Aggression: Social psychological explanations

Question 1

What is Social Learning Theory based on?

Answer 1

Based on the behaviourist approach is the idea that it is environmental influences that affect aggression rather than genetics.

Question 2

How does Social Learning Theory suggest aggression in humans?

Answer 2

SLT suggests we learn aggression through the observation of other aggressive models and observing the consequences of the behaviour and whether it is reinforced or punished.

Question 3

How do people learn aggression?

Answer 3

Learning of aggression may occur through direct first hand experience or through vicarious learning and the observation of other aggressive models with whom they identify.

Question 4

What is vicarious reinforcement?

What is vicarious punishment?

Answer 4

Children will learn about the consequences of aggression by observing these aggression models and whether they are reinforced or punished.

If aggressive behaviour by a model is punished, the observer is less likely to repeat it.

Question 5

What is positive reinforcement?

Answer 5

If behaviour is reinforced positively with a favourable outcome, then they are more likely to imitate the behaviour.

Question 6

What is negative reinforcement?

Answer 6

If the behaviour is punished for it then the children will be less likely to repeat the behaviour.

Question 7

What are the 4 cognitive mediating factors that Bandura believed played a role in the reproduction of aggression?

Answer 7

Attention: Aggressive acts tend to stand out from normal behaviour and this may be why they are easily learnt.

Retention: Behaviour needs to be memorable so individuals can recall it later.

Reproduction: Individuals must be capable of reproducing aggressive behaviour.

Motivation: The individual must be motivated to engage in aggressive behaviour and want to enact it.

Question 8

What is direct and indirect learning?

Answer 8

Bandura suggested that aggression can be learned directly, through operant conditioning- for example, a child may be rewarded for an aggressive act, so will learn that this is something to be repeated in the future.

However, he also suggested that learning can be indirect, through observation. e.g children (and adults) observe aggressive behaviour and model it such as domestic violence.

Question 9

What is self efficacy?

Answer 9

Linked to the idea of motivation, this is the belief/confidence that performing an action will lead to a desired reward. This is strengthened each time the aggressive action leads to a positive outcome, as the child gets more confident that they can use aggression successfully.

Question 10

Bobo Doll Study (1961) - Aims

Answer 10

Bandura wanted to investigate if aggressive behaviours were learned by observation and imitation.

Question 11

Bobo Doll Study (1961) - Procedure

Answer 11

Involved 36 boys and girls ranging in age from 3 - 5 years from Stanford university nursery. Half were exposed to adult models being aggressive towards a bobo doll and the other half was exposed to an adult that was non-aggressive towards it. In the aggressive condition, children observed the model kick, punch and hit the bobo doll as well as using violent language “kick it”. In the non-aggressive condition, the model played with the toys and ignored the Bobo doll. Children were taken to a room and played with the toys for a short time. Children were taken to another room where the toys and the bobo doll were present. The children’s behaviour was observed through a one-way mirror and categorised.

Question 12

Bobo Doll Study (1961) - Findings

Answer 12

• Children who were in the aggressive condition produced more aggressive behaviours. Children in the non-aggressive condition did not.
• Boys were more physically aggressive than girls.
• Girls and boys were equally verbally aggressive.
• Children were more likely to imitate behaviour if the model was the same sex as them. the effect was bigger for boys.

Question 13

Bobo Doll Study (1961) - Conclusion

Answer 13

Children imitate aggressive behaviour after observing a role model. This supports the SLT explanation of aggression, that aggressive behaviour is learned from observation.

Question 14

A03: Banduras bobo doll

Answer 14

+ Lab experiment
+ Good reliability, can be replicated
- Lacks ecological validity
- Demand characteristics: Bobo doll was meant to be hit, so children may have been doing what they thought was expected of them.

Question 15

What is de-individuation?

Answer 15

Is when a person loses a sense of personal identity and personal responsibility. According to the de-individuation explanation, anonymity (e.g. by being part of a large crowd or wearing a disguise) makes a person more likely to behave aggressively.

Question 16

What did Festinger et al (1952) say about de-individuation?

Answer 16

Was used to describe a phenomenon where people in crowds lose their sense of personal identity and instead identify with the morals and beliefs of a group. This feeling of anonymity in the crowd means people who might ordinarily be polite and civil may act aggressively and violently. A classic example of this would be a football fan who gets swept up in the crowd and behaves violently.

