Aggression: AO3 Flashcards
Neural AO3
+ a&h lab support: Kluver and Bucy removed temporal lobe of monkeys so without amygdala and hippocampus, found monkeys approached objects and animals that normally frighten them or that they’d avoided, inability to recognise objects and strong tendencies to put things in mouth, “absence of fear” as amygdala triggers fight or flight response, not generalisable to humans, humans having more complex neural connections due to use of language, limbic system very similar in all primates
+ sdh lap support: Crockett et al (2008) investigated how individuals with low serotonin react to what perceive as unfair behaviour by reducing serotonin levels in volunteers through diet, played ‘ultimatum game’ where offers of money fell into one of three categories: fair, unfair or most unfair, found when serotonin depleted rejection rates increased to over 80%, not true measure of aggression, no risk of harm which there’s more likely to be in real life, low stakes as participants aren’t losing any money they already had
- over reliance on limbic system: orbitofrontal cortex (OFC) may also play significant role, link with the action of serotonin, may be more effective to focus on neural connections between OFC and limbic system, opposed to looking at two in isolation.
Hormonal AO3
+ lab experiment: Klinesmith et al (2006) participants assemble gun or Mouse Trap and drink drink with small amount of chilli, measured testosterone levels and how much chilli put in next drink, found testosterone levels increased 100 times more in those that assembled gun and that they put 3 times as much chilli in drink, low mundane realism, used chilli sauce to measure aggression, ethical issues to do with real aggression in lab, shows aggression influenced by environmental stimuli, found environmental stimuli of gun increased testosterone levels, aggressive behaviour elevates testosterone levels as well as other way round.
- dual hormone hypothesis: Carre and Mehta (2011) suggest testosterone doesn’t work alone in determining aggression, has antagonistic relationship with stress hormone cortisol, increased levels of aggression associated with increased testosterone levels but only when cortisol is low
Ethological AO3
+ research support: Tinbergen (1951) studied stickleback fish highly territorial during mating season when develop red spot on underbelly, presented them with series of wooden models of different shapes that either had red colouring or didn’t, observed aggressive behaviour towards model such as ramming and pushing, found that sticklebacks show aggression towards model if had red spot regardless of shape and that FAPs unchanging and always ran course to completion
- cultural differences: Nisbett (1993) found north-south divide in US for homicide rates true for reactive aggression triggered by arguments, supported in follow up study Nisbett et al (1996), found when white males from south insulted more likely to become aggressive.
- not all animals respond to submission rituals: Jane Goodall (2010) studied chimpanzees over four years while 2 groups fought in a war, victims attacked for up to 20 minutes despite fact that victims offering submission signals, high validity as longitudinal, show aggression is different in different kinds of animals, not all species use ritualistic submission rituals
Evolutionary AO3
+ mate retention correlated with physical violence: Shackelford et al (2005) illustrated this by giving married couples questionnaire assessing mate retention strategies for men and extent of partners violence for women, found strong positive correlation between men’s reports of mate retention behaviours and women’s reports of partner’s physical violence, high internal validity as used questionnaires from both men and women which decreased likelihood of demand characteristics interfering as get both sides of the picture, shows correlation not causation, may be hidden variable such as being in toxic relationship for convenience
+ research support: Sadalla et al. (1987) conducted four experiments including video analysis and assessment of characters’ personality dimensions to consider link between behaviour attractions, found dominant behaviour increased attractiveness ratings from females, uses forced option format, conclusions may lack internal validity as potential complexities may not be addressed
- cross cultural differences: !Kung San people have negative views towards aggression and discouraged from childhood and rare in their society, Yanomamo people accept aggression and required behaviour in order to gain status, evolutionary predicts that there should be zero cross-cultural differences because aggressive behaviour is characteristic that has been passed down over millions of years.
- not always adaptive: Duntley and Buss (2004) point out benefits of aggression must only have outweighed costs relative to other strategies in evolutionary past, then aggression passed on through natural selection, aggression can lead to social ostracism, serious injury and even death, aggressive males could be rejected as mates and warriors can die in battle.
Frustration-Aggression Hyopthesis AO3
+ real world application: Priks (2010) used football teams’ position in the league as measure of frustration and number of objects thrown as measure of aggression, showed that when team performed worse than fans expected, supporters threw more objects onto pitch and more likely to fight with opposition supporters, shows when football team plays badly can cause increase in violent behaviour from fans making hypothesis more valid
+ research support: Marcus-Newhall et al. (2000) meta-analysis of 49 studies of displaced aggression, concluded displaced aggression is reliable phenomenon as participants who were provoked but unable to retaliate directly against source of frustration significantly more likely to show aggression towards innocent party.
