a room for one hour and were told they could do whatever they wanted and they became intimate with eachother = showcases prosocial behaviour = reduce credibility
-— However, de-individuation may place too much emphasis on group dynamics affecting the group as a whole, rather than changes that an individual can make to decrease their feelings of self-awareness, such as through the use of a uniform. Johnson and Downing (1979) found that participants who were dressed in a KKK uniform were significantly more aggressive and delivered higher-intensity electric shocks to confederates, compared to those dressed as nurses. This suggests that the social roles associated with uniforms are emphasised, and not lost, within a group setting. — Le Bon and Dodd may have overemphasised the importance of de-individuation and diminished responsibility as an explanation for aggression, as suggested by Spears and Lea (1992). Their Social Identity model of De-Individuation Effects suggests that a shift of focus/ attention from oneself as an individuation, to one’s part as part of a larger anonymous group causes conformity to the established norms of behaviour within the group, which may be prosocial or antisocial. Therefore, thus suggests that de-individuation is only a partial explanation
16 mark response
-Ao1 = define deindiviudation, responsibility in a group setting and social norms, anonyminity and consequence. Types of self awareness
-strenght = real life applications e.g online gaming and social nextworks tend to promote a psychlogical state of deindivudaton as players are anonymous,
-strength = research support = Dodd (1985) = asked undergraduate students “if you would to anything humanly possible what would you do. 36% of responses = antiocial and 26% = criminal acts. More students guaranteed anonymity = more aggressive responses
-However a limitation is that there is contradictory evidence = Gergen (1973) = placed eight strangers in a room for one hour and were told they could do whatever they wanted and they became intimate with eachother = showcases prosocial behaviour = reduce credibility
-difficult to separate deindiviudation from other social-psychological explanations of aggression such as social learning
2 explanations for insitutional aggression
-acts of aggression and violence are much higher in prisons
-there are 2 explanations of institutional aggression = dispositional or situational
dispositional explanation for institutional aggression
-inmates bring pre-existing values, attitudes and norms into prison
-importation model = Irwin and Cressey (1962) = suggests that aggression is imported into the institution as part of the prisoner’s makeup
-violence was used outside of prison to settle disputes so therefore they use this to deal with issues inside the prison as well
-people who are aggressive, bullying, angry etc behave in the same way as inmates
-prison = dangerous environment and inmates must use aggression to establish power, status and access to resources
dispositional features
-family hostility or trauma
-maternal deprivation
-education
-addiction / impulsivity/ violence
research into importation model
-DeLisi et al (2011) = studied a group of juvenile offenders in Californian instiutions who had negative backgrounds e.g childhood trauma, anger etc
-the researchers compared this group with a control group of inmates who did not have these negative features = those who brought the most negative dispositional features into prison committed the most acts of violence inside
situational explanations to institutional aggression
-aggression is due to the prison environment itself
-less freedom / independence / lack of goods / lack of visitation rights / solitary
Deprivation model = Clemer (1958) = deprivations in prison creates stress for inmates who respond with aggression. Being deprived of freedom, independence etc can increase competition between inmates to acquire what is lost thus leading to aggression
-if a prison is unpredictable and poorly run it can also lead to aggression
-if lock ups are used to control behaviour, this blocks access to other activityes etc
research into deprivation model
-Steiner (2009) = investigated factors predicting aggression in 512 US prisons. Inmate on inmate violence was more common in prisons where there was a higher proportion of staff who were women, overcrowding etc. These are prison level factors bc they are independent of the individdual characteristics of the prisoners. They reliably predicted aggression behaviour in line with the deprivation model.
