Agression Flashcards
Computer games a01- barthalow and Anderson
-there is evidence which suggests that there is a link between watching violence on TV or game playing and violent behaviour in real life
- e.g b and a carried out an experimental study
-got students to pay a violent game for 10 min (mortal combat)
-another played non violent game ( pga tournament golf)
-all students then carried out a TCRTT; Taylor competitive reaction time task which is a standard lab measure of aggression
-after they were told to administer a white noise sound to an apponent of their chosen volume
- those who play violent gave significantly louder blasts 6.0 compared to 4.6
-this suggests a link between violent games and aggression
Computer games a01 delisi et al
-correlational study
- on 227 juvenile offenders all with histories of serious aggressive behaviours such as hitting a teacher, parent or gang fighting
Used structured interviews and gathered data on several measures of aggression and violent computer game playing
-found that offenders agressive behaviours such was significantly correlated with how often they played violent comuter games and how much they enjoyed the
-argued the ink is so well established that agression should be considered a public health issue
Comuter games ao1 - Craig Anderson
-he provided evidence of watching and playing violent/aggressive computer games are not exclusive to gender and culture
-a meta analysis of 136 studies which further supported a strong +ve correlation between increased exposure to aggressive media and an increased likelihood of observers displaying aggressive behaviur
And this was found to be irrespective of gender or cultures
-e.g collectivist or individualist
-the researchers claim that the effect of violent game playing on aggressive behavior is greater than the effect of second hand smoking on cancer
Computer games a03- limitation
-correlations, we cannot dawn cause and effect
- no variables are manipulated or controlled and there was no random allocation of ps to violent or non violent media conditions
- a positive correlation between violent computer games and agression can be explained by socialisation ( violent games cause peole to be agressive) or selection ( violent ppl chose violent game)
- the direction of causality cannot be settled by correlation studies so the findings do not help us choose between two hypothesises so leaving open the question of exactly how computer games influence agression
Computer games a03- low mundane realism
- this is due to the artificial tastes and highly controlled conditions of a lab
- for example there’s no risk of retaliation in such environments ps may behave more agressively than they usually would resulting in a systematic error
- the experimenter gives the p implied permission to be ‘safely’aggressive which would not be the case in real life
- also the assessment methods of agression are unlike to be accurate such as the TTCR “white blasts”used by anderson and barthalow due to The artificial nature reducing the ecological validity of the findings
Computer games ao3 strength control over variables
And weakness critiqued by przbyiski
-high degree of control over variables as conducted in a lab study
- this means the research is conducted in a controlled setting of a lab which allows extraneous variables to be controlled, for e,g the type of violent video game played
- this is a strength as the research has high internal validity and there’s for its more likely we can make a cause and effect conclusion ie to say that playing the playing of an agressive game has led to agressive behaviour
- suggested that aggressive behaviour may be linked to a player’s experience of failure and frustration during a game rather than the game’s violent storyline. They found that it was not the storyline/imagery, but the difficulty players had in completing the game which led to frustration and aggression - evident across violent and non-violent games.
Media influences a01 desetnitisation
- consequence o repeated exposure to violent or agressive acts particularly in the media
-causes ppl to be less empathetic towards victims and increasingly accept agression as the ‘social norm’ with reduced physiologcal responses from the sympathetic nervous system - this in true suggests that people particularly children who have large exposure to violent media show less emotion in response to agression in real life
Media influences a01 disinhibition
- describes the process whereby our restraints towards violence and agression are lowered - children are taught that agressive behaviour will receive punishment and taught the agressive behaviour through operant conditioning or indirect learning during the process of social learning
- if children continue to interact with violent media especially if they perceive that the agression was rewarded and not punished their usual moral restraints are loosened
Media influence - a01 cognitive priming
According to huesmann our life experiences help to write our schema or script about violent situations which is stored in our memory ready to play out when we encounter such situations in the future
- if people have had large amounts exposure to violent media including violent video games music etc
- they show more of a readiness to act aggressively
-they are primed for agression which means they may be ;triggered’ by cues that they perceive to be more agressive than others
Media influence weakness cognitive ignore bio
- blaming agression on media may ignore the role biological factors play
- for eg its possible the aressive behaviour may be in part genetic
- burner discivered a defective MAOA gene in a Dutch family with a history of male violence
- futhermore testosterone has been shown to play an important role in determining some agressive behaviour
- this suggests media infulence explanations of agression may be limited in the amount of agressive behaviour they can successfully explain 0n their own and other approaches may be needed to explain all cases of agression
Media infulence strength- desensitisation - support
-support from Krahe et al
-found that o[ps who reported regularly viewed violent media showed lower levels of arousal (sweating) when shows=n violent film clips than non reg viewers
