4.3.8 Aggression Flashcards
(45 cards)
1
Q
neural mechanisms in aggression
A
- mechanisms of the nervous system, including the limbic system of the brain and the neurotransmitter serotonin
2
Q
the limbic system
A
- an area of the brain associated with the regulation of emotions
- the amygdala in particular is associated with aggression;
- Gospic et al. (2011) used fMRI brain scans to measure brain activity during a game designed to provoke aggression, and found that aggressive responses were correlated with increased activity in the amygdala
- also, patients who were given drugs that reduced amygdala activity were less aggressive
3
Q
the role of serotonin
A
- an inhibitory neurotransmitter associated with the regulation of impulsive behaviour
- low levels are thought to increase aggression, as it reduces self-control and leads to an increase in impulsive behaviour
- high levels are thought to decrease aggression;
- Berman et al. (2009) conducted an experiment where he gave half the ppts paroxetine (an SSRI that increases serotonin levels) and the other half a placebo
- the paroxetine group consistently gave fewer and less intense electric shocks than the placebo group
- this supports the link between serotonin and aggression
4
Q
neural mechanisms in aggression - strengths
A
- brain scans of convicted murderers by Raine et al. (1997) found abnormalities in the amygdala and other areas of the limbic system compared to controls, supporting the link between this and aggression
- Virkkunen et al. (1994) found that impulsive violent offenders in prisons had lower serotonin levels compared to controls, supporting the link between this and aggression
5
Q
neural mechanisms in aggression - limitations
A
- neural explanations are deterministic, as it implies people aren’t morally responsible for aggressive behaviour, as it’s not freely chosen
- it may be a correlation rather than causation, e.g. as there are aggressive people with normal limbic systems OR e.g. serotonin could decrease in response to angry feelings, so it’s an effect of aggression rather than a cause
- questions of external validity, as Berman et al. based their conclusions on games played in lab conditions, which may not reflect behaviours in real life
- conflicting evidence, as Huber et al. (1997) injected crayfish with serotonin and it made them behave more aggressively rather than less (although as an animal study, these findings may not be valid when applied to humans)
6
Q
hormonal mechanisms in aggression
A
- testosterone is the primary sex hormone in males and is linked with aggression
- several studies have found that high testosterone is correlated with increased aggression;
- Dabbs et al. (1995) found that prisoners who’d committed violent crimes had higher testosterone levels than those who were convicted of non-violent crimes
- Van Goozen et al. (1995) found that administering testosterone to female-male transgenders resulted in more aggressive behaviour, and male-females who were given drugs to lower testosterone levels behaved less aggressively
7
Q
hormonal mechanisms in aggression - strengths
A
- research support from both studies above
- evidence of this in animals too, e.g. Albert et al. (1989) found that injecting female rats with testosterone made them behave more aggressively
8
Q
hormonal mechanisms in aggression - limitations
A
- Dabbs et al. only shows that high testosterone levels are correlated with aggression, not that it causes aggression
- conflicting evidence, as Tricker et al. (1996) randomly assigned 43 men to receive either 600mg of testosterone per week or a placebo, and he found no difference in aggression between the two groups
- deterministic as it implies people aren’t morally responsible for their behaviour as it’s not freely chosen
9
Q
genetic factors in aggression
A
- ties in with other biological factors, i.e. a person may have genetics that predispose them to limbic system abnormalities or low serotonin activity
- twin studies are useful in determining the genetic basis of aggression, because if concordance rates are higher in MZ twins than DZ twins, it shows that genetics plays a role;
- Coccaro et al. analysed data from 182 pairs of MZ twins and 118 pairs of DZ twins, and the concordance rate for physical violence was 50% among MZ and 19% among DZ twins
- Christiansen (1977) analysed concordance rates for criminal convictions among 3586 pairs of twins, and found they were higher for MZ twins than DZ twins in both males and females
- this suggests there’s a genetic component to aggression
10
Q
the MAOA gene
A
- a gene that’s particularly associated with aggression
- responsible for production of MAOA which is an enzyme that breaks down serotonin within the synaptic cleft after neurotransmission
- the low-activity form of the gene is known as the MAOA-L / ‘warrior gene’ as it results in lower serotonin being broken down, so a higher rate bonds to receptors on the post-synaptic neuron, which decreases self-control and increases impulsive behaviours like aggression
