Aggression Flashcards Preview

AQA Psychology > Aggression > Flashcards

Flashcards in Aggression Deck (106)
Loading flashcards...
1
Q

Reactivity of what system predicts aggressive behaviour? What other pats of the brain come under this system?

A

(i) Limbic system

(ii) Amygdala, cingulate gyrus, hypothalamus.

2
Q

What did Gospic et al. (2011) find?

A

Found aggressive reactions were associated with a fast and heightened response by the Amygdala.

3
Q

How is serotonin related to aggression?

A
  • Low levels of serotonin results in reduced self-control and increased aggression.
4
Q

In relation to serotonin and aggression, what did Virkkunen et al. (1994) find?

A
  • Compared levels of a serotonin metabolite in cerebrospinal fluid of violent impulsive and non-impulsive offenders.
  • Levels significantly lower in impulsive offenders.
5
Q

What hormone, found in larger quantities than men, is linked to aggression?

A

Testosterone.

6
Q

In relation to testosterone and aggression, what did Dolan et al. (2001) find?

A
  • A positive correlation between testosterone levels and aggressive behaviours on male offenders in UK maximum security hospitals.
7
Q

How do animal studies show the influence of testosterone on aggression?

A
  • Giammanco et al. (2005) showed experimental increased in testosterone are related to aggressive behaviour.
  • Testosterone decrease leads to reduction in aggression in castration studies.
8
Q

How does the Limbic system explanation exclude other possibilities?

A
  • The Amygdala functions in tandem with the orbitofrontal cortex to maintain self-control and inhibit aggression.
  • Coccaro et al. (2007) showed orbitofrontal cortex activity is reduced in patients with psychiatric disorders that feature aggression
    = can’t explain by Limbic system solely.
9
Q

What supporting evidence is there for the role of serotonin?

A
  • Research shows increase in serotonin reduces levels of aggression.
  • Berman et al. (2009) found that participants l given a serotonin enhancing drug gave fewer and less intense electric shocks to a confederate than people in a placebo.
10
Q

A part from supporting evidence for the role of serotonin, give a further strength of the neural and hormonal mechanisms in aggression.

A

1) A plausible mechanism to explain testosterones effects.
- Mazur’s (1985) biosocial model of status (BMoS) suggests changes in testosterone levels following a loss of status in a competition should affect aggressive behaviour afterwards.

11
Q

What evidence supports Mazur’s biosocial model of status?

A
  • Mehta and Josephs (2006) found 73% of losers (whose testosterone levels rose afterwards) decided to rechallenge their opponent.
  • But only 22% whose testosterone levels fell, decided to do so.
    = support role of testosterone.
12
Q

A part from the Limbic system explanation excluding other factors, give a further limitation of neural and hormonal mechanisms on aggression.

A

1) Neural/hormonal explanations research is correlational.
- Studies with humans impossible for ethical issues
- Issues with generalising with animals.
- Other factors overlooked, simply correlation between serotonin and aggression.

13
Q

In terms of genetic factors in aggression, what twin study supports the role of genetics?

A
  • Coccaro et al. (1997)

- Concordance rate = MZ of 50%, DZ of 19%

14
Q

In terms of genetic factors in aggression, how do adoption studies support the role of genetics?

A
  • If we find similarities in aggressive behaviour between an adopted child and biological parents.
  • If similarities with adopted parents = environmental factors.
  • Rhee + Waldman (2002) - meta-analysis of adoption studies found genetic influences accounted for 41% of the variance in aggression.
15
Q

In terms of genetic factors in aggression, how does MAOA support the role of genetics? Describe it.

A
  • It is an enzyme that cleans up neurotransmitters after a nerve impulse has been transmitted between neurons.
  • Breaks down neurotransmitters to be recycled or excreted.
  • A dysfunction in the MAOA gene may lead to abnormal activity of the MAOA enzyme –> levels of serotonin.
16
Q

Why is the MAOA gene nicknamed the ‘warrior gene’ ? Can you explain the evidence that backs this up?