- lower arousal is correlated with unprovoked agression in a noise blast task
- supports the view that regulate exposure to violent media agression does serve to desetnitise the viewer but also that this desentitsation is linked to higher levels of unprovoked agression
Media infulence support disinhibition support
-support ones rom berkowitz
-found that ps who watched a film depicting agression as vengeance gave more fake electric shocks of longer duration possibly beacuse vengeance is seen as a strong justification for violence and therefore more socially acceptable
Deindividuation A01- factors
- is a psyciolgical state when people lose their sense of personal identity and take on the identity of the group
-become deindividuated when they lose their identity as a result of being part of a crowd or in a uniform or crowd therefore engage in antisocial behaviour - shown by le Bon who claimed in a crowd people are more likely to engage in antisocial behaviour as a collective mindset os created
- in group. People are not constrained by social norms that preven them from acting in the same way when they are alone
-firstly introd by zimbardo who suggested it occurs when people who are part of a relitavley a anonymous group lose their sense of personal identity
Deindividuation A01- self awareness
Deindividuation is affected bu uniform, size of the group and drugs and alcohol
-these reduce private self awareness ( regard of paying attention to our own thoughts and feelings and behaviour something we monitor when on our own) which leads to people going against their morals and values as we focus more outwardly than inwardly meaning were more perceptive of environmental factors like mood of the crowd and absorb that energy e.g agression
-public self awareness makes people want to be accepted by the group it concerns how much we care about other peoples judgement and opinion
-we believe that others would be less likely to identify us for our actions and so the consequences seem less likely meaning we are more likely to behave agressively and not feel accountable
Deindividuation A03 - strength Dodd
- he asked 229 undergraduate psychology students in 13 classes ‘ if you could do anything humanly possible with complete assurance that you would not be detected or help accountable what would you do “
- student knew their reponese were anonymous
- three independent writers who didn’t know their hypothesis were asked to decide which categories of antisocial behaviour the responses belonged
- 36% of responses involved some form of antisocial behaviour
- 26% were criminal acts most common woth ‘rob a bank’
-few opted for murder rape and assassination of. Political figure
-only 9 % of responses were pro social behaviour
-this study demonstrates a link between anonymity Deindividuation and agressive behaviour
Deindividuation a03- weakness
- dein does not always lead to agression Gergen et al
In the deviance dark study Gergen et al selected two groups of 8 ps who were all strangers to each other
-placed in a completely dark room for an hour and told to do whatever they wanted to with no rules to stop them - was impossible for ps to identify eacother and were given a gurentee they would never encounter each other again
- didn’t take long for them to stop talking kiss and touch intametly
- study was repeated and this time they were told they would come face to face with eacither anfter th hour
-unsurprisingly the amount of touching and kissing declined dramatically - weakness as of all behaviours that Deindividuation could have given rise to in the study agression was not one -
Deindividuation strength - research
. Zimbardo explained his findings in terms of deindividuation as a result of the social situation. -The “guards” were in uniform, wore mirror sunglasses and their personal identity was partly hidden.
-Further support comes from another Zimbardo study where female participants were instructed to give electric shocks to a learner (a confederate) when she completed a task incorrectly.
- The deindividuated group
(wore white laboratory coats and hood)
gave twice as many shocks than the control group (
(wore normal clothes and name tags).
-Both studies suggest that anonymity contributed to aggressive behaviour.
-However, there is also evidence showing that deindividuation can produce increases in pro-social behaviour,
-such as the collective goodwill shown at religious rallies.
-This suggests that deindividuation can lead to either prosocial or antisocial behaviour depending on situational factors.
Deindividuation a03 - strength application
2- strength with counter -meta analysis
- Douglas and McCarthy looked at agression online, in chat rooms and instant messaging
-found a strong correlation between anonymity (fake profiles, decrypted usernames) and sending threatening messages to other users - shows that people are more likely to act agressively online when they feel anonymous
-exactly what theory predicts ‘people do not self monitor when part of a group in chat rooms and therefore be more agressive because they take on mood of group and do not feel personally identifiable
There is evidence to support this explanation as a meta-analysis of 49 studies of displaced aggression found that participants who were provoked but unable to directly retaliate against the source of their frustration were significantly more likely to show aggression towards an innocent target. However, there is also evidence that displacing aggression may not be cathartic. For example, Bushman found that participants who displaced their anger by hitting a punch-bag actually became more angry and aggressive, disputing the validity of one of the key components of the frustration-aggression hypothesis. Because it has become clear that aggression does not always lead to frustration and frustration does not always lead to aggression, Berkowitz has reformulated the hypothesis to say that aggressive behaviour can be triggered by any kind of negative feelings and also that the outcome of frustration can be a range of responses, including aggression, anxiety, helplessness or determination.
Neural and hormonal mechanisms- a01 limbic
-neural systems such as amygdala make up part of the limbic sytsyem and can explain aggression by looking at the brain
-amygdala plays a key role in how we assess and respond to environmental threats, it has proven to be a predictor of agressive behaviour
-it evaluates sensory input and LTM and decides on an appropriate response
-if damaged this process is impaired and aggressive responses may not be appropriate
-pardidni in his longitudinal study found in a group of violent males MRIs those with reduced amygdala vol were the most agressive
-hippocampus is another neural mechanism in the limbic system - allows us to assess current situation using past experiences and rely whether the situation is dangerous to the amygdala
-if damaged it can cause the amyddala to respond inappropriately of agressively
- raine found asymmetries in hippocampi vol of psychopaths which restrict communication to amygdala
Neural an hormonal mechanisms AO1- hormonal and MAOA
- such as testosterone have shown an influence on aggression
-t is thought to increase aggression from young adulthood due to its possible infulence of the amygdala - males show more agression than females in the majority of animals, the prevalence of aggressive behaviours tend to correlate with fluctuating testosterone levels e.g puberty
other chemicals thought to be involved are serotonin - low levels in the orbito- frontal cortex have been linked to poor self control and impulsive behaviour including agression
-low levels of serotonin my Explain why some people may ‘flip’ and lose control over their aggression
Everyone has this MAOA gene, it produces the enzyme monoamine oxidase A in the brain (gene breaks down serotonin).
Low activity variant of the gene (warrior gene) is closely associated with aggressive behaviour.
Neural an hormonal mechanisms AO3- limitation reductionist
- biologically reductionist
- attempt to explain agression by looking at biological systems instead of looking more holistically at the person as there may be other influences that aren’t biological
- can be seen from Alberts study who found no correlation between violence and testosterone levels showing other possibly environmental influence may be causing the aggressive behaviour and not biological
- suggests a more holistic approach should be take as its highly unlikely there’s just one contributing factor to A
Also..
-The amygdala does not operate in isolation when determining aggression. It has been shown to function in tandem with the orbitofrontal cortex, which is not part of the limbic system.
-tudies have found that when OFC activity is reduced, impulse control is impaired, leading to increased aggression.
-indicates that aggression regulation is a highly complex process
his opposes the idea that the amygdala is the sole cause of aggression, suggesting that neural explanation is not comprehensive because of its oversimplification.
- suggests a more holistic approach should be take as its highly unlikely there’s just one contributing factor to A
Neural an hormonal mechanisms AO3 - strength supporting evidence
•A strength of hormonal explanations for aggression can be found in the research evidence from
•Raleigh et al in 1991 who found that Veret monkeys fed on experimental diets high in ‘tryptophan’ and amino acid (which increases serotonin levels in the brain)
exhibited reduced levels of aggression. For monkeys fed on diets with low tryptophan the opposite was seen.
•This research supports the serotonin deficiency hypothesis as it demonstrates the effect of serotonin levels on aggression. This strengthens the serotonin deficiency hypothesis,
•however there are limitations to Raleigh’s research evidence. It was conducted on animals and is therefore not generalizable to human behaviour. It was also conducted in a lab environment, under highly controlled conditions; it concentrates solely on diet and therefore does not take into account the role of the environment.
•Which ultimately undermines the research evidence.
Neural an hormonal mechanisms support Mann et al
-gave 35 healthy ps the drug dexfenfluramine which depletes serotonin and used a questionnaire to assess hostility and agression
-found that the drug treatment in males was associated with an increase in hostility and agression scores but not in females
-suggests serotonin influences aggression in males, however as there was no effect on females there may be physiological gender differences in the effect serotonin has on aggressive behaviour
Neural and hormonal- animal studies
There is supporting evidence showing the role of testosterone in aggression from animal studies
-Giammanco et al (2005) showed experimental increases in testosterone are related
to aggression. Conversely, castration studies leading to a decrease in testosterone and therefore a
reduction in aggressive behaviour.
