Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Albert Bandura
Page
Apply the social learning theory to learning aggressive behaviour with reference
to research
Evaluate the theory and methodology
Discuss issues and debates with reference to the social learning theory.
Social learning theory (SLT) evolved from operant conditioning. It considers the effect
of observing other people being rewarded how this shapes our own behaviour.
According to this theory, aggressive behaviour can be learned by observing and imitating
the aggressive behaviour of other people.
SLT was proposed by Albert Bandura, who used the term modelling to explain how
humans can very quickly learn specific acts of aggression and incorporate them into their
behaviour. Modelling is sometimes referred to as vicarious learning. The term vicarious
means indirect; we can learn aggression without being directly reinforced for aggressive
behaviour of our own. This works when we observe aggression in other somehow being
rewarded. An example would be if a child observed two of his/peers arguing over a toy. If
one child gains control of the toy through force (e.g. by hitting the other child) they have
been rewarded for behaving aggressively. The aggressive behaviour has been vicariously
reinforced for the observer and this may lead to imitation of the aggressive behaviour.
4 basic processes of social learning
Attention on the model (someone similar in age or sex or in a position of power
such as a parent, teacher or celebrity) showing the behaviour
Retention remembering the behaviour of the model
Motivation having a good reason for copying the behaviour
Reproduction copying the behaviour (if the observer has the confidence that
they can imitate the behaviour referred to by Bandura as self-efficacy).
Page
Bandura and his colleagues carried out many variations of a study using the
Bobo doll. The conclusion of these studies was that human behaviour is often
shaped by the socio-cultural processes of social learning.
BANDURAS BOBO DOLL STUDY You will not be required to describe the
study in the exam
Page
DEINDIVIDUATION
THE LOSS OF ONES SENSE OF
INDIVIDUALITY
Learning Objectives- You will be able to:
When people are in a large group or crowd, they tend to lose a sense of their individual
identity and take on the identity of the group. This can make them commit acts of
aggression and violence that they wouldn't normally commit. They do not take
responsibility for these acts. A good example is that of
football hooliganism. There are two factors involved with
this:
Half of the female participants were wearing large lab coats and hoods to cover their
faces. They were talked to in groups of four; they were never referred to by name and
were the deindividuated group. The other group wore their normal clothes, were given
name tags and introduced to each other formally. They were not deindividuated. All
participants could see the student. They were also told that she was either honest or
conceited and critical. Irrespective of the description of the student learner, the
deindividuated participants delivered twice as many shocks as the
individuated ones. Those participants that had large name tags
tended to give different amounts of shocks depending on the
description they had been given.
Diener (1976) conducted a naturalistic observation of 1,300 trick-ortreating children in the US. Diener noted that when the children were
in large groups and wearing costumes hiding their identity, they were more likely to
perform antisocial actions such as stealing money or sweets. The group reduces the
DEINDIVIDUATION
Similarly, Silke (2003) analysed 500 violent attacks occurring in Northern
Ireland. Of those 500 a total of 206 were carried out by people who wore some
form of disguise so that their identity was unknown. Silke further noted that the
severity of the violent incidents sustained was linked to whether the perpetrator
was masked or not. It seems from evidence such as this that aggressive acts can
be explained by the deindividuation theory.
One of the fundamental problems of this theory is the fact that it cannot provide
an explanation for the simple fact that not all crowds or groups perform
aggressive actions. This was seen in the work of Gergen et al (1973), in which
deindividuation did not result in aggressive actions. In Gergen et als study, 12
subjects (6 men and 6 women) were taken into a dark room. There was no light at all in
this room. Another group of 12 subjects were taken into a lit room. This was the control
group. The groups were given no specific requests or instructions from the experimenter
and could use the time as they wished.
In the first 15 minutes there was polite small talk. By 60 minutes normal barriers to
intimate contact had been overcome and most participants got physical. At least half
cuddled and about 80% felt sexually aroused.