A
  • ‘Warrior gene’ is a variant of the MAOA gene that leads to low MAOA activity –> aggressive behaviour.
  • Brunner et al. (1993) studied 28 male members of a Dutch family repeatedly involved in impulsively aggressive criminal behaviour.
    = had low levels of MAOA in their brain and low activity-version of the MAOA gene.
17
Q

Who found that the most violent domestic abusers had the low-activity MAOA gene?

A
  • Stuart et al. (2014) studied 97 men from a treatment programme for domestic abusers.
  • Men with low-activity MAOA gene engaged in greatest psychological and physical aggression and inflicted worst injuries on partners.
18
Q

Give 1 strength of genetic factors in aggression

A

1) MAOA explanation has support from animal studies.
- Genetic deletion allows researchers to ‘knockout’ single genes on mice so they could observe the effects on aggression.
- Godar et al. (2014) - showed MAOA knockout mice have increased brain serotonin and are hyper aggressive.
= when blocked by a drug –> non-aggressive.

19
Q

Give 3 evaluative limitations of the genetic explanation in aggression.

A

1) Difficult to isolate genetic factors.
- Separate environment and genetic factors?
- McDermott et al. (2009) - participants with low-activity MAOA gene behaved aggressively in a lab-based task, but only when they were provoked.

2) Multiple genetic influences.
- Genetic effects quite small, but statistically significant.
- Stuart et al. (2014), along side low levels of MAOA, found low levels of serotonin transporter gene.

3) Findings depends on how aggression is measured.
- Methods differ between studies; include self-reports, observations etc.
- Rhee + Waldman’s study found genetic factors had a greater influence on aggression in self report studies than from parents.
= valid conclusions?

20
Q

According to the ethological explanation of aggression, in what two ways is aggression beneficial to survival?

A

1) Reduces competition.

2) Establishes dominance hierarchies - aggression gives a special status.

21
Q

What does ritualistic aggression mean?

A
  • A series of aggressive behaviours carried out in a set order.
22
Q

Explain what Lorenz (1966) found in to ritualistic aggression

A
  • Observed intra-species aggression and found it was mainly ritualistic and rarely became physical.
  • Intra-species aggression usually ends with an appeasement display
    Adaptive = death at every counter would kill species off.
23
Q

What is an IRM and what is it triggered by?

A
  • Innate releasing mechanism; a built-in physiological process or structure.
  • Identifies threatening stimuli in the environment.
24
Q

What does the Innate Releasing Mechanism (IRM) trigger?

A

A fixed action pattern (FAP).

25
Q

Explain what a FAP is.

A
  • A pattern of behaviour triggered by an IRM.
  • Lea (1984) says FAP is ritualistic and is universal among all species and follows an inevitable course which cannot be altered before it is completed.
26
Q

How does Tinbergen (1951) back up the ethological explanation of aggression?

A
  • Male sticklebacks.
  • Another male entering a stickleback’s territory in mating season released a FAP.
  • Red was the stimulus that triggered the IRM and in turn led to an aggressive IRM.

= No red –> no aggression.
= FAP did not change from one stimulus to another, always had to be completed.

27
Q

What supporting evidence is there for the ethological explanation of aggression?

A
  • Brunner et al. (1993) shows low activity of the MAOA gene is closely associated with aggressive behaviour
    = innate biological basis?
  • Evidence for IRMs
    ; Activity in limbic system triggers aggressive behaviour.
    = validity.
28
Q

In terms of the ethological explanation of aggression, how are there cultural differences?

A
  • Nisbett et al. (1996) found that when white males from the Southern US white males were insulted in a research situation, they were more likely than Northern US white males to become aggressive.
  • Nisbett = a culture of honour, impulsive aggression was a learned social norm.
29
Q

What evidence is there against ritualistic aggression?

A
  • Goodall (2010) observed male chimps from one community systematically slaughter the members of another group.
  • Even though the victims offered signs of appeasement and defencelessness, this didn’t inhibit aggression (as this explanation says it would).
30
Q

A part from cultural differences and evidence against ritualistic aggression, give a further limitation against the ethological explanation of aggression.

