Aggression P3 Flashcards
neural mechanisms
Brain structures such as neurons, neural circuits and regions of the brain. Includes by chemicals in the nervous system such as neurotransmitters.
Hormonal mechanisms
hormones are chemical messengers transmitted via the bloodstream and regulates activity of other cells/organs.
Neural explanation for aggression (Limbic System)
=The LS contains subcortical structures in the brain (inc amygdala and hypothalamus) thought to be closely involved in regulating emotional behaviour such as aggression.
Deals with…
Emotions
Memories
Psychological arousal (stimulation)
= The speed and sensitivity of the LS’s responses to stimuli are important predictors of aggression (eg the more responsive the amygdala is, the more aggressive a person is).
Made up of six structures - if one or more malfunctions -> difficulty in controlling reactive aggression (ie responses to perceived threats in an immediate situation)
Inside;
1) Amygdala : regulates emotions and responds to threats.
- Dysfunction -> someone may perceive situations as threats when they are not , leading to agg (inappropriate activation of ForF).
2) Hypothalamus: regulates the release of hormones (receives info from amygdala/part of the NS and ES)
-Dysfunction -> inappropriate activation of flight or fight.
= Amygdala and Hypothalamus are keys steps for ForF.
3) Hippocampus : formation of long-term memories.
- Dysfunction -> NS unable to put current sensory events into relevant/meaningful context (based on experience).
= therefore, amygdala responding inappropriately, leading to aggression.
Neural explanation for aggression (serotonin)
Serotonin -> an inhibitory neurotransmitter (increases neg charge to make neurons less likely to fire).
- Normal levels of serotonin in the orbitofrontal cortex are linked with greater behavioural control (due to reduction of neuronal firing).
THEREFORE, when serotonin is reduced…
THE SEROTONIN DEFICIENCY HYPOTHESIS:
=Low levels of serotonin lead to reduced self control (impulsive behaviour) and therefore increased aggression.
EG
Inside amygdala, low levels of serotonin, which means more neurons firing, which reduces impulsive control, increasing reactive aggression .
Hormonal explanation for aggression
Testosterone -> a hormone from the androgen group that is produced mainly in male testes (smaller amount in female ovaries). Associated with aggression.
-> responsible for the masculinisation of the body .
-> Has a role in regulating social beh via its influences on certain areas of the brain implicated in agg.
-> influences activity in the amygdala: high levels of testosterone linked to enhanced amygdala reactivity.
HIGH LEVELS OF TEST -> HIGH AGGRESSION
= cross cultural research shows how men are usually more aggressive than females (especially in male adolescents), this could explain why - they have more testosterone.
Neural explanation of aggression pros
1) Gospic et al (The Ultimatum Game)
- FMRI brain scans on participants in a lab base game that provoked aggression.
- Found : when responders reject an unfair offer (an aggressive reaction) scans showed fast and heightened responses by amygdala.
2) Scerbo and Raine
- meta analysis assessing 29 studies on serotonin levels in antisocial kids.
- Found : those who had low serotonin levels had a high aggression rates (especially in those who attempted suicide)
Hormonal explanation of aggression pros
1) Dolan et al
- 60 male UK offenders who had a history of impulsive behaviour
- Found: a positive correlation between testosterone levels and aggression.
2) Dabbs et al
- Tested prison inmates and found an association between high testosterone and violent crimes. COMPARED TO low testosterone levels with nonviolent crimes.
3) Can explain gender differences; boys have more testosterone, and therefore more aggressive than girls
cons of the neuronal/hormonal explanation of aggression
1) reductionist
- An explanation that only focuses on one biochemical is too simplistic. For example, it has been shown that high testosterone levels only link to aggression when cortisol levels are low. Therefore, aggression involves a complex interaction of the instructions are neurotransmitters. (also ignore nurture)
2) issues with determining cause-and-effect
- Research is largely correlational
Genetic explanation of Aggression
-Aggression is hereditary (can be passed down families in DNA). Research often includes twin studies and adoption studies.
MAOA = a gene that is responsible for the activity of the enzyme ‘monoamine oxidase A’ in the brain.
MAO-A = the enzyme responsible for breaking down important neurotransmitter’s like serotonin, dopamine and noradrenaline.
