Social psychological explanations of human aggression AND Deindividuation Flashcards
frustration-aggression hypothesis
Dollard and Miller (1939) state that Frustration is any event or stimulus that prevents an individual from attaining a goal and it’s accompanying reinforcement quality
Dollard et al. (1939) proposed that if we experience frustration, this leads to aggression. The aggression is a cathartic release of the build-up of frustration. Dollard explains that if the individual is prevented from achieving a goal by some external factor, then this will lead to frustration which will always lead to aggression. The aggression cannot always be directed at the source of aggression, which may be abstract, such as lack of money, or too powerful, as the risk of punishment is too high. Psychodynamic theory proposes we have ego defence mechanisms to protect ourselves.
Two defence mechanisms that are used in the catharsis of aggression are:
•Sublimation– Using aggression in acceptable activities such as sport.
•Displacement– Directing our aggression outwards onto something or someone else.
Level of aggression will depend on:
1.How much you really want to achieve the goal
2.How close you were to achieving said goal
3.Whether or not aggression is likely to remove the barrier
4.Whether you understand that there is a good reason for the problem
5.How expected / unexpected the frustration was
•Berkowitz (1969) proposed a revised frustration-aggression hypothesis, where he argued that frustration doesn’t always lead to aggression. He stated that aggression would only occur in the presence of certain cues. For example, cues such as the presence of weapons will be more likely to trigger aggression.
Evaluation for frustration-aggression
hypothesis
Berkowitz (1967)
Green (1968)
Berkowitz (1967)
Berkowitz (1967) carried out a laboratory experiment where participants were given the opportunity to shock a confederate who had previously angered them. However, Berkowitz set up three different conditions: one with an aggressive cue, a gun; one with a non-aggressive cue, a badminton racket; and one with no cue at all. Berkowitz found those participants who were in the presence of the aggressive cue gave higher levels of shocks than the other two groups. The practical applications of this research shed new light on the gun control debate in America. If the presence of guns is more likely to result in aggression, then this ‘weapons effect’ could have far reaching implications for gun laws.
Green (1968)
Green (1968) conducted a laboratory experiment where he asked male undergraduate students to undertake a jigsaw puzzle. While they were completing the jigsaw puzzle he organised three different conditions that were designed to raise levels of frustration in the participants. One condition imposed an unattainable time limit to complete the jigsaw as another participant (confederate) kept interfering; in another condition the jigsaw was impossible to complete; and in a third condition 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 Milgram experiment, participants had the opportunity to give shocks to the confederate if he answered incorrectly on another task. The group of participants who had experienced insults from the confederate gave the highest levels of shocks. All three groups gave more shocks than a control group who had not experienced any frustration conditions. This experiment supports the theory that frustration leads to aggression.
Social Learning theory
Social Learning theory agrees with behaviourism in that behaviour that is positively reinforced is more likely to be repeated. However, with SLT Bandura proposed that aggression can also be learnt by the indirect mechanism of observational learning. Social learning theory maintains that children learn through a process of imitation. Aggressive acts carried out by a role model will be internalised by an individual and reproduced in the future. If the role model’s behaviour is seen to be rewarded, then a child can learn that this is an effective way of getting what they want. Through this process of vicarious reinforcement, rewards that are witnessed as a result of aggression result in the behaviour being seen as acceptable and then reproduced.
Bandura suggests that how likely we are to copy depends on:
1.The actual behavior of the role model
2.Similarity: boys will copy boys, family links and groups etc.
3.Presentation: How close, live, immediate the violence was
4.Warmth: If the model was more friendly towards the subject
5.Prestige: If the model had high status
6.Appropriateness: If the behavior was suitable to the situation.
7.Vicarious reinforcement: (i) Adult was rewarded children slightly more likely to copy; (ii) adult was punished children were much less likely to copy.
Bandura:
•Bandura believed aggressive reinforcement in the form of imitation of family members was the most prominent source of behaviour modelling. Parents are the primary role models for children; through a process of observation and identification their behaviour is modelled. The boy who watches his father attack his mother is more likely to become an abusive parent and husband.