A

1) Generalisations to human aggression.
- Lorenz didn’t study mammals such as primates and Tinbergen studied fish.
- Both generalised this behaviour to all human.

31
Q

Why do men use mate retention strategies?

A

To avoid cuckoldry.

32
Q

What is cuckoldry?

A

Raising offspring that are not their own.

33
Q

In terms of the evolutionary explanation, why is cuckoldry a negative thing?

A
  • Waste of resources contributing to the survival of a rival’s genes, leaving the father with fewer resources to invest in his own future offspring.
34
Q

Identify the two mate retention strategies involving aggression that Wilson + Daly (1996) came up with.

A

1) Direct guarding - a man’s vigilance over a partner’s behaviour.
2) Negative inducements - e.g. threats of consequences for infidelity.

35
Q

Who found that mate retention strategies are linked to physical violence?

A
  • Wilson et al. (1995)
  • Women who reported mate retention strategies in partners were twice as likely to suffer DV at their hands.
    = 73% required medical attention, 53% feared for their lives.
36
Q

How may bullying be an adaptive form of aggression?

A

Bullying = power imbalance in which a stronger individual uses aggression repeatedly against a weaker person.
- Evolutionary = increase chances of survival.

37
Q

What did Volk et al. (2012) say about bullying in men?

A
  • Suggests dominance, acquisition of resources, strength and ward off potential rivals.
    = access to more females, minimal threat from males.
    –> reproductive success.
38
Q

In terms of the evolutionary explanation, what does bullying achieve with women?

A
  • Secure partner’s fidelity.
  • More inside a relationship than outside.
  • -> continues to provide for offspring.
39
Q

How does the evolutionary explanation explain gender differences?

A
  • Males engage more often in aggressive acts.
  • Campbell (1999) - aggression in females risk survival of offspring, so more adaptive use verbal aggression to retain a partner.
    = validity?
40
Q

How does the evolutionary explanation have real-life application?

A
  • Rigby (2010) reviewed anti-bullying interventions
    = despite interventions, bullying remained prevalent
    |
    Fail to recognise bullies bully to gain an advanage
    = why would they voluntarily give up power?
    |
    Bullying somehow adaptive = help us understand alternative anti-bullying interventions.
41
Q

Give 2 limitations of the evolutionary explanation of aggression

A

1) Cultural differences.
- This explanation = aggression present everywhere to increase survival chances.
- !Kung San in Kalahari discourage aggression, lose status and reputation if used.
- Yanomamo of Venezuela use aggression to gain status.
= aggressive behaviour not universal, learned?

2) Methodological issues with research evidence.
- Difficult to test hypotheses about evolution of behaviours; research = correlational.
- Even strong correlation does not mean cause and effect
= how valid?

42
Q

In simple terms, what does the frustration-aggression hypothesis mean?

A

Frustration always leads to aggression.

43
Q

Why do we experience frustration?

A

If our attempt to achieve a goal is blocked by an external factor.

44
Q

What does it mean when aggressive behaviour is considered cathartic?

A
  • Being aggressive releases the frustration and anger and calms one down.
    = makes further aggression less likely.
45
Q

For what 3 reasons may our aggression be expressed indirectly?

A

1) Abstract, e.g. the government.
2) Too powerful and we risk punishment.
3) Unavailable
= displaced aggression.

46
Q

What evidence is there to say ‘the weapon effect shows cues make aggression more likely’?

A
  • Berkowitz + LePage (1967) found once students became frustrated in a lab task, they were more likely to give (fake) electric shocks when they could see a weapon next to them.
  • Weapons –> readiness for aggression.
  • Aggressive cues –> more likely to happen.
47
Q

What key study is there for the frustration-aggression hypothesis?

A

Geen (1968)

48
Q

Describe the;
- Procedure
- Findings
.. of Geen’s Frustration-Aggression study.

A

P = Male university students made to complete a jigsaw puzzle;
(i) Impossible to solve.
(ii) Ran out of time because another student kept interfering.
(iii) Others insulted by confederate.
P = Participants then gave shocks once confederate made a mistake on another task.

