3.3 Social Psychological Explanations of Aggression Flashcards
(24 cards)
What do the social psychological explanations of aggression suggest?
Any theory that argues aggression is the result of an interaction between an individuals characteristics and the features of the situation
What is the frustration-aggression hypothesis as suggested by Dollard (1939)?
A theory that aggression occurs when a psychological drive to achieve a goal is obstructed
Describe the fustration-aggression hypothesis
- Frustration occurs when our attempts to achieve our goal are blocked by an external factor
- An aggressive drive is created, leading to aggressive thoughts/behaviour
- This removes the negative emotion catharsis
- The aggression created by frustration is satisfied reducing the drive = further aggression less likely
What are the 3 reasons why aggression is not always expressed directly against the source of frustration?
- Cause of frustration may be abstract e.g economic situation
- Cause may be too powerful (may risk punishment by aggressing against it)
- Cause may be unavailable at the time
What is the result of not being able to express aggression directly against the source of frustration?
The aggression is deflected/displaced onto an alternative (one that is not abstract, is weaker or available e.g inanimate object/pet)
Describe Berkowitz’s (1989) research into the weapon effect
- Presence of aggressive cues in the environment make acting on it more likely
- Demonstrated weapon-effect in laboratory study
- Participants given real electric shocks by confederate, creating anger and frustration
- Participants had later opportunity to give fake shocks to confederate
- Number of shocks greater when there were two guns on the table compared to none
Describe Geen’s (1968) research into frustration-aggression
- Male university students completed a jigsaw
- Frustration levels experimentally manipulated in three ways
- For some the puzzle was impossible to solve
- Others ran out of time because a confederate kept interfering
- In the third group, confederate insulted participant as they failed to solve the puzzle
- All participants later had chance to give confederate electric shocks
- Insulted participants gave strongest shocks on average, followed by the interfered group and then the impossible task
- All 3 groups selected more intense shocks than non-frustrated control group
AO3 for frustration-aggression hypothesis
1. Research support:
- Newhall et al: meta-analysis of 49 studies of displaced aggression
- investigated aggression being placed on human target rather than source of frustration
- frustrated participants who were provoked but unable to retaliate against source more likely to aggress against innocent party than people who were not provoked
- shows frustration can lead to aggression against weaker/available target
2. Role of catharsis:
- aggression may not be cathartic,
- Bushman: found participants who vented anger by repeatedly hitting punchbag became more aggressive rather than less
- doing nothing was more effective than venting
- central assumption of frustration-aggression link invalid
3. Frustration-aggression link:
- the link is complex
- early research into the hypothesis makes it clear that frustration does not always lead to aggression
- aggression can occur without frustration, the link is not ‘automatic’
- someone who is frustrated may behave in a range of different ways
- e.g rather than being aggressive they may be helpless or determined
- hypothesis is inadequate as it only accounts for some situations
What does Bandura’s social learning theory suggest about aggression?
Aggression can be learned directly through mechanisms of operant conditioning involving positive and negative reinforcement and punishment
What is the effect of direct reinforcement?
Direct reinforcement rewards a childs behaviour and makes it more likely that the child will repeat their aggressive behaviour
What is observational learning?
What is the role of vicarious reinforcement?
If a models aggressive behaviour is rewarded then the child learns aggression is effective (makes it more likely observing child will imitate aggressive models behaviour)
Whatare the 4 cognitive conditions suggested by Bandura needed for social learning?
- Attention: observer pays attention to models aggressive actions
- Retention: observer remembers aggressive actions
- Reproduction: observer transforms mental representation of aggressive behaviour into physical action
- Motivation: observer needs a reason to imitate behaviour, depends on expectations of aggression
What is self-efficacy?
The extent to which we believe our actions will achieve a desire goal
Describe the role of self-efficacy in aggression
- A child’s confidence in their ability to be aggressive grows as they learn it can bring rewards
- They notice they have the necessary motor skills to be aggressive
- A child’s sense of self-efficacy develops with each successful outcome
- They become confident that as it has been effective in the past, it will continue to be in the future
Describe Bandura et al’s research (1961) into social learning theory
- Young children observed adult model assaulting inflatable ‘bobo doll’
- This included throwing, kicking and hitting it with a mallet as well as verbal outbursts
- A short period followed where children could not play with attractive toys, creating frustration
- Without instruction, many children imitated behaviour they had seen performed (physically and verbally)
- In some cases, the imitation was a direct copy of the observation
- Boys imitated physical aggression more than girls
- In control group where children viewed adult behaving non-aggressively, aggression was non-existent
AO3 for social learning theory in aggression
1. Research support:
- Poulin + Boivin: found aggressive boys aged 9-12 formed friendships with other aggressive boys
- friendships mutually reinforced each boys aggression through modelling
- boys would observe each other using proactive aggression which provides reinforcement
- frequently exposed to models of physical aggression and its positive consequences
- boys also gain reinforcement from rewarding approval of rest of the ‘gang’
2. Real-world application:
- SLT can reduce aggression, children readily imitate models when they observe them being rewarded for any behaviour especially when they identify
- aggression can be reduced by providing rewarded non-aggressive models e.g media/tv characters
- gives more opportunities to model non-aggressive behaviour
- SLT offers practical steps to reduce aggression
3. Biological influences:
- SLT underestimates influence of biological factors
- Bandura states that the form aggression takes is primarily learned/outcome of nurture
- HOWEVER = well established that there are powerful genetic, evolutionary and hormonal influences on aggression
- SLT barely acknowledges or explains them, SLT incomplete explanation as it underplays role of biology
What is de-individuation?
A psychological state in which an individual loses their personal identity and takes on the identity of a social group
What is the difference between individuated and de-individuated states as suggested by Zimbardo (1969)?
- Individuated state: behaviour is rational and normative
- De-individuated state: emotional, impulsive, irrational, anti-normative
What is the role of self-awareness in aggression and the 2 types?
- Reduced self-awareness as a part of de-individuation creates greater likelihood of aggression
1. Private self-awareness: concerns how we pay attention to our own feelings and behaviour (when part of a crowd we pay less attention to our own beliefs/feelings)
2. Public self-awareness: how much we care about what other people think of our behaviour (no longer care how other people see us so we become less accountable for our aggression)
Describe the research into de-individuation by Dodd (1985)
- 229 undergraduate students asked ‘If you could do anything humanly possible without detection or responsibility, what would you do?’
- The students knew their responses would be anonymous
- 3 independent raters unaware of hypothesis ranked responses into catagories of antisocial behaviour
- Found 36% of responses involved a form of antisocial behaviour
- 26% were criminal acts e.g stealing
- A few students opted for murder, rape or assassination
- 9% were prosocial behaviours e.g helping others
AO3 for de-individuation
1. Research support:
- Douglas and McGarty: looked at aggressive online behaviour in chatrooms/instant messages
- found strong correlation between anonymity and hostile messages
- found most aggressive messages sent by those who hid real identities
- this behaviour has been implicated in cases of self-harm/suicide
- supports link between anonymity and aggression a key element of de-individuation
2. Real-world de-individuation:
- can explain the behaviour of ‘baiting crowds’
- Mann: investigated suicidal jumpers, identified 21 cases reported in US newspaper of crowd gathering to encourage a person to jump
- these incidents tended to happen in dark, large crowd
- these were conditions predicted to lead to a state of de-individuation
- suggests a validity to the hypothesis
3. Role of norms:
- de-individuated behaviour is normative rather than anti-normative
- the theory states we behave in ways contrary to norms and we are less aware of our private identity
- Spears + Lea: de-individuation leads to behaviour that conforms to group norms, happens because anonymity shifts attention from private identity to social identity as group member
- those in de-individuated state remain sensitive rather than ignorant to norms
Describe the effect of crowd behaviour on aggression
- We lose our senses of individual self identity and responsibility for our behaviour
- Responsibility becomes shared throughout the crowd so less personal guilt about harmful aggression is experienced
How does de-individuation promote aggression?
- The conditions of de-individuation which promote aggressive behaviour include: darkness, drugs, alcohol, masks
- Less fear of retribution as we are a small and unidentifiable part of a faceless crowd (anonymity)