When writing essays = use final paragraph for interactionist approach when accessible
strengths = dispositional
-Importation model Irwin and Cressey (1962) = real life applications = prison = dangeous environments which inmates manipulate to establish power. + support from De lisi et al (2011)
-research support = Camp and Gaes (2005) = studied 561 male inmates with similar criminal histories and predispositions to aggression. Similar pecentage of prisoners reacted aggressively despite conditions of prison (high security vs low) (33-36%)
limitations = dispositional
-No cause and effect relationship = prison envrionment may exacerbate already exisiting behaviour or otherwise
-alternative explanation = Dullio = importation model ignores the role of prison officials. Dullio suggested an administerative control model = poorly managed prisons experience the most serious forms of inmate violence
strengths = situational
-Research support = Zimbardo stanford prison experiment = psychologically health individuals became sadistic or depressed when placed in a prison-like envrionment
-lead to positive practical applications = improvement in prison conditions making rehabilitation more likely. = reduce poor mental health in prisons
limitations = situational
-contradicatory evidence = deprivation model suggests lack of heterosexual contact leads to increased aggression but Hensley et al found conjugal vists did not release aggression
Interactionist model to institutional aggression:
-Jiang and Fisher-Giorlando (2002) = suggest that importation model is a better explanation of violence between mates but the deprivation model is more useful in understanding innate aggression. Inmates entering prison for the first time will suffer deprivation but unless combined with other factors It doesn’t necessarily lead to violence
social learning theory to aggression
-Direct and indirect learning = Bandura acknowledged that aggression can be learned directly through mechanisms of operant conditioning and reinforcement e.g child who snatches toy of another child is more likely to learn this aggressive behaviours
Children acquire specific aggressive behaviours through observing role models such as siblings etc, but children also observe the consequences in aggressive behaviour (vicarious reinforcement)
Mediational processes = attention, retention, reproduction, motivation
-Banudra’s bobo doll experiment
self efficacy
-self efficacy = extent to which we believe our actions will achieve a desired goal
-childs confidence in their ability to be aggressive grows as they learn aggression can bring rewards
e.g hititng another child may provide the aggressor with the toy
strengths = SLT approach
-supporting research = Poulin and Boivin (2000) = applied SLT to aggressive behaviour in boys aged between 9 and 12. Aggressive boys formed relationships with other aggressive boys. This is known as “training grounds” for antisocial behaviour. Boys used alliances to gain resources through aggressive behaviour
-reciprocal determinism = people are active influencers of their own environment
-real life applications = Husemann and Eron (2013) = media portrayls of aggressive behaviours can be powerful influences (viacrious reinforcement)
limitations = SLT
-cannot explain all types of aggression = 2 types of aggression (proactive and reactive). Reactive = angry / proactive = calculated. Children who have proactive aggresion have high levels of self efficacy
-cultural differences = diffferent reactions towards aggression
-A major weakness of Bandura’s Bobo doll experiment and social learning theory as an explanation for aggression is that it does not take into account biological factors contributing to the fact that, regardless of the models, boys always behaved more aggressively than girls. This may be due to boys having higher levels of testosterone compared to girls - this androgen has been associated with higher levels of aggression, as demonstrated by Virkkunen et al (1994). Therefore, this suggests that SLT is an incomplete explanation of aggression.
-— A second methodological criticism of Bandura’s Bobo doll experiment is its low mundane realism and the results potentially being skewed by demand characteristics (a type of social desirability bias). For example, since the purpose of the Bobo doll is to hit it and act aggressively towards it, the children may have done so because they believed that this was the expected behaviour. Therefore, the influence of modeling, imitation and mediational processes may be very slight in this case of the development of aggression. Therefore, SLT may be a limited explanation for only some examples of aggression.
