UNIT 3: AGGRESSION Social learning theory Conditions for effective social learning 1.

Pay attention to the model performing the action 2. Be able to remember the action 3. Have the ability(self-efficacy) to replicate the action 4. Be motivated to replicate the action It is important to note that the behaviour observed must be realistic or believable and it must be displayed by a salient role model i.e. friend, sibling, parent, teacher. From now on ALL studies are used only to illustrate the principles of the theory so that we can then determine whether it has good explanatory value or not. Bandura et al (1961): Participants were boys and girls aged 3-5 years, half were exposed to adult models (male or female) interacting aggressively with a Bobo doll and half exposed to models ( male or female) that were non-aggressive towards the doll Model displayed distinctive physically aggressive acts towards the doll, accompanied by verbal aggression e.g. pow Children were then shown attractive toys which they werent allowed to play with, and then taken to a room where, among other toys there was a Bobo doll Results: Children in aggression condition produced more physically and verbally aggressive behaviour, the other group showed virtually no aggression Boys reproduced more imitative physical aggression but the two genders didnt differ in imitation of verbal aggression. SO: though this study showed three of the 4 principles of the theory e,g, attention to behaviour, remember action in test room and had ability to replicate BUT does not explain their motivation to imitate behaviours in the absence of the model. A further study by Bandura & Walters (1963) had 3 groups of children, each seeing a different ending to a film of an adult model behaving aggressively towards a Bobo doll. The endings either ended with the model being rewarded, punished, or receiving no consequence. Those seeing the reward displayed high levels of aggression, the punishment group showed low levels of aggression and the other group being somewhere in between

This is called vicarious learning, the children were learning about the likely consequences of their actions, then adjusting their behaviour accordingly. SO the theory is a good explanation of aggression as now all 4 components have been met. AO2: Did the children in the punishment group show low levels of aggression because the punishment prevented learning or performance of the behaviour? To test this, Bandura (1965) repeated the study but after exposure to the films, offered rewards to ALL the children for performing the models aggressive behaviours. Results: All three groups performed a similar number of imitative acts. This shows that learning takes place regardless of reinforcements but that production of behaviours is related to selective reinforcements. Philips (1986) found that daily homicide rates in the US almost always increased in the week following a major boxing match, suggesting that viewers were imitating behaviour they watched; therefore social learning is evident in adults as well as children. SO shows support as: Face validity: explains why children imitate behaviour of role models (e.g. Jamie Bulger Case = Childs Play 3). Practical Application: can explain e.g. deviancy and eating behaviours SO if maladaptive behaviours can be learned they can be unlearned too. Standardised procedures: ensures replicability (Lab Exp) However: Cooper & McKay (1977): Gender differences affects learning in terms of the source of the of learning Validity Issues: demand characteristics (Noble,1975) Mundane Realism: Artificial nature of the task Confounding variables: No way of knowing if behaviour was real aggression , play-acting or appropriate play. SO: Maybe more of Biological explanation (Nature)? Not everyone was aggressive regardless of the condition they were in so maybe personality factors or biological predisposition better explanation

Deindividuation Le Bon (1895) claimed that in a crowd, the combination of anonymity, suggestibility and contagion mean that a collective mind takes possession of the individual. As a consequence, the individual loses self-control and becomes capable of acting in a way that goes against personal/social norms. Nature and process of deindividuation: Deindividuation is a psychological state characterized by lowered selfevaluation and decreased concerns about evaluation by others. This leads to an increase in behaviour that would normally be inhibited by personal/social norms. Factors that contribute to deindividuation include anonymity, and altered consciousness due to drugs/alcohol. Being anonymous in a crowd has the psychological consequence of reducing inner restraints and increasing behaviors that are usually inhibited. According to Zimbardo: being part of a crowd diminish awareness of our own individuality. Conditions that increase anonymity also minimize concerns about evaluation by others, and so weaken the normal barriers to antisocial behavior that are based on guilt or shame Zimbardo (1969) had groups of 4 female undergraduates deliver electric shocks to another student to aid learning. Group 1 wore bulky coats and hoods to hide their faces, sat in separate cubicles and not referred to by name. Group 2 wore normal clothes, large name tags and introduced to each other by name. Both sets of participants were told they could see the person being shocked. Results: Participants in the deindividuated condition shocked the learner for twice as long as did those in the individuated group. AO2: Explicit Link Back to Theory: strong support as those that were not identifiable were much more likely to shock for longer than those whose behaviour was inhibited because of their self-evaluation and concern about evaluation by those who could identify them. Academic credibility (empirical support) e.g. Deiner (1976) BUT: Lab Exp, IGD so lacks realism and demand characteristics an issue Deiner (1976): Conducted Nat Obs using IGD to test the effects of disguise, anonymity and group membership on antisocial behaviour of trick or treaters in USA. 27 women gave out sweets to 1,000 trick or treaters at Halloween. Half of the children were asked for their names and addresses (identifiable) whereas the others remained anonymous (deindividuated). The children were left at the