MAOA-L = the low activity variant that causes aggression (the MAO-A deficiency)
Referred to as the ‘WARRIOR GENE’ : low activity and production of MAOA leads to fewer neurotransmitters broken down in the synapse, ultimately leading to high levels of these neurotransmitters (serotonin, noradrenaline, dopamine).
The low variant MAOA gene is found in…
Xchromosome from mother
- males -> one X chromosome
- females -> two X chromosomes
= Therefore, in females have one (normal) high activity variant of the MAOA gene has a protective effect; diluting the MAOA gene
Twin studies/ Adoption studies (why used in genetic factors for agg/ limitations)
TWIN -> Help us compare the extent genetic factors play in our aggressive behaviour by comparing twins in the same environment.
-> As MZ twin share 100% of DNA if they have higher concordance rates than DZ twins, suggests a genetic basis to agg beh.
-> Suggest that heritability accounts for 50% of variance in aggressive behaviour.
X lack validity -> equal environments assumption (they assume that MZ and DZ twins share their environments to the same extent). UNTRUE as MZ are identical, parents treat them more similarly than DZ twins. Therefore, cr are inflated and genetic influences on aggression may not be as great as twin studies suggest.
ADOPTION -> Helps us examine the extent adoptees inherit aggressive behaviour from their biological parents, even when brought up by someone else.
-> Suggest that heritability accounts for 41% in aggressive behaviour.
Evaluation of genetic factors in aggression
1) Brunner
= 28 male Dutch family members
- involved in aggressive behaviour and violent criminal acts (ie rape/murder)
- found abnormally low levels of MAOA and the low activity MAOA gene.
X all had the same environment. env>genes + cultural variation
2) Coccaro et al
= 187 MZ adult twin pairs vs 118 DZ
- found concordance rates of 50% for MZ in phy agg
- found concordance rates of 19% for DZ in phy agg
X not 100% -> other contributing (social factors)
3) Hutchings and Mednick
= reviewed 14,000 adoptions in Denmark
- pos correlation of no. of convictions for criminal violence among biological fathers and their adopted sons.
4) Can explain gender differences
- low activity MAOA variant found X chromosome of mother
- females have xx so one x dilutes the other
- males have xy and so more inclined to be aggressive
5) Gene x Environment interaction
- CASPI -> children with low MAOA were more likely to exhibit anti-social behaviour when older BUT ONLY IF they had been maltreated.
Ethological exp
= Seeks to understand the innate behaviour of animals (inc humans) by studying them in their natural environment.
Lorenz: Ritualistic aggression
- A ritual -> a series of behaviours carried out in set order.
- very little physical damage fighting between same species (often not often killed but forced to ‘concede’ + move territory).-> - Meaning members of a species spread out reducing competition and possibility of starvation. + dominance hierarchies (mating opportunities)
- Instead, agg beh shown via ritualistic signaling (eg displaying clause and teeth, facial expressions of threat).
- Fighting ends by ritualistic appeasement displays -> behaviours signaling defeat , preventing further agg beh, making sure loser is not killed. EG wolf exposed neck as a submissive act.
= Adaptive as if every aggressive encounter ended in death, would threaten existence of species.
Innate releasing mechanisms + fixed action patterns + Leas 6 features
Innate releasing mechanism -> An inbuilt biological structure/proces that respond to external stimuli and trigger FAP.
An external stimulus (ie red belly sticklebacks) triggers the IRM which the releases a specific sequence of behaviours known as FAPs.
Fixed action pattern -> A sequence of stereotyped behaviours triggered by an innate releasing mechanism.
( = IRM interprets the external stimulus that in turn triggers the fixed action pattern).
1) External stimuli
2) Innate releasing mechanism
3) Fixed action pattern
Lea
1) Universal -> all members of the species behave the same way
2) Stereotyped-> unchanging sequence of beh
3) Unaffected by learning or individual experiences
4) Ballistic -> once beh is triggered it follows a predicted course and cannot be altered before completion
5) Single purpose -> the beh only occurs in a specific situation
6) Occurs in response to a specific stimulus or signal
UnderSomeUnderwearBallsSwungO
Eval of the ethological explanation of aggression
Pros
1) Tinbergen
- male sticklebacks (highly territorial during mating season, when they develop a red underbelly)
- if another male enters their territory they will display aggressive behaviours (FAPs)
- presented stickleback with a series of wooden sticklebacks with different shapes (some having red belly)
findings:
- regardless of shape, if had a red belly -> stickleback would attack (displaying FAPs)
- no red spot -> FAPs were unchanging from one encounter to another.