In addition to anonymity in a crowd, anonymity in other ways may cause de-individuation. For example, Dodd (1985) got 203 students to anonymously describe what they would do if nobody could identify them or hold them responsible for their actions. 36% of the responses involved some form of antisocial behaviour, with the most common answer being to rob a bank.

Question 17

What’s the link between self-awareness and de-individuation?

Answer 17

Prentice-Dunn and Rogers (1982) suggest that de-individuation occurs when self-awareness is blocked. The critical factors include a strong feeling of group membership, increased levels of arousal, a focus on external events, and the feeling of anonymity. There are two types of self-awareness:

• Public self-awareness: concern over the impression of yourself you are presenting to others when you are aware of being judged.
• Private self-awareness: your internal sense of self, consisting of thoughts, feelings, values and internal standards of behaviour

Question 18

A03: De-individuation

Answer 18

+ Explanatory power: De-individuation might explain why online abuse is so common; people feel more anonymous and de-individuated when they’re behind a screen.

+ Practical applications: If the de-individuation explanation is correct, then aggressive behaviour can be reduced by implementing measures that increase individuation and reduce anonymity. For example, requiring people to use their real names on social media could reduce aggression online.

• Other factors: Although de-individuation may explain aggression in specific contexts like crowds and social media, people often behave aggressively in situations where they are not de-individuated. This shows that other explanations (e.g. frustration, social learning, or biological factors) are needed for a complete explanation of aggression.
• Conflicting evidence: Gergen et al (1973) found that de-individuation caused the opposite effect of aggression. Participants were put together in a dark room so they couldn’t see each other and told to do whatever they wanted. Rather than behaving aggressively, the participants would kiss and touch each other. This shows that de-individuation does not always cause increased aggression.

Question 19

What is the frustration - aggression hypothesis?

Answer 19

Dollard et al (1939) proposed the frustration-aggression hypothesis based on the psychodynamic concept of catharsis. Aggression is a psychological drive that occurs when we become frustrated because were prevented from reaching the desired goal.

Aggressive behaviour then has a cathartic effect which serves to relieve the individual and reduce the aggressive drive.

Frustration is always the cause of aggression and aggression is the result of frustration.

When we cannot directly express aggression against the cause of our frustration were likely to displace aggression on to a more convenient and innocent target.

Question 20

What was the negative effect theory?

Answer 20

Berkowitz (1989 ) updated version known as the “Negative – affect theory”. Frustration is just one factor, others may include feeling uncomfortable [eg. Heat, Reifmann [1991]] - but could also be noise or loud music Certain cues may increase the tendency towards aggression such as seeing a weapon on the table – Berkowitz used a baseball bat in experiments. Also if the problem is unexpected the individual is less likely to control their aggression.

• So, the level of aggression will depend on:

how much do you really want to achieve the goal
Whether you understand that there is a good reason for the problem
How expected/unexpected the frustration was

Question 21

A03: Frustration hypothesis

Answer 21

• Methodological concerns: Much of the evidence supporting the frustration-aggression hypothesis comes from games conducted in laboratory conditions. As such, the frustration-aggression hypothesis may lack ecological validity when applied to real-life situations outside the lab.
• Cause and effect – Berkowitz argued that frustration is just one of many stimuli that cause negative feelings, others may be jealousy, pain and loneliness. Furthermore, the outcome of frustration can be a range of responses e.g. anxiety and may not always be aggression – The theory is inadequate however Berkowitz addressed these inadequacies by developing his negative affect theory.

+ Evidence supporting the frustration-aggression hypothesis: For example, Geen (1968) conducted an experiment where male subjects were frustrated while trying to complete a jigsaw puzzle. After the jigsaw, subjects were able to deliver an electric shock to a confederate. Participants in groups that had been frustrated delivered more intense electric shocks than those in the control (non-frustrated) group. In another study, Buss (1963) found that participants who were frustrated in 3 different ways all displayed more aggression than a control group, although the effect was slight.

+ Real-world application to explain mass killings – Staub suggests that mass killings are often rooted in the frustration caused by social and economic difficulties within a society, leading to aggression against this group – Can be applied to the Germans blaming the Jews for the loss of the war and the severe economic problems following it which suggests that widespread frustration, when manipulated by a propaganda machine, can have violent consequences for a scapegoat group.