Mullen
are
victim
In a
correlational study, Watson (1973) noted that from a
total of 24
cultures studied, those warriors that disguised their
individual identity through the use of face paint/garments tended to use more
aggression such as torture, death or mutilation of captives.
However, to simply suggest that the cause of aggression was due to the lowering
of inhibitions is somewhat narrow. It is rather deterministic to suggest that
deindividuation in a group brings about aggressive behaviour as it doesnt allow
for free will and the fact that some individuals choose not to behave aggressively
even when they are part of a large crowd and are deindividuated. Furthermore,
in a meta-analysis of deindividuation research conducted by Postmes and
Spears (1998), much of the previous research examining deindividuation held
the view that the group influenced the psychology (the thinking and action) of
the individual. Postmes and Spears analysis of over 60 studies investigating
deindividuation did not discover a consistent finding of deindividuation acting as
a psychological influence on the individuals state and behaviour.
Their meta-analysis reveals that there are no consistent research findings to
support the argument that reduced inhibitions and antisocial behaviour are more
likely to be seen in large groups or crowded situations where anonymity can be
maintained with ease. Interestingly they suggest that behaviour change of
individuals in group situations has more to do with group norms than anything
else.
CUE AROUSAL
Learning Objectives- You will be able to:
The participants who received only one shock were in the non-angry group.
Part two of the experiment
The subject and stooge changed rooms. The participants now had to judge their partners
performance on the task and issue the shocks.
Condition one
the room.
Condition two
room.
Berkowitz measured the amount of shocks given to the partner as measurement of anger.
Findings
The angry group gave more shocks and held the shock key down for longer when the shotgun and
revolver were in view compared to the participants who could see the badminton racket and
shuttlecocks.
The research was conducted in an artificial environment and was not an everyday situation as the
present of firearms is unusual. Therefore it is possible that the participants fulfilled the
experimenters expectations because that was what they thought they should do. Their behaviour
may have been the result of demand characteristics rather than a reflection of what they would do
in a genuine situation.
It is possible that the results of the study were affected by the participants knowledge that they
were taking part in an experiment and that there would be no consequences to pay for their
actions. Kleck and McElrath (1991) looked at 21 weapons effect studies and stated that the
effect only worked on those individuals who had no prior experience of guns. Furthermore, the
more closely the experimental situation reflected real life, the less likely there was to be an effect.
Kleck and McElrath argued that it should not be too surprising since the consequences of the
actions were neither serious nor permanent. When the result of the reaction is lethal, this is quite a
different matter.
Kellerman (2001) notes that the strongest proof of validity of any study is the independent
replication by others. The greatest problem with the study is that no consistent trends have been
found in subsequent replications of this study. Findings have been unreliable.
The theory extends the frustration-aggression hypothesis, but ignores important individual
differences that exist between people. Furthermore, other studies have not supported the findings
of Berkowitz and LePage. Ellis et al (1971) carried out a very similar experiment and got
opposite results. It is more likely that aggressive behaviour is caused by other factors. It is a
weakness of the cue arousal theory that important cognitive and biological causes of behaviour are
not mentioned in the explanation. Multidimensional explanations could be more accurate.
RELATIVE DEPRIVATION
Learning objectives: You will be able to:
Explain how relative deprivation can contribute to aggressive behaviour with reference to
research.
The theory was created by Stouffer in 1950, but based on the work of Hovland and Sears in 1940 who
noticed that during the 1930s recession in the US, there was an increase in anti-black violence and lynching.
A conscious comparison generates feelings of difference which is the basis for antisocial behaviour. Inequalities
between groups seem to bring about hostility between them and there have been many riots between such
groups, for example:
*The race riots in Chicago 1919
*Notting Hill, London, 1958
*Los Angeles 1992
*Brixton, London 1981
*Handsworth, Birmingham, 1981
*Bradford and Oldham, 2001
*The riots in
London 2011
One group sees what other groups have and feel that they should be able to have access to those things too
e.g. wages, housing, job opportunities, security etc.
