Aggression - created from Mind Map

Seite 1

Social-Psychological Theories

Institutional Aggression

Biological Explanations

Evolutionary Aggression

Group Display

Social Learning Theory

Deindividuation Theory

SLT suggests that children learn to aggress by observing others and imitating their behaviour.

Conditions for effective social learning: Attending to the behaviour, remembering the behaviour, enacting the behaviour and expecting the behaviour to be rewarded.

Vicarious reinforcement is also involved in learning to aggress: the child witnesses another person being rewarded or punished for aggressive behaviour and this allows them to form mental representations (expectations of the consequences of a behaviour if they were to imitate it).

Bandura suggests that children learn by observing models they identify with. This theory was developed in response to his Bobo doll study (the Bobo doll study can be outlined here).

The Bobo doll study that the theory is based on can be criticised for lacking validity, as it is suggested that the children knew what was expected of them and displayed demand characteristics. The studies also lack mundane realism as they were completed using a doll not a person. The weak evidence weakens the theory that rests on it.

Other experimental studies support SLT. One study used the same experimental design as the Bobo doll experiment, but created three conditions. In one, the model was rewarded for their aggression, in another, they were punished for their aggression and in the control condition, there were no consequences. It was found that children acted most aggressively towards the doll when they had seen the model rewarded and least aggressively when they had seen the model punished. This highlights the importance of vicarious reinforcement in learning to aggress.

Analyses have found that daily homicide rates almost always increase the day after a major boxing match. However, this finding is correlational, and causality cannot be established from it. There could be extraneous variables, such as people drinking to celebrate a win and committing the homicide under the influence of alcohol.

Cultural differences support SLT. The !Kung San tribe of the Kalahari desert are a tribe that engage in virtually no aggression. This appears to be due to the lack of reinforcement or models of aggressive behaviour. There are no physical punishments or aggressive stances, and fighting children are separated and distracted (IDA - culture).

This theory comes down heavily on the side of nurture in the nature/nurture debate, and ignores the effects of genes and biological factors such as testosterone levels. Many people would suggest that aggression is not caused so entirely by environmental factors as this theory suggests (IDA - nature/nurture).

This theory suggests that people act aggressively due to a loss of personal identity and inhibitions due to being part of a large, anonymous group or wearing something that leads to feeling anonymous e.g. a uniform.

Factors contributing to deindividuation include anonymity and altered consciousness. Crowds cause deindividuation as they diminish awareness of individuality: no single person is identifiable. The larger the crowd, the greater the anonymity.

Anonymity leads to feeling unaccountable for behaviour, a reduced sense of guilt and shame due to less self-evaluation, and less concern about evaluation from others.

Other research suggests that deindividuation theory is simplistic, and ignores the influence of group norms. In a replication of Zimbardo's study that I have already outlined, in one condition participants wore outfits that resembled those of the KKK, in another they wore nurses' uniforms and in a third control condition they wore their normal clothes. It was found that the participants dressed as the KKK shocked for longer than the control group while those dressed as nurses shocked for less long. This suggests that they were conforming to group norms, as the KKK are associated with violence while nurses are associated with caring. As the theory suggests that all anonymity would lead to aggression, this study weakens it by suggesting it is reductionist (IDA - reductionism).

Support for deindividuation theory has been found from analyses of real-life occurences. In an analysis of lynchings in America from the 1890s to 1940s it was found that the greater the mob size, the more savage the killing. In an analysis of newspaper cuttings of suicide jumps, it was found that in that 10/21 cases where a crowd had gathered and baiting had occurred, the incidents had been at night and the crowd was large and at a distance to the jumper. This supports the idea that larger crowds contribute to the feeling of anonymity, which leads to increased aggression.

Zimbardo replicated Milgram's famous teacher/learner study, but half the "teachers" wore bulky lab coats that covered their faces and sat in separate cubicles (ie they were deindividuated), and half wore their normal clothes and name badges, and were introduced. Participants in the deindividuated condition shocked the learner for twice as long, suggesting that their deindividuation and anonymity was leading them to be less aware of their actions and thus more aggressive, as the theory suggests.

It has been found that males and females respond differently to being in a deindividuated state. In one study, it was found that the most aggression when deindividuated came from all-male groups, while mixed-sex groups and all-female groups were less aggressive in a deindividuated state. The theory does not account for gender differences (IDA - gender).