- not all aggression arises from frustration: Reifman et al (1991) found as temperatures increased, so did likelihood that pitchers display aggressive behaviour towards batters, balls often thrown at 90mph directly at batter’s head, some support for revised hypothesis in extreme temperatures are aversive stimuli that tend to make people angry, which increases likelihood of aggression
- refuting research: Bushman (2002) found participants who vented anger using punch bag became angrier and more aggressive, doing nothing more effective in reducing anger than venting aggressively, different to what predicted by hypothesis that aggression cathartic as aggression created by frustration satisfied, doubt on validity of central assumption of hypothesis
Social Learning Theory Applied to Aggression AO3
+ lab evidence: Bandura (1961) observation of aggressive behaviour by putting children aged 3-5 in two conditions, aggressive condition featured models punching, kicking and hitting Bobo doll using verbal aggression, non-aggressive condition featured model ignoring presence of Bobo doll and playing with other toys, found larger amount of aggression observed aggressive condition and 70% of children in control and non-aggressive groups showed no aggressive behaviour, concluded hildren could learn aggression from observing models, evidence for concept of vicarious reinforcement in Bandura’s later study, found that when model punished significantly less aggressive behaviour., low mundane realism as isn’t real violence due to ethical constraints
+ cross cultural differences: San people neither reward or punish aggression in children so no positive or negative reinforcement, leads to aggression being devalued in society and no models to imitate, no completely non-violent cultures including San people which shows other factors such as biological influences that contribute, suggests aggression not instinctive and not biological.
+ natural experiment: Phillips (1986) found homicide rates rose in days following heavily televised heavyweight boxing title fights, people imitated aggressive behaviour saw, support for identification, increase in homicide victims that resembled loser, high mundane realism, observes true aggression in real life situations.
- demand characteristics in Bandura: Noble (1975) reported one child at lab said “Look Mummy there’s the doll we have to hit”, children thought they were expected to hit doll instead of hitting it due to imitation from a model, used children as more impressionable than adults so experimenter bias too.
Deindivduation AO3
+ lab evidence: Zimbardo (1969) placed participants in one of two conditions, first group wore lab coats and hoods and never referred to by name and second wore normal clothes and introduced to each other, found participants more likely to “shock” other participants and held button for twice as long as other group when deindividuated, Johnson and Downing show deindividuation can cause prosocial behaviour, found KKK-dressed participants gave more (and more intense) electric shocks, and ‘nurses’ gave fewer at lower levels, nurses more compassionate towards ‘victim’, in line with the prosocial role associated with nurse’s uniform.
+ natural experiment: Mann (1981) meta analysis of reports of suicide jumps in the USA, found 10/21 had baiting crowd, three factors influenced probability of baiting crowd: time of day, size of crowd, and how high jumper was, real life aggression which can’t be studied in a lab
+ cross cultural differences: Watson (1973) coded cultures in terms of aggression (defined as “killing, torturing, or mutilating the enemy”) and how deindividuated soldiers are before battle, significant positive relationship found, isn’t culturally specific to USA, important because of fact that USA is exceptionally violent society due to lack of gun laws
- refuting research: Gergen et al (1973) selected groups of 8 participants all strangers, placed in dark room for one hour and told to do whatever they wanted to do, with no rules to stop them, impossible to identify each other and guaranteed would never encounter each other again, did not take long for them to stop talking and start kissing and touching each other intimately.
Dispositional Explanation AO3
+ field experiment: 561 male inmates with similar criminal histories randomly allocated to low security prison or second highest category of prisons, found 33% in low security and 36% in high security prisons involved in aggressive misconduct within 2 years, wasn’t statistically significant so concluded that situational factors are less important predictors, normally most aggressive prisoners assigned to harshest prisons which leads to correlation being hard to establish as both situational and dispositional factors at play, random allocation alleviates this issue as only one variable changing
+ research support: Kane and Janus (1981) found number of violent offences related to learned history of offender, if prisoner previously had lower level of education, more serious criminal record and more time unemployed in life then more likely to be aggressive and violent once put in prison.
- refuting research: DeLisi et al. (2004) challenges claim that pre-prison gang membership predicts violence while in prison, found inmates with prior street gang involvement no more likely than other inmates to engage in prison violence, neither street gang nor prison gang membership significantly predicted involvement in prison violence
- refuting research for all ages: Poole and Regoli (1983) found pre-institutional violence not a predictor of inmate aggression in adult prisons, despite being best predictor of inmate aggression in juvenile correctional institutions in other studies.