Runcimann (1966) identified two types of relative deprivation:
A potential problem with the theory is that it says very little about how we decide what group to compare
ourselves with. There are cognitive processes at work in terms of self-perception and comparison.
The following article can be found at
www.malcolmread.co.uk/JockYoung/relative.htm
Relative deprivation was a term first coined by Sam Stouffer and his associates in their wartime study The
American Soldier (1949), relative deprivation was rigorously formulated by W G Runciman in 1966. Its use in
criminology was not until the 1980s by theorists such as S Stack, John Braithwaite and particularly the left
realists for whom it is a key concept. Its attraction as an explanatory variable in the post-war period is because
of the rise of crime in the majority of industrial societies despite the increase in living standards. That is, where
material deprivation in an absolute sense declined and the old equation of the more poverty the more crime
was clearly falsified.
Relative Deprivation occurs where individuals or groups subjectively perceive themselves as unfairly
disadvantaged over others perceived as having similar attributes and deserving similar rewards (theirerence
groups). It is in contrast with absolute deprivation, where biological health is impaired or where relative levels
of wealth are compared based on objective differences - although it is often confused with the latter. Subjective
experiences of deprivation are essential and, indeed, relative deprivation is more likely when the differences
between two groups narrows so that comparisons can be easily made than where there are caste-like
differences. The discontent arising from relative deprivation has been used to explain radical politics (whether
of the left or the right), messianic religions, the rise of social movements, industrial disputes and the whole
plethora of crime and deviance.
The usual distinction made is that religious fervour or demand for political change are a collective response to
relative deprivation whereas crime is an individualistic response. But this is certainly not true of many crimes for example, smuggling, poaching or terrorism - which have a collective nature and a communal base and does
not even allow for gang delinquency which is clearly a collective response. The connection is, therefore, largely
under-theorised - a reflection of the separate development of the concept within the seemingly discrete
disciplines of sociology of religion, political sociology and criminology.
The use of relative deprivation in criminology is often conflated with Merton's anomie theory of crime and
deviance and its development by Cloward and Ohlin, and there are discernible, although largely unexplored,
parallels. Anomie theory involves a disparity between culturally induced aspirations (eg success in terms of the
American Dream) and the opportunities to realise them. The parallel is clear: this is a subjective process
wherein discontent is transmuted into crime. Furthermore, Merton in his classic 1938 article, 'Social Structure
and Anomie' (where norms have broken down), clearly understands the relative nature of discontent explicitly
criticising theories which link absolute deprivation to crime by pointing to poor countries with low crime rates in
contrast to the wealthy United States with a comparatively high rate. But there are clear differences, in
particular Mertonian anomie involves an inability to realise culturally induced notions of success. It does not
involve comparisons between groups but individuals measuring themselves against a general goal. The fact
that Merton, the major theorist of reference groups, did not fuse this with his theory of anomie is, as Runciman
notes, very strange but probably reflects the particular American concern with 'winners' and 'losers' and the
individualism of that culture. The empirical implications of this difference in emphasis are, however, significant:
anomie theory would naturally predict the vast majority of crime to occur at the bottom of society amongst the
'losers' but relative deprivation theory does not necessarily have this overwhelming class focus. For discontent
can be felt anywhere in the class structure where people perceive their rewards as unfair compared to those
with similar attributes. Thus crime would be more widespread although it would be conceded that discontent
would be greatest amongst the socially excluded.
The future integration of anomie and relative deprivation theory offers great promise in that relative deprivation
offers a much more widespread notion of discontent and its emphasis on subjectivity insures against the
tendency within anomie theory of merely measuring objective differences in equality (so called 'strain' theory)
whereas anomie theory, on its part, offers a wider structural perspective in terms of the crucial role of
differential opportunity structures and firmly locates the dynamic of deprivation within capitalist society as a
whole.
JOCK YOUNG
2. INSTITUTIONAL AGGRESSION
Learning objectives: You will be able to:
criminal and terrorist groups (i.e. those who are bound together by a common
purpose to be aggressive).