door with the strict instruction to take one sweet each. Results: Children were more likely to steal in groups when anonymous (i.e., not identified). AO2: Explicit Link Back to Theory: Strong support as those that were in large groups but not identifiable were more likely to steal suggesting that a collective mind had developed, lowered self-evaluation and decreased concerns about evaluation by others. Lack of support: a meta-analysis for 60 deindividuation studies conducted by Postmes & Spears (1998) concludes that theres insufficient support for the major claims of the theory. Results: disinhibition and antisocial behaviour are not more common in large groups and anonymous settings. Neither was there much evidence that deindividuation is associated with reduced self-awareness, or that reduced self-awareness increases disinhibition of aggressive behavior

Institutional aggression (Within Groups) Interpersonal factors (Importation model) Irwin & Cressey (1962) claim prisoners import their own social histories and traits into prison = this influences their adaptation to the prison environment. SUPPORT from Harer & Steffensmeier (2006) who collected data from 58 US prisons and found that black inmates had significantly higher rates of violent behavior but lower rates of alcohol-related and drug-related misconduct than white inmates This patterns parallel racial differences in these behaviors in US society and therefore supports the model. Situational factors (Deprivation model) Paterline & Peterson (1999) argues that prisoner/patient aggression is the product of the stressful and oppressive conditions of the institution itself This includes crowding, assumed to increase fear and frustration levels Hodgkinson et al (1985) found that trainee nurses are more likely to suffer violent assault than experienced nurses In prison, length of service was a significant factor, more experienced officers being less likely to suffer assault SUPPORT from McCorkle et al (1995) who found that overcrowding, lack of privacy and lack of meaningful activity all significantly influence peer violence. AO2: NEVERTHELESS: Zimbardos = randomly allocated PPS to either prisoner or guard. Results: participants adopted the role assigned; with prison guards taunting and humiliating the prisoners after just six days. This supports the situational forces at play as none of the participants had shown aggressive tendencies prior to the study. HOWEVER, does not explain why some guards were not aggressive. Interestingly, after the study the most aggressive guard = < levels of masculinity; due to his new found status and power? Zimbardo argued: we should stop overestimating the importance of dispositional characteristics and stop underestimating situational ones. FURTHER, research not consistant e.g. Nijman et al (1999) found that increased personal space failed to decrease the level of violent incidents among patients SO explanation is flawed.

AO3: meta-analysis = situation was the most dominating force across all studies; the conclusive outcome was that the power of social situations is a reliable and robust effect. AO2: sample bias: many inmates already shown to value aggression > than rest of the population. Gender bias: most of pps were male. Cultural bias: most of research conducted in either western institutions, by western researchers or in institutions run by western powers = only applicable to those types of institutions. On all accounts our ability to generalize any further than the situations and populations under investigation is limited and reduces the usefulness of the research. Institutional aggression (Between Groups) Dehumanization: can lead to the destruction if these groups are used as scapegoats for the others social problems (dispositional characteristics used). Historical Evidence: e.g. Rwanda (1994) = minority Tutsis were referred to as cockroaches by the majority Hutus. Nazi Germany = Jews were known as the Jewish Disease. Condoleesa Rice, the US Secretary of state = until we call them (terrorists) what they are, Evil, and stop them blaming others for their behaviour, it will continue. AO2: Ethical considerations of assigning dispositional explanations e.g. forced sterilizations in US in 1920s due to belief that problem children came from problem parents = bid to prevent reproduction of such deviants. Further, both for the victim and the researcher, reliving the trauma of such events can have devastating consequences. It seems more probable that both situational and dispositional models are necessary to describe IA = alone, too simplistic e.g. difficult to define what aggressive behaviour is as it can be a very subjective experience. E.g. Hazing = results of survey = 1 in 5 had experienced behaviours considered hazing, although only 1 in 20 regarded themselves as having experienced this. For a more holistic approach we must acknowledge biological and physiological factors, such as genetics or serotonin, that maybe the cause of much observable behaviour = predisposition to violence if triggered by environmental factors.