- This is a strength because it shows a direct link between the hormone testosterone and
aggression in animals.-
-however may not be generalisable to humans as animals have different physiology so may not be able to apply to humans
Genetic aggression A01 twin studies
-several twin studies have suggested that heritability accounts for around 50% of the variance in aggressive behaviour
-studies have compared aggression levels ofMZ and DZ twins e.g looking at ppl with a history of violent and criminal behaviour and comparing them with their twin
-higher the concordance rate the higher the likelihood their behaviour was biologically determined e,g genes
-MZ share 100% of Genes
-DZ share 50%
-we would expect to find greater similarities in aggressive behaviour of MZ twin
Coccao et al using twin pairs found 50% of genetic variance in direct aggressive behaviour could be attributed to genetics
Concordance rate for direct aggressive behaviour was
-50% MZ
-19% DZ
-verbal aggression:
- 28% MZ
7% DZ
Genetic aggression A01- adoption
-such as Ritter et al: compare aggressive behaviour of adoptees to there bio parents and their adoptive parents
-research suggests that criminality and aggression does have some inherited factors as the ps history was similar to that of estranged bio parents
-inherited could explain about 41% varianc
-compared to adoptive who brought them up
Genetic effect: is implied if there is a positive correlation found between aggression of child and bio parents
-environmental effect: implied if a positive correlation of aggression if found between adopted child and aggressive behaviour in the rearing family
Genetic aggression A01- rhee and Waldman adoption
-combined the results of 51 twin and adoption studies in a meta analysis and demonstrated a string genetic basis for aggression
-they found the age of the ps and assessment method of aggression influence the expression of aggression
Genetic aggression A01- MAOA gene
-MOAO enzyme breaks down NT for the body to use, serotonin, dopamine etc
-serotonin has been linked to mood specifically in the balancing of mood
-I.e. low or disrupted levels of serotonin may be a factor in effective disorders such as depression and also in aggressive behaviour
-A dysfunctional MAOA gene may lead to an imbalance of serotonin and possibly to an increase in aggressive behaviour.
-One variant of the gene is associated with high levels of MAOA (MAOA-H) and another variant is associated with low levels (MAOA-L)
Genetic aggression- A03 support Bruner
-supporting evidence showing genetic factors in aggression
- Brunner et al on studied dutch families and found the males that behaved In a violent and aggressive manner
-were involved in serious crimes of violence including arson and rape
-had abnormally low levels of MAOA gene in their bodies
-therefore this is a strength as it provides evidence for the MAOA gene in severe dismayed old aggressive behaviour
- however this does not explain smaller displays of aggression in every day life, and not everyone shows aggression will have a dysfunction in this generation
-therefore it can only explain physical extreme type of aggression and not smaller types
- and cannot explain why people without this gene act aggressively
- so we cannot conclude that the MAOA gene is the sole cause of aggression, over factors must be involved.
Genetic factors- A03-supporting research
-research comes from Miles and Carey who conducted a meta analysis on 24 twin and adoption studies and demonstrated a genetic basis for aggression
- the results suggested a string genetic influence that could account for s much as 50% of the variance in aggression, and at later ages the influence of genes affected behaviour more
-therefore is a strength as it shows the large role that genetics have on the influence of aggression
- however while 50% does suggest a strong genetic basis supporting the implication of genetic factors it also points to other factors having an influence, most notably age and environment
- so it reduces the explainative power of genetic factors in aggression
Genetic factors- A03 low generalisability MAOA
-research looking at the influence of genes are low in generalisability
-e.g tiihoen et al studies Finnish prisoners and revealed that the MAOA gene in combo with the CDH13 gene is implicated in severe violent behaviour such as murder
- however this research was based solely on MALE CRIMINALS
-this reduces the generalisability of the research findings as it fails to explain people who have acted aggressively and not been convicted for aggression and aggression in women
-similarly in brunners study he looked at DUTH MALES, so fails to contribute to women in aggression
- this is a limitation of the research on genetic factors in aggression because it cannot be generalised to the whole population which reduces its applicability
Similarly the generalisability of twin studies or men active aggressively will be limited a=in how they explain the whole populations behaviour
Genetic factors- A03 reductionist MAOA
-There is Evidence which has identified that faulty MAOA gene is linked to aggression but only those who experience trauma fails to show them working in isolation
•For example the research by Caspi et al in 2002 linked the MAOA gene to aggressive behaviour. Out of 500 male children, those with the MAOA-L variant were significantly more likely to grow up and exhibit anti social behaviour. However, this only occurred if they had been maltreated as children. This therefore suggests that genes alone cannot cause aggressive behaviour, because the environment has some influence on aggression.
•This is a limitation of the explanation of genes in aggression because it highlights the fact that the theory is too reductionist to comprehensively explain aggression. This points to the idea of using a different explanation which explains how genetic vulnerability interacts with environmental stressors to produce the behaviour, which suggests a more interactionist approach should be taken to explaining aggression.
