Aggression

Neural mechanisms in aggression

-The limbic system

-The role of serotonin

The limbic system AO1

-The limbic system is a set of subcortical structures in the brain (including the amygdala and the hypothalamus) and is thought to be closely involved in regulating emotional behaviour. The limbic system also has connections to the prefrontal cortex which is involved in the anticipation of rewards. It is thought that speed and sensitivity of limbic system responses to stimuli are important predictors of aggressive behaviour.

-The amygdala is responsible for attaching emotional significance to sensory information. It plays a key role in how we assess and respond to environmental threats.

-The hypothalamus is responsible for the regulation of the autonomic nervous system which in turn regulate responses to emotional circumstances. Therefore damage to this area can result in an inappropriate aggressive response to a threat as ut can make you more impulsive and therefore aggressive.

-The limbic system also has connections to the pre-frontal cortex which is involved in the anticipation of rewards. The prefrontal cortex (PFC) is crucial for regulating social behaviour and aggressive responses. Damage to the PFC would reduce the inhibition of the amygdala resulting in higher levels of aggression.

-Overall the limbic system plays a key role in how an organism responds to environmental threats and challenges and is believed to be the key factor in whether we respond aggressively or not to an external stimulus. This is known as reactive aggression.

-Children have less control over their emotions because the axons that send info from the cortex to the limbic system aren’t fully developed. Neurons in the PFC that provide rational control over emotions do not mature until early adulthood. In contrast, the amygdala is present at birth, so children can’t regulate their aggression.

The limbic system AO3 positives

+Research to suggest that the amygdala is important in aggression comes form research using sustained electrical stimulation of the amygdala. Le Doux found that electrical stimulation of the amygdala in lab animals led to fear and rage responses, This suggests the amygdala must be linked to aggressions supporting the role of the limbic system. (Challenge: animal extrapolation to complex human behaviour)

+Narabayashi et al also reported that 43 out 51 patients who received operations to destroy their amygdala showed more normal social behaviour afterwards including reduced aggression. This suggests that the amygdala does play a role in aggression as its destruction reduces it again suggesting that the limbic system plays a role in aggression.

The limbic system AO3 negatives

-However the role of the limbic system is not clear cut. The limbic system is made up of many components so it is not altogether clear which parts are implicated in aggression. It could be that there is an interaction between components of the system with other components of the brain. Research suggests that the amygdala operates in tandem with the orbital frontal cortex which is not part of the limbic system. This is involved in self control, impulse regulation and inhibition of aggressive behaviour.

-Coccarro et al found psