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.
