AGGRESSION - LECTURE ONE Flashcards
List factors contributing to INDIVIDUAL and cultural variation in aggression:
Induvial predictors of aggression In adolescence & adulthood (Huesmann et al., 2009: Kokko et al., 2009 Vierikko et al., 2006). This finding has been repeated, probably is a rule that there are some aggressive kids that need ot be looked at to see if they will be an aggressive adult.
- Certain personality types suggested to be more likely to be aggressive when provoked. (Some of these particular traits are: emotional susceptibility – the extent to which people report feeling overwhelmed when they feel strong negative emotions from others. Narcissism – the extent to which people might report loving themselves; Type A personality – people came from workplace type studies/organisation Psychology, stressed, competitive, more aggressive when provoked; impulsivity).
- Self-esteem is not a reliable predictor of aggression (Bushman et al., 2009).
List factors contributing to individual and CULTURAL variation in aggression:
-Some cultures are opposed to any form of aggression at all.
- Forbes et al (2009): individualist cultures more associated with aggression.
Can work out quite well for you if you are aggressive in an individualistic culture.
- Any “aggressive behaviour” will have a mix of automatic/unconscious processes (so people haven’t thought through “I’m going to be aggressive” before doing something) and intentional, “higher level” processes (where the person DOES explicitly think through what they are about to do).
-Football hooliganism – often a lot of control/less controlled aggression around that, e.g. see boys in town dressed for a fight, you feel more threatened.
-E.g. in Western cultures we are more individualistic, define ourselves more so in our properties and what we are going to get.
-Different understandings of aggression in different cultures.
- As individuals we all differ to the extent that we might be aggressive.
Define instrumental versus emotional and overt versus indirect aggression.
Instrumental – aggressive acts committed for a reason to get to an endpoint, e.g. robbery
Emotional – impulsive behaviors, harm caused for individuals own sake, e.g. shouting at your boyfriend (in the moment)
As with all behaviours, likely to be a mix of automatic and intentional factors in aggression. Children grow up being impulsive, e.g. touching something that they know is hot, they just touch it anyway.
Emotional susceptibility - that you REPORT feeling “overwhelmed” emotionally by the emotions of others.
Overt - Intentful acts of aggression to harm others physically e.g. pushing, kicking, or mentally through physical threats (Crick, et al., 1997)
Indirect - Intended forms of aggression, intended to harm others, particularly their self-esteem, e.g. gossiping, social exclusion
Describe social learning theory:
Social Learning Theory (Bandura, 1977)
-Particular stimuli may condition us to specific types of responses, then rewarded or not for behaving in those particular ways. may go on to predict our future behaviour.
E.g. Skinner’s rats, operant conditioning.
-Underpinnings in positive/negative reinforcement.
Positive - make you do it more
Negative - make you do it less - how these behaviors change over time and are maintained
SLT theory account of aggression:
Not born aggressive - subsequent episodes of aggression, over time build particular ways and habits of behaving
Bandura suggested aggressive behaviour depends on:
- Subjects experience of others aggression - e.g. has this aggression had a pos or neg impact on YOU individually, influences your own behaviour
- How successful aggression has been in the past - e.g. social reinforcement, do something - people shout at me. Do something - people praise me. Also - vicarious reinforcement - how successful something (aggressive) has been for someone else in the past, watching other people behave, learning from them.
Triad of causation of any beh - a child growing up, sees someone else behaving in a way - subjects experience of other regression.
Successful aggression - reward
Then the likelihood of reward of punishment is like the social consequence
Discuss the frustration-aggression hypothesis in relation to evidence in support of it.
Frustration-aggression Hypothesis (Dollard et al., 1939)
Suggests that 1. All frustration leads to aggression. 2. All aggression arises from frustration.
Displacement: directing aggression towards a ‘scapegoat’ (not the source of frustration). May enable catharsis – purging one selves negative feelings through a different act, e.g. being aggressive.
Enables people to process and get rid of their aggression = catharsis
Support for FA hypothesis?
-Hoobler & Brass (2006): factory workers - questionnaires about how their experiences of work were at that time & questionnaires to their family members about their aggression - association between perceived stress at work from the work themselves and how nice they were to their family members, vented frustrations on family.
-Pedersen et al (2008): Research in Australia around white Australians and aslyum seekers in Australia and their attitudes towards indegineoius groups - People more likely to direct frustration towards outgroups/people they dislike, the idea of ‘scapegoating’.
BUT:
-Not all frustration leads to aggression. E.g. intentionally stopping yourself from being aggressive.
-‘Catharsis’ is not supported as a defence mechanism, doesn’t necessarily make them feel better, more likely to lead to more aggression in the future. (Catharsis is any kind of process that deals with/removes/gets rid of negative emotions).
Describe a social psychological research study relating to social rejection.
Social Rejection and Aggression
Became an issue in the 1990’s/early 2000’s. Mainly with school shootings.
-Social rejection (excluding someone) prompts negative affect (Williams, 2007).
-Gaertner et al (2008): Social rejection from one person led to retaliation against all group members. Were told it was an experiment for something else e.g. perception. Participants would come into a room and there be 3 other people there (told it was a study on perception) - various conditions - these 3 others would be mean, leave them out, told they were doing a group thing about perception - 2 main conditions - 3 regular people siting there and behave din this way - second condition - 3 people all wearing the same kit and act this way. Argued to lead to hostile attribution bias:
Socially rejected by peers -> hostile attribution bias (belief that others had negative intentions) -> aggression -> more aggression to the group ( in a questionnaire? Check this ) that were all dressed the same (basketball kit), socially rejected by peers. -> build this bias up of how people treat us, think other people are mean to us because they have bad intentions - start perceiving other peoples behaviour as aggressive when they may not even be doing it.
Became an issue in the 1990’s/early 2000’s. Mainly with school shootings.Columbine massacre - two student guys at this school - at the time the press jumped on the fact that these two boys were ‘social outcasts’ - suggested they were part of kids that ere part of an alternative sub-culture e..g metal music - “Trenchcoat mafia” in school - became an interest to social psychologists to avoid these things happening in the future - is being left out in a group makes someone more likely to do things like this?