Neural & Hormonal Mechanisms in Aggression Neurotransmitters: Serotonin is thought to reduce aggression by inhibiting responses to emotional stimuli that might otherwise lead to an aggressive response. Low levels of serotonin in the brain have been associated with an increased susceptibility to impulsive behaviour, aggression and even violent suicide Mann (1990) gave 35 healthy subjects dexfenfluramine, which is known to deplete serotonin Results: Using a questionnaire to assess hostility and aggression levels, they found that dexfenfluramine treatment in males (not females) was associated with an increase in hostility and aggression scores. PUTNAM & LARSON (2006): Role of Serotonin. Results: Levels of serotonin were markedly lower in violent criminals. PENTINNEN (1995): Cholesterol decreasing drugs, appetite suppressants & low fat diets > aggressive behaviour due to < in Serotonin (certain drugs have potent anti-serotonergic effect) SUPPORT from Raleigh et al (1991) who studied the importance of serotonin in aggressive behaviour with vervet monkeys. Results: Individuals fed on experimental diets high in tryptophan (increases serotonin levels in the brain) exhibited decreased levels of aggression. Individuals fed on diets that were low in tryptophan exhibited increased aggressive behaviour, suggesting that the difference in aggression could be attributed to their serotonin levels. AO2: Use of animals in research = care when generalizing as dont have same capacity for self-awareness & cognitive capacity. Also animal research = > reliant on bio factors (e.g. Wegner et al). further, certain brain structures are involved in different types of aggression e.g. angulated gyrus fear in monkeys but irritability in dogs. AO2: Practical Application = if low levels of serotonin are associated with low impulse control and aggressive behaviour, drugs that clinically raise serotonin levels should product concurrent lowering in aggression (Greenwald et al, 1986) = Prozac; works by enhancing serotonin and is used effectively to treat depression ALSO used Tryptophan = used effectively with juvenile delinquents and unpredictable institutionalized patients to < agg tendencies.

Hormones Testosterone is thought to influence aggression from young adulthood onwards due to its action on brain areas involved in controlling aggression. WAGNER ET AL (1979): Animal research. Results: Castrated mice were < aggressive. When testosterone injected they became > aggressive AO2: Commentary. Implications of study? Explicit link back to explanation. E.g. Castration research usually indicates < aggression but castration disrupts other hormone systems too which may also be playing a part in the behaviour. DABBS ET AL (1995): Using objective measures (salivary testosterone) criminals with the > levels of testosterone = history of mainly violent crimes whereas those with < levels had mainly non-violent crimes. AO3: Correlational Study = widespread support but doesnt indicate Causality; could be agg raising testosterone or vice versa. Albert et al (1993) though found an inconsistent link; studies showing pos correlation typically used small samples of men in prison using self-report based only on severity of crime. AO2: Reductionist: ignores potential for ind diffs focusing purely on brain structures not whole person, including env factors (Social Approach (A) might lend to more Holistic approach HARRRISON ET AL (2006): Experimental method (AO3) Results: When given a frustration inducing video game aggression increased e.g. this wasnt the same for everyone and not all effects were physical (in fact mainly psychological SO reduces biological explanation). AO2: Gender Bias: Assoc even > for females (Archer et al, 2005). PMT = women acting as automatons of their body. Agg caused by uncontrollable hormonal changes. AO2: Nelson, (1995) correlations between androgens and agg BUT not measured at precise time of act so cant be sure whether it was the only causal factor. AO2: Freewill/Determinism = If down to biological explanations can they be held responsible?

Genetic factors in aggressive behavior Twin studies If MZ twins are more alike in terms o their aggressive behavior, this should be due to genes rather than environment Coccaro et al (1997): found that nearly 50% of the variance in direct aggressive behavior could be attributed to genetic factors- however, this doesnt give full support for genetics as we would expect the behavior to be 100% attributed to genetics in MZ twins Therefore, adoption studies could help detangle genetics from environmental influences AO2: Nature/Nurture Adoption studies Hutchings & Mednick (1975): studied over 14000 adoptions in Denmark = a significant number of adopted boys with criminal convictions had biological parents (particularly fathers) with criminal convictions= EVIDENCE for a genetic effect. AO2: Ethics: Labelling, self-fulfilling prophecies. Genetic engineering: forced sterilization in US (see notes on institutional aggression for this info) AO2: Sampling issues: Focus on those convicted of violent crimes associated problems with this. BRENNAN ET AL (1993): Results: Genetic influences > sig in property crimes not violent crimes. WALTERS (1992): Inheritance of criminal violence. Results: Only a low to moderate correlation between heredity and crime.

