Flashcards
aggression
Cards in this deck (71)
- 1outline the A01 for social learning theory as a cause of aggression- child observes the actions of significant others e.g parents
- then model own behavior based on what they've seen
- then retain the information - how the parent responds in that situation acts as a mental representation
- then become motivated- vicarious reinforcement, if they are identifiable - 2A02 support for social learning theory - BanduraBandura bo bo doll study - shown video of rocky being violent - 1 or 3 conditions; rewarded, no consequence, consequence
- punished group least violent
- no consequence most violent
supports motivation - when ask to imitate behavior and offered sweets able to
- Retention - all remembered the behavior when asked - seeing it was enough to retain
- vicarious reinforcement and vicarious punishment
HOWEVER lacks ecological validity - 3A02 social learning theory: Robertson and Mcanally- TV viewing through childhood affects antisocial behavior early adulthood
- assessed from birth to 26
- correlated hr viewing from 5-15 and 4 variables: criminal convictions, violent convictions, diagnosis of anti social personality disorder, aggressive personality traits.
- found young adults more time watching TV during childhood = sig more likely to have aggressive traits
- stat sig: after controlling - sex age IQ socioeconomic status parental control
- support - suggest more opportunities to imitate - 4A02 Comstock and paikmeta analysis:
strong effect size for effect of TV violence on aggressive behavior
- affects females and males equally - 5IDA for social learning theoryPractical applications: American academy of pediatricians recommend 1-2 hrs of TV a day + parents can use and apply research to reduce the development of aggressive behavior
- Cultural differences: !kungsan tribe not exposed to aggressive behavior/ aggressive role model - can explain cultural differences as if don't have it to imitate then don't become aggressive - 6outline the A01 for deindividualisation- situation opportunity to behave anti social more likely if feel socially deindividualised - decrease self awareness + occurs when identification of a person is difficult or impossible
- adopt group identity = feel anonymous + relieved of self awareness
- anonymity = not bound by norms and values of society - primitive urges acted upon
- less identified = reduced inhibitions
- anonymity = decrease concerns about what others think
- - 7A01 for deindividualisation: public selfawareness private selfawarnessPublic self awareness: reduced when part of a group - as they are anonymous to public
Private self awareness: reduces private self awareness conform to the behaviours of others and move away from their own norms and values
Prentice dunn + rogers:
reduction in self awareness is associated with aSB - 8A02 - deindividulisation Malamath and Checkquestioned male students at uni 1/3 admitted that there was a chance they would commit rape if there was no chance of being identified
- support idea as when deindividualised more likely
- may not be valid due to social desirability as it is a socially sensitive topic - however likely to be more making more valid - 9A02 deindividulisation ZimbardoLab experiment - female students - asked to give other students a shock learning
- half deindividualised: lab coat, hoods hiding faces, not referred to by name, spoken to in group
- half individulated: normal clothes, name tag, introduced by name
- deindividulated group - shock twice as often
- support DEindi no self awareness + little fear of punishment - anonymous with hoods hiding faces - 10what is the problem with Zimbardo researchppts wore Ku Klux klan type clothing - may act as demand characteristic - may believe extreme behavior expected
- students relatively easily influenced =susceptible to demand characteristics
- Ecological + pop validity= question the research as support - 11A02 deindividulisation Watsonreal life anthropological data - warriors in 23 societies
- looked at the extent to which they changed appearance prior to war + whether it correlated with aggression
- of the 13 societies which killed + tortured their victims all but one changed appearance
- support as suggest they deindividulated themselves prior to war
- - 12what is the problem with Watsons researchIDA culturally bias:
wrongly assumes that it is used to deindividulate - may be used to justify their status within the group e.c.t - assume it based on our own culture - no imposed etic - 13what is the IDA point about practical application for deindividulisationhelp explain real life situations MANN: analysed 21 suicide reports 10/21 baiting - encouraging someone to just - tended to occur at night when suicide victim was high up - deindividulated as there was increased distance
- police could use in controlling crowds - using direct language instead of group - 14outline the A01 for the deprivation model in explaining institutional aggression- prison = loss freedom = psychological trauma
- psychological self preservation = prisoners join deviant subculture which promotes violence - 15A01 deprivation model - explaining institutional aggression Greshem and Skyes5 pains of imprisonment
- deprivation of services + goods
-deprivation of security: risk of other inmates, hierarchal competitive nature - stressful environment aggression as form of attack or defense
- Deprivation of heterosexual relationships