F = Condition 3, then 2, then 1 gave strongest shocks.
F = All three gave stronger shocks than control-group.
49
Q

Give 2 evaluative strengths of the frustration-aggression explanation of aggression

A

1) Research evidence:
- Marcus-Newhall et al. (2000).
- Meta-analysis of 49 studies of displaced aggression.
- Participants who couldn’t retaliate directly against those who had frustrated them were more likely to be aggressive against an innocent person.

2) Real-life applications:
- Berkowitz’s argument that the trigger can pull the finger featured in US gun control debate.
- ‘Open carry’ allowed in some states.
- Gun acts as a cue –> making more likely to use it.
= shows they should be removed from environment.

50
Q

Give 2 evaluative limitations of the frustration-aggression explanation of aggression

A

1) Evidence that aggression is not cathartic:
- Bushman (2002).
- Participants who vented their anger by hitting a punch bag became more angry and aggressive.
= validity of hypothesis?

2) Effects of justified and unjustified frustration:
- Dill + Anderson (1995).
- Showed participants a paper-folding task.
- Frustrated them by saying the experimenter had to meet his girlfriend (unjustified) or his boss told him to be quick (justified).
= unjustified aggression –> most aggression.
= justified aggression –> less than unjustified but more than control.

= validity? others more aggressive?

51
Q

How many social-psychological explanations of aggression are there? Name them.

A

1) Frustration-aggression
2) SLT
3) De-individuation

52
Q

According to the SLT, aggression is learned directly through what?

A
  • Positive and negative reinforcement.
53
Q

Learning by the consequences of behaviour is also known as what?

A

Operant conditioning.

54
Q

What is vicarious reinforcement in terms of aggression?

A
  • Observing the consequences of a model’s aggressive behaviour.
    = if it is rewarded, the child learns aggression can be effective in getting what they want.
    = more likely a child will then imitate this behaviour.
55
Q

What are the four mediational processes of SLT?

A

1) Attention
2) Retention
3) Motor reproduction
4) Motivation

56
Q

What is self-efficacy?

A

The extent to which we believe our actions will achieve a desired goal.

57
Q

Does self-efficacy increase or decrease each time aggression brings rewards? Explain why.

A
  • Increases.

- Gain more confidence in their ability to be aggressive.

58
Q

Describe Bandura et al.’s (1961) study

A

Procedure:

  • Young children observed an adult model playing with toys, including a Bobo doll.
  • Some witnessed the model behaving aggressive.
  • Children were then taken to another room where the Bobo doll and toys were.

Findings:

  • Children who witnessed the model being aggressive more likely to imitate the behaviour themselves.
  • Non-aggressive model showed almost no aggression.
59
Q

What supporting evidence is there for the SLT of aggression?

A
  • Poulin + Boivin (2000)
  • Most aggressive boys aged 9-12 formed friendships with other aggressive boys.
  • Exposed to models of physical aggression and consequences reinforced by approval.
    = SLT shows aggression increases in situations.
60
Q

A part from supporting research evidence, give a further strength of the SLT explanation of aggression

A

1) Highlights the benefits of non-aggressive models:
- People not passive recipients of reinforcement
- Shape aggressive behaviour by rewards.
= Friends who aren’t aggressive? Counter-reinforcement.
= SLT –> practical benefit, reduction of violence.

61
Q

How can’t SLT explain all forms of aggression?

A
  • Children who use proactive (calculating) aggression have self-efficacy
    = confident that aggression will achieve goals.

but…

  • Children who use reactive (impulsive) aggression)
    only use it to achieve retribution in the heat of the moment.
    = can’t be explained by SLT, maybe Berkowitz’s negative affect theory?
62
Q

A part from the SLT lacking explanation of all forms of aggressive, give a further limitation of it.

A

1) Difficulty explaining cultural differences:
- Different cultures –> different norms which are reinforced.
- E.g. !Kung San –> social norms do not encourage aggression so aggressive models for children to observe and VR is rare.
= still behave aggressively.
= instinctive? –> biological approach more valid explanation of cultural finding.