Situational Explanation AO3
- field experiment: 561 male inmates with similar criminal histories randomly allocated to low security prison or second highest category of prisons, found 33% in low security and 36% in high security prisons involved in aggressive misconduct within 2 years, wasn’t statistically significant so concluded that situational factors are less important predictors, normally most aggressive prisoners assigned to harshest prisons which leads to correlation being hard to establish as both situational and dispositional factors at play, random allocation alleviates this issue as only one variable changing
+ correlational evidence: McCorkle et al (1995) found across 371 prisons situational factors significantly influenced inmate on inmate and inmate on staff assaults, found in prisons where major percentage of prisoners in educational or vocational programmes less incidences of violence, large sample, correlation doesn’t show cause and effect, could be third variable influencing results such as disposition of prisoners as criminals who have done worst crimes get put in highest security prisoners where suffer from more deprivation and less access to rehabilitation programmes - case study: look at unique situation, not generalisable to other situations, 5 deprivations Sykes identifies may be specific to New Jersey State Prison, these deprivations may be identifiable in other prisons however could be more than 5 features that should be taken into account and same 5 might not be applicable for every case of prison violence
Desensitisation, Disinhibition & Cognitive Priming AO3
+ de lab evidence: Carnagey et al studied participants either played violent or nonviolent game then watched film of real life violence, found participants that played violent game had lower heart rate and skin conductance response when viewing film
+ cp lab evidence: Bushman (1998) studied participants who watched 15 minutes of violent or nonviolent film, measured reaction times to different words, found those who watched violent film had quicker reaction times to aggressive words and no difference for non aggressive words
- di refuting research when negative consequences: Goranson (1969) had participants watch boxing match either ending with no consequences or loser took bad beating and died, found participants who didn’t see negative consequences were more likely to be aggressive
- publication bias: tendency in scientific research towards only publishing findings that statistically significant (and not publishing research findings that are not significant), very few of these studies actually measure aggression or violence against another person, status quo maintained which limits research that counters this view and overstates the case.
Media Influences AO3
+ lab evidence: Bartholow and Anderson (2002) had students play violent or nonviolent game for 10 minutes then got them to do Taylor Competitive Reaction Time Task which measures aggression in terms of chosen volume to punish (nonexistent) opponent, found those who played violent game selected significantly higher noise levels (5.97 decibels compared to 4.6), ethical constraints on investigations into aggression limit the validity, can’t measure true, real life aggression
+ longitudinal study: Robertson (2013) studied 1037 people in New Zealand born in 1972 and 1973 and measured TV viewing hours at regular intervals up to age of 26, found that time spent watching TV was reliable predictor of aggressive behaviour in adulthood measured in terms of convictions for aggressive and violent crimes, also more likely to be diagnosed with antisocial personality disorder, type of study allows tracking of individuals over time to assess impact of early experiences on later behaviour
+ correlational evidence: DeLisi et al (2013) studied 227 juvenile offenders by interviewing them about frequency of aggressive behaviour and violent video game playing, strong positive correlation between two was found, may be hidden variable underlying correlation such as biological factors e.g. if they have the MAOA-L gene variation which leads to higher levels of aggression
- Converging evidence from different types of study does strongly suggest relationship between video games and aggressive behaviour, vast majority of gamers don’t become violent, video games only one factor in the cause of aggression
Genetic AO3
+ research support: Mertins et al (2011) used economic game to see how much money male participants shared, found players with MAOA-H gene initially contributed more and players with MAOA-L gene initially contributed less, aggression in study was very harmless due to ethical constraints as real aggressive behaviour can’t be studied in a lab setting, also shows environmental influences on behaviour as influence of MAOA gene declines as individuals learn more about their social environment.
+ research support: Brunner et al. (1993) studied 28 male members of large Dutch family who repeatedly involved in impulsively aggressive violent criminal behaviours, found men had low activity version of MAOA gene, looks at real aggression as outside of lab
+ twin study support: Coccaro et al. (1997) studied adult male MZ and DZ twins, for ‘direct’ aggressive behaviour concordance rate was 50% for MZ twins and 19% for DZ twins, for ‘verbal’ aggression concordance rate was 28% for MZ twins and 7% for DZ twins, twin studies can be influenced by identity confusion which may mean that genetics aren’t the cause
+ twin and adoption study support: Rhee and Waldman (2002) meta-analysis of 51 twin and adoption studies, found genetics have 40% contribution to antisocial behaviour, uses adoption studies which get rid of extraneous and confounding variables such as identity confusion