4 media influences to aggression
desensitisation
disinhibition
cognitive priming
computer games
desensitisation
Desensitisation (biological):
-repeated exposure to violence reduces normal levels of physiological arousal associated with anxiety, therefore making aggression more likely
-witnessing violent actions for first time will lead to sympathetic arousal associated with feelings of anxiety = repeated exposure = reduces levels of sympathetic arousal
-this makes aggressive behaviour more likely as people have a reduced emotional and physiologial reaction to it
-negative attitudes to violence weaken and we feel less empathy for victims
-Weisz and Earl = lab expeirment = ppts watched sexually violent film or non-sexually violent film. Those who watched aggressive film = less lilkely to find the rapist guilty
disinhibition
Disinhibition (social learning):
-normally aggression is inhibited as violent behaviour is viewed as harmful and antisocial
-aggressive behaviour is often made to appear socially accepted in computer games and often violence is rewarded
-exposure to violent media lowers these inhibitions and restraints. We become less concerned about following social norms that tells us aggression is wrong
-we learn directly and indirectly through processes explained by SLT that aggression is acceptable, especially in cases of revenge
cognitive priming
Cognitive priming (cognitive):
-viewing aggressive media gives us a script for how violent situations begin and develop. This is stored im memory and makes us more ready to be aggressive
-the script is unconscious and triggered when we encouter cues in a situation we percieve as aggressive
-aggression is therefore more likely in people who hold an aggressive schema as they are primed and ready to behave aggressively
-Rowell Husseman = script is stored in our memory so we are “ready to become aggressive”
define aggression
Aggression = actions or intentions to harm or gain advantage over someone else. However these actions might not involve physical harm
-criminal violence = when violent actions are against the law. Aggression can lead to violence
Aggression –> violence –> crime `
Bandura (1973)
Bandura (1973) = we learn through observvation (Vicarious learning). Aggression in the media can lead to vicarious learning or learning if we find rewards in watching such behaviour
lab expeirment on media
-manipulation of IV and measure DV (children view either violent or non-violent activity in an artifical setting). Level of agression is viewed and compared. However, this lacks ecological validity and only measures the short term effects on behaviour. Also ethical concerns
field experiment on media
Questionnaries can be given to see how much TV children watch and children can be observed to see if they act aggressively or not. However, atypical groups of ppts make the data unrepresentative. Field studies also lack control
natural experiment on media
Psychologists monitor aggression in a community where access to media violence changes dramatically.
correlation study on media
Try to see whether there is a correlation between media and aggressive behaviour using personality tests, self ratings etc. However this doesn’t show a cause and effect relationship.
strenghts = explanations media = cognitive priming etc
-meta-analysis involves looking at the conclusions of many studies to see whether and overall conclusion can be found. Wood et al (1991) examined 23 studies that looked at TV and real-life aggression and found that overall watching violence on TV doesn’t seem to produce more aggression behaviour
-research into media influences on aggression have practical applications = development of age restrictions on computer games
-practical application to cognitive priming = An improved understanding of cognitive priming may increase the effectiveness of treatments tackling the increasing rates of disinhibition towards aggression, as provoked by the media. For example, Bushman and Anderson (200) suggested that regularly watching violent media reinforces the cognitive scripts within the brain, as well as causing permanent changes within our memory of such events where we sympathise less with the victims and minimise the event’s emotional significance. By challenging these cognitive hostile attribution biases and minimalisation, we are more likely to combat these changing social norms towards aggression.
-research support for desensitisation = There is evidence supporting the idea of desensitisation and the role it plays in transforming social norms about aggression. For example, Krahé (2011) demonstrated that individuals who have a history of regularly viewing aggressive acts on TV, experienced more positive arousal and less anxious arousal when watching examples of aggressive media in a laboratory experiment, compared to those without such regular viewing. This suggests that desensitisation may be a precursor of disinhibition, overriding the innate reaction towards aggression of increased activity in the autonomic sympathetic division, which usually produces unpleasant symptoms such as increased heart rate and nervous laughter.