- once triggered, the FAP always ran its course to completion without stimulus.
= Shows support for ethological explanation (link to leo, idea that FAPS are innate)
2) Brunner -> Found low activity variation of MAOA gene could cause heightened aggression in humans(Dutch family members) Showing how we have a biological basis to our aggression as it was a biological gene that triggered this behavior> env. (same as what etho sugg)
3) Sackett -> Reared monkeys in isolation and showed them pictures of monkeys playing, exploring and in threatening poses. When they matured they reacted to pictures of threatening stimuli. Shows how agg = innate as monkeys were unable to learn via other monkeys.
Cons
1) Cultural diff in aggression
= Nisbett -> Found North Self Divide in homicide rates in the US. Southern US found higher homicide rates. Linked to agg, S = more agg> northen US. NOT INNATE
2) Research against ritualistic aggression
= Goodall -> chimpanzees behaved agg even if their same-species victims were showing appeasement signals.
3) FAP’s not fixed
= Hunt -> FAP’s influenced by environmental factors and learning experiences, so are actually quite flexible (ie if someon squared up to be in a bar, ik not to stoop to their level due to be my learning exp, but other human may react agg). FAPS AFFECTED BY LEARNING
Evolution explanation of aggression
=Some behaviours (aggression) more likely ancestors survived and passed on genes. So adaptive as facilitates survival.
1) SEXUAL JEALOUSY
- adaptive avoids cuckoldry (man been betrayed by wife ->ie raising a child to whom the father is not genetically related to). This compromises the chance of passing on his genes.
- Male sexual jealousy -> aggressive mate retention strategies like:
A) direct guarding = behaviours which restrict access of other males (ie checking her phone)
B) negative inducements = verbal threats or direct violence which induces fear to reduce female infidelity (cheating)
2) BULLYING
= where a more powerful individual attacks a weaker person deliberately and repeatedly
- adaptive; increases survival by promoting own health and creating reproductive opportunities.
-men bullying : involves controlling a partner
-female bullying : involves securing their partners fidelity so they can continue to provide resources for future offspring
Volk (2012)
-> characteristics of bullying in men are attractive to opposite sex.
-> suggests dominance, resources and strength which has the benefit of warding off potential competitors + attracting females.
-> meaning : this beh is naturally selected, giving more reproductive potential to these males
Evaluation of evolutionary explanation for aggression
PROS
1) Shackleford (sexual jealousy)
-> survey of 461 males and 560 females in long term relationships
-> found a positive correlation between men’s reports of their mate retention strategies + women’s ‘spouce influencing reports’ of their partners physical violence
= suggests sexual jealousy leads to aggressive behaviour
2) Practical application (bullying)
-> Clare’s Law : an ant-bullying intervention that allows any member of the public the right to ask police (about their partners personal record) to see if they pose a threat to them.
= an evolutionary understanding of bullying can he use devise effective anti-bullying interventions to increase the costs of bullying others.
3) Can explain sex differences in aggression
-> with female infidelity there are fewer opportunities in the same time span to pass on their genes (pregnant with 1-3 offspring for 9months).
-> in the same 9 months, men can theoretically father 100s of offspring, which is evolutionary advantageous
4) WILSON ET AL (evidence of sexual jealousy)
- women who reported experiencing mate retention strategies were 2x more likely to have suffered physical violence
- 73% = medical attention
- 53% = feared their lives
= THEREFORE, men who use direct guarding and negative inducements are more likely to use physical violence, suggesting sexual jealousy results in aggressive behaviour.
(Could use this info to prevent abuse)
CONS
Nisbett et al
-> found there was a north-south divide in homicide rates in the US with higher homicide rates in the south
-> when white males rom southern US were insulted in a research situation = more likely to be aggressive> northern
-> concluded = aggressive beh was a ‘learned social norm’ amongst white males in southern states.
-> contradicts evolutionary theory as it is difficult to explain how cultural differences can override innate influences
What are the three social-psychological explanations of aggression?