- deprivation of autonomy: vast rules + commands controlling behavior everyday, nature of rules - no explanation to why enforced = frustrated
- deprivation of liberty: loss of freedom - confinement to prison + within the prison, loss of personal relationship = loneliness, rejected and isolated from society - 16outline the A01 for the importation model as an explanation for institutional aggression - IRWIN AND CRESSEY- focuses on what prisoners bring into an institution
- inmate aggression: attitudes, belief and behaviors
- Irwin and cressey: suggest multiple subcultures - with their own values and norms - thief and convict
- each group has code conduct which governs their behavior + also tend to share similar background experiences
- + suggest influence of sociodemographic characteristics: age, ethnicity, criminal career history
- predicts aggression is a result of patterns of behavior learnt at a young age - 17A02 for importation model (just the procedure)DELISI ET AL:
- 831 ppts USA chosen @ random
- looked at several variables: gang membership, history of violence, age, ethnicity, education and family
- looked at those with various gang membership + levels of recidivism (repeat offences) + how that correlated with inmate misconduct
- controlled the length of sentence
- measured most serious inmate misconduct: rape, murder, assault, threatening staff - 18findings of the research into importation model- strongest predictions: criminal career variables: violent history, escape history and confinement history
- other high influence: age, ethnicity, family ties, education
- inmates ethnic + racial minorities = more violent than white
- less ed and family ties/ social support = more serious prison violence
- more violent when young
- not significant evidence gang membership - 19what are the problems are this research- ignores deprivation factors - as chosen randomly - may have different levels of deprivation - those who were more violent may have been in higher controls = more deprived
- 20A02 deprivation and importation model: Jiang + fisher - Giorlando- compared the effectiveness in explaining violence: against staff and inmates
- based samples of 431 disciplinary reports from a mens state prison + interviews + obs (with prison staff + inmates)
- deprivation model: better explain incidents against staff
- importation: inmate inmate
-good addressed internal validity - as looked at them from the same prison - 21A02 deprivation and importation model Grapeendall- compare models ability to predict the behavior + attitudes
- relationship between the components of each model and inmates level of opposition + exploitation
- used regression analysis (correlation calculates how well one variable predicts another)
- used standardized questionnaires, prison data, daily obs, informal contact with inmates + guards
- - 3 prisons in Holland 2 high control - 114 males - 22findings of grapendalldeprivation: in general better in explaining aggression against institution
- against other inmates better predicted by the importation model
- exploitation: an equal influence of deprivation and importation - suggest interactionist model better suited
- supported by Ireland: most useful for explaining bullying one that thakes in account enviorment and individual characteristics - 23IDA for models explaining institutional aggression* approaches: both psychological - ignoring biological factors which may make someone more likely to be violent e.g excessive testosterone
* practical application:
- deprivation model: used to find a suitable way of runnin prison deciding amount of deprivation
- importation model: avoid too many career criminals - prisioners early involvement in crime acts as key predictor - possible mix the inmate pop - 24outline A01 of genetics as a cause for aggressive behavior- genes are made up of strands of DNA - which code for building proteins in the body - including brain (affects behavior)
- genes build: brain structures e.g amygdala
- neurotransmitter: serotonin, dopamine, noradrenaline
- enzymes: e.g the MAOA gene
- people inherit 1/2 genes from each parent - if one has gene promoting aggressive behavior -likely to be passed on
- runs in families shown in twin and adoption studies - however doesn't pin point specific gene - molecular genetics does
- e.g the gene which codes for the MAOA enzyme which breaks down neurotransmitters - 25A02 research genetics Mason and frick- meta analysis of twin and adoption studies
- approx. 50% of differences due to genetic factors - between anti social behavior and non
- heritage approx. 50%
good: meta analysis = large sample size
bad: twin studies criticized - MZ more likely to be treated the same/ similar environment (shared environment) - 26A02 genetic: Rhee and waldman- meta analysis of 51 twin and adoption studies
- operationalized aggression as:
psychiatric diagnosis e,g anti social personality disorder
- delinquency
- behavioural aggression
- genetic component accounted for 40% ASB, Enviro 60%
good: operationalized aggression in many ways - 27A02 genetics: coccaro et alinvestigated specifically aggression (not ASB) 182 MZ twin studies
118 DZ twin studies
found genetics accounted for 40% individual differences
- genetics: 50% of individual differences physical aggression
70% of individual differences of verbal aggression