Specific Gene for aggression? Monoamine oxidase A (MAOA) has been associated with aggressive behaviour, it regulates the metabolism of serotonin in the brain (low levels of serotonin is linked with aggression) Brunner et al (1993) studied a Dutch family and found that many of its male members behaved in a particularly violent and aggressive manner, and a large proportion had been involved in serious crimes of violence e.g. rape, arson These men were found to have abnormally low levels of MAOA in their bodies and a defect in this gene was later identified CASPI et al. (2002) linked MAOA to aggressive behaviour. 500 male children were found with a variant of the gene associated with high levels of MAOA and a variant associated with low levels These low levels of MAOA were significantly more likely to grow up to exhibit antisocial behaviour but only if they had been maltreated as children. Children with high levels of MAOA who were maltreated, and those with low levels who werent maltreated did not display antisocial behaviour THIS SHOWS THAT ITS THE INTERACTION BETWEEN GENES AND ENVIRONMENT THAT DETERMINES BEHAVIOURS SUCH AS AGGRESSION AO2: Learned behaviour? (SLT) AO2: Biological approach Reductionist Social Approach (A) might Add more Holistic explanation. AO2: Problems of assessing aggression (self-reports = AO3) Further: Studies often fail to distinguish between violent and non-violent crime. They also failed to distinguish between criminals who are habitually violent and those whom their violent crime was a one-off AND More than one gene usually contributes to a given behaviour AO2: Practical application: genetic engineering If people are predisposed towards aggressive behaviour or violent crime, then questions about the treatment of such behaviours arise However this has ethical issues

Evolutionary explanations of human aggression Daly & Wilson (1988) = men have evolved different strategies to deter their female partners from committing adultery e.g. infidelity Cuckoldry is the reproductive cost that might be inflicted on a man as a result of his partners infidelity. The consequence of this is that the man unwittingly invests his resources in offspring that arent his own. The adaptive functions of sexual jealousy therefore wouldve been to deter a mate from sexual infidelity, minimizing the risk of cuckoldry. Mate retention Buss (1988) suggests that direct guarding and negative inducements are used by men as a strategies evolved for keeping a mate. By restricting their partners sexual autonomy (direct guarding), our ancestors would have been able to deter rivals from gaining access to their mates. Wilson et al (1995) found that women who agreed with questionnaire items e.g. he doesnt want you to talk with other men were twice as likely to have experienced serious violence from their partners- 72% having required medical attention Shackelford et al (2005) used surveys to test evolutionary psychology predictions concerning mate retention strategies 461 men and 560 women from the US, all committed in heterosexual relationships Males answered questions about their use of mate retention techniques and were assessed on how often they performed each of the types of violent acts against their partners Females answered questions concerning their partners use of retention techniques and the degree to which their partners used violence against them Results: Mens use of intersexual negative inducements and direct guarding was positively correlated with their violence scores Use of emotional manipulation appeared to consistently predict their violence against women Female results confirmed this trend AO2: HOWEVER, social desirability bias and sampling issues \ have to be taken into account

Buss & Shackelford (1997) = men who suspected their wives might be unfaithful over the next year exacted greater punishment for a known or suspected infidelity than men who didnt anticipate future infidelities This is consistent with the claim in evolutionary psychology that mate retention strategies are only evoked when a particular adaptive problem is faced

Uxoricide Daly & Wilson (1988) claimed that death of the partner from physical violence might be an unintended outcome of an evolutionary adaptation that was designed for control rather than death. Shackelford et al (2000) analyzed 13670 cases where a man had killed his wife and found that younger women had a much greater risk of uxoricide regardless of the age of their partner. This goes against the evolutionary logic that men should see the women at their most reproductive stage as prized property However Duntley & Buss (2005) claims that by killing his wife, he at least prevents a competitor from gaining in the reproductive stakes. AO2: Practical applications: Findings from these studies can potentially be used to alert friends and family members to the danger signs, the specific acts that can lead to future violence in relationships, help can be sought before the violence happens. Wilson and Daly (1985) studied homicides in Detroit and found that 43% of the male victims and 41% of the male perpetrators were unemployed despite the fact that only 11% of men in Detroit were unemployed Also 73% of the male perpetrators and 69% of the victims were unmarried, this suggests that a lack of resources and an ability to attract long-term mates increases social competition and male-male homicides