1) frustration-aggression hypothesis
2) social learning theory
3) deindividuation
Dollard et al’s frustration-aggression hypothesis
-> Based on the psychodynamic approach arguing that frustration ALWAYS leads to aggression .
-> Based on ‘catharsis’ = the process of releasing pent up energy
(Via the 4 steps)
1) an attempt to achieve a goal is blocked by an external force
2) frustration is experienced
3) aggressive drive is created
4) aggressive behaviour is displayed (verbal + physical)
Displacement of frustration because…
1) Absent/unavailable (impractical)
2) More powerful (fear of punishment)
3) Abstract (poverty)
= in these instances, aggression is displaced onto other available sources (eg parents)
Factors that strengthen aggression
-> close to achieving a goal
-> a very important goal (ie revising for a levels which determine which uni i get into)
-> how much i was set back by the experience (external force)
Research evidence against/for the frustration-aggression hypothesis
Against
1) Berkowitz
= Frustration alone doesn’t always lead to aggression
- frustration ; created a readiness for aggression
- aggressive cues ; lead to aggression
Guns present : 6.07 avg number of (fake) shocks
No guns present : 4.67 avg number of shocks
=This is important as it shows the ethical implication for gun control debates in many countries (ie ppl more aggressive in a society with legal guns/weapons)
For
2) Geen (puzzles)
Impossible -> 3rd strongest
Ran out of time due to interfering confed-> 2nd strongest
Insulted for mistakes -> most strongest shocks
Completed -> least strongest shocks
General cons of the frustration-aggression hypothesis
1) Bushman
-> agg not always cathartic = found ppts who vented their anger by repeatedly hitting a punch bag became angrier and more agg>less. Questioning the validity of f-ah.
2) Limited validity
- Doesn’t account for other causes of aggression (jealousy)
- Outcome of frustration can be a variety of responses (ie despair, helplessness or general negative effect).
= The hypothesis can only explain how agg arises in some circumstances.
3) deterministic -> Dollard claimed frustration always leads to agg (cannot do otherwise)
SLT of aggression
Bandura
- Learn aggression through indirect observation of aggressive role models (parents, media, peers)
-Imitation is reliant on the consequences of the observed behavior (vicarious reinforcement, more likely to imitate vs vicarious punishment, less likely to imitate)
- Internalise behaviour through direct reinforcement after modelling aggressive behaviour
Cognitive meditational processes:
= internal cognitive processes which create a mental representation of the behaviour.
1) ATTENTION -> The observer must notice the models aggressive behavior
2) RETENTION -> The observer needs to be able to remember the model’s aggressive behavior, forming a mental representation of how the behavior is carried out
3) MOTOR REPRODUCTION -> The observer considers that ability to replicate / repeat the behavior
4) MOTIVATION -> the observer needs to have a reason to imitate behavior and will only do so if that is the expectation of some kind of reward or they identify with the person they are watching
SELF-EFFICACY: an individuals self-confidence in their ability to carry out an aggressive act.
- eg a child who regularly hits to get a toy ; learn that they have the motor skills to produce the successful outcome, so their past experiences of hitting other children to get a toy is successful so they have confidence that they are aggressive and successful in being so.
Eval of SLT for agg
POS
1) Real life application
= Teachers us how children are more likely to imitate behavior that is rewarded>punished (vic reinforcement). If we can understand this, we can prevent negative role models in the media for example not giving Andrew Tate publicity or removing his platforms to punish his aggressive behavior rather than rewarding it. therefore there will be a positive societal impact as less children will be able to imitate aggressive behavior shown in the media.
2) Accounts for cultural differences
= Nisbett et al showed how there were North South divides in homicide rates in the US. SOUTH>NORTH . Suggesting cultural differences could have occurred due to different role models which could explain why homicide rates were higher as more people observed and imitated the aggressive behavior. Therefore, increasing the validity of the SLT.
2) Bandura supporting evidence
a)1961 study
= An aggressive model observed by children who reproduced the aggressive behaviors observed. Opposite was true in the non aggressive condition. Boys and girls were more likely to imitate if they were the same sex supporting identification. Boys more aggressive than girls overall.
SUPPORTS IDENTIFICATION
b) 1963 study
G1: observed rewarded for agg = most likely to imitate
G2: observed punishment for agg
C: neither
= Children were more likely to imitate aggressive behavior if they had observed the adult being rewarded for the aggressive behavior supporting the concept of vicarious reinforcement.
