aggression Flashcards
Bandura
SLT can explain why children develop aggressive tendencies.
1.Children observe actions of significant others (role models) or on television.
2.Retain the information
3.Reproduce the behaviour through imitation.
4.Vicarious experience - learning from the consequences of others’ actions.
Bandura noted; cognitive aspect -learning of aggression behavioural aspect- reproduction of learned behaviour.
Research support for Bandura
(bobo doll)
Children who observed the aggressive model made far more imitative aggressive responses than those who were in the non-aggressive or control groups.
Evaluation: Relies on experimental evidence which lacks ecological validity because the setting was artificial.
Robertson: Does excessive television viewing in childhood cause ASB in early adulthood.
Method: Followed behaviour of 1037 individuals born 1972-73 until 27 years old. Looking at associations between tv viewing from 5-15 years old and four variables;
Criminal convictions
Violent convictions
Diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder
Aggressive personality traits in early adulthood
Findings: Those that watched the most TV were the most likely to have the 4 variables.
The findings were significant after controlling for; sex, IQ, socioeconomic status, previous ASB.
Conclusion: Excessive television viewing in childhood is associated with ASB.
Evaluation:
Matched pairs: there can be no other reasons for the correlation.
SLT IDA
-Practical applications: Children should not watch excessive amounts of TV - reduce aggression.
Programmes should identify what age they are suitable for.
-Cultural differences: The Kung San community rarely display aggressive behaviour which means the society produces individuals with low levels of aggression-> aggression must be learnt and is not biological.
de-individuation
People are more likely to act in an antisocial manner when identification of the self is difficult or impossible.
how does individuation cause aggression (4)
1.Individuals in a group do not feel they are singled out by others. - this is adoption of group identity.
2.This provides them with a sense of anonymity meaning they are not bound by norms and primitive urges are more likely to be acted upon.
3.Being less likely to be identified = less likely to be punished = reducing inhibitions.
Anonymity also reduces concerns about others’ perception 4.of them. Normally, behaviour is controlled by fear of guilt, shame or punishment. - being in a group weakens these controls.
Zimbardo and deindividuation
Individuated behaviour - rational and conforms to accept social standards.
Deindividuated behaviour - based on primitive urges and does not conform to societal norms.
Public self-awareness:
being anonymous to others reduces self consciousness
Private self-awareness:
person who is self focused and acts on internalised morals and attitudes
Research support for deindividuation
Malamuth & Chuck:
Questioned American male university students finding ⅓ might commit rape if they could not be identified.
This supports the idea that deindividuated behaviour is more likely to be anti-social and aggressive than individuated behaviour.
Watson:
looked at warriors in 23 societies.
12/13 societies that acted brutally toward enemies (i.e. torture, murder or mutilation) significantly changed their appearance before attacks.
Societies that were less brutal: 7/10 did not change their appearance.
evaluation of Malmuth and Chuck
study may be impacted by social desirability bias, therefore the true proportion could be even higher.
IDA/Evaluation of Watson
Cultural bias: interpretation of changing appearance may be misinterpreted as it may be an expression of individuality opposed to practice of deindividuation.
Triangulation of interviews, lab experiments and anthropological observations provides reliable evidence for the role of deindividuation in aggressive behaviour.
When we dress up (deindividuate) we may simply respond to schemas of what you dress up in. For example, hoodies associated with aggression whereas nurses are associated with helping people.
Deprivation model
5 pains of imprisonment
Deprivation of:
1.liberty
2.goods and services
3.heterosexual relationships
4.autonomy - subject to rules and commands
5.security - risk from other inmates
All result in frustration and despair and ultimately aggression.
Stressful environment encourages use of aggression as either attack or defence.
Evaluation of deprivation model
Irwine and Cressey: Deprivation is only partly responsible for aggression. It focuses too heavily on environment. It views prison as a closed environment rather than looking at outside influences brought into the prison.
The importation model is an addition to deprivation model - it accounts for outside learnt behaviours.
Importation model
Concerned with what prisoners bring into the institution.
