social psychological explanation for human aggression Flashcards
outline frustration-aggression hypothesis
developed by Dollard –> based on the psychodynamic explanation of catharsis. Freud believed that the drive for aggression was innate, like the drive for food. He believed that the only way to reduce aggression is to engage in an activity which released it. Dollard claim that when humans experience frustration, this leads to aggression; the aggression is a cathartic release of the frustration.
2 factors affect the likelihood of aggression
o proximity of the goal – closer the goal, greater the frustration.
o perceived effectiveness of aggression as a response - if aggression will have no effect on the
barrier then less likely to be aggressive.
research supporting FAH
HARRIS
–> herself + confeds cut in queues in shopping centre. found: closer to the front of the queue, higher the level of aggressive response
TS the FAH as the closer the proximity of the goal, the more aggressive pts were.
KEY STUDY BUSHMAN 2002
SAMPLE– 600 m/f undergraduate students
IV- Punch bag Rumination, Punch bag Distraction, Control group
DV– self-report anger measure, level of loud noise administered
METHOD
– angered all pts by giving them bad feedback on an essay. The pts were then
asked to hit a punch bag while either thinking about the person who angered them or
thinking about getting fit. Then measured their level of anger and gave them to the chance
to be aggressive to the person who angered them by administering a loud blast at them.
RESULTS: level of aggression punch bag rumination > punch bag distraction > control.
TS theory may not be true as we would expect the punch bag distraction group to be more
aggressive due to a lack of catharsis, but this was not the case.
BERKOWITZ
BERKOWITZ revised the model
frustration doesn’t always lead to aggression.
–> aggression would only occur in the presence of certain cues e.g
o Aggressive Cues – intensify the aggressive response.
o Justified/Unjustified obstacle – if pts sees obstacle as justifiable, it lowers their aggressive response.
related research to BERKOWITZ’s revised model
LEYENS + PARKE
showed pts slides of guns & others slides of chocolate. Later, pts had a chance to give an electric shock to a confed. FOUND: gun group delivered higher shock
TS aggressive cues impact aggressive response as those in weapon group showed higher levels of aggression by giving higher shocks.
HOWEVER
NB: Some investigators have replicated this weapons effect while others have not –> results are not reliable
SOCIAL LEARNING THEORY
Learn through observation and imitation.
4 Key Principals:
o IDENTIFICATION: Identify role models from group we want to belong to
o MENTAL REPRESENTATION: process what we observe + form mental representation. This forms and expectation for what will happen when an aggressive act is performed
o VICARIOUS REINFORCEMENT: learning through observing consequence of others → more likely to imitate if we see it positively reinforced.
o SEFL EFFICACY: can we perform action + will it be successful?
KEY STUDY BANDURA 1961
BANDURA 1961
SAMPLE: 36 boys + 36 girls from Stanford University Nursery School (age → 3-6 y/o)
IV: Aggressive // non-aggressive // no model.
DV: Level + types of aggression (measured in 5 s chunks in a number of predefined categories by 2 observers → 0.89 inter-rater coefficent)
METHOD: pre tested kids for aggression + matched them, then exposed them to either aggressive or non-aggressive adult models. They then left them w/ toys + measured aggression w/ behavioural categories.
RESULTS:
o Observed aggressive model → most aggressive, then controls, then those who had watched the non-aggressive model. SLT
o Kids generalised aggression. If they saw an adult being aggressive the children were more likely to invent new other ways to be aggressive MENTAL REPRESENTATION
o Kids more likely to imitate same sex role models. IDENTIFICATION
o Boys were more aggressive than girls (doesn’t intrinsically support SLT)
related research to SLT
BANDURA: Showed vid of models punished / rewarded for aggressive behaviour + found punishment reduces kids imitation of it
TS vicarious reinforcement as kids more likely to imitate rewarded behaviour
BANDURA: Showed vid or live models or cartoons of bobo bashing + measured aggression. Kids showed twice as much aggression as controls in all 3 scenarios
TDNS SLT identification does not matter, kid still forms mental representation
MEAD –> CULTURAL DIFFERENCES?
Anthropological study of New Guinea tribes:
ARAPESH → both men + women peaceful + gentle
MUNDUGUMAR → both men + women fierce + cannibalistic
War made both tribes more aggressive → Evolutionary trigger? BUT accused of over exaggerating findings + further research found during war men more aggressive.
TS SLT bc suggests behaviour is a result of what we observe around us → IMITATION
SLT prac app + IDA
ROBERTSON –> TV?
Longitudinal study of New Zealand kids + found time spent watching TV violence in adult hood in terms of conviction rates. TS parents should be advised to reduce their kid’s time spent watching TV
reductionist –> reduces complex idea of aggression to
nomothetic –> general rules of how aggression arises
deterministic –> emphasises the importance of environment and reinforcement in learning.
DEINDIVIDUATION
De-individuation is a social psychological explanation for aggression. De-individuation theory was first introduced by Zimbardo (1969), who suggested that de-individuation occurs when people who are part of a relatively anonymous group, lose their personal identity and consequently their inhibitions in relation to violence. According to Diener (1980), deindividuation occurs as a result of four factors: 1) poor self-monitoring of behaviour; 2) reduced need for social approval; 3) reduced inhibitions against behaving impulsively; and 4) reduced rational thinking.
DEINDIVIDUATION AFFECTING FACTORS
o ANONYMITY: feel less accountable + less inhibition. This is compounded diffusion of
responsibility (we see responsibility as being shared within the group TS larger the group, more deindividualised we feel)
o SOCIAL IDENTITY: take on role as part of group attention shifted away from own values + moral standards. less likely to self-regulate + more likely to follow group norms
DIENER: 1) poor self-monitoring of behaviour; 2) reduced need for social approval; 3) reduced inhibitions against behaving impulsively; and 4) reduced rational thinking.
KEY STUDY ZIMBARDO
ZIMBARDO (Stanford Prison Experiment)
SAMPLE: 24 Young men (pre-tested to ensure neurotypical + not overly aggressive)
IV: Prisoner // Guard
DV: behaviour
METHOD: Created a prison in the bottom of Stanford University. Randomly assigned roles.
Prisoners ‘arrested’ @ home + brought to the prison. Guards were responsible for behaviour + discipline + feeding prisoners. All recorded.
FOUND: guards displayed surprising amounts of aggression within hours of study beginning, taunting prisoners + imposing pointless tasks + punishments. Study shut down after 6 days (meant to run for 2 weeks).
Z pretested guards to rule out candidates that may potentially be aggressive + sadistic but the guards took on social roles + bc of anonymity, it lead to deindividuaion +
aggression. TS they had decr self-regulation and so had diffused responsibility
ZIMBARDO EVAL
ANDROCENTRIC
lakc population validty as all male pts, .:. element of beta-bias
BUT
ZIMBARDO 1969 – f pts in Milgram ish set up w/ teacher + learner.
Deindividuation condition –> group of women (all wore hoods + uniform ∴ unidentifiable).
Individuated group –> all wore own clothes + name tags + introduced to each other.
The de-individuated group shocked twice as much as the individuated group.
TS anonymity also increases aggression in women
lacks eco validity bc fake prison but 90% of convos amongst prisoners where about prison life and
SIKE – Analysed 500 violent attacks in Northern Ireland + found 206/500 wore some form of disguise. The severity of the incident was related to whether the perpetrator was masked or not.
TS the theory as it demonstrates anonymity increases the level of aggression