Ethological A01-
Studies the behaviour of animals in their natural environment stressing the adaptive value of their behaviour
- says aggression is adaptive for survival
As it reduces mate competition and establishes dominance
Renz stated that the most adaptive type of aggression is ritualistic as it can assert dominance but also means they are not harmed or impaired their child bearing abilities
-aggression served as a purpose of establishing social hierarchy
-For example the most dominant male will exert power over the others in a social group gaining special status so just been giving the first opportunity to hunt or having mating rights over females.
A01 ethological- ritualistic
A ritual involves carrying out certain behaviours in a certain order
-For example certain ritualistic displays of aggression which occurr before a physical fight
-These techniques are used to scare off the opponent before it reaches the point of physical aggression E.G bearing clause or growling
-Lorenz identified ritualistic behaviour of a defeated animal as well
-E.g cowering or whimpering
-Chimps who lose a fight often lose their head to victor
-Wolves will show their neck when they are defeated to show that the vet could rip out their throat with one bite and kill them if they wished
-It’s rare the victor would kill the opponent as it would affect their own genetic bloodline therefore these rituals serve to display the winner of a fight
A01 ethological- innate releasing mechanisms
This is a biological structure or process which is activated by a signed stimulus which will then trigger a fixed action process (FAP)
-an environmental stimulus such as a facial expression could trigger this IRM which will then release a specific sequence of behaviour the FAP
- faps is a sequence of stereotypical innate behaviours that are a response shown by all members of the species and once triggered it cannot be stopped
-We found the FAP’s have six main feature
-Stereotype-the behaviour occurs in the same way
-Universal-the behaviour is the same in every individual of a species
-Unaffected by learning-the same for everyone regardless of learning
-Ballistic- once triggered it can be changed or stopped
-Single purpose-it only occurred in a specific situation
-specific trigger-a response to an identifiable specific stimulus
SUUBSS
A03 ethological- supporting research.
Supporting research comes from Tinberg with stickleback fish
-Which showed males produced a fixed sequence of aggressive behaviour when another male entered his territory
-The science stimulus was the site of the males red underbelly
-There was no attacking behaviour if the signed stimulus was not visible
-This evidence is the role of a science stimulus in the expression of aggression in animals
-It supports the presence of a assigned stimulus in triggering the innate releasing mechanism and fixed action pattern of aggress
-However it is not comprehensive to generalise human behaviour from animal research which therefore reduces the value of the research in explaining human aggression
A03 ethological-weakness over simple
A limitation is that it is an oversimplification of aggression
Not every human will respond to the same sign stimulus in the same way
-We are more complex and our behaviour is governed by the variation between our environmental upbringing
-The association went with every time stimulus will be different depending on the person
-Therefore this view cannot be used to explain human behaviour as animal research generalise his findings onto more complex organisms who are governed by feelings social doctrine and memory
-This is a limitation because it suggests that the biological reaction alone can’t explain human aggression and more interactions approach should be considered
A03 ethological weakness nor applicable to modern life
The rate of societal change makes it impossible for fixed action patterns to develop in humans
-It’s more useful for humans to be able to adopt flexible behaviours then develop fixed action patterns
-Learn behaviours and more helpful to humans
-Which is why it’s difficult to identify fixed action patterns in human behaviour
-One place they are presenting is in babies i.e. they grab things
-Beyond this human show variation in response
-Therefore it suggests that the fixed action patterns have lost their importance in human behaviour
- So therefore is a limitation as it’s not necessarily applicable to human aggression in modern day life
A03 ethological explanation - strength research evidence
- chagnon found anthropological evidence for ritualised aggression in tribal warfare in humans
-The Yanomami people of South Africa settle conflict by chest pounding and club fighting
-This shows that even in relatively violent cultures rituals have the effect of reducing actual aggression and preventing injury and death of combatants
-This evidence supports the theory of ritualistic aggression not only an animal behaviour but also in human behaviour making it more reliable than other supporting research E.G on sickle backs increasing the explanation power of illogical explanations
Evolutionary A01-
Focuses on the adaptive nature of behaviour
-Would’ve been effective for solving a number of survival and reproductive issues among humans
-For example in our ancestors when resources were low males became more aggressive
-Oh for example eliminating male rivals for females defending resources solving these problems enhanced survival and reproductive success of the individual and therefore these behaviours will have spread through the gene becoming more common amongst all humans
Evolutionary A01-sexual jealousy
-arise because of eternal uncertainty
-Males are at risk of cuckoldry- do not know whether they are the father of a child-
- The reproductive cost being that they may use their resources to raise another man’s offspring
-It’s an adaptive function to deter part infidelity leading to violence towards the partner or love rival
-Is the primary cause of violence towards women those perceived as unfaithful and more at risk of violence
-Wilson Delhi identified several mate retention strategies used by males;
-Direct guarding: keeping tabs on the partner to ensure they are not seeing other men E.G controlling with their partner goes and who they’re allowed to spend time with