- discovered by Brunner et al. (1993) who studied a large Dutch family who were all actively engaged in aggressive behaviours and crime, and found that they all had unusually low MAOA levels
11
Q
genetic factors in aggression - strengths
A
- many other studies support this link, e.g. McDermott et al. (2009) found that ppts with the MAOA-L gene punished people more aggressively than subjects without the MAOA-L gene in a game situation
- research support for correlations of the MAOA gene and aggression in both directions, as Mertins et al. (2011) found that ppts with high MAOA activity levels behaved more compassionately in a monkey-lending game
12
Q
genetic factors in aggression - limitations
A
- there are exceptions as many people with the MAOA-L gene aren’t overly aggressive, and many aggressive people don’t have this gene
- other factors must affect aggression, because if it was entirely due to genetics, then concordance rates would be 100% for MZ twins, but they were only around 50%
- an interactionist approach, using the diathesis-stress model, may be better as many studies have shown that environmental factors interact with the MAOA-L gene to increase the likelihood of aggression, e.g. Frazzetto et al. (2007) found that low MAOA levels only resulted in higher aggression when accompanied by traumatic childhood events which had occurred in the first 15 years of life
- deterministic as it suggests people aren’t morally responsible for aggressive behaviour as they aren’t in control of it
- McDermott et al’s study isn’t representative of a real-life situation, so results can’t be generalisable
13
Q
ethological explanations of aggression
A
- studies aggression in animals to provide insights into aggression in humans
- sees aggression as an adaptive trait, because it;
- promotes their survival; ‘losers’ will seek out new territory elsewhere, leaving more room and resources for the species which enhances their survivability
- increases their social status within a hierarchy; many animal species involve displays of aggression for them to climb the hierarchy and present themselves as more attractive
14
Q
ritualistic aggression
A
- aggression within animal species is often ritualistic, because very little physical damage takes place in fights between animals of the same species (or else they could die and go extinct)
- rituals enable members of a species to compete and establish dominance without harming each other, as the ‘loser’ will make themselves vulnerable to the victor, e.g. wolves displaying their neck to signal defeat
15
Q
innate releasing mechanisms
A
- biologically hard-wired mechanisms for aggression, e.g. brain structures or neural pathways
- environmental cues trigger the innate releasing mechanism which releases a fixed action pattern of behaviour
- e.g. male sticklebacks have an innate releasing mechanism that activates a fixed action pattern at the sight of a red spot, with the evolutionary purpose of fighting off male competition using aggression
16
Q
fixed action patterns
A
- a set sequence of behaviour that occurs automatically due to an innate releasing mechanism
- they have several key features;
- fixed; relatively unchanging and unaffected by learning
- universal; found in every individual of the species
- ballistic; once initiated, it can’t be stopped and the animal will keep going until the behaviour is complete
- single-purpose; only occurs for one reason
- e.g. during mating season, male sticklebacks build nests where females lay eggs. males develop red bellies during this time, and if another male enters their territory, the stickleback will attack it
17
Q
ethological explanations of aggression - strengths
A
- Tinbergen (1952) demonstrates how fixed action patterns in sticklebacks are universal and innate, as he presented them with models of fish with red bellies and they all responded with the same fixed action pattern of fighting behaviour (even when the model was unrealistic looking)
- many examples of fixed action patterns beyond this as well, e.g. if an egg is placed near a Grelag goose, it’ll instinctively try to roll the egg into its nest in a fixed action pattern
- evidence from previous explanations, e.g. the MAOA gene explanation corresponds with the ethological one as it also suggests an innate basis for aggression
18
Q
ethological explanations of aggression - limitations
A
- animals like sticklebacks are very different to humans, so there are questions of validity in humans as these explanations of aggression may not apply
- human aggression is also very different to animal aggression, e.g. humans have wars and weapons like guns, which animals don’t
- conflicting evidence as Schleidt (1974) argues that fixed action patterns are often quite varied, so some ethologists prefer the term modal action pattern