Within-Groups Aggression

Between-Groups Aggression

The Deprivation Model: This suggests that prisoner or patient aggression is a product of the stressful and oppressive conditions of the inststitution, for example, overcrowding.

The Importation Model has received research support, as it has been found that patterns of aggressive behaviour inside prisons match those outside of the prison. For example, black inmates had a higher rate of violent misconduct but lower rates of drug and alcohol related misconduct, which parallels racial differences in these behaviour is US society, and so support the idea that prisoners bring their own social histories into prison with them. However, this study is very deterministic, as it suggests that people from a certain background will always behave in a certain way, whereas in reality there are much larger individual differences in behaviour (IDA - determinism).

The Importation Model: This suggests that inmates of institutions bring their own social histories in with then and that they are not blank slates when they enter the institution. The aggressive systems developed on the outside would be imported in.

The Deprivation Model has also received research support for the claim hat peer violence is used to relieve the deprivation imposed by the institution. A study found that overcrowding, lack of privacy and lack of meaningful activity all significantly increase peer violence. This supports the suggestions of the deprivation model. However, research is inconsistent on this matter. Research in psychiatric institutions found that increased personal space failed to decrease the level of violent incidents among patients. This would seem to weaken the claims of deindividuation theory, however, a sample of psychiatric patients is unlikely to be representative of the general population (IDA - generalisability), which means the research is not generalisable across other situations, meaning that the claims of the deprivation model are not weakened overall.

The Deprivation Model has led to the improvement of prison conditions, for example, views to the outside from windows and keeping temperature at a comfortable level, which in many placed has virtually eradicated assaults on prison staff and other inmates (IDA - application to real life).

Research has mainly used male prisoners to study the effects of institutionalisation. This is not generalisable across other situations or genders.

Genocide: Here, countries must be considered as institutions. There are five stages of genocide: 1) Difficult social conditions, 2) Scapegoating of a minority group, 3) Negative evaluation and dehumanisation of the target group, 4) Moral values and rules becoming applicable and 5) The passivity of bystanders.

Dehumanisation: This involves removing moral inhibitions concerning the target group by viewing them as sub-human, for example, Hutu radio calling the Tutsu "cockroaches".

Obedience to Authority: Milgram believed that acts such as the Holocause are primarily the result of situational pressures and compliant tendencies that force people to obey their leaders regardless of moral repugnance, thus genocide is facilitated.

The stages of genocide model suggests that bystander passivity is necessary for an attempted genocide to get as far as genocide, however, bystander intervention has not been found to necessarily end this aggression. Although UN intervention can shorten a conflict, it can also cause perpetrators to step up their genocidal policy within a short period of time, thus having adverse effects as well as positive ones.

It has been argued that the obedience to authority approach to genocide is reductionist, as it gives a monocausal view of atrocities caused by complex factors, and does not meet historical records, e.g. that at the time of the Holocaust there were high levels of anti-semitism in Germany (IDA - reductionist).

Neurotransmitters:

Hormones

Genetics

Serotonin: serotonin reduces aggression by inhibiting responses to emotional stimuli that would otherwise lead to an aggressive response. Low levels of serotonin are associated with violence and violent suicide. Drugs that decrease serotonin levels have been found to increase aggressive behaviour.

Dopamine: Increased dopamine levels have been associated with increased aggressive behaviour. Antipsychotics aimed to reduce psychosis have been found to also decrease aggressive behaviour in violent delinquants.

In a study of vervet monkeys it was found that those with diets high in tryptophan, which increases serotonin levels, exhibited decreased aggressiveness, and vice versa. However, this study is correlational so causality cannot be inferred. Tryptophan also has other effects in the body which could be decreasing aggression, or food that contains tryptophan could also typically include other substances that reduce aggression (IDA).

It has been found that in mice, a reward pathway of the brain becomes engaged in response to an aggressive event, and that dopamine is involved as a positive reinforcer to the aggressive behaviour. This gives an explanation as to why raised dopamine levels increase aggression, which supports the suggestion.

Testosterone: This increases aggression by acting directly on brain areas involved in controlling aggression. Violent criminals and violent drunks have been found to have higher testosterone levels than non-violent criminals and drunks. The Challenge Hypothesis is suggested to explain this: Testosterone levels would have evolutionarily risen when social challenges such as a threat to status or a mate arose. In these situations, humans would have historically resolved the situation through fighting, thus increased aggression would be useful in these situations.

