A2 Psychology AQA Unit 3 Aggression

A2 Psychology AQA Unit 3 Aggression

1. SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGICAL EXPLANATIONS

   • Social Learning Theory
     • Albert Bandura believed that classical conditioning and operant conditioning ignore the inner person and these forms of learning alone cannot explain behavior.
       • Bandura's (1961 Bobo Doll Experiment
         • 3-5 year old children split into 2 conditions
         • Group 1 observed an adult model behave aggressively towards the doll
         • Group 2 observed an adult model behave passively towards the doll
         • Children made to feel frustrated, placed in a room with attractive toys, they weren't allowed to play with, then taken to room with Bobo doll and allowed to play with it
           • Follow up Study: Bandura and Walters (1963) reward & punishment (vicarious learning)
         • Children exposed to aggression models reproduced a good deal of the aggressive behavior they saw. The children exposed to passive behavior did not exhibit any aggressive behaviour
         • A follow up study found that children who saw the model being rewarded for aggression, imitated even more behavior. Children who saw an aggressive model being punished imitated less aggressive behavior (vicarious learning).
         • Low ecological validity (doll, not person)
         • Ethical issues
     • We learn by observing others (social learning). SLT is an extension of learning theory, not an alternative to it.
     • Conditions necessary for effective modeling: Attention - the person must first pay attention to the model
     • Retention - the observer must be able to remember the behavior that has been observed
       • Since these four conditions vary among individuals, different people will reproduce the same behavior differently
     • Motor reproduction - the ability to replicate the behavior that the model demonstarted
     • Motivation - learners must want to demonstrate what they have learned
     • Not a great deal of evidence with adults
       • Does explain cultural differences in levels of aggression
         • Vicarious learning can explain aggression from a learning perspective without a need for 'direct reinforcement'
           • Can explain individual differences (dependent on upbringing)
             • Ethical issues with research into SLT (hard to test empirically)
               • Cultural differences and bias - Ethnocentrism of Bobo doll study. Difficult to generalise the results to explain aggressive behavior in other cultures
                 • Nature vs. Nurture - ignores the importance of biological, genetic and evolutionary factors
   • Deindividuation
     • When in a large, anonymous group people often behave in a more aggressive way than normally
       • Presence of a large group
         • Increased social arousal
           • Anonymity
             • Decreased self-awareness & self-evaluation by others
               • Diffused responsibility, guilt & accountability
                 • More responsive to situational cues
                   • Loss of social inhibitions
     • "Trick or Treat" - Diener et al. (1976)
       • 27 women asked to give out sweets to 1000 trick or treaters
         • Half asked names &address, others anonymous
           • Some on their own, some in a crowd
             • Women had to answer a phone call & left children with strict instructions to only 1 sweet
               • Children more likely to take more sweets when anonymous & in a group
       • High ecological validity
       • Sample just children, difficult to generalise to adults
       • Operationalisation of aggression questionable
     • ZIMBARDO (1969)
       • Groups of 4 female undergraduates required to deliver electric shocks to 'aid' learning
         • Half wore lab coats, hoods, addressed as a group with instructions & not introduced to each other
           • Other half wore normal cothes with name tag, given instructions individually & introduced to each other
             • Participants in the deindividuation condition shocked the learner for twice as long as those identifibale
       • Local group norms effect - Johnson & Downing (1979) suggests it's not deindividuation
         • Follow up study - dressed as KKK & nurses
       • Unethical - informed consent / protection from harm
       • Gender bias - just women
       • Small sample size
     • WATSON (Inter-group aggression0
       • To investigate if tribal groups would be more aggressive if deindividuated
         • Gathered data from HRAF database, relating to 23 societies to see if they significantly changed their appearance before war & treatment of victims
           • 12/13 tribes did

2. INSTITUTIONAL AGGRESSION

   • Within Groups: Prisons
     • Deprivation Model - Paterline & Peterson (1999) situation causes increased levels of aggression
       • MC CORKLE (1995)
         • Found the following significantly increased peer aggression levels: overcrowding, lack or privacy & lack of activity
           • Inconsistent research findings - research in psychiatric institutions found that increased personal space did not have any impact on reducing levels of aggression against staff and patients
             • Lack of empirical evidence
               • Does have practical application - changing prison environment based on the theory can lower aggression levels (HMP Woodhill)
                 • Gender bias - mainly on male prisoners, ignoring the fact that female offenders often develop strong bonds in prison
       • Lose of freedom, personal space, home comforts & personal security means increased levels of anxiety & stress
       • Inconsistent research findings, increased space had no impact in psychiatric institutions - MJMAN ET AL. (1999)
         • Lack of empirical evidence
           • Does have practical application - HMP Woodhill
             • Gender bias - male prisoners
       • A desire to rebel against the frustrations of the deprivation may also by expressed as aggression towards staff and other inmates
     • Importation model - Irwin & Cressey (1962) individuals are the cause for increased levels
       • Prisoners are often the product of a difficult background and experiences. They bring their own social histories and personality traits with them to prison
         • Prisoners impact their personalities, difficulties and histories with them from the outside into the prison.
         • Violence and aggression is not a product of the institution itself but rather the characteristics of the individual
       • KELLER & WANG (2005)
         • Prison violence, and assaults on staff are more likely to occur in high-security prisons, than those with lower-security inmates, supporting the idea that the inmates had brought about violent behavior into the institution with them.
       • Pre-prison gang membership tends to be exacerbated in prison
         • Research has found that gangs leads to increased levels of aggression and violence due to deindividuation, conformity and obedience (Allender and Marcell 2003)
       • A stuidy of over 800 male inmates found no evidence of a relationship between previous gang membership and misconduct within prison. (DeLisi 2004)
         • McCorkle et al. (1995) citicised the model as it gives no practical suggestions for how to decrease violence
   • Between Groups: Genocide
     • One institution's relationship with the other is characterized by hatred and violence
       • Attempted Hutu genocide of Tutsi in Rwanda
     • Key social factors in institutional aggression escalating:
       • Dehumanisation
         • Obedience to authority
           • Lack of bystander intervention