Institutional aggression can be explained by deindividuation.
The loss of personal identity that results from wearing a uniform either as a
police officer or prison guard may go some way to explaining the likelihood that
people will display aggression. Removing an individuals own clothes and
replacing them with a uniform plays a major part in depersonalising them within
an institutional setting. Deindividuation may also
occur amongst prisoners whose heads are shaved
and who are given matching clothing to wear.
However, the removal of individuality in this
instance is more likely to dehumanise the prisoners
and make them targets of aggression. Police in riot
gear are difficult to identify because partial masks
and visors cover their faces. Officers in the 2009
G20 protests were criticised for covering up their individual identity numbers in
order to make themselves even more anonymous. Anonymity may encourage
aggression by lessening the likelihood of being caught or through the loss of
personal values and morals. The anonymity of police officers, particularly when
in large groups, may also make them seem less human, and this fact in turn may
be more likely to incite violence from a rioting crowd so that they become victims
of assault.
Uniforms can also help to define roles. A persons behaviour may change in
accordance with the expectations afforded to the role they have adopted, and
the wearing of a uniform can help them to get into role. Uniforms are
synonymous with institutions whether hospitals, the police force, prisons or
schools. Even colleges and universities adopt the use of scarves or sweatshirts to
denote membership of a particular house or fraternity.
Rules and norms are also a characteristic of institutions. There is often a
hierarchy which has an us and them aspect to it where one group has power
over the other group leading to social inequality. Each persons role is instantly
identifiable by what they are wearing, with people in positions of power often
denoted by a uniform that bears the symbols of their status and authority.
Aggression in institutions can be considered in terms of two forces:
Situational forces
Dispositional forces
The question to consider here is whether some people are just
aggressive and do violent things to other people because of the type
of person they are (disposition) or whether good people do bad
things when they are put into a situation that encourages aggressive
behaviour (situational). Zimbardo created such a situation in his
Stanford Prison Study.
INSTITUTIONAL AGGRESSION
Zimbardos Stanford prison simulation (1973)
Zimbardo set up a prison situation (in the basement of Stanford university). Participants
were randomly assigned to prison guards or prisoners. The aim was to see if they would
conform to the role.
The guards behaved in a cruel fashion, the experiment got out of hand and had to be
ended early.
INSTITUTIONAL AGGRESSION
Abu Ghraib
In a real life prison situation in Abu Ghraib, Iraqi prisoners were subjected to
dehumanising and degrading treatment. This time, Zimbardo was called
upon to be an expert witness in the defence of one of the prison guards who
had been involved in the cruel treatment of the prisoners. He argued that
the behaviour of the guard was the product of the situational forces of being
a guard in that particular prison environment, and not due to dispositional
characteristics. Zimbardos thoughts about Abu Ghraib automatically focused on the
circumstances in the prison cell block that could have led good soldiers to do bad
things. Zimbardo argues that it is bad systems that are the problem rather than bad
individuals. Rather than one bad apple turning other apples bad, Zimbardo insists that
bad barrels are the problem, i.e. bad institutions.
Human behaviour has more than one simple influence, and the behaviours witnessed at
Abu Ghraib were the result of interplay between several key factors:
Status and power: those involved were the bottom of the barrel. They were army
reservists on a night shift and were not supervised by a superior officer. With little of their
own power, these soldiers were trying to demonstrate some control over anything that was
inferior to them (i.e. the prisoners).
Revenge and retaliation: the prisoners had killed fellow US soldiers and some of them had
been guilty of abusing children. The guards therefore felt justified in humiliating them in
order to teach them a lesson. They considered the prisoners to be less than human and
having dehumanised them the guards felt able to unleash their anger on them.
