Aggression Flashcards
Define aggression
The delivery of an aversive stimulus from one person to another, another, with intent to harm and with an expectation of causing such harm, when the other person is motivated to escape or avoid the stimulus
SLT explanation for Aggression
Attention:
- Observe the aggressive actions of others
- Model their own behaviour on what they see
Retention:
- Child stores it as a mental representation
- Individuals or characters become role models
- Vicarious experience
- Status of the models is important
Motivation:
-Vicarious reinforcement- prospect of being rewarded
Reinforcement leads to imitation of behaviour
Example for Aggression AO1
1) James Bond seen shooting a bad guy
2) Fast paced music
3) Daniel Craig- high profile actor (status)
4) Role model
5) fast paced cars and money
AO2 for SLT as an explanation for aggression
Bandura (1963)
- Bobo doll hit video, either punished, rewarded or nothing
- In Condition 1 and 2 there was a marked tendency for children to spontaneously imitate aggressive acts
- Children in Condition 2 behaved most aggressively
- Children in Condition 3 behaved least aggressively
Supports SLT as an explanation as it shows children were most likely to act aggressively and imitate behaviour when in seen someone act aggressively and get rewarded or no consequence after. This is because of vicarious observational learning where the child is more likely to imitate behaviour observed when they see model being rewarded or having no consequence which motivates the child to copy.
Methodological evaluation for SLT for aggression
Bobo doll is an inanimate object which doe snot feel or react to pain. This therefore reduces the ecological validity as it is not generalisable to real life where if a child were to hit a human they would feel pain and react. This invalidates the theory of SLT as an explanation for aggression.
Research evidence for Bandura’s findings for aggression
Childhood + adolescent television viewing and anti social behaviour in adulthood- Robertson and McAnally
They show that increased exposure to television containing violent behaviour are more likely to imitate the behaviour as it is carried onto into early adulthood. This is because they have retained the behaviour they have learnt and motivated to reinforce it
Robertson and McAnally study
Investigated whether excessive television viewing throughout childhood and adolescence associated with increase in anti social behaviour in early adulthood.
Assessed a birth cohort of 1037 individuals born in NZ.
Regular intervals from birth -26 years
Correlated associations between TV viewing hours from ages 5-15
4 variables: violent convictions, diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder and aggressive personality traits in early adulthood
Results:
Young adults who had spent more time watching TV in childhood were significantly more likely to have a more aggressive personality traits.
Significant after controlling for sex, IQ, socioeconomic status, previous antisocial behaviour and parental control.
Same for both sexes
Evaluation of Robertson and McAnally study
+ Correlation
+Matched pairs which compared people in sex, IQ etc there no other reasons for the correlation between TV viewing and later aggression
PA+ Censorship on TV, guidance for parents with rated movies 12,15,18
Findings support American Academy of Paediatrics recommendation that children should watch no more than 1-2 hours of television each day.
Paik & Comstock meta analysis
Meta analysis found a strong effect size for the effect of TV violence on aggressive behaviour. They also found that it affects males and females equally.
AO2 evaluation plan for SLT explaining aggression
Bandura- bobo doll experiment
Vicarious reinforcement seen
- bobo doll can’t feel pain-low ecological validity
Robertson McAnally
- Increased exposure to TV containing violent behaviours during childhood make people more likely to imitate behaviour into adulthood.
+ Child identify characters as role models and motivated to copy
+PA: guidance for censorship
+ restriction of hours of TV watched for kids
Paik & Comstock
-meta analysis found strong effect oN TV violence and aggression affecting both sexes
Triangulated results from lab experiment, longitudinal correlation and a meta analysis makes it wrong reliable evidence for the role of social learning in aggression
-MA : range of studies
LE: high control
LC: relates to real life, shows association
IDA: !Kung San Community cultural differences
- aggression is rare and parents don’t do physical punishment so no aggressive role models and therefore little opportunity for children to learn aggressive behaviour
Bio:
High levels of testosterone may also cause aggression casting doubt on a aggression being purely a learned behaviour
Other cultures Pygamies of Africa very little aggression and Deaux points out that they lack an aggressive male stereotype. Same biological sex different so it must be lack of aggressive stereotypes which lead to lower levels of violence. Suggests SLT may be more important than biological factors and a good explanation for cultural differences in a aggression.
IDA for SLT explaining aggression
IDA: !Kung San Community cultural differences
- aggression is rare and parents don’t do physical punishment so no aggressive role models and therefore little opportunity for children to learn aggressive behaviour
Bio:
High levels of testosterone may also cause aggression casting doubt on a aggression being purely a learned behaviour
Other cultures Pygamies of Africa very little aggression and Deaux points out that they lack an aggressive male stereotype. Same biological sex different so it must be lack of aggressive stereotypes which lead to lower levels of violence. Suggests SLT may be more important than biological factors and a good explanation for cultural differences in a aggression.
What is Deindividuation?
Deindividuation is where an individual has a decreased self awareness and adopts a group identity and has the feeling of anonymity. This leads to acting in a uninhibited way when given an opportunity to act aggressively, the individual does not feel guilty and has a lack of fear of retribution and thus more primitive urges are more likely to be acted upon.