19
Q
evolutionary explanations of human aggression
A
- over many years, random mutations in genes that are advantageous become more widespread among the species
- gene mutations may be advantageous either in terms of survival or reproduction
- these genes can encode for physical characteristics as well as certain behaviours, like aggression
20
Q
survival advantages
A
- genes for aggression can help humans survive in many ways;
- it’s an effective way to gain resources such as food or territory, which increases survivability
- helps defence of resources, as well as protecting injury and death of ourselves, e.g. if you don’t fight back when someone’s aggressive with you, they may keep going until they kill you
- if a human is more likely to survive, then they’re more likely to live long enough to reproduce and pass on their genes
21
Q
reproductive advantages
A
- genes for aggressive behaviour can increase the likelihood that humans reproduce and pass on their genes
- e.g. Volk et al. (2012) suggests that bullying may have an evolutionary advantage as men who bullied other men by establishing their power were likely to have fewer competitors, so they could mate with more females and increase the likelihood of their genes being passed onto as many offspring as possible
- female bullying is more likely to occur within relationships to ensure fidelity
- reproductive advantages of aggression are more applicable to men due to;
- competition; women must be selective over who they have children with, so males are in competition for status and resources so that women will choose them as a mate
- infidelity; women can be certain of paternity, but men can’t, and cuckoldry (raising another man’s child) is evolutionary disadvantageous, so men may have evolved aggressive male retention strategies as a way to prevent women from cheating on them
22
Q
male retention strategies
A
- Wilson and Daly (1996) identified two main strategies for this;
- direct guarding; restricting their partner’s independence, i.e. watching over her behaviour, not letting her go out alone, etc.
- negative inducements; threats of violence, or actual violence, to prevent the partner being unfaithful
23
Q
evolutionary explanations of human aggression - strengths
A
- Wilson and Daly (1985) looked at data from 690 murders in Detroit in 1972 and found that the majority were committed by and perpetrated against young men, with the most common reason being ‘status competition’
- supporting evidence from Shackleford (2005) who found that male retention strategies are a method of expressing sexual jealousy which leads to aggressive behaviour towards females and partners
- explanatory power as it can explain why men are generally more aggressive than women, e.g. Campbell (1999) argues that aggression in women makes them less likely to pass on their genes because engaging in aggressive conflicts decreases the likelihood of their own survival, and endangers survival of their offspring, so women are less aggressive
24
Q
evolutionary explanations of human aggression - limitations
A
- methodological concerns as it’s impossible to test evolutionary hypotheses as evolution takes millions of years to occur
- studies for evolutionary theories are mostly correlational, as it doesn’t prove that these factors cause aggression - it may just be an effect of it
- other factors must influence aggression, otherwise you’d expect aggression to be uniform across the human species, but it’s not, e.g. there are significant differences in aggression between different cultures as it results in high status in some cultures but a loss of status in others
- deterministic as it leaves little room for free will, and suggests that people aren’t morally responsible for their aggressive behaviour
- not all men respond the same way to jealousy and infidelity
25
social psychological explanations of human aggression
- explains aggression as a result of social interactions with the environment
- explanations include;
* the frustration-aggression hypothesis
* social learning theory
* deindividuation
26
frustration-aggression hypothesis
- proposed by Dollard et al. (1939) who suggested that aggression is a response to frustration
- it's based on catharsis (relief from releasing stress)
- the hypothesis claims that frustration occurs when one is prevented from achieving a goal
- a build up of this frustration causes a cathartic release of aggression
- frustration can be seen as a psychological drive, so aggression can reduce this drive and restore balance to an individual
- two defence mechanisms used in the catharsis of aggression are;
* sublimation; using aggression in acceptable activities, e.g. sport
* displacement; directing our aggression onto someone / something else; usually onto a weaker, immediately-available target, as it's not always be possible to direct aggression at the source of frustration, either because it's abstract or because they'll be punished for it