Deindividuation and helplessness: Zimbardo felt that the guards responded to violent and
selfish impulses without any planned conspiracy or inhibition partly because they could in
the absence of the superior authority. They were unseen and, in a sense, at the mercy of
their own feelings towards the prisoners who were the enemy. It was a fellow guard who
was brave enough to follow his convictions and report the behaviour of the guards. It was
their own photos taken with their own cameras which provided the evidence against them.
It is interesting to note that the instigator of the atrocities was..........a woman!
this happens, a subsequent disbelief in the role of others will occur and it is possible that
anger and frustration can result from these negative relationships.
INSTITUTIONAL AGGRESSION
Educational settings fraternities (males) and sororities (females)
In stark contrast to prison institutions are the fraternities and sororities established as
support networks for undergraduate students within the United States college system.
Despite the
contrast surprising similarities exist between these two forms of
institution. Fraternities in particular have been criticised for
the use of force in their initiations and in condoning the
sexual assault of women. The tradition known as hazing is
the ritualistic harassment of abuse of an individual or a
group. Acts can include burning and branding, kidnapping,
drugging and sexual abuse. Probationary members may
experience mental and physical stress over periods of
weeks or months as a way of proving that they are worthy of membership to a particular
fraternity or sorority.
According to research by Nuwer (1990) hazing has contributed to more than 50 deaths in
college fraternities and many physical injuries including paralysis. In most states across
America, hazing is now illegal and campaigns are under way to try to curb these brutal
practices. The extreme behaviour that occurs in these groups can be explained using the
theory of identification. Young men and women are prepared to to take part in potentially
life-threatening activities in order to belong to a group. Many of the groups have high
status, and acceptance can have implications that reach far beyond the students life at
university. Fraternities and sororities are often shrouded in secrecy: this makes them
difficult to control, but also makes their victims more vulnerable, as members are
unwilling to speak out for fear of breaking the code.
Terrorism
Black (2004) says pure terrorism is unilateral self-help by organised civilians who
covertly inflict mass violence on other civilians. Black believes that the root cause of
current terrorism is a culture clash.
Deflem (2004) extends this view by suggesting that the division between situational
and dispositional causes may not be so clear as we think. He talks of predatory
characteristics of terrorism which help us to see the terrorist action, but these should be
seen within a wider understanding of anti-modernist impulses, e.g. an opposition to
free markets, liberal democracy and associated Western norms. Deflem says that
contemporary terrorism represents contrasting institutional balance of power dominated
by family, ethnicity and religion. This is a situational explanation whereas Barak (2004)
suggests more of dispositional nature to this aggressive motive in his study of suicide
terrorism. According to Barak, a key motivational component of violent behaviour is
issues of shame, esteem and repressed anger.
On a lesser scale, this could be compared to the situation of disaffected young males who
participate in street violence in gang or gun culture in the UK or the USA. Often these
individuals experience both economic and political marginalisation. However, the main
thread of Baraks argument is somewhat lost when we examine the background of many
of the 9/11 terrorists and 7/7 bombers as many of these Islamic terrorists were university
educated and came from very supportive and often materially affluent families.
Methodological flaws in research into terrorist action
Explorations in Education
Toy Design Rubric
Evaluators Name:_______________________________________________________________
Name/Description of
Toy/Game/Manipulative:______________________________________________________
Developmental Area: Check off all areas that apply to the toy.
Physical
Social
Moral
Cognitive
Emotional
Directions: Please place an x in the appropriate spaces below.
5-Outstanding
Criteria
Age-Appropriate
Visually
Appealing
Toy Design
4
2-Poor
Addresses
learning within
Developmental
area
Professionalism
of Drawing and
Design
Originality of
Design
Designed for
durability
Is safe
Presentation of Toy
Criteria
Communicated
toy design
efficiently
Clear
Instructions for
the toys use
present
Speech
Techniques
(ex. Volume,
rate,
enunciation, eye
contact)
Total Points
Explorations in Education
Toy Design Project
Partner 1: _______________________
Partner 2: _____________________
What is it?
What makes your toy so unique compared to all of the other toys/games out
there?
What would you charge if you were to package it and sell it?