NEG
1) Deterministic
= Ignore free will as it claims all behavior is a result of observing and imitating role models behavior. Suggest we cannot choose otherwise. For example, it ignored individual differences ;if I see someone kick a dog, according to the SLT ,I will do the same. But the instances where we do not imitate other people’s behavior even if it has been positively reinforced. Therefore decrease in credibility of SLT. SHOWS THAT SLT IS NOT SUFFICIENT FOR EXPLAINING AGG.
2) Reductionist
= Ignore biological factors and influencing our aggressive behavior. Example, and Bandura’s Bobo doll experiment he found that boys were more aggressive than girls which could be linked to their hormonal or chromosome more differences (ie more testosterone that causes agg>social aspects). ASW MAOA GENE . Therefore decrease in credibility of SLT as it reduces complex human behavior to purely social factors.
Deindividuation as an explanation for aggression
1) Le bon
= a loss of personal identity and responsibility
-usually : beh is constrained by social norms so aggression is often discouraged.
-However, where certain external factors are present that increase anonymity (eg crowd, uniform or the dark), this leads to reduced self-awareness (deindividuation).
2) Zimbardo
Individuated state -> our behaviours and actions are rational and we conform to social norms.
De-individuated state -> we lose a sense of our own identity and responsibility for our actions; we disregard social norms and feel less guilt. We often do not fear punishment or consequences as we do not feel responsibility and are less rational with out morals.
3) Prentice-Dunn and Rogers
= Anonymity leads to de-individuation as it reduces our…
Private and Public self awareness
PRIVATE SELF AWARENESS:
-> attention focused outwardly to the events around us.
-> no longer think about our own beliefs/feelings and are less self-critical and evaluative.
PUBLIC SELF AWARENESS:
-> no longer care about what others think about us/worry about being judges.
-> We become less accountable for our behaviour and are more likely to be aggressive
Eval of de-individuation as a social-psychological explanation for aggression.
PROS
1) Dodd
-> 229 Psychology undergraduates were asked “If you could do anything humanely possible with complete assurances that you would not be detected or held responsible, what would you do?”
-> 9% : pro social
->36%: antisocial (top answer being ‘rob a bank’)
Therefore, there is a link between anonymity, de-individuation and aggression.
2) Douglas and McGarty
-> looked at aggressive online behaviour in chat rooms.
-> found a strong correlation between anonymity and ‘flaming’ (hostile) messages.
-> found the most aggressive messages were sent by those who hid their identities.
CONS
1) Gergen et al
->strangers in a room for an hour
-> G1: well lit room = people conversed politely
-> G2: dark room = 80% felt sexually aroused, 90% deliberately touched each other and 50% hugged.
= more pro-social>anti-social behaviour.
2) Johnson + Downings
-> participants dressed in a nurse outfit : gave the fewest (fake) shocks and were more compassionate towards victims
-> own clothes more shocks and less compassionate
= Anonymity of nurse outfit did not increase aggression, suggests other factors involved like social roles.
3) Ignores individual differences
- eg External LOC ; conform / obey but Internal LOC; resist
-> de-individuation suggests when someone is in a crowd they lose their sense of identity and may behave aggressively.
Therefore, de-individuating may not successfully explain aggressive beh for everyone in crowds - not universal, decreasing its external validity.
Dispositional explanation of institutional aggression
Irwin + Cressey -> Importation Model
= Interpersonal factors cause institutional aggression as they are ‘imported’ from society -> prison.
- Prisoners are not ‘blank slates’ when they enter prison, they have their own beliefs, values, norms, social histories, characteristics and traits which influences how they adapt to prison life.
(eg gang members violent norms applied to prisons as well as on the outside which help them to cope and adapt with prison life)
- This means behaviours and systems developed outside the prison are ‘imported’ and suggest that
institutional aggression is not a product of the institution, rather as a product of the individual.
Therefore, the importation model predicts that those who are aggressive prior to prison are also likely to be violent in prisons.
Situational explanations of institutional aggression
Clemmer -> Deprivation Model
= Situational factors cause institutional aggression.
- Due to the stressful and oppressive conditions of the institution (eg loss of freedom, boredom, lack of heterosexual intimacy + poor staff experience).