Cortisol: This increases anxiety and the likelihood of social withdrawal, which is incompatible with aggression. High cortisol levels also inhibit testosterone production.

There are conflicting findings on the influence of testosterone on aggression. Studies that have found a positive correlation have often had small sample sizes and used self-report measures, while some studies have found no effect at all. It is also suggested that aggressive behaviour should be distinguished from dominant behaviour, which is characterised by a desire to maintain status, but might be confused with aggressive behaviour in some studies.

There is a gender bias in the research into the effects of hormones on aggression. Most research has been on males, whereas it is known that there is a sex difference in testosterone and cortisol levels. Therefore, results of these studies cannot be generalised to women (IDA).

In a longitudanal study of boys with behavioural problems, it was found that boys with consistently low cortisol levels began antisocial acts at a younger age and were more aggressive than boys with high or fluctuating cortisol levels.

Monozygotic twins have been found to be 50% more alike in terms of aggressive behaviour than dizygotic twins, leading researchers to the conclusion that aggressive behaviour is determined 50% by our genes, and 50% by the environment.

While it has been found that a significant number of adopted boys with criminal convictions also had a biological parent with a criminal conviction, it has been found that the highest rates of criminal violence in adopted children come when the child has both a biological and an adoptive parent with a history of criminal violence, suggesting that a diathesis-stress model is relevant to aggression.

A mutation in a gene responsible for producing monoamine oxidase A has been associated with aggressive behaviour. MAOA regulates serotonin in the brain. In a Dutch family with a family history of aggressive and violent crime, it was found that a defect in the MAOA gene was being passed down the family and being expressed in male members. This suggests that it is possible to inherit a genetic predisposition to aggression.

In a meta-analysis of 24 twin and adoption studies, results suggested that 50% of variance in aggessive behaviour could be attributed to genes. In youth, genetics and environment appeared to play equal roles, but at older ages the influence of the environment decreased. However, most of these studies were self- or parental- report, and it is suggested that this may have caused demand characteristics to be displayed (IDA), because when observation was used as an experimental design, it was found that the genetic contribution to aggression was significantly less, and the role of the environment increased.

Study samples on the role of genetics in aggression typically study violent offenders, meaning that results are not generalisable across the whole population. Furthermore, there has often been no distinction between habitual and one-time offenders, which damages the internal reliability of the studies (IDA).

Research into the genetic basis of aggression has implications for being applied in real life. There are suggestions that genetic engineering or chemical castration should be introduced to tackle repeat violent offenders. Research into genetics and aggression are important to inform decision-makers on the advantages and disadvantages of these ideas, as they should be handled tentatively (IDA).

There are difficulties in determining the role of genetic factors in aggression, as usually more than one gene contributes to a behaviour, there are many non-genetic influences on aggression that cannot be isolated, and genetics may affect the environment as well.

Rape

Homicide

Infidelity and Jealousy

Mate Deprivation Hypothesis: This suggests tha males who have been unsuccessful attracting a mate use rape as a last resort for reproduction. The implication of this is that they would target young and healthy women, as they are most likely to be fertile.

Maladaptive Male Sexuality: The premise here is that the rapist may have a partner, but will rape others due to an unusually strong sex drive and the desire for infidelity and the passing on of genes. This also implies victims will be peak reproductive age.

An analysis of rape victim data found that the peak age range for rape victims was teens-late 30s. However, older and post-menopausal women have also been rape victims - the evolutionary approach cannot explain this.

A competing approach is psychodynamic theory, which suggests that rape is more linked to anger, hostility and control than to sexuality. It suggests that an inconsistent relationship with the mother during childhood leads to the displacement of anger against her to other women, which leads to the desire to punish and control them through rape (IDA - approaches).

Statistics suggest that lack of resources is a contributing factor to homicide, as 41% of male perpetrators of murder in the US are unemployed and 73% are unmarried. This suggests that the inability to attract a long-term mate leads to increased male-male competition , and this results in more homicides.

It was adaptive for our ancestors to engage in fighting and killing to preserve status but now, even though killing no longer maintains status, the evolutionary hangover remains.

Sexual jealousy can also lead to homicide, as males sometimes kill rival males to prevent their partner reproducing elsewhere.

It is suggested that uxoricide is a mistaken evolutionary adaptation, where a male attempts to use violence to control a woman but goes to far and the wife is killed. The intention is control rather than .