Group display as an adaptive response Sports events & xenophobia Natural selection appears to have favoured the genes that caused human beings to be altruistic toward members of their own group but intolerant toward outsiders. Shaw & Wong (1989) argue that mechanisms that prompt suspicion towards strangers wouldve ben favoured by natural selection, this would have enabled our ancestors to avoid attack and so leave behind more offspring MacDonald (1992) suggests that from an evolutionary perspective, it is adaptive to exaggerate negative stereotypes about outsiders, as the overperception of threat is less costly than its underperception. In certain games (eg, rugby union) a level of aggression is sanctioned but some players still break the rules. Maxwell & Viscek (2009): questioned 144 rugby union players about their aggression in the game. Results: Those high in professionalism placed more emphasis on winning and were more likely to use unsanctioned aggression. Cheating (and not getting caught) is adaptive. Evans & Rowe (2002) analyzed data relating to 40 football matches played in 1999-2000 in continental Europe and involved both English club and national side. Results: Post match reports and interviews with senior police and other officials suggested a much greater degree of disorder associated with the national side than with club sides. This was attributed to the influence of nationalism and xenophobia, a possible reason may also be that club sides are more ethnically diverse and so less likely to involve xenophobic responses from foreign supporters Foldesi (1996), = analyzed Hungarian football crowds for xenophobia and violent displays. He found that the racist conduct of a core of extremist supporters lead to an increase of spectators violence in general, and xenophobic outbursts. Gypsies, Jews and Russians were usual targets at all stadia. AO2: Practical application. Xenophobia has motivated football clubs to take steps to minimize its influence. In 1992, Bundesliga teams wore Mein Freund ist Auslander shirts to promote unity among football crowds. Marsh (1978): football hooliganism is human equivalent of ceremonial conflict in animals NOT xenophobic tendencies. Exclusively male, ritualised symbolic which enables young males to achieve a sense of personal worth &

identity in the eyes of their peers. Intention is to humiliate opposition and secure submission. AO2: Gender Bias? War Fare From Evolutionary Perspective: war is the formation of a coalition to attack others. Although groups are aware of risk this risk is reduced by aggressive group displays. War allows 1 group status over another = gives access to land, resources and women > chances of survival & reproductive success. Lehman & Feldman: men who are stronger & more aggressive = win more wars THUS pass on genes leading to = increasingly aggressive species. 2 traits have evolved: Beligerence: the probability that 1 group will attack another Bravery: increases the chances of winning Groups with males high in both traits are more likely to go to war and win!! Changnon: Warfare exists among many modern day tribal societies e.g. Yanomamo = obsessed with size of village as only advantage of 1 group (ingroup) over the other (out group) = manpower. The most frequent cause of conflict = abduction of women to increase their size. Battle also gives warriors status & increases his chances with women successful warriors have more wives & children! Pinker: In WWII Germans carried out systematic rape & abuse of women to make way for purer race. In Bosnia, 20,000 Muslim women were raped as part of an organized attempt at genetic preservation AND to terrorize others into fleeing their land ensuring prominent domination for their progeny. Similar behaviour observed in US soldiers during My Lai Massacre. As their Human Rights Charter condemns rape = only rational inference is that they were compelled by mortal danger to procreate through forced sex with enemy for their own species to survive. THUS all examples support Evolutionary Theory on genetic preservation, especially given that war rape is nearly Universal (Thornhill & Thornhill, 1983)

Kelly & Dunbar (2001): HOWEVER, a mate going to war = more likely to be killed therefore putting family at risk SO from Evolutionary perspective = maladaptive to choose those who go to war! AO2: Evolutionary theory accounts for reasons as to why wars begin, it does not account for why humans fight for more than they need or can consume = lacks a finite scope or predictable ending. Can Psychodynamics do a better job? Examines unconscious processes = drive toward maintaining equilibrium by releasing built up tension through use of violence (cathartic release). Would explain fighting to death as opposed to deterring competition. There seems no rational reason to use torture when opponent has already been denigrated and no longer poses a threat!! Freewill v Determinism Modern war has been voluntarily waged by both males & females whereas before 20th Century (and in the animal kingdom) = solely a males domain. Not all groups lead to the occurrence of aggressive behaviour (Cassidy et al, 2007 e.g. Mela - Hindu Festival)