Reactivity of what system predicts aggressive behaviour? What other pats of the brain come under this system?
(i) Limbic system
(ii) Amygdala, cingulate gyrus, hypothalamus.
What did Gospic et al. (2011) find?
Found aggressive reactions were associated with a fast and heightened response by the Amygdala.
How is serotonin related to aggression?
- Low levels of serotonin results in reduced self-control and increased aggression.
In relation to serotonin and aggression, what did Virkkunen et al. (1994) find?
- Compared levels of a serotonin metabolite in cerebrospinal fluid of violent impulsive and non-impulsive offenders.
- Levels significantly lower in impulsive offenders.
What hormone, found in larger quantities than men, is linked to aggression?
Testosterone.
In relation to testosterone and aggression, what did Dolan et al. (2001) find?
- A positive correlation between testosterone levels and aggressive behaviours on male offenders in UK maximum security hospitals.
How do animal studies show the influence of testosterone on aggression?
- Giammanco et al. (2005) showed experimental increased in testosterone are related to aggressive behaviour.
- Testosterone decrease leads to reduction in aggression in castration studies.
How does the Limbic system explanation exclude other possibilities?
- 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.
What supporting evidence is there for the role of serotonin?
- 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.
A part from supporting evidence for the role of serotonin, give a further strength of the neural and hormonal mechanisms in aggression.
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.
What evidence supports Mazur’s biosocial model of status?
- 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.
A part from the Limbic system explanation excluding other factors, give a further limitation of neural and hormonal mechanisms on aggression.
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.
In terms of genetic factors in aggression, what twin study supports the role of genetics?
- Coccaro et al. (1997)
- Concordance rate = MZ of 50%, DZ of 19%
In terms of genetic factors in aggression, how do adoption studies support the role of genetics?
- 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.
In terms of genetic factors in aggression, how does MAOA support the role of genetics? Describe it.
- 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.
Why is the MAOA gene nicknamed the ‘warrior gene’ ? Can you explain the evidence that backs this up?
- ‘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.
Who found that the most violent domestic abusers had the low-activity MAOA gene?
- 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.
Give 1 strength of genetic factors in aggression
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.
Give 3 evaluative limitations of the genetic explanation in aggression.
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?
According to the ethological explanation of aggression, in what two ways is aggression beneficial to survival?
1) Reduces competition.
2) Establishes dominance hierarchies - aggression gives a special status.
What does ritualistic aggression mean?
- A series of aggressive behaviours carried out in a set order.
Explain what Lorenz (1966) found in to ritualistic aggression
- 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.
What is an IRM and what is it triggered by?
- Innate releasing mechanism; a built-in physiological process or structure.
- Identifies threatening stimuli in the environment.
What does the Innate Releasing Mechanism (IRM) trigger?
A fixed action pattern (FAP).
Explain what a FAP is.
- 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.
How does Tinbergen (1951) back up the ethological explanation of aggression?
- 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.
What supporting evidence is there for the ethological explanation of aggression?
- 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.
In terms of the ethological explanation of aggression, how are there cultural differences?
- 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.
What evidence is there against ritualistic aggression?
- 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).
A part from cultural differences and evidence against ritualistic aggression, give a further limitation against the ethological explanation of aggression.
1) Generalisations to human aggression.
- Lorenz didn’t study mammals such as primates and Tinbergen studied fish.
- Both generalised this behaviour to all human.
Why do men use mate retention strategies?
To avoid cuckoldry.
What is cuckoldry?
Raising offspring that are not their own.
In terms of the evolutionary explanation, why is cuckoldry a negative thing?
- 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.
Identify the two mate retention strategies involving aggression that Wilson + Daly (1996) came up with.
1) Direct guarding - a man’s vigilance over a partner’s behaviour.
2) Negative inducements - e.g. threats of consequences for infidelity.
Who found that mate retention strategies are linked to physical violence?
- 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.
How may bullying be an adaptive form of aggression?
Bullying = power imbalance in which a stronger individual uses aggression repeatedly against a weaker person.
- Evolutionary = increase chances of survival.
What did Volk et al. (2012) say about bullying in men?
- Suggests dominance, acquisition of resources, strength and ward off potential rivals.
= access to more females, minimal threat from males.
–> reproductive success.
In terms of the evolutionary explanation, what does bullying achieve with women?
- Secure partner’s fidelity.
- More inside a relationship than outside.
- -> continues to provide for offspring.
How does the evolutionary explanation explain gender differences?
- 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?
How does the evolutionary explanation have real-life application?
- 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.
Give 2 limitations of the evolutionary explanation of aggression
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?
In simple terms, what does the frustration-aggression hypothesis mean?
Frustration always leads to aggression.
Why do we experience frustration?
If our attempt to achieve a goal is blocked by an external factor.
What does it mean when aggressive behaviour is considered cathartic?
- Being aggressive releases the frustration and anger and calms one down.
= makes further aggression less likely.
For what 3 reasons may our aggression be expressed indirectly?
1) Abstract, e.g. the government.
2) Too powerful and we risk punishment.
3) Unavailable
= displaced aggression.
What evidence is there to say ‘the weapon effect shows cues make aggression more likely’?
- 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.
What key study is there for the frustration-aggression hypothesis?
Geen (1968)
Describe the;
- Procedure
- Findings
.. of Geen’s Frustration-Aggression study.
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.
Give 2 evaluative strengths of the frustration-aggression explanation of aggression
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.
Give 2 evaluative limitations of the frustration-aggression explanation of aggression
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?
How many social-psychological explanations of aggression are there? Name them.
1) Frustration-aggression
2) SLT
3) De-individuation
According to the SLT, aggression is learned directly through what?
