Social Explanations Flashcards
What is the frustration aggression hypothesis?
- put forward by Dollard et al (1939)
- based on the psychodynamic approach, believing that the drive for aggression is innate
- the only way to reduce it is to engage in an activity which releases it
How does frustration begin?
- when an individual is prevented from achieving a goal due to an abstract factor
- the aggression is a cathartic release of the build up of frustration
What does catharsis mean?
the process of releasing built up emotions
Why can’t aggression always be direct at the source?
- the source may be abstract
- the source is too powerful and the risk of punishment is too high
What are the 2 defence mechanisms used in the catharsis of aggression?
sublimation: using aggression in acceptable activities such as sport
displacement: directing aggression outwards onto something or someone else
What did Berkowitz (1969) add to the original frustration aggression hypothesis?
- predicted that frustration doesn’t always lead to aggression
- may only occur in the presence of cues
- for example, presence of weapons
What is research evidence for Berkowitz’s hypothesis?
- Green (1968): male students were made to complete a jigsaw puzzle in a given amount of time. levels of frustration were manipulated in one of three ways:
group 1: the jigsaw was impossible to solve
group 2: a confederate kept interfering so they didn’t finish the jigsaw in time
group 3: a confederate gave insults as the participant failed to complete the jigsaw
Afterwards, ppts were asked to give shocks to the confederate when they made mistakes on another task
The insulted ppts gave the strongest shocks on average and all 3 groups gave stronger shocks compared to a control group with no frustration
What did Pastore (1952) add to the theory?
- unjustified vs justified frustration
- ppts expressed lower levels of anger when a bus rode past with an ‘out of order’ sign (justified) vs when a bus rode past without this message (unjustified)
AO3: research support ✅
Marcus-Newhall et al (2000) completed a meta analysis of 49 studies into displaced aggression and this supports the frustration aggression hypothesis, in particular the concept of aggression not being directed at the cause
Studies show that ppts that were provoked but unable to directly retaliate to the source were significantly more likely to act aggressively towards an innocent party than people who were unprovoked
This is exactly the outcome predicted within the hypothesis
AO3: aggression may not be cathartic ❌
The FA hypothesis predicts that engaging in verbal or physical outbursts is cathartic because the aggression created by the frustration is satisfied
However, research has cast doubt on this claim. Bushman (2002) found ppts that vented their anger by repeatedly hitting a punchbag became more angry and aggressive than those that did nothing
The outcome of this study is different from the predicted hypothesis which casts doubt on the validity of catharsis
AO3: aggression is not the only response to frustration ❌
It has been argued that aggression may not be the only possible response to frustration
Berkowitz (1989) reformulated the hypothesis to the negative affect theory, which argues that frustration can lead to any negative emotion, for example pain or jealousy
Equally, an individual may respond with aggression if they’ve seen if be affective before or have observed it being affective for others
This shows that frustration leading directly to aggression isn’t the only explanation
What does social learning theory (SLT) state about aggression?
States that individuals become aggressive by imitating role models
Observational learning occurs and this learning is reinforced vicariously
What is vicarious reinforcement?
When a person witnesses somebody else be rewarded or punished for their behaviours and imitates their behaviour accordingly
What 4 cognitive conditions must occur for imitation to take place?
Attention: an individual must pay attention to the models aggressive behaviour
Retention: individuals must code and store the observed aggressive behaviour into LTM
Reproduction: individuals must be capable of imitating the aggressive behaviour
Motivation: individuals must have good reason for reproducing the aggressive behaviour
What is self-efficacy?
The extent to which we believe our actions will achieve a desired goal
What is vicarious punishment?
A parallel form of learning whereby if a models use of aggression is punished, the observing individual is less likely to imitate the aggressive behaviour
What is research evidence for SLT as applied to aggression?
Bandura, Ross & Ross (1961) - The Bobo Doll Experiment
Aim: To investigate whether aggression can be learned through social learning theory principles.
Sample: 72 children (36 male and 36 female) aged between 3 and 6 years old
Procedure: Children were put into one of three groups for 10 minutes:
1) Aggressive model - the child played in a room while an adult hit and shouted at a “Bobo doll” a plastic inflateable toy doll which was heavy at the bottom and wobbled when hit.
2) Non-aggressive model - the child played in a room while an aduit played quietly with a construction set.
3) Control group - the child did not see a model. They were deliberately frustrated by being place in a room and they could not play with any toys. Then, they were placed alone in another room with a range of aggressive toys (mallet, gun) and non-aggressive toys (dolis, crayons) and the Bobo doll for twenty minutes whilst being observed
Results: Children who saw the aggressive model (group 1) produced more aggressive acts than group 2 and 3.
Boys imitated same-sex models more than girts. Giris imitated more physical aggression if they saw male models, and more verbal aggression if they saw female models.
Conclusion: Aggressive behaviour can be learned, in children, through observation and imitation of a model.
AO3; supporting evidence for SLT applied to aggression ✅
Poulin & Boivin (2000) studied aggressive behaviour in boys aged 9 to 12 years
They found that most aggressive boys formed friendships with other aggressive boys. These friendships were long lasting and mutually reinforcing of aggression. Researchers described these groups as ‘training grounds’ for antisocial behaviour.
The boys used their alliances with each other to gain resources through aggressive behaviour meaning they frequently saw the rewards aggressive behaviour brings (vicarious reinforcement) and gained approval from other boys for acting in this way (operant conditioning).
These are precisely the conditions under which SLT predicts aggressive behaviour occurs.
AO3: SLT overlooked different types of aggression ❌
There are two broad categories of aggression: reactive (hot-blooded, explosive) and proactive (cold-blooded, calculated). People who are experienced in using proactive aggression have high levels of self-efficacy - they are confident their aggressive behaviour will bring benefits. This type of aggression is well explained by SLT.
However, reactive aggressive individuals use aggression to retaliate in the heat of the moment. Reactive aggression is not premediated or planned, and occurs instantly in response to a trigger.
This suggests some aggressive actions may be instinctual, and so are not learned, as the theory would predict and may be better explained by Berkowitz’s negative effect theory.
AO3: research evidence suffers from demand characteristics ❌
Children taking part in the BoBo doll experiment may have acted that way because they wanted to obey the adult, or felt that was the correct way to act
One boy was reported to of exclaimed, “Look mummy, that’s the doll then want us to hit”
This decreases the internal validity of the experiment, as the children may have felt inclined to act aggressive towards the BoBo doll simply because they had watched the vudeo
