aggression

aggression

1. frustration aggression hypothesis

   • AO1
     • aggression is the result of frustration
     • agressive urges relieved through aggressive behaviour- a cathartic effect
     • frustration increases when motivation to achieve a goal is very strong
     • mainly unjustified rather than justified frustration that produces aggression. Doob and Sears (1939) investigated this using buses
     • aggression is displaced from the source of the frustration on to something else
     • Berkowitz- that nature of the frustrating event (e.g. unanticipated rather than anticipated) is less important than how negative is the resulting effect
   • AO3
     • aggression is not an automatic consequence of frustration
     • lack of research support for the central claims may lead to more aggression
     • not all aggression aries from frustration, e.g. reifmn et al baseball study)
     • frustration and mass killings- rooted in social and economic difficulties (Staub)
     • real-world application: sports violence- supporters become more aggressive when expectations of good performance are frustrated (Prks)

2. de-individuation

   • AO1
     • a psychological state in which inner restraints are lost when anonymous
     • Being anonymous reduces inner constraints on aggressive behaviour
     • increased anonymity minimises concerns about evaluation by others
     • rehm et al found de-individuated sport teams played more aggressively
     • zimbardo stanford prison experiment-
       • procedure: de-individuated and individuated groups delivered shocks to other participants
       • findings: de-individuated participants gave longer shocks
   • AO3
     • gender differences- aggression only in all- male groups (Csnnsvale et sl)
     • anonymity and de-individuation- support from Rehm et al
     • inconclusive support for de-individuation- can also lead to prosocial behaviour
     • real-world aplicatopn; the baiting the crowd- crowd baiting suicide jumpers
     • cultural differences- warriors who change their appearance when going to war more brutal than those who don't (Watson)

3. explanations of media influences

   • AO1
     • desensitisation- exposure to media violence removes anxiety about violence
     • desensitised individuals show reduction in physiological arousal when exposed to violence in real life
     • disinhibition- exposure to violent media changes standards of what is considered acceptable behaviour
     • may have both immediate effect and a long-term effect
     • cognitive priming- lowers threshold for activation of other aggressive thoughts
     • the more accessible the thought is the more likely it is used to interpret social information
   • evaluation
     • desensitisation; repsearch support- carnage et al found physiological desensitisation to violence after playing violent computer game
     • the good and bad of desensitisation- consequences of individuals desensitised to violence after exposure to violent media (Bushman and Anderson)
     • disinhibition- effect depends on other factors- mediated by individual and social characteristics e.g. age and upbringing
     • negative consequences make disinhibition more likely e.g. boxing
     • cognitive priming- reproach support for cognitive priming- faster reaction times to aggressive words (Bushman)
     • priming less likely with less realistic media- game realism important factor (Atkin)

4. social learning theory

   • AO1
     • We learn aggressive behaviours by observing role models with who we identify
     • children also learn through vicarious reinforcement
     • children must also have expectancies of future outcomes
     • aggressive behaviour can be produced if directly rewarded
     • bandora et al
       • procedure: children exposed to model acting aggressively towards bobo doll
       • findings: children in the aggression condition reproduced aggressive behaviour resembling that of a model
   • AO3
     • lack of realism in research- Banduras studies criticised for being too artificial
     • research support for social learning theory- ice hockey players (Gee and Leith)
     • explaining inconsistencies- in aggressive behaviour e.g.- different situations offer different consequences for aggressive behaviour
     • cultural differences in aggression e.g. the Kung San have very little aggression
     • the consequences of social learning- can lead to perpetuation of aggression but being tackled by ACT against violence (APA)