-negative inducements: threatening their partner if they act in away which he doesn’t want them to E.G saying they’ll hurt themselves if the partner tries to leave them
Evolutionary A01-sexual competition
-and males seeking access to females would’ve had to compete with other males
-Away eliminating competition would be through aggression
- The successful individual would have increased their social status and be more successful in acquiring and protecting their mates from competing males and would be more successful in passing on their genes to the offspring
-This would then lead to development of genetically transmitted tendency for males to be more aggressive to other males
Evolutionary A03 strength supporting evidence
-research from puts
- Argued that male traits seem to imply that was competition between ancestral males
- Men have 75% more muscle mass than women
-Are more aggressive and anthropological evidence shows them to have thicker jaw bones which puts believed may have come from men hitting eachother
- With the thickest bone man surviving and passing on their genes to subsequent generation
-These bio changes indicate physical adaptations that have evolved alongside behavioural adaptations of aggression
-Is the strength as the evidence supports the evolutionary explanation for aggression
Evolutionary A03 limitation- not always adaptive
- aggression may be maladaptive; could result in social ostrum injury or even death
-Violet males may be rejected as Mates as warriors could die in battle
-these factors highlight how aggression may of course challenges in our evolutionary past rather than solve them
-Therefore undermining the evolutionary explanation for aggression
-however it could be argued that the benefits of aggression must’ve outweigh the cost in our evolutionary past natural selection will have the evolutionary benefits of aggression
Evolutionary A03- does not explain all types of aggression
- explain sexual jealousy and sexual competition but not the astonishing cruelty found in human conflict that is not evident in non-human species
- E.G there were one genocide in 1994 involve wide scale slaughter of whole groups of people
-No just explain why humans torture are mutilate opponents when they no longer oppose as a threat
-Therefore this is a limitation as it can only explain one cause of aggression so we cannot use as an explanation for all types of aggression.
Evolutionary A03- suppporting evidence for aggression influencing status
- anthropologists have found evidence that many tribal societies bestowed increased honor on men who committed murder
-And I study in the late 90s evidence the influence of aggression status; an industrial society which is in the US the most violent gang members have the highest status among peers
This research shows how aggression was adaptive in our evolutionary past and now more in modern societal context
-Therefore strength is it ultimately increases the explanation power of the evolutionary explanation for aggression
Frustration, aggression AO1
-Dollard et al
-based on psychodynamic beliefs about the role of catharsis in aggression
- Frustration is caused when there is an obstacle to the goal leading to the arousal of the aggressive drive through anger
-Frustration increases with a motivation towards the goal
-This feeling of being upset or annoyed creates a sense of anger
-This leads to: readiness to attack or confront
-Which then will cause feelings of catharsis when they have emotionally released when they’ve had the opportunity to vent or let off steam
Frustration, aggression-A01. Indirect/ displacement
-when people off frustrated, they can display aggression towards the object of frustration
-However it is often unacceptable to be aggressive towards the actual source which inhibits aggression
-E.G it may be a person in a higher power than them (boss) or a situational factor (weather)
People will therefore use the defence mechanism displacement to direct their anger at someone or something else
-For example, it may be expressed physically like punching
-Verbally like screaming into a pillow
-Or fantasy acting out what you want to actually say
-DOLLARD Said that in order to experience catharsis scapegoat must be found
‘ The kicking dog affect’
Frustration, aggression-A01 - environmental cues
-Berkowitz suggested that frustration does not make us instantly aggressive but may create a readiness for aggression
-Frustration is a type of an unpleasant experience that will lead to aggression
-Unpleasant feelings can cause a negative effect which will intern cause the aggression
-When people are frustrated at heightens their emotional state mean they are more likely to act on impulse if promoted by environment
-E.G you are more likely to snap at an annoying friend if you are having a bad day but you may not have shown aggression if you haven’t seen a friend
— This shows aggressive behaviour from internal anger can be triggered by external factor
Frustration, aggression- A03 no support for catharsis
Early critics say many of Dollard et als claims had no support
-The concept of catharsis states that aggression reduces arousal so that people are less likely to be aggressive has not been supported by research
-Evidence from Bushman study showed the aggressive behaviour is likely to lead to more rather than less aggression
-he found participants who vented anger bar repeatedly hitting a punch bag became more aggressive rather than less aggressive
-Aggressive behaviour kept aggressive thoughts and angry feelings active in the memory
-Contradicting the claim that catharsis reduces the aggression
-Therefore is a weakness as it undermines the frustration aggression hypothesis criticising the validity it could be the exposing someone to aggression increases their likelihood of future aggressive behaviour
Frustration, aggression- explain mass killing A03
-Staub suggested that mass killings are often rooted in frustration over social or economic difficulty
-Frustration leads to escape coaching which leads to discrimination toward the scapegoated group
For example, following the first world war many Germans when the Jews for severe economic problems that followed them losing the war
-Historians argued that this widespread frustration and propaganda manipulation led to the condone violence of the second world war
-This evidence is the frustration aggression hypothesis in human behaviour particularly indirect expression of displacing anger onto a scapegoat
Frustration, aggression- application and supporting research
-priks found that when Swedish football teams performed worse than expected supposed to throw more things onto the pitch
-At one position drop in the league led to a 5% increase in unruly behaviour
-Demonstrating how an increase in frustration led to an increase in aggression because there’s more frustration building which needs to be released in order to reach catharsis
-This therefore is a strength as this research support evidences the applicability of the model in modern times as well as historical times increasing its value as an explanation for
Frustration, aggression supporting research
-Russell Green conducted a lab experiment where he asked male undergraduate students to undertake a jigsaw puzzle
-While they were completing the puzzle he organised three different conditions that were designed to raise levels of frustration in the participants-
-One condition impose an unattainable time limit to complete the jig
-Another the jigsaw was impossible to complete
-Thirdly a confederate issued derogatory remarks to the students as they failed to complete the study
-In the second part of the study which was reminiscent of the Milgrim experiment he had the opportunity to give shocks to the confederate if he answered correctly on another task
The group of participants who are experienced in insults from the confederate gave the highest level of shocks
-All three groups gave more shocks than a control group who had not experienced any frustration conditions
-Therefore supporting the theory that frustration leads to aggression
SLT- A01 direct and indirect
-learning through observing others and imitating behaviours that are seen to be rewarded
-Vendura originated the social learning theory building on the behavioural approach to acknowledging that aggression may be directly or indirectly
-SLT suggest the direct learning of aggression happens to operant conditioning
-E.G a child to angrily snatches a toy from their sibling and receives no reprimand or punishment for their behaviour will learn the aggression leads to rewards
-Additionally, we can learn aggression vicariously through other people
-The observe the consequences of aggressive behaviour by observing others being reinforced or punished for aggression
E.G films school and Home they learn as appropriate and acceptable in the world around us
-For example, if a child witnesses aggressive behaviour from a role model they are more likely to act aggressively than a child who has not observed aggression or one who has seen people being punished for aggression
SLT- A01 cognitive control + self efficacy
- Bandura also acknowledge that people do not passively imitate aggression and have some cognitive control over their actions. He focused on the mediational processes involved in social learning.
-Attention: an individual must pay attention to the models aggressive behaviour
-Retention: individuals must code and destroy the observed aggressive behaviour in long-term memory
-Reproduction: individuals must be capable of imitating the aggressive behaviour
-Motivation: individuals must have good reason for reproducing the behaviour
-The child’s belief in their own ability to carry out the behaviour successfully ( self efficacy 0
-If the behaviour was ineffective for the child, they will have low self-confidence-low self efficacy-
-So May turn to means other than aggression
-if a child regularly uses aggression to reach their goal E.G taking a toy from one of a child then they learn how much force or aggression is necessary and become confident in using their own physical strength as a means of getting what they want
SLT- A03- bandura supporting evidence
-found in the research by bandura
- Adult role models being aggressive to male and female children ages 3 to 5
-The model in condition one showed no aggression towards the bobo doll
-The model in condition two showed physical aggress: kicking hitting with a mullet and hitting
-as well as verbal aggression
-Children were shown attractive toys they were not allowed to play with which created frustration before being put in a room with a doll
-Children who observed the aggressive adult imitated most of the aggressive behaviour
-One third of both male and females repeated verbal responses, but boys displayed physical aggression more than girls
-Children who observed no aggression from the adult produced no verbal aggression or physical aggression towards the doll
-This research provides evidence for the aggression being learnt through social learning in children
-Therefore is a strength as it increased the explanation power of the social learning theory particularly because the lab experiment will have control controlled for experience variables allowing cause effect relationship to be established
SLT- A03 lacks realism
-One limitation is a lot of the research lacks realism
-The Bobo doll study for example has significant mythological issues because the highly controlled lab environment lacks ecological validity
-The children may have also picked up on demand characteristics from the investigator
-Which means their behaving may not be an indication of the influence of the models and aggression of the child’s ability to pick up the wishes of adult
-This ultimately reduces the velocity of the research supporting the social learning explanation for aggression:
SLT- A03 strength supporting evidence
— research evidence from North American hockey players
-Gita analyse 200 games from National Hockey League
-they believed a players born in North America are more likely to have been exposed to aggressive models from a young age and less likely to have been punished when displayed aggressive behaviour compared to European players
-they found the place born in North America were more likely to be penalised for aggression and fighting and plays from other countries
-this is a strength as it evidences the role of social learning theory in everyday life unlike the Bobo study. This research was conducted on the naturalistic conditions and this evidence increases the value of the social learning explanation for aggression.
SLT- A03 -explains inconsistencies
-A strength of the social learning theory is it can explain inconsistencies within aggression
-The expectations of the consequences in each situation can be used to determine or predict the likelihood of aggress
-E.G a young male may have aggressively went out with friends because he increases his social status however the same individual may not be aggressive in a school or work situation because the positive consequences of aggression would be less likely
-This shows how the theory can be used to explain all types of aggression and has applications in predicting behaviour depending on the social context
-therefore, strengthening the value of the social learning explanation for regression
Institutionalisation- situational
-focuses on the stressful nature of the president itself and how their influences the inmates that are subject to this form of stress
-clemmer devised the deprivation model
-Which suggests that aggression occurs as a result of internal factors with the prison setting
-Sky outlined five deprivations that arise from the indignities and deregulations suffered by becoming an inmate
-Deprivation of liberty
-Of autonomy
-Of goods/services
-Of heterosexual relationships
-and off security
-when a person has their regular routine and luxuries taken away, it can lead to his loss of social norms
-So they may adopt behaviours of others rather than acting like they normally would leading to some individual and intern aggression
-Deprivation of material goods and services can also lead to frustration and competition so aggression becomes a mean of solving this problem
Institutionalisation
-States that prisoners are full of violent individuals because they enter the prison with that characteristic they import it
- The importation model was devised by Irwin and Cressedy
-And explains aggression impressions as being down to an individuals dispositional factors
-For example, their beliefs, attitudes and values
-as well as personal characteristics like gender race and class
- statistically most aggressive inmates tend to be young ethnic minority males from lower class backgrounds and this could be due to a variety of reasons like testosterone or exerting power and status
-There is also higher aggression level shall my prisoners who had issues with addictions or members of gangs before being arrested
-Pre-prison gang members appear to be an important determinant in prison misconduct
= Pre-gang inmates are significantly more likely to commit murder hostage taking and assault the non-gang meets
Institutionalisation- strength of importation model evidence
Keller and wang
-Found that high security prisons statistically have higher levels of assaults on staff
-This suggests that the personality of the inmate which led them to be placed in a high security prison leads to aggression within the prison
-This is a strength of the importation model because it demonstrates how negative moral codes are imported into prison systems
Institutionalisation- strength of importation practical application
- Fischer in 2001 found the isolating known gun members in a special management unit reduce the rate of serious assault, rioting. Drug violations and threats to staff by 50%.
-This demonstrated that by removing the interaction of inmates with similar experiences and violent cultural belief systems aggression is reduced
-This is the strength of the therapy because it has developed our understanding of aggression which can be applied to the prison environment and reduce aggression
Institutionalisation- -ve importation does not take into account different types of aggressive behaviour
-for example, inmate might use violence to protect themselves against assaults from other inmates (pro active aggression)
= a criminal may be nonviolent but show violent behaviour when in prison suggesting they feel the needs to protect themselves
-The theory aims to be normal thetic and explain all aggression but fails to distinguish between reactive aggression and person orientated aggression
-Therefore limiting its explanation power
Institutionalisation-+ deprivation real world application
-used by HMP Woodhill in the late 90s
-David Wilson reasoned that most violence occurs in an environment that are hot, noisy and overcrowded so aggression could be reduced by limiting these three factors
-He set up two units for violent prisoners that were less crowded, had an outside view, lower temperatures and reduce noise levels masked with radio music
-These changes virtually eradicated the assault and prison staff and other inmates
-Providing powerful support for the claim that situational variables are the main cause for violence
-Therefore, this is a strength as it increases the explanation power of the deprivation model as an explanation for inmate aggression in prisons