-Frustration levels increase due the ‘deprived’ settings which leads to aggression as a vent of frustration.
-The greater the deprivation (eg lockdown), the greater the aggression.
Therefore, the deprivation model claims that institutional aggression is a product of the institution rather than the individual.
Eval of Situational explanation of institutional aggression
PRO
1) Cunningham et al
-> analysed 35 inmate homicides in Texas prisons.
-> Found that the motivation for aggressive behaviour was linked to deprivation (eg arg over drugs).
-> Therefore, supports Deprivation Model as they are factors predicted by the model to make aggression more likely.
CON:
1) Hensley
-> Studied 256 male and female inmates in two prisons in Mississippi USA, which allowed conjugal visits from partners.
-> Found no link between involvement in these visits and reduced aggressive behaviour.
-> Therefore, suggests that situational factors do not affect aggressive behaviour.
2) SF are fairly constant, so if valid, we would expect levels of violence to remain constant across prisons (But they don’t -> cannot explain riots)
3) Dobbs and Waid
= Deprivation does not lead to aggression unless it combines with the individual characteristics imported into prisons by inmates.
-> Therefore an internationalist approach offers a fuller more valid account of institutional agg as it can explain a great variety of aggressive behaviours + reflects the complex nature of violence in prisons.
Eval of dispositional exp of institutional agg
PRO:
1) Camp + Gaes
->561 male inmates randomly allocated to high or low security (matched on criminal history)
-> high: 36% vs low: 33%
= Demonstrates that agg is due to individual>situation. Low security should have afforded less stress to inmates and therefore lower levels of violence!
2) DeLisi
-> 813 juvenile delinquents in California with negative dispositional features (eg childhood trauma, substance abuse, history of violent behaviour).
-> more likely to commit violent acts + suicidal activity > control group of inmates with fewer negative dispositional features.
CON:
1) Deterministic
-> Importation model claims we have no control over our dispositions. + reductionist -> ignores cognitive factors eg prisoners are able to think about the consequences of their beh and avoid aggression.
2) Dobbs and Waid
= Deprivation does not lead to aggression unless it combines with the individual characteristics imported into prisons by inmates.
-> Therefore an internationalist approach offers a fuller more valid account of institutional agg as it can explain a great variety of aggressive behaviours + reflects the complex nature of violence in prisons.
Bartholomew + Anderson (computer games on aggression)
- lab exp
- 43 students
- asked to play either a violent or non-violent video game for 10 mins
- carried out the Taylor Competitive Reaction Time Task (TCRTT)
- this measured agg where the ppts had to deliver blasts of white noise at a chosen volume to punish a (non-existent) opponent
FOUND:
violent -> selected higher noise levels (5.97 decibels)
non violent -> selected lower noise level (4.60 decibels)
DeLisi et al (computer games on influences on aggression)
- correlational study
- 227 juvenile delinquents
- structured interviews to gather agg level + time spent playing violent video games
- FOUND: agg beh pos corr w/
-often - enjoyment
THEREFORE, agg should be considered a public health risk + computer games are a significant risk factor.
Anderson et al (computer games on aggression)
- meta analysis of 136 studies
- inc lab, correlational + longitudinal studies
-FOUND: exposure to violent computer games was associated with an increase in violent beh, thoughts + feelings.
= applied to males + females, collectivist + individualistic cultures
THEREFORE, universal risk factor that violent computer games are associated with increased aggression.
Eval of media influences on aggression (inc computer games)
POS
1) Real life application
- Harris + Klebold in 1999 Columbine school shooting
- They were avid fans of a violent video games
THEREFORE, can produce preventative methods (eg increasing age ratings so vulnerable children are not exposed to violence and are less likely to be influenced).
CONS
1) Supporting evidence is correlational NOT causal
- EG DeLisi et al
- cannot est cause and effect = aggressive children are more likely to play aggressive video games rather than the video games causing the aggression.
2) Cathartic
- EG Dollard et al’s frustration-agg hyp Claim that frustration always leads to aggression and is based on the concept of catharsis (releasing pent up energy).
- children may play violent video games as a cathartic activity to release their aggressive behavior as they know it would be unacceptable to behave violently in real life.
- This means that violent video games reduce aggressive behavior as it allows children to display their aggressive behavior under characters rather than real people.