63
Q

What social situation is most associated with the de-individuation explanation of aggression?

A
  • Being in a crowd of people.
64
Q

Why is anonymity a major factor of de-individuation?

A
  • We have less fear of retribution as we are in an unidentifiable crowd –> bigger crowd –> more anonymity.
65
Q

What do Prentice-Dunn + Rogers (1982) say anonymity reduces?

A
  • Private self-awareness.
  • Attention is focused outwardly to the events around us.
    = think less about our own beliefs and feelings, less self-critical.
66
Q

A part from reduction in private self-awareness, what else does anonymity reduce?

A
  • Public self-awareness.
  • Realise we’re anonymous –> less likely to be judged by others.
    = no longer care how others see us, less accountable for actions.
67
Q

In simple terms, what does de-individuation mean?

A

Losing our individual self-identity and responsibility for our own behaviour.

68
Q

Who’s the key study for the de-individuation explanation of aggression?

A

Dodd (1985)

69
Q

Describe the procedure of Dodd’s (1985) study

A
  • Asked psychology students;
  • ‘If you could do anything humanly possibly with complete assurance that you would not be detected or held responsible, what would you do?’
  • 3 independent raters decided the category of behaviour.
70
Q

What were the findings of Dodd’s (1985) study?

A
  • 36% a form of antisocial behaviour, 26% actual criminal acts.
  • 9% prosocial behaviours.
71
Q

What supporting evidence is there for the de-individuation explanation of aggression?

A
  • Douglas + McGarty (2001).
  • Looked at aggressive online behaviour in chatrooms.
    = strong correlation between anonymity and posting hostile messages.
    = most aggressive messages sent by those with hidden identities.
72
Q

A part from supporting evidence, give a further strength of the de-individuation explanation of aggression.

A

1) Real-life applications:
- Help us understand aggressive behaviour in online gaming services e.g. Xbox Live.
- People use gamertags which don’t reveal their identities and there is an arousing environment = de-individuation made worse.
= relevance of de-individuation concepts.

73
Q

What contradictory evidence is there for the de-individuation explanation of aggression?

A
  • Gergen et al. (1973).
  • Strangers in a darkened room and told them to do what they wanted = starting kissing, touching each other.
  • Repeated and told they would be face-to-face with each other afterwards = kissing etc reduced.
    = anonymity –> de-individuation = aggression not guaranteed.
74
Q

A part from contradictory evidence, give a further limitation of the de-individuation explanation of aggression.

A

1) Alternative explanations may account better:
- Spears + Lea (1992) use of social identity theory (SIT).
- De-individuation –> behaviour that conforms to group norms (pro/antisocial)
- Shift from personal identity to social identity as group member.
= aggression not inevitable, too predictive.

75
Q

In terms of institutional aggression, what is the dispositional explanation of aggression also known as and who came up with it?

A
  • Importation model.

- Irwin + Cressey (1962)

76
Q

In simple terms, what does the dispositional explanation say the cause of institutional aggression is?

A
  • The characteristics of the prisoners.
  • Import a subculture of criminality, norms, values etc and social characteristics.
  • Aggression
77
Q

Describe the dispositional explanation of institutional aggression.

A
  • The characteristics of the prisoners.
  • Import a subculture of criminality, norms, values etc and social characteristics.
  • Aggression used to establish power, status and access to resources.
  • Not prison environment.
78
Q

What characteristics of prisoners did DeLisi et al. (2011) find in juveniles?

A
  • Anger, childhood trauma, substance abuse.
79
Q

From the characteristics noted by DeLisi et al., what were the outcomes of this in the prison environment?