27
likelihood of aggression
- the more frustrated someone is, the more likely they are to act aggressively
- less likely to show aggression if someone fears being punished for it, so then they may displace it onto someone / something else
- more likely to show aggressive behaviour if it can help you achieve your goal, e.g. calling up a delivery driver and getting aggressive may make your items arrive faster
- Berkowitz (1969) argued that frustration doesn't always lead to aggression, so he proposed a revised hypothesis which says that aggression would only occur in the presence of certain cues, e.g. the presence of weapons may be more likely to trigger it
28
frustration-aggression hypothesis - strengths
- Geen et al. (1968) found that male ppts who were frustrated while trying to complete a jigsaw puzzle had delivered more intense electric shocks to confederates after the puzzle compared to those in the control (non-frustrated) group - this supports Dollard's idea that frustration leads to aggression and can be displaced onto other targets
- high face validity as it's a logical explanation
- Berkowitz (1989) conducted a study which found that the presence of 2 guns influenced ppts to administer electric shocks 1.4V higher to confederates, compared to the control group condition which had no guns - this supports his theory which may be a more comprehensive explanation of aggression
- real life application from Berkowitz's emphasis of the role of environmental cues, as some argue guns shouldn't be carried in public as they may act as a stimuli for aggressive behaviour
29
frustration-aggression hypothesis - limitations
- conflicting evidence, as in a later study, Buss (1966) found no correlation between levels of frustration and aggression, thus contradicting one of his earlier studies which showed a correlation
- methodological concerns as much of the evidence supporting the frustration-aggression hypothesis comes from games conducted in lab experiments, which may lack ecological validity when applied to real-life situations
- other factors must play a role as there are many instances where people act aggressively without being frustrated, e.g. a person may attach a threat due to fear rather than frustration, suggesting biological mechanisms or other social psychological theories are needed for a complete explanation of aggression
30
social learning theory as applied to human aggression
- explains behaviour, such as aggression, as the result of observation and imitation of role models
- bandura's bobo doll study (1961) demonstrated that children observe and imitate aggressive behaviours displayed by a same-sex model. children with non-aggressive role models acted non-aggressively, supporting social learning theory as an explanation for aggression
- references the 4 mediational (cognitive) processes that occur between observation and imitation; attention, retention, reproduction, and motivation;
* these determine whether someone decides to imitate a behaviour
* e.g. if the role model is punished for aggression, this provides motivation to not behave aggressively and makes it less likely, and vice versa if the role model is rewarded
- vicarious reinforcement is when a person is more likely to imitate aggressive behaviour if they see the role model awarded for behaving aggressively
31
social learning explanation of aggression - strengths
- practical applications as social learning can be used to reduce aggressive behaviour, i.e. by altering the behaviour of role models in the media to be non-aggressive, or punishing (rather than rewarding) aggressive behaviour to avoid vicarious reinforcement of aggression
32
social learning explanation of aggression - limitations
- ethical issues, as exposing children to aggressive behaviours with knowledge that they may reproduce it raises ethical concerns
- over simplistic as it ignores other factors linked to aggression, e.g. biological factors such as the role of testosterone
- bandura's study has low mundane realism as it was a lab study which took place in an artificial environment, so results can't be generalised
- the results of bandura's study may have also been skewed by demand characteristics, as the purpose of the bobo doll is to hit it, so children may have done so if they believed this was the expected behaviour, so SLT may be a limited explanation
- there are other situations where aggression is better explained in other ways, e.g. a person who's frustrated at losing a game may act aggressively because of their emotional state, rather than because they're imitating a role model
33
deindividuation
- Festinger et al. (1952) coined the term deindividuation to describe when a person loses a sense of personal identity and personal responsibility, either due to becoming part of a crowd or identifying with a social role, which usually involves uniform / masks, etc.