AO2 for Deindividuation
Malamute & Check:
-Found that almost 1/3 of them admitted if given chance of not being identified they would commit rape.
+Supports idea that deindividuated behaviour is more likely to be anti social and aggressive than individuated behaviour
-Social desirability
Zimbardo:
+support as deindividuated students gave twice as much shock to innocent people that individuated group
- ppts dressed like KKK, acting as DC, behaviour expected
Sears:
- Students used= more susceptible to DC in lab
- Low ecological and Population validity lowers support
Robert Watson:
+12/13 societies who wore war paint acted brutally
+7/10 societies who wore war paint acted less brutal
+ supports that deindividuated leads to aggression
-DIfferent cultures interpret aggression differently
-War paint can mean status/power
-Western Assumption war paint to deindividuate
-War paint=uniform, duty
Triangulated interviews, lab exes, observations provides reliable evidence however
Postmes:
Making ppts anonymous by dressing them in hoods leads to greater aggression. But dressing them in nurses uniforms reduces it. Anonymity does not render people unthinkingly violent rather anonymity increases their responsiveness to the normative cues present in their immediate environment.
Postmes+ Spears
Meta analysis of 60 studies of deindividuation and concluded insufficient support for major claims of theory and little evidence that deindividuation reduces self awareness.
Suggests that individuals in a crowd do not lose their identity but take collective identity , comprises a set of norms according to which crowd members behave.
Mann:
- Found in 21 suicides that 10 of them had crowd
Baiting or taunting crowd
Ones that jumped was at night, further distance from jumper, size of crowd
+PA- police to break up crowds, lights to avoid deindividuation and make people aware
Malamute & Check:
Malamute & Check:
- Questioned male students at an American Uni
-FOund that almost 1/3 of them admitted if given chance of not being identified they would commit rape.
-Deindividuated by not being identified by name e.t.c
-Supports idea that deindividuated behaviour is more likely to be anti social and aggressive than individuated behaviour
However interview raises Social desirability as not everyone might openly admit to this which effects results and real figure would be higher. Lowering ecological validity as higher in real life and less weakened support for theory
Zimbardo study
Zimbardo
- Lab exp, female students deliver shocks to innocent people as an aid to learning
- 1/2 wore bulky lab coats and hoods to hide faces, no name, spoken in groups of 4 (deindividuated)
- 1/2 wore their clothes, name tag, introduced to each other and could see eahcohter (individuated)
- Student receiving shocks was visible to all ppts and could be seeing pain
Deindividuated group gave twice as much shock on average as the individuated group
Supports theory because group who were deindividuated acted more aggressively than the other group who could be identified by name tag and faces.
Lab exp- low ecological so weak support
Robert Watson study
Looked at real-world anthropological data of warriors
- 23 societies going to war
- 12/13 societies that killed tortured victims changed appearance
- 7/10 who were less brutal did not change appearance
Less prone to demand characteristics
Cultural bias- western assumption that war paint is to be individuated
War paint could be for status/power
Aggression is differently interpreted in different cultures
Inappropriate to argue that deindiviudated warriors feel guilt may be social norm
Equivalent of uniform- army etc.
Postmes criticism of Deindividuation
Postmes:
Making ppts anonymous by dressing them in hoods leads to greater aggression. But dressing them in nurses uniforms reduces it. Anonymity does not render people unthinkingly violent rather anonymity increases their responsiveness to the normative cues present in their immediate environment.
Postmes+ Spears
Meta analysis of 60 studies of deindividuation and concluded insufficient support for major claims of theory and little evidence that deindividuation reduces self awareness.
Suggests that individuals in a crowd do not lose their identity but take collective identity , comprises a set of norms according to which crowd members behave.
What are institutions?
Institutions are structures and mechanisms of social order and cooperation governing the behaviour of a set individuals
They may be distinct entities (school/prison), larger bodies (police/armed forces), or can be a whole society.
What is institutional aggression?
Refers to violent behaviour that occurs within or between certain institutions or groups.
Differs from interpersonal aggression in that it is part of the fabric of the institution, part of the structure.
Violence in prison
Aggression in the form of bullying also represents ‘institutional aggression’ because it is a product of being incarcerated within that particular institution
Deprivation model AO1
What prison m makes you do:
Prison environment and loss of freedom cause deep psychological trauma and for reasons of self-preservation, prisoners create a deviant prison subculture that promotes violence.
Graham Sykes: 5 pains of imprisonement
Deprivation of liberty, goods and services, heterosexual relationships, autonomy and security.
Confinement: to and within the prison and loss of personal relationships, loneliness and boredom.
Inmates feel rejected and isolated by society which lead to frustration and despair.
Autonomy- subjected to rules and commands designed to control all behaviour and the bureaucratic nature of rules with no explanation leads to helplessness.
Security- all inmates at risk at some point from another inmate. Competitive culture people test boundaries and becomes stressful so aggression to attack or defend.
AO2 deprivation model
Irwin & Cressey pains of prison only a part- model focuses too heavily on the prison environment. Views prison as a closed social environment and outside influences are ignored. Model overlooks previous experience.