A
  • More likely to engage in suicidal activity and sexual misconduct.
  • More acts of physical violence brought to attention of parole board compared with control group (fewer characteristics).
80
Q

Give a strength of the importation model

A

1) Research support:
- Camp + Gaes (2005)
- Placed 1/2 of their male inmate participants in low-security Californian prisons, other 1/2 in second-highest category of prisons.
= no significant difference in aggressive misconduct between two groups.
= characteristics of prisoners more predictive than environment.
= STRENGTH –> RANDOM ALLOCATION

81
Q

Give a limitation of the importation model

A

1) Alternative explanation may be better:
- Dilulio (1991)
- Inadequate to explain institutional aggression as it ignores roles of prison officials and factors in running prisons.
- Administrative Control Model (ACM) = poorly managed prisons more likely to experience most serious forms of inmate violence.
= more influential according to ACM in determining aggression –> validity of IM?

82
Q

What is the situational explanation of institutional aggression also known as, and who came up with it?

A
  • Deprivation model.

- Clemmer (1958)

83
Q

In simple terms, what does the deprivation model states causes aggression in prisons?

A
  • Harsh prison conditions –> stress –> aggressive behaviour.
84
Q

A part from harsh prison conditions, what other situational factor influences aggression?

A
  • An unpredictable prison regime that regularly uses ‘lock ups’ to control behaviour –> frustration
    = recipe for aggression
    = aggression is adaptive.
85
Q

Give examples of harsh conditions that are psychological and physical (to the inmate).

A

Psychological = deprived of freedom, intimacy.

Physical = deprived of material goods –> competition.

86
Q

In terms of the deprivation model, what did Steiner (2009) find?

A
  • Investigated factors predicting inmate aggression in 512 prisons.
  • Inmate violence higher in prisons with higher proportion of female staff, African-American inmates.
    = independent of individual characteristics of prisoners, context of prison.
87
Q

Give 2 evaluative limitations of the deprivation model of aggression.

A

1) Contradictory research evidence:
- Predicts lack of freedom and heterosexual intimacy leads to high levels of aggression in prisons.
- Hensley et al. (2002) studied inmates of prisons allowing conjugal visits.
= no link between involvement in these visits and reduced aggressive behaviour.
= not situational solely? validity?

2) Interactionist model may be better:
- Dobbs + Waid (2004).
- Deprivation doesn’t lead to violence unless combined with individual characteristics imported by inmates.
= valid –> explains evidence and inmates’ experiences of institutional aggression.
= explains greater variety of aggressive behaviours.
= realistic –> reflects complex nature of institutional aggression which doesn’t just have one cause.

88
Q

In terms of media influences: effects of computer games, what 4 types of studies are used to investigate aggression?

A

1) Experimental studies
2) Correlational studies
3) Longitudinal studies
4) Meta-analyses

89
Q

What experimental evidence is there to suggest violent computer games caused greater aggression? Describe it.

A
  • Bartholow + Anderson (2002)
  • Participants played a violent or non-violent computer game for ten minutes.
  • Then carried out the ‘Taylor Competitive Reaction Time Task’ (choosing volume of noise blasts)
    = those who played violent game selected significantly higher noise levels compared with non-violent players.
90
Q

In terms of experimental investigation/evidence in to aggression, give 2 evaluative limitations.

A

1) Measures of aggression are artificial.
- ‘Taylor Competitive Reaction Time Task’ is an unrealistic measure.
- Unrealistic as there is no retaliation involved; can be safely aggressive.
= validity of link?

2) The non-equivalence problem:
- Hard to say the games are equivalent apart from the presence or absence of violence.
- Przybylski et al. (2014) looked at two often used games;
(i) Marathon 2 - harder game, violent too.
(ii) Glider Pro 4 - easier game, non-violent.
= complexity is a confounding variable.
= complexity –> frustration –> aggression (rather than violence?)

91
Q

What correlational evidence is there to suggest violent computer games caused greater aggression? Describe it.

A
  • DeLisi et al. (2013)
  • Studied 227 juvenile offenders with histories of aggressive behaviour.
  • Aggressive behaviour positively correlated with how often they played violent computer games and how much they enjoyed them
    = link so established, considered a risk factor (?)
92
Q

In terms of correlational investigation/evidence in to aggression, give an evaluative limitation.