-research support for disinhibition = Berkowitz = link between removal of social constraints and aggressive behaviour
limitations = explanation for media = cognitive primng etc
-however lab studies tend to lack validity and generalisability
-studies using desensitization use mild violence as it would be unethical to expose ppts to too much violence = lack ecological validity = only apply to lab based behaviour
-doesn’t show long term effects of violent behaviour
-ignore other factors on aggression such as MAOA gene or levels of serotonin = reductionist explanation
-— Cartoon violence is a useful example of how neither social learning theory, nor disinhibition and desensitisation can form complete explanations of how children learn violence. For example, most children understand that it is not possible to punch someone so that their eyes burst out of their sockets. Instead, as Krahé suggested, children observe that these aggressive acts are not punished, and therefore prepare their own cognitive scripts, through the process of cognitive priming, about what is socially acceptable behaviour.
lab vs correlational
a lab experiment may be a better way of studying the effects of computer games on aggression instead of a correlatonal study as we can determine a cause and effect relationship
Directional correlational hypothesis = there will be a strong positive relationship….
Bartholow and Anderson
Lab study = Bartholow and Anderson (2002):
-ppts played either mortal Kombat or a non-violent golf game for 10 minutes
-carried a TCRTT (measure of aggression) that people can blast white noise at chosen volumes to punish opponent
-those who played the violent video game gave higher noise levels
limitations = lab study = bartholow
-non-equivalance problem = there is a difference in complexity between mortal kombat and a golf game = aggressive behaviour could be due to frustration rather than the complexity of the game
-artifical scenario = no real way of measuring aggression (unrealistic)
Delisi et al = computer games
Correlational study = DeLisi et al (2013):
-227 juvenile offenders = history of aggressive behaviour
-gave structured interviews = gathered data on aggression and violent video games
-correlation between aggressive behaviour and how often people played violent video games
strengths + limitations = correlation
Strengths (correlation):
-can study realistic forms of aggression such as violent crime and avoids ethical issues
Limitations (correlation):
-no random allocation of ppts = no comparison = sampling bias
-socialisation hypothesis = aggressive media causes aggression or selection hypothesis = aggressive people choose aggressive media = cannot determine the direction of cause
longitudinal study = media and computer games
Longitudinal studies:
-Lindsay Robertson et al = wanted to see if there was a link between excessive TV viewing in childhood and aggressive behaviour in adulthood. Studied 1037 ppl in new zealand = up to 26 years of age
-time spent watching TV was a reliable predicator of aggressive behaviour and were most likely to be diagnosed with antisocial behaviour
meta analysis = computer games
-Anderson et al (2010) has provided evidence that the effects of watching playing violent/ aggressive computer games are not exclusive to gender and culture. A meta-analysis of 136 studies further supported the strong positive correlation between increased exposure to aggressive media and an increased likelihood of observers displaying aggressive behaviours themselves. This was found to be irrespective of gender or cultures types (i.e. collectivist or individualist).
limitations = computer games
— The main methodological criticism of meta-analyses would be the file drawer problem and publication bias, which suggests that publishers favour studies which show statistical significance, as opposed to non-significant results which do not show any differences between experimental conditions. However, this publication bias means that only studies finding significant results will be included in meta-analyses, resulting in an inaccurate and misrepresentation of research into the effects of aggressive computer games. This therefore reduces the universality of the causal conclusions reached. — A second problem concerning the methodology of such research is assuming that the only difference between violent and non-violent video games is the level of violence displayed, as suggested by Przybylski (2014). Video games which include complex dimensions and numerous keys, such as Marathon 2, are often more engaging and require more of the user’s attention compared to ‘simpler’ games. This creates systematic errors in that the more complex games may result in the development of a more influential cognitive script, resulting in more disinhibition and desensitisation, and consequently higher levels of violence. Thus, such a simplistic distinction made between games does not make for reliable conclusions. — Experimental studies investigating the effects of violent video games on behaviour often suffer from low mundane realism. This is due to the artificial tasks and highly controlled conditions of a laboratory experiment. For example, as there is no risk of retaliation in such an environment, participants may behave more aggressively than they usually would, resulting again in a systematic error. The assessment methods of aggression are unlikely to be accurate, such as the TCRTT used by Craig and Anderson, due to their artifical nature, thus reducing the ecological validity of the findings.
Bandura 1977
quasi experiment
compared aggression levels of those who grew up in poverty compared to those who didnt