There is a gender bias in the explanations of homicide, as they do not explain woman-woman or woman-man homicide, even though these things do happen in reality (IDA).

Alternative explanations provide a better and more detailed explanation of uxoricide, explaining premeditated uxoricide, for example, that killing one's wife due to her infidelity prevents the competitor from gaining in the reproductive stakes.

Males look to deter their females' infidelity through displays of sexual jealousy, which may involve aggression towards their partner. Sexual jealousy is due to men's fear of cuckoldry.

Mate Retention and Violence: Direct guarding is a form of mate retention where the male restricts his partner's autonomy, and is associated with increased violence. Negative inducements are aggressive attempts to retain a partner because of threats of infidelity. It is suggested that sexual jealousy is the predominant cause of battered wives.

The evolutionary approach cannot explain why people react in such different ways when faced with the same adaptive problem, as not all men are aggressive in response to sexual jealousy. Therefore it is not generalisable.

The evolutionary approach offers little in the way of explanation of female violence, and does not consider modern relationships like homosexual relationships. Most studies focus on male violence against women, however, women also sometimes initiate physical assaults on men.

Lynch Mobs

Religious Rituals

Sports and Xenophobia

Social Transition/Conformity: This explanation suggests that behaviour exhibited by lynch mobs is due to a fear of change. When groups feel at risk, co-operative group defence becomes most important and this causes antagonism against groups threatening the status quo. Members of the group who do not support the lynching still conform to protect the group. White mobs lynched black people to enforce social control as they feared the liberation of black people and the societal changes that it brought.

Power-Threat Hypothesis: This explanation suggests that lynchings occur in response to a group posing a threat to the group in power. In the 19th-early 20th century a myth existed that black people had an uncontrollable desire to rape white women. This 'threat' was often used in defence of lynchings. Thus this explanation suggests that lynching was an extreme form of racial discrimination motivated by a perceived threat.

It has been found that in groups where social conformity thrives, the group flourishes. Therefore, a group is less at risk when individual self-interest (e.g. avoiding guilt) gives way to groupishness (e.g. justifying a lynching). This supports the idea of group co-operation put forward by the social transition/conformity explanation.

It is reductionist to suggest that fear alone could cause violent, brutal and often entirely unjustified lynchings. Aggressive group behaviour, for example, can be explained by deindividuation theory. These theories better explain the factors that cause lynchings than the actual aggression during the lynching.

Cost-Signalling Theory: This suggests that aggressive rituals such as self-flagellation demonstrate commitment and thus promote the longevity of the group. The costs of the aggressive behaviour serve as deterrents for anyone who does not believe in the religious teachings of the group but who may want to take advantage of the benefits of being in the group. Therefore, co-operation within the group is promoted and maintained, and the group endures and survives.

It has been found that groups with strict religious practices are stronger and therefore more able to compete. This can lead to civil war and inter-group conflict in areas where these powerful groups coexist. Understanding how the group is made so strong has implications for attempts to prevent future inter-group conflict (IDA).

It has been found that in times of social difficulty, certain Muslim groups give a higher proportion of their income to charity. This theory would explain this as discouraging other people from joining their group solely because they are in difficulty. However, there are problems with drawing this conclusion from this simple correlation, as Muslims might give away more of their salary because they see that others are suffering more. Furthermore, there is no evidence that groups' aggressive behaviour increases in a time of social difficulty: this is altruistic behaviour.

The premise of the explanation of xenophobia in sports is that humans have a natural tendency to be suspicious of outsiders, as over-perception of threats is less costly than under-perception. This can lead to a distrust of foreigners.

Due to opposing teams in sport often coming from different places, the differences between the teams as being the out-group are emphasised, and this can lead to a xenophobic response, as the natural distrust of the out-group is highlighted.

It has been found that sport does highlight differences between groups, as the theory predicts. It was found that in Italian football games, differences between Northern and Southern Italian teams were highlighted with xenophobic chants and banners.

Research is applicable to real life, as it has helped clubs to take steps to reduce aggression in sport, for example, German clubs wore T-Shirts reminding the audience: "My friend is a foreigner". (IDA)

There are competing explanations for xenophobia in sports. The socio-cultural approach suggests that for some young men, being a 'football hooligan' gives them a sense of identity and worth in the eyes of their peers, and thus they display aggressive xenophobic behaviour in order to conform to their perceived identity.