Bad: Meta analysis difficult as all would have operationalized aggression differently - 28outline the A01 for the genetic explanation of the MAOA gene-researchers have discovered gene responsible for producing MAOA enzyme - associated with aggression when defect
- dominant alles - determine the outcome- as the specific DNA acts as a building block which builds cells in the body
- 50% of genes inherited from each parent: if inherit a defect in gene which codes for MAOA the neurotransmitters cannot be broken down - 29A01 MAOA: what are the neurotransmitters and what is the consequence if not broken downSeritonin + dopamine :high levels associated with aggression
noradrenaline: raises the blood pressure to activate fight or flight response - 30A01 MAOA BRUNNER ET AL: the family in the netherlands- family - men had history of extreme violence - tracing back to 1870
- all men who were violent suffered from a defect of the gene on the X chromosome- which creates an enzyme regulating behavior
- found marker which was not present in those non violent men
- believed was due to a defect in MAOA gene
- tested mens urine excess of 3 neurotransmitters + low levels of substance left when the neurotransmitters are broken down - CEREBOSPINAL FLUID - 31A02 MAOA geneCASPI ET AL
not everyone with MAOA became aggressive - looked at enviro ( child maltreatment) as a predictor of MAOA gene
* MAOA alone: no sig difference
* maltreatment as child: sig in comparison to not
* combine effect maltreatment + MAOA - significant development of aggressive behavior
- suggest interaction effect - 32IDA - genetics + MAOA*DETERMINISTIC: if you have the nutent MAOA gene you will behave in a specific way
- socially sensitive: can be used to justify behavior - e.g Bradley Waldrop used MAOA gene to get more lenient sentence
* NATURE NURTURE: genetic - biological placing emphasis on nature - however caspi highlight importance of the environment (maltreated as child)
- suggest MAOA not sig alone - interactive combined effect - 33A01 neural mechanisms as an influence: Seritonin- neural transmitters - chemicals that allow signal transmission and thus communicate among the nerve endings
- SERITONIN: located at the base of the brain and released to rest
plays an important role in the emotions/ motivation to behave aggressively
- serotonin - has calming inhibitory effect
- counterbalance the tendency of dopamine + noradrenaline
- low levels of dopamine = impulsive behavior + aggression
- MAOA defective gene = hhigh levels or dopamine and noradrenaline ( which cannot outweigh high levels dopamine) - 34A02 research into serotoninBROWN: aggressive people - low levels of metabolite (waste product of serotonin) in the cerebrospinal fluid - support as low levels of serotonin
MANN: administered the drug dexfenfluramine - known to deplete serotonin
- used questionnaire to assess hostility and aggression
- after the drug - rate of hostility and aggression increased
- support however issues withC+E - 35A02 serotonin: FERRARI- rats fought same time for 10 days - didn't fight on the 11th - anticipation of the fight = low serotonin levels
- suggests serotonin is a consequence of anticipation of aggressive encounter
* contradictory: suggests the importance of behaviorist approach - as learnt through conditioning weakening the importance - 36dopamine A01increase in amount of dopamine = increase in the amount of aggression
- dopamine - reinforcing role = people seek aggression for the satisfactory sensation it causes - 37dopamine A02FERRARI: rat fought same time 10 days 11th day didn't fight but in anticipation the rat produced increase dopamine
- support in anticipation of receiving the reward
COUPPIS ET AL: turned dopamine off in mice - made difficult for the animals to move - suggests the decline need for satisfaction
C + E cannot be identified unclear whether its because the rat is too fat to move or whether the decline in aggression is because less dopamine - 38A01 brain structureHYPOTHALAMUS: when stimulated increases aggression
- lateral hypothalamus - perdition aggression
- medial hypothalamus - vicious attack
AMYGDALA: when stimulated increases aggression
-amygdalectonmy removal of amygdala = decrease in aggression
- if amygdala damaged = more aggression cannot be regulated
FRONTAL CORTEX
when lesioned = impulsive behavior - 39A02 brain structurePhinias Gage case study: frontal cortex was damaged with a temping iron - survived but significantly damaged persona - became aggressive
support as when brain structure altered led to impulsive behavior
BLAIR ET AL: aggression in people who had been insitutionalised due to psychotic tendency - had damaged amygdala - 40A02 further support from animalsfurther supported by animals = reliability and validity of findings
POTEGAL ET AL we can trust and generalize from animals to humans in neural research as differences only qualitative - underlying neural activity is similar - 41IDA: brain structureapproaches - focuses exclusively on biological factors - social psychological could also offer an explanation e.g slt if they have more chances to imitate and observe the behavior more likely to become aggressive
- 42A01 hormones and aggressionTESTOSTERONE: steroid hormone found in male testes: DHEA converted in to females
= mood swings and aggressive behavior
2 explanations:
BASAL MODEL: testosterone causes aggression, amount of testosterone determines the amount of aggression
RECIPRICAL MODEL: testosterone is a consequence of dominance/ aggression