3) Difficulty defining aggression
- Many studies looked at violent behavior which is not the same as aggression. However all violence is aggression but not all aggression is violent.
- Aggression is complex and has many forms (physical/social) AND directed (internally/externally)
THEREFORE, How to compare findings between studies.
What are the 3 theories of media influence on agg?
- desensitisation
- disinhibition
- cognitive priming
Disinhibition (theories of media influence on agg)
(social)
=A lack of restraint due to overexposure to a stimulus, resulting in socially unacceptable behaviors becoming acceptable and therefore more likely.
-In society -> Through SLT and conditioning we are taught to believe aggression is antisocial. This gives us strong social restraint against using aggression.
- BUT, exposure to violent games where aggression is socially acceptable (eg rewarded, minimization of effects to victims and justified by revenge attacks) makes people less restrained when facing situations that provoke aggression.
- Therefore aggression is normalized and more likely due to violent computer games.
Desensitisation (theories of media influence on agg)
(Bio)
=Reduce sensitivity to a stimulus. This may be a psychological (e.g less emotional) or physiological (e.g lowered heart rate). This reduced response may make aggression more likely.
- Normally: when we watch violent games we experience physiological arousal.
- Repeatedly observed: these effects are gradually diminished and therefore have less impact.
- Therefore increasing aggression as there is less emotional involvement and less sympathy felt for victims of aggression.
Cognitive Priming (theories of media influence on agg)
= Husemann thinks agg is triggered by cues or ‘scripts’ (schemas) which make us ready (primed) to respond specific ways. Watching violent video games provides a script about how to react in certain situations so a person is more ready to respond in the same way.
1) It is an AUTOMATIC process as a script can direct our behavior without our awareness. It is triggered when we encounter cues in a situation that we perceive as aggressive.
2) The MORE violent games watched = more violent images and associated cues are STORED in memory.
3) + more vvg = more likely to perceive everyday cues as INAPPROPRIATELY aggressive
= Therefore scripts act as a readiness to act aggressively.
EVAL of desensitisation
PROS:
1) Krahe et al (2011)
- Violent vs nonviolent film clips
- Measured physiological arousal using Galvanic Skin Response (GSR) = A measure of the degree of sweating/ salty conducts electricity.
- HABITUAL viewers of violent media showed reduced GSR and reported higher pleasant arousal and less anxious arousal.
2) Weisz (1995)
- Straw dogs film (rape scene) + non violent film
- Strawdog viewers -> Greater acceptance of sexual aggression and had less sympathy towards victim and were less likely to find defendant guilty.
(Due to less emo involvement)
CONS:
1) agg is underpinned by high emotion
- If frequent exposure leads to less emotional responses, desensitization cannot explain this.
- If exposure to vvg decreases physiological/psychological arousal, we would expect less aggression but there is not, there is more.
2) individual differences
- Not all affected by vvg in the same way
- Some people are more desensitized than others
- therefore more research is needed.
EVAL of disinhibition
PRO:
1) Berkowitz + Alioto (1973)
- film depicting aggression as vengeance vs control
- FOUND: those who saw agg as vengeful gave more fake shocks for longer duration to confederate.
CON:
1) individual differences
- Disinhibition may only occur in those who are fully engaged and not easily distracted by external stimuli.
EVAL of cognitive priming
PROS:
1) Fischer et al
- Investigated song lyrics as a form of media violence.
- Male participants were asked to listen to aggressive lyrics that were derogatory towards women.
- FOUND: They record more negative qualities of women and behave more aggressively towards female confederates> neutral lyrics.
(redone with women, same results)
2) Practical application
- If we can understand how cognitive priming influences aggression, it raises the possibility that effective interventions could also be developed to reduce aggressive behavior by challenging negative and aggressive scripts and encouraging individuals to develop alternative strategies instead of using aggression (for example humor or negotiation).
CONS:
1) individual differences
- It may be that cognitive priming only has an effect on someone if they already have a predisposition towards behaving aggressively.
- It is also likely that other mediating factors such as motivation, degree of impression and suitable context will also influence whether cognitive priming will occur.
2) CP is unlikely with less realistic media (so not applicable to all types of media)
- Atkin -> Found that higher levels of aggression resulted from the viewing of more realistic violence and argued that the fictional violence in dome computer games, for example, will not have the same priming effects as in games with more realistic violence.