•In addition to the role models within the family, Bandura proposed that role models in the media can provide a source of vicarious reinforcement which can lead to aggressive behaviour being replicated. Bandura proposed that these role models can provide a child with a ‘script’ to guide their behaviour.
Social learning theory evaluation
Bandura (1963) was conducted with three experimental conditions: in one condition there was a filmed aggressive role model, in another there was an aggressive role model that was a cartoon character, in the third condition there was a real aggressive role model. In addition, Bandura presented a control condition with no aggressive role model. Bandura undertook a matched pairs design where 96 children aged 3-5 were matched for baseline aggression levels. The children were then allowed to play with a toy called a Bobo doll, and then their aggressive actions were counted. The results demonstrated that the cartoon model produced the highest mean number of aggressive acts. Bandura concluded that the viewing of aggression was not cathartic, but led to the modelling of the aggressive behaviour, thus supporting the social psychological explanation of the social learning of aggression. Low external validity as lab research.
Onyskiw (2001) studied the link between witnessing parental aggression and aggression in children by giving questionnaires to 11,000 children aged between 4 and 11 and their parents. Children who witnessed aggression were found to be more frequently aggressive themselves, supporting SLT. This research has high external validity as information gained from the real world and from a large number of participants.
Social learning theory can explain some forms of aggression; however, reactive aggression is harder to explain with social learning theory. When aggression is carried out as a reaction to an external stimulus such as jealousy, pain or loneliness, this may be better explained by the frustration-aggression hypothesis rather than as a result of observational learning as proposed by social learning theory.
Deindividuation
Festinger (1952) invented the term “Deindividuation”, defined by Hogg and Vaughan as “a process whereby people lose their sense of socialised individual identity and engage in unsocialised, often anti-social behaviour”.
The central idea of this theory is that when people are placed in situations where the are less likely to be identified (i.e: if they are part of a crowd or otherwise anonymised) then they can lose their sense of identity and behave in ways that they wouldn’t normally due to taking on the identity of the group.
Deindividuation is increased by many factors such as being in a large crowd, wearing uniform, being in darkness, and when wearing a mask, as all of these factors reduce our private sense of self-awareness.
Contagion Theory is the starting point for deindividuation
Blumer 1939 defined this as: Circular reaction where the people add to the crowd and the crowd fires up the people.
Deindividuation evaluation
Zimbardo (1969):
Diener (1976)
Gergen (1973)
Zimbardo (1969)
Zimbardo (1969): An electric shock experiment, similar to the classic Milgram study, found that students disguised in white coats and hoods were more likely to shock others than those in ordinary clothes and with prominently displayed name tags this supports deindividuation.
Diener (1976)
Diener (1976) conducted a natural experiment examining the effects of deindividuation on aggression. On the night of Halloween concealed raters observed 1300 child trick or treaters under different conditions: one condition of anonymity, one of non-anonymity, and then conditions of being alone or in a group. The children were given the opportunity to steal sweets and money. Those children who were in a group and anonymous were the group who stole the most at 57%, compared to 21% in the group that were identifiable. This research demonstrates that when anonymous and in a group, children are more likely to behave in a socially deviant way, therefore supporting deindividuation theory as a social psychological theory of aggression.
Gergen (1973)
Gergen (1973) placed male participants either in a light (condition A) or pitch dark (condition B) room and told them that they could interact with each other in any way. Participants in the light room interacted very little, whereas 50% of participants in the darkened room hugged one another and 89% intentionally touched another person. This greater affection suggests that deindividuation does lead to the freeing of inhibitions, but that deindividuation does not always lead to aggression. This provides evidence against deindividuation theory as no aggression was displayed. However low ecological validity as it was a lab study, so may not be what happens in a natural environment (i.e: during a power cut at home or school), and may be demand characteristics since people were told that they could interact with each other however they wanted. (always link debates clearly to the question being asked).