CHALLANGE HYPOTHESIS: more specific version of reciprocal model - increase in testosterone when there is competition - 43A02 testosteroneWAGNER ET AL mouse castrated = reduced testosterone = less aggression
but then when testosterone was injected aggression increased
- however generalizing animals behavior to humans
- support basal model
MAZUR AND BOOTH: 2100 air veterans - 4 medical examinations
- testosterone varied over the 4 (increased with divorce + decreased marriage) - support reciprocal model - show dominance effected testosterone
KOURI/ POPE
double blind procedure: testosterone or placebo - paired with fictitious ppt
- told they could decrease the money the other receive + that the other participant was doing the same
- those testosterone - pushed the button more
- support basal model - suggest testosterone is a cause
- however doesn't show real life examples of aggression - 44IDA for hormonesApproaches: focuses on bio maybe more significantly impact by social psychological processes - e.g SLT - bahviour is imitated, or deindividulisation in explaining group
Deterministic: men can justify behavior by blaming it on testerone hormone = socially sensitive - 45outline the A01 for evolutionary explanation for human aggression - jealousy and infidelity- evolutionary behaviours were adapted - passed on and still present
- aggression is adaptive:
*enhances survival (status and resources)
* enhances reproductive success (more mating opportunities + not wasting time on cuckholdry)
infidelity: when a partner has a sexual relationship with someone else - aggression is an adaptive response to preventing cuckoldry
Sexual jealousy: threat/ anger sense of insecurity - they behave aggressively to scare the other male away - fear is caused by real/ imagined threat - 46how is sexual jealousy and infidelity expressedEliminating male rival killing/ be aggressive towards the male threat
mate retention: looking at girl friends phone, not letting her out without you
sexual coercion: forcing women to have sex with you to increase the chance that the child is yours - 47outline shackelford et al research supporting mate retentionstudy 1: male ppt completed mate retention inventory looking at the use of male retention strategies + asked how many/ how often they preformed the violent act
- found mate retention strategy pos correlated with violent strategies:
* intersexual neg inducements shouting at her for looking at a man
* direct guarding
* men who used emotional manipulation = more violent
Study 2: females answered questionnaire about partner - confirmed findings = validity - 48outline dobash and dobash support for mate retentionfound sexual jealousy caused violence against women - victims cited extreme sexual jealousy as a major cause
* support because it suggest they respond to jealousy through violence as prevents them getting close - 49outline the research evidence for deter/ eliminate rivalDALY AND WILSON summarized data from 8 studies
- 58 out of 214 jealousy was cause
-male- male victim 65.3% (eliminate rival)
- male - female victim 22.7% - extreme mate retention
-female-female 2% - have no threat of cuckholdy as 100% genetic certaincy - 50outline the research support for sexual coercionGOETZ + SHACKELFORD
found men who were sexually concerned - more likely to report partner being unfaithful
- women who report male partners sexually coercion - admitted to being unfaithful
*support: highlights they were aggressive as they were jealous by threat of another man - 51outline the IDA point of determinism for evolutionary explanation of human aggression -jealousy and infidelitysuggest males behave certain way due to adaptive responses inherited - suggesting they are passive of being aggressive = socially sensitive as it justifies behavior = problems for the justice system and gender equality
- 52outline the nature nurture point for evolutionary explanation of human aggression -jealousy and infidelityfails to explain individual differences:
Shackelfold found when men faced with wifes infidelity they reacted in different ways
- violent
- debasement
- avoid issue by drinking
- evolutionary explanation cannot explain the differences - however nurture can SLT may observe how to behave in that situation - 53outline the A01 for evolutionary explanation for human aggression - acquisition of status- aggression exists as its adaptive
- been present throughout human existence highlighted by fossils and hunter gatherer communities
- aggression is used to settle conflicts: fight for resources and access to mates = must have survival benefit outweighing risk
- Acquisition of status is primary motive driven by sexual and natural selection
high status have access to resources (natural selection) and females (sexual)
- good hunters = more resources + fight off rivals = attractive to females as seen as good provider - 54what are the consequences for being low status- risk of not reproducing
- without resources to attract females need to enhance their status with violence
- would expect high rates of violence from low status as they are trying to enhance their status
- males compete for females late teens to early 20s = expect to be highest murder rate in men - 55outline Daly and Wilson (1985) research support for the prediction- looked at murder stats in Detroit - motive behind the murder was often status
- victims and offenders often: unmarried, unemployed (suggest no mate/ resources)