A

1) Cannot draw cause-and-effect conclusions:
- No variables manipulated, no random allocation.
- Positive correlation between these two factors due to socialisation or selection? i.e. one causing the other.
= causality cannot be settled
= how exactly do games influence aggression.

93
Q

What longitudinal evidence is there to suggest violent computer games caused greater aggression? Describe it.

A
  • Robertson et al. (2013).
  • 1000+ people born in New Zealand.
  • Measured TV viewing hours at regular intervals up to age of 26.
    = time spent watching tv –> predictor of aggressive behaviour in childhood and diagnosis of anti-social personality disorder.
    = time spent watching it or violent content?
94
Q

In terms of longitudinal investigation/evidence in to aggression, give an evaluative limitation.

A

1) Confounding variables:
- Conducted over long periods of time.
- Other sources of aggression interact with media influence?
= can we separate them?
= cannot conclude.

95
Q

What meta-analyses evidence is there to suggest violent computer games caused greater aggression? Describe it.

A
  • Anderson et al’s (2010) meta-analyses of 136 studies including experimental, correlational and longitudinal research.
    = violent games –> increases in aggressive behaviours, thoughts and feelings.
    = applied to individualist and collectivist cultures.
96
Q

In terms of meta-analyses investigation/evidence in to aggression, give an evaluative limitation.

A

1) Publication bias:
- Tendency for statistically significant findings to be published.
- Ignore non-significant ones –> which may have important results on effect.
= false impression from conclusions.

97
Q

In terms of aggression, what 3 effects does the media influence?

A

1) Desensitisation.
2) Disinhibition.
3) Cognitive priming.

98
Q

In terms of media influence on aggression, what does desensitisation mean?

A
  • Repeatedly viewing aggression may lead to people becoming accustomed to violence.
  • Lesser impact from typicaly aversive stimuli.
99
Q

In terms of media influence on aggression, what is the consequence of desensitisation?

A

Reduced physiological response from the sympathetic nervous system part of the Autonomic Nervous System

100
Q

In terms of media influence on aggression, describe disinhibition.

A
  • Most people believe violence and aggression are anti-social.
    = restraints socially and psychologically against using it.
    |
  • Violent media gives social approval to aggression.
    |
    = restraints are loosened (disinhibited) –> violence?
101
Q

How could disinhibition be enhanced?

A
  • If aggression is rewarded.
102
Q

In terms of media influence on aggression, what is cognitive priming?

A
  • A ‘script’ learned about how to behave to aggressive cues.
  • ‘Script’ stored in memory so we become primed to be aggressive.
  • Cue triggered unconsciously.
103
Q

What research support is there for desensitisation?

A
  • Krahe et al. (2011)
  • Showed violent and non-violent media to partcipants and measured arousal using skin conductance.
    = viewers of violent media –> lower arousal when watching violent film clips
    = arousal negatively correlated with unprovoked aggression
    = reflects desensitisation to the effects of violence
104
Q

Give an evaluative limitation of desensitisation

A

1) Catharsis may be a better explanation:
- Krahe et al failed to find a link between media viewing, lower arousal and reactive aggression.
= catharsis? violent media = safety valve? Can release aggressive impulses without behaving violently.
= Desensitisation cannot explain this, aggression not this? catharsis more valid?

105
Q

What research support is there for disinhibition?

A
  • Berkowitz + Alioto (1973).
  • Showed a film depicting aggression as vengeance.
    = Participants gave (more) fake electric shocks of longer duration to a confederate.
    = Aggression as its justified? Vengeance socially acceptable.
    = validity? –> link between removal of social constraints and aggressive behaviour.
106
Q

Give an evaluative strength of cognitive priming

A

1) Useful practical applications:
- Understanding CP –> aggression can potentially save lives.
- Bushman + Anderson (2002) - someone who habitually watches violent media accesses stored aggressive scripts more readily.
= more likely to interpret cues as aggressive and resort to a violent situation.
= effective interventions reduce aggression by challenging hostile cognitive scripts, and encourage alternatives? e.g. humour