Aggression is the result of offenders’:
-Attitudes
-Beliefs
-Values
-Behaviours
Prison populations contain many subcultures all having their own norms and values which were developed outside and imported into the prison.
Subcultures tend to share common backgrounds;
-Socio-demographic characteristics
-age
-ethnicity
-criminal career variables; time served and offence history.
The model suggests aggression stems from patterns of behaviour learnt at a young age.
Importation model De Lisi: method
30 male ppts chosen at random from a sampling population in south-west USA.
Look at variables relevant to importation model (age, ethnicity, violence history, family and social support)
Measuring only most serious forms of inmate misconduct (rape, murder, assault, rioting, possession of weapons etc.)
Controlled for length of sentence as longer sentence provides more opportunity for engagement in aggressive acts.
Importation model De Lisi: findings
Strongest predictors of violence were criminal career variables; violence, confinement and escape histories.
Inmates from ethnic minorities were significantly more aggressive.
Less formal education and social support = significantly more violent acts in confinement.
Importation model De Lisi conclusion
Support for the idea that importation of characteristics, behaviours and beliefs are a significant cause of violence in prison.
Importation model De Lisi: evaluation
Lacks external validity as sample is limited to one U.S state.
Lack internal validity - ignores ‘deprivation’ factors.
Acts as convincing support for importation model.
Jiang and Fisher
Method: 430 disciplinary reports from men’s prison in southern states of USA. Interviews with inmates and prison staff.
Findings: Both importation and deprivation factors correlated with violent incidents. Deprivation factors were more powerful than importation factors in explaining violent misconduct. (significance between models is very slight) - Supports DeLisi.
Grapendaal:
Method: Examined components of deprivation and importation models and ability predict inmate behaviour.
Also looked at inmates level of opposition and exploitation
Using standardised questionnaires, prison data, observation. (triangulated)
3 prisons in Holland (114 males)
Deprivation model was a better predictor of opposition.
Exploitation of others was predicted equally by deprivation and importation factors.
Conclusion: Deprivation model is better for creating prison policies because variables can be addressed to reduce aggression.
IDA/evaluation for importation model
Reductionist: Only explains aggression using social psychological factors (nurture approach), ignores biological approach.
Practical applications: Suggests a mixed economy in prisons, also helps aid prison policies.
Deprivation model is more reliable: supported by Jiang and Fisher and Grapendaal.
Lucifer effect
Zimbardo
Explains aggression from authoritative figures to prisoners. Assuming environment of prison promotes aggression.
3 parts of the Lucifer effect
Dehumanisation of others: prisoners are seen as less human - easier to treat them badly.
Deindividuation of self: feeling less identifiable = less self conscious therefore it is easier to act against norms and values. For example, guards uniforms.
Uncritical conformity to group norms: feeling pressure to conform with majority may result in aggressive behaviour. May be driven by normative social influence - desire to fit in.
Research studies and evaluation for Lucifer Effect
Reicher and Haslam: The aggression in prisons such as Abu Ghraib may simply be exhibiting of attitudes from one group to another. (Pre-existing attitudes/cultural and religious attitudes - prejudice)
Zimbardo: Stanford prison - acts as support for The Lucifer Effect as guards quickly became abusive to prisoners when given authoritative role. HOWEVER this is artificial. Ppts were aware the experiment was artificial so may have just gone along with it.
In the study people were randomly assigned to guard roles but in real life people choose this job meaning certain people with these personality traits are attracted to authoritative roles.
Ethical issues: Legitimises abuse.
Mason and Frick
Extent of role of genes: 50% genetic
Method: TWIN STUDIES: meta-analysis
Evaluation:
Meta-analysis = larger sample. Reduces methodological weaknesses in any one study.
Twin studies criticised for differential shared environment. (similarities other than environment which may contribute to higher correlation)
Cocarro
Extent of role of genes:
40% (genes accounted for more than 40% of individual differences in aggression)
Method: Assessed degree of genetic and environmental influences on aggression in male ppts.
182 MZ twin pairs and 118 DZ twin pairs.
Evaluation: Twin studies criticised for differential shared environment. (similarities other than environment which may contribute to higher correlation)