- Positive and negative reinforcement.
Learning by the consequences of behaviour is also known as what?
Operant conditioning.
What is vicarious reinforcement in terms of aggression?
- 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.
What are the four mediational processes of SLT?
1) Attention
2) Retention
3) Motor reproduction
4) Motivation
What is self-efficacy?
The extent to which we believe our actions will achieve a desired goal.
Does self-efficacy increase or decrease each time aggression brings rewards? Explain why.
- Increases.
- Gain more confidence in their ability to be aggressive.
Describe Bandura et al.’s (1961) study
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.
What supporting evidence is there for the SLT of aggression?
- 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.
A part from supporting research evidence, give a further strength of the SLT explanation of aggression
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.
How can’t SLT explain all forms of aggression?
- 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?
A part from the SLT lacking explanation of all forms of aggressive, give a further limitation of it.
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.
What social situation is most associated with the de-individuation explanation of aggression?
- Being in a crowd of people.
Why is anonymity a major factor of de-individuation?
- We have less fear of retribution as we are in an unidentifiable crowd –> bigger crowd –> more anonymity.
What do Prentice-Dunn + Rogers (1982) say anonymity reduces?
- Private self-awareness.
- Attention is focused outwardly to the events around us.
= think less about our own beliefs and feelings, less self-critical.
A part from reduction in private self-awareness, what else does anonymity reduce?
- 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.
In simple terms, what does de-individuation mean?
Losing our individual self-identity and responsibility for our own behaviour.
Who’s the key study for the de-individuation explanation of aggression?
Dodd (1985)
Describe the procedure of Dodd’s (1985) study
- 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.
What were the findings of Dodd’s (1985) study?
- 36% a form of antisocial behaviour, 26% actual criminal acts.
- 9% prosocial behaviours.
What supporting evidence is there for the de-individuation explanation of aggression?
- 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.
A part from supporting evidence, give a further strength of the de-individuation explanation of aggression.
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.
What contradictory evidence is there for the de-individuation explanation of aggression?
- 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.
A part from contradictory evidence, give a further limitation of the de-individuation explanation of aggression.
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.
In terms of institutional aggression, what is the dispositional explanation of aggression also known as and who came up with it?
- Importation model.
- Irwin + Cressey (1962)
In simple terms, what does the dispositional explanation say the cause of institutional aggression is?
- The characteristics of the prisoners.
- Import a subculture of criminality, norms, values etc and social characteristics.
- Aggression
Describe the dispositional explanation of institutional aggression.
- 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.
What characteristics of prisoners did DeLisi et al. (2011) find in juveniles?
- Anger, childhood trauma, substance abuse.
From the characteristics noted by DeLisi et al., what were the outcomes of this in the prison environment?
- 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).
Give a strength of the importation model
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
Give a limitation of the importation model
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?
What is the situational explanation of institutional aggression also known as, and who came up with it?
- Deprivation model.
- Clemmer (1958)
In simple terms, what does the deprivation model states causes aggression in prisons?
- Harsh prison conditions –> stress –> aggressive behaviour.
A part from harsh prison conditions, what other situational factor influences aggression?
- An unpredictable prison regime that regularly uses ‘lock ups’ to control behaviour –> frustration
= recipe for aggression
= aggression is adaptive.
Give examples of harsh conditions that are psychological and physical (to the inmate).
Psychological = deprived of freedom, intimacy.
Physical = deprived of material goods –> competition.
In terms of the deprivation model, what did Steiner (2009) find?
- 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.
Give 2 evaluative limitations of the deprivation model of aggression.
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.
In terms of media influences: effects of computer games, what 4 types of studies are used to investigate aggression?
1) Experimental studies
2) Correlational studies
3) Longitudinal studies
4) Meta-analyses
What experimental evidence is there to suggest violent computer games caused greater aggression? Describe it.
- 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.
In terms of experimental investigation/evidence in to aggression, give 2 evaluative limitations.
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?)
What correlational evidence is there to suggest violent computer games caused greater aggression? Describe it.
- 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 (?)
In terms of correlational investigation/evidence in to aggression, give an evaluative limitation.
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.
What longitudinal evidence is there to suggest violent computer games caused greater aggression? Describe it.
- 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?
In terms of longitudinal investigation/evidence in to aggression, give an evaluative limitation.
1) Confounding variables:
- Conducted over long periods of time.
- Other sources of aggression interact with media influence?
= can we separate them?
= cannot conclude.
What meta-analyses evidence is there to suggest violent computer games caused greater aggression? Describe it.
- 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.
In terms of meta-analyses investigation/evidence in to aggression, give an evaluative limitation.
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.
In terms of aggression, what 3 effects does the media influence?
1) Desensitisation.
2) Disinhibition.
3) Cognitive priming.
In terms of media influence on aggression, what does desensitisation mean?
- Repeatedly viewing aggression may lead to people becoming accustomed to violence.
- Lesser impact from typicaly aversive stimuli.
In terms of media influence on aggression, what is the consequence of desensitisation?
Reduced physiological response from the sympathetic nervous system part of the Autonomic Nervous System
In terms of media influence on aggression, describe disinhibition.
- 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?
How could disinhibition be enhanced?
- If aggression is rewarded.
In terms of media influence on aggression, what is cognitive priming?
- A ‘script’ learned about how to behave to aggressive cues.
- ‘Script’ stored in memory so we become primed to be aggressive.
- Cue triggered unconsciously.
What research support is there for desensitisation?
- 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
Give an evaluative limitation of desensitisation
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?
What research support is there for disinhibition?
- 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.
Give an evaluative strength of cognitive priming
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
