aggression

aggression

1. social learning theory

   • A01- bandura proposed that people learn by observing others- we can learn behaviours like aggression from observation alone. more likely to imitate if the action is carried out by a role model. also the consequences play a role in whether the action is carried out again: vicarious reinforcements. cognitions and ltm
   • IDA- nature vs nurture- the social learning theory takes on the nurture side as it suggests that all aggressive behavior is learnt via observation and imitation of role models therefore prosocial behaviour can be leant and encouraged
   • evidence
     • Bandura (bobo doll) grounding- behaviour is learnt so if a child observes aggressive behaviour carried out by a role model they are more likely to repeat it
     • bandura and walter- follow on study, 3 groups and vicarious reinforcements- grounding- support because it shows that when there are negative consquences following a behaviour children are less likely to repeat it
     • A03
       • both carried out in a lab so lack ecological validity but have high internal validity also there is high reliability
   • wider evaluation- pratical apps (the watershed etc)

2. deindividuation theory

   • A01- zimbardo said that people behaviour rational and conform to accept social standards but that deindividuated behaviour is based on primitive urges and doesn't conform to society. losing the ability to self regulate= aggression. people become deindividuated within a group- darkness uniform etc. prentice- dunn and rogers came up with private and public self awareness- private is when they focus on themselves and accordingly to their own moral standards but when in a group they lose their self awareness and focus on external cues
   • IDA- social sensitive- allow people to behave aggressively because they are in a group or deindividuated. this takes away the responsibility and gives an excuse. this is determinist and therefore suggests that people will always act aggressively when in a group which isn't always the case e.g. peaceful protest
   • evidence
     • zimbardo- take on milgrams study- lab coats and name tags- grounding when people are deindividualised they are more likely to show aggression and move away from social norms
     • Watson 23 different war cultures etc
     • prentice-dunn and rogers loud and quite room- attention focused outwards
     • A03- consistency, lab experiments lacks ecological val but high internal val
   • ignoring other influences such as biological or evolutionary explanations. but this does allow for the aggression to be diffused

3. the power of the situation and dehumanising labels

   • A01- zimbardo states that the situations people find themselves in exerts much influence on whether people are aggressive or not for example people who have usually mild manners may find themselves acting aggressively when in certain situations. institutional factors play a part too. more likely to be aggressive when someone is dehumanized in some way. derogatory label makes them more likely to be aggressive
   • IDA- social sensitive (same idea as deindividuation)
   • Evidence
     • Zimbardo and the prison and prisoners ( guards highly aggressive and the experiment was stopped after 6 days)
     • Bandura- nice students and animals ^ aggression in a milgram like study
     • A03- lab low ecological val but high internal validity
   • Applications- temp regulated, natural light

4. the importation model

   • A01- aggression is not a product of the institution such as prison inmates import their aggression into prisons. aggression is a product of the individual characteristics of the inmate
   • IDA- social sensitive
   • evidence
     • 4 different institutions found that pre-institutional aggression was the best predictor for inmates aggression regardless of the specific institute (poole and regoli)
     • keller and wang- reported that prison violence occurs In prison which hold the most troublesome prisoners
     • ecological validity ^
   • wider evaluation- could lead to self fulfilling prophecy

5. the genetic link in aggression- warrior gene

   • A01- warrior gene has been linked to brain chemistry and increased aggression- because of a genetic mutation that causes a deficiency in monoamine oxidase A (MAO-A) mao-a breaks down excess monoamine neurotransmitters in the brain e.g. noradrenaline and dopamine. the warrior gene is found it the X chromosome which is more prevalent in men: women are protected by their other X chromosome. the warrior gene is simply a shorter, less active version of a gene allele on the X chromosome known as the MAO-A gene. if people inherit the warrior gene they will have an excess amount of neurotransmitters in the brain because not enough MAO-A has been released. increasing the chance of aggression
   • IDA- reductionist takes a complex behavior like aggression and simplifies it down to only one explain- a faulty gene
   • supporting evidence
     • brunner- supportive (urine of the Dutch family)
     • VIshniveskaya- tested rats that had the warrior gene (Tg8) ^ increase in some types of aggression (only intruders)
     • A03- the evidence is consistent and the validity is high (scientific measure) rats can't be generalized
   • wider evaluation- practical apps - allows people to understand the gene and therefore take drugs to control it. it gives an excuse

6. neural mechanisms

   • A01- low levels of serotonin= impulsive aggression. normal levels= inhibitory effect, when there are low level this is gone and therefore people have less control over their aggressive tendencies. less serotonin= less inhibition of the amygdala= amygdala not under control
   • IDA- reductionist
   • evidence
     • crockett- 20 ps game and protein shakes
     • Davidson- violent criminals had lower levels of serotonin
     • A03- balancing each other out>
   • comparison with slt

7. Hormonal mechanisms

   • A01- high levels of testosterone lead to aggression. then high testosterone leads to the want to dominate. then high levels of testosterone but low levels of serotonin. then the mismatch theory
   • IDA- reductionist for and againist
   • evidence
     • kreuz and rose- 21 prisoners and their testosterone levels matched their crimes. 10 prisoners with more violent crimes had higher levels of aggression
     • Josephs et al YES
     • A03- don't paint a clear pic of the role of T. low internal val
   • wider evaluation- social sensitve

8. evolutionary theory

   • A01- sexual jel and infidelity. sexual for men and emotional for women. adaptive response for males by showing mate-retention behaviours
   • IDA- evolutionary approach- no doubt sexual J exists but it may not be explained. whilst killing your partner is illogical it makes evolutionary sense because it means they can have sex with anyone else. biological could explain it better because it shows if it threatens their status
   • evidence
     • Buss
     • Day and Wilson- looked at 80 murders were they were living together at the time. 44 male victims and 36 female. 29% because of sexual infidelity. women self defense . 15 husbands convicted for murder and 5 wives
     • miller- domestic violence- 55% jealousy reasons. 25% own infidelity
     • A03- reliability, low val poor support
   • wider evaluation- can't study the past

9. group display

   • war A01 Done
     • IDA evolutionary
     • evidence- changon and across species
       • A03- lacking studies. high ecological low internal
     • wider- comparison with deindividuation
   • sport done
     • IDA- Evolutionary
     • evidence- marsh and cialdini
       • A03- high external val
     • wider- not the only possible explanation