In addition they came up with the importation model to account for behaviours that inmates have learned outside prison and bring in with them.
Importation model AO1
Explains aggression in terms of what inmates bring into prison; attitudes, values, beliefs and behaviours.
Prisons consist of multiple subcultures of all values and norms.
Thief subculture & Convict Subculture: each group has own code of conduct that governs attitudes in prison. Share common background experiences; age ethnicity criminal career like time served.
Model predicts aggression results from patterns of behaviours that we learned from a young age.
Prisons characteristically tough, competitive environments so prisoners who have learned aggressive responses to conflict are likely to imitate that behaviour in prison
AO2 importation model
Delisi- found characteristics beliefs behaviours were imported to prison
+ Large sample size random, several variables
- Ignores deprivation factors: more aggressive inmate- worse prison- more violence- internal validity ??
+ Controlled for length of sentence
Jiang + Fisher
Grapendaal
IDA
Delisi study
Investigated importation model as an explanation for prison violence
831 ppts, random sample 20,000 in south western USA
Looked at several variables like gang membership history of violence, age, ethnicity, education, vocational, skills and family and social support. Studied those in gangs and repeat offences correlated with inmate misconduct
Measured only most serious forms of inmate misconduct
controlled for length of sentence because longer sentences simply offer more opportunities to act aggressively.
Findings: strongest predictors: Criminal career variables like violence history, confinement history and escape history.
Also ethnicity, education, familial ties and social support. Inmates from racial and ethnic minorities were significantly more violent than white inmates. Inmates with less years of education less social and family support committed more acts of prison violence.
Age: younger inmates engage in more misconduct and gradually desist as they age
Little support for effect of gang membership on rates of prison violence.
Jiang & Fisher-Giorlando study
to compare the effectiveness of deprivation and importation models one explaining violent incidents, incidents against staff and incidents against other inmates
431 disciplinary reports fro mens state prison in south USA.
Interviews and observations with inmates and prison staff
Both models helped explain violence against inmates staff property and self but Deprivation slightly more powerful but difference very small. Better predictor of violent incidents
AO2
Importation model was not wanting to be better but was an addition to deprivation model not alternative.
Addresses internal validity problem in Delisi became both models were compared within the same prison
Grapendaal study
Compare deprivation and importation model as predictors
Looked at relationship between components of each model and inmates level of opposition and exploitation.
Used regression analysis form of correlation which calculates how well one variable predicts values in another
Used standardised questionnaires and prison data, daily observation, participation and informal contacts with prisoners as well as prison staff.
Conducted in 3 prisons in Holland , 2 were high security. 114 males chosen randomly
Results found deprivation generally better in predicting opposition to institution. When explaining opposition to others both models were equal which suggests that an interactionist model is a better predictor of exploitation behaviours.
Deprivation model more useful for shaping policy decisions in prisons because prison managers can address each of the variables when deciding how best to run the prison.
Also suggests that importation model has a PA that prison managers should avoid too many career criminals as it is a key predictor. Suggests a mixed population of criminal types in order to avoid a culture of exploitation.
AO2 for deprivation and importation model
failure to take into account biological approach
+ gives PA of how to manage prisons
Deprivation- too simplistic
The Lucifer effect
Explains aggression shown by those in a position of authority (guards) towards subordinates (prisoners) in usually stressful circumstances. Like DM assumes environment promotes aggression. Only explains aggression from guards to prisoners
- Deindividuation of others: wearing hoodies
- Deindividuation of self: Guard’s uniforms serve to deindividuate them
- Uncritical conformity to group norms: Conforming to group norms
AO2 Lucifer effect:
Reicher & Haslam: Argue institutional aggression observed in prisons was not simply a product of situational factors but more to do with one groups way of thinking about another as there have been incidents where prisoners of war have been treated with compassion
Demand characteristics- inmates know they’re being observed in an experiment so may act their role of the mean guard or prison victim.
In real life can actually harm them
Ethical issue: May give guards/security an excuse for unacceptable behaviour as they blame it on their environment
Zimbardo -the Lucifer effect
b
Role of genetic factors in aggressive behaviour
Twin studies
Adoption studies
Twin studies
Mason & Frick found 50% of difference between peoples levels of ASB could be contributed to genetic factors
Meta analysis: twin & adoption studies
measured variance
AO2: Meta analysis means much larger sample than singular study. Irons out methodological weaknesses in any one study. Twin studies criticised for differential shared environment
Cocaro study
Found genes accounted for more than 40% of 10 aggressive
Environmental influences accounted for 50% of ID in physical
70% verbal aggression
Data from 182 MZ twin pairs and 118 DZ twin pairs analysed
MZ share environment that frequently treats them more similarly than treats DZ in society. Treats MZ as one person or 2 versions of the same
Rhee and Waldman
Found 40% off studies was genetic component
60% for environmental contribution
Little evidence for gender differences
Meta analysis of 51 twin and adoption studies comparing over 87,000 individuals ASB operationalised by psychiatric diagnosis. Delinquency, behavioural aggression
Reporting aggression
-self report / report by others
39% genetic 53% method important
Aggression on important role in extremely genetic influence