- victims/ offenders knew each other - aware of status - used aggression to rise above other in hierarchy
- support prediction: that aggression used - 56what are the problems of this researchonly looked at one form of aggression = lack generalizability + other factors could have possibly influenced the amount of aggression e.g deprivation
- 57outline Daly and Wilson support for threats to male status- when intense competition for resources due to scarcity - status more likely to be threatened
- found correlation between income inequality and murder rates
- suggest more inequality = more violence
- however no cause and effect - 58the comparative studiesFOSSEY AND WRANGHAM
male mountain gorillas + chimpanzees - well docucumented killing of rival
however questioned extent of extrapolation is possible due to potential qualitative and quantitate differences - 59IDA cultural differences for the acquisition of status as an ev explanation for aggression- some cultures e.g Yanomamo require male violence to gain status
- others such as the !kungsan - male aggression associated with a loss of status
- differences suggest that aggression is learnt and not innate - 60IDA gender biasonly applies to males - suggesting high risk strategy of weighing up cost and benefits for choosing a partner - which is in their interest as they want off spring to survive and want to avoid putting them at risk
however women do show aggressive behavior which cannot be explained by the theory - 61evolutionary explanation of group display WARFARE why is war adaptive- effective strategy for passing on genes; leads to land and status
- competition for status = gaining status which is adaptive as leads to access to land and resources + females
- advantage as more resources + more access to females = more chance of reproducing
- more chances of winning as group cooperation = adaptive as more protection and support
- war adaptive as those who win able to pass on genes - 62outline the characteristics of a winning team*Belligerance: more irritable = increased chance of attacking another
* Bravery: aware they are taking risk buyt do it anyway = increases the likelihood the group will win
* self deception: traits making you believe you are the best - improves group cohesion and cooperation + leads to them believing they are better - 63outline the research evidenceDimond: 63% of countries involved in 20th century war did so for reasons that included land disputes due to insufficient space and resources (e.g Japan and Germany - during the second world war)
Chagnon: found that the yamamo people in the amazon often warred to gain access to women - fighting led to gaining warrior status + therefore attractive to females
- those who were more successful = more wives + offspring - highlighting the relationship between them
- valuable study as closest can get to EEA - 64IDA points for warfare* deterministic: suggest we have no free will over our behavior - all based on our adaptive genes = socially problematic as justifies our behavior
* approaches: focuses on biological ignores that people may be influenced by social psychological influences - deindividulisation were they adopt group norms so primitive urges may be acted upon - 65back ground for evolutionary explanation for group display - sport- evolutionary instincts displayed in today society
- tribal warfare been replaced by sporting events
- different teams represent different teams/ groups
- team sport seen as ritualized aggression - within rules = low risk strategy to obtain status - status is adaptive allows access to women and resources - 66A01 evolutionary explanation for competitorsmoves show fitness and strength -attractive for females as relates to hunting skills
- in modern society - winning team = increase in status = team mates make more desirable mates
- winning improves reproductive success for the other team members - 67Evolutionary explanation for unsanctioned aggression- cheating in sport is adaptive as makes winning more likely
- winning team have more reproductive success - 68support for unsanctioned aggression (A02)MAXWELL + VISCEK
-players in high professionalism (rugby) placed more emphasis on winning game than being fair + displaying skill (emphasis on winning)
- players in high professionalism - most likely to use unsanctioned aggression
- players learnt how to execute illegal moves without being caught - which would take out the other player - 69evolutionary explanation for fan aggressionfans = seen as the same group as the team
- being fan of the winning team - belief that this then leads to status + has similar benefits as it does to team members = increased reproductive success - 70support for the evolutionary explanation of sportCLADINI ET AL
- uni football team did well = increased tendency to wear clothes
- enhancing their image + associating them self with the winning team
- however when they lost disassociated themselves - 'they lost' instead of 'we won'
- support as suggest they reproduce the success as associate winning team = increase status
- problematic as weren't displaying aggression - 71IDA for explanation of aggression in sportNATURE NURTURE - too much emphasis of nature ignores nurture - for example SLT may explain fan aggression as son sees father getting aggressive an imitates
Information
- Description
- A-Level psychology unit 3 Flashcards on aggression , created by rose9888 on 28/05/2016.
- Created by
- rose9888
- Views
- 3
- Rating