Agression Flashcards
(66 cards)
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