- this explanation suggests anonymity increases the likelihood of aggression
- LeBon (1895) suggested that individuals are more likely to behave aggressively when part of a large anonymous group, as they feel less identifiable, so the normal constraints that prevent aggressive behaviour may be lost
- Dunn and Rogers (1982) suggest deindividuation occurs when either type of self-awareness is reduced, but genuine deindividuation only occurs when private self-awareness is reduced;
* private self-awareness; how aware we are of our own behaviour
* public self-awareness; how much we care about what others think of our behaviour
34
deindividuation - strengths
- Zimbardo (1969) found that ppts in a deindividuated group delivered electric shocks to confederates for twice as long as ppts in an individuated group
- Dodd (1985) found that if given free-reign whilst remaining anonymous, 36% of 229 ppts would behave in an antisocial (harmful) manner, with the most common answer being to rob a bank
- Douglas and McGarty (2001) found that the most verbally aggressive messages on online chatrooms were sent by people who hid their identities by not using their real names
- explanatory power, as it can explain why online abuse is so common - people feel more anonymous and deindividuated when behind a screen
- practical applications, e.g. requiring people to use their real names on social media could reduce aggression online
35
deindividuation - limitations
- conflicting evidence, e.g. Gergen et al. (1973) found that when ppts were put together in a dark room and were told to do whatever they wanted, they would kiss and touch each other, demonstrating that deindividuation doesn't always lead to increased aggression
- people often behave aggressively in situations where they're not deindividuated, showing that other factors must be considered for a complete explanation of aggression
- the impact of deindividuation on aggression may depend on the group norms, i.e. if group norms are prosocial (beneficial), individuals may behave that way too, e.g. people in crowds at religious festivals often express goodwill to one another
36
institutional aggression in prisons
- aggression in prisons is much higher than in ordinary contexts
- there are 2 types of explanation for this increased aggression;
* dispositional explanations; the harsher personalities of prisoners makes prisons such a violent place (importation model)
* situational explanations; the harshness of the prison environment makes prisons such a violent place (deprivation model)
37
dispositional explanations
- says aggression is higher in prisons as prisoners are naturally more aggressive
- Irwin and Cressey (1962) proposed the importation model as a dispositional explanation for aggression
- it states that the social traits and histories that prisoners have developed on the outside world in their criminal (and aggressive) lives are imported into prisons
- these behaviours make up 3 distinct subcultures in prisons;
* thief subculture; repeat offenders, follow a criminal code of honour that emphasises not snitching on other criminals, reliability, trustworthiness, loyalty, and they're more aggressive than the legitimate subculture
* convict subculture; serving long-term sentences, they're the most aggressive as it's an effective way to gain resources and status within the prison hierarchy
* legitimate / straight subculture; first-time offenders, don't come from the criminal cultures, behave less aggressively and follow legitimate prison rules
- people from criminal subcultures have a disposition (due to biological, social factors, etc.) towards aggressive behaviours and will behave in the same way inside prisons as they did outside, so aggression has become part of the prison subculture
38
situational explanations
- says that the environment (situation) of prisons makes prisoners behave more aggressively
- Sykes (1958) developed the deprivation model as a situational explanation of aggression
- it states that inmates being deprived of the following 5 'pains of imprisonment' (deprivations) causes aggression;
* liberty; prisoners are deprived of the freedom to act without interference of a third party, which makes them more frustrated
* heterosexual relationships; deprived of relationships with the opposite sex, so are deprived of sex and the emotional intimacy of these relationships
* autonomy; the lack of free will and control over their lives is frustrating and may lead to aggressive behaviour
* goods and services; prisoners can't access goods and services they want, which causes frustration and anger
* security; prisons are violent so prisoners don't feel safe and are constantly on edge
- this model blames the internal conditions of the prison for causing aggression
39
institutional aggression in prisons - strengths
- in reality, both explanations are important, e.g. Jiang and Fisher-Giorlando (2002) found that aggression towards prison staff was best explained by situational factors whereas aggression towards other inmates was best explained by the importation model (dispositional factors), so an interactionist approach may be better
- dispositional; Harer and Steffensmeier (1996) found that levels of violent behaviour in US male prisons were significantly higher among black inmates, whereas drug offences in prison were much higher among white inmates, so they concluded this supported the importation model as the results mirror trends in american society outside of prison
- situational; many studies suggest situational factors increase aggression in prisons, e.g. Megargee (1977) found that disruptive behaviour was highly correlated with overcrowding within prisons
40
institutional aggression in prisons - limitations
- dispositional; Harer and Steffensmeier's study is androcentric as it didn't include female prisons
- situational; Camp and Gaes (2005) analysed data from 561 US male prisoners who were randomly allocated to either a low or high-security prison, and they found that despite the differing prison environments, there was no significant difference in aggression between the two groups, thus weakening the support for situational explanations
- studies supporting dispositional explanations are a weakness for situational explanations, and vice versa
41
media influences on aggression - effects of computer games
- many studies suggest that the media may cause people to act more aggressively, e.g. through violent video games
- experimental studies; Bartholow and Anderson (2002) showed that playing a violent video game 'Mortal Kombat', for just 10 minutes, resulted in higher levels of aggression, compared to playing non-violent games such as a golf video game
- correlational studies; DeLisi et al (2013) found that aggressive behaviour was significantly correlated with playing violent video games in his study of 227 juvenile offenders with histories of aggressive behaviours
- longitudinal studies; Robertson et al. (2013) showed that the time spent engaging in computer games featuring aggressive acts was highly predictive of future aggressive behaviour in adulthood, as measured by criminal convictions and the development of antisocial personality disorder
- meta-analyses; Anderson et al. (2010) looked at 136 studies and found that exposure to violent computer games was linked to increases in aggressive thoughts, feelings and behaviours, and this wasn't exclusive to any gender or culture, suggesting an association between the effects of computer games and aggressive actions
42
the role of desensitisation, disinhibition, and cognitive priming
- violence in the media may lead to aggression in real life through these 3 underlying mechanisms;
* desensitisation; people usually have an anxious reaction to violence and aggression, as we respond emotionally to it, but repeated exposure to violence in the media may reduce this response, making people desensitised to violence
* disinhibition; most people have inhibitions about behaving aggressively, as it's seen as unacceptable behaviour, but seeing violence repeatedly in the media may mean it begins to seem acceptable, thus making people disinhibited
* cognitive priming; cues associated with violence in the media, (e.g. guns), may trigger aggression in us when we see them in real life, as this violent material we see in the media is stored as a memory connected to other violent memories, and we're primed to retrieve these memories if we come across anything associated with them, which may prompt aggressive behaviour
43
research support for desensitisation, disinhibition, and cognitive priming
- desensitisation; Krahé et al. (2011) demonstrated that ppts who regularly watched violent films / played violent video games demonstrated lower levels of stress when watching violent video clips in a lab experiment, compared to those who didn't, suggesting they were desensitised
- disinhibition; Berkowitz found that ppts who saw a film depicting aggression as vengeance gave more fake electric shocks to a confederate, compared to ppts who didn't watch the film, suggesting the media disinhibits aggression by presenting it as justified
- cognitive priming; Berkowitz (1984) conducted an experiment involving an argument in an office, and he found that the presence of a baseball bat on the table led to higher aggression
- an improved understanding of cognitive priming may increase effectiveness of treatments that tackle increasing disinhibition rates towards aggression, e.g. Bushman and Anderson (2002) suggest it's possible to alter people's cognitive scripts by encouraging violent people to respond differently in situations that may trigger aggression, so we're more likely to combat the changing social norms towards aggression
44
media influences on aggression - strengths
- experiments help to establish a cause-effect link between video game-playing and aggression as they take place under controlled conditions
- longitudinal studies represent media consumption in real-life over many years, so they can be seen as more realistic than lab studies
- studies supporting the role of desensitisation, disinhibition, and cognitive priming
45
media influences on aggression - limitations
- experiments can't use ‘real’ violence without going against ethical guidelines, so they have to use measures such as the TCRTT instead, which challenges the validity of the findings as they may not apply to real-life aggression
- longitudinal studies are hard to control as other factors may have had an effect on ppts, as the studies aren't conducted in controlled conditions, so it's hard to know how much the media has had an effect on aggressive behaviour
- correlations can only show an association, not a causal relationship as it may just be that more aggressive individuals have a preference for violent games / films, which isn't surprising
- publication bias may affect meta-analyses, as studies with significant results are more likely to be published than ones without, which gives a false impression of the relationship between media and aggression
- methodological issues as it's assumed that the only difference between violent and non-violent games is the level of violence displayed, but video games that are more violent also tend to be more complex and engaging, resulting in a more influential cognitive script, which results in more disinhibition and desensitisation and consequently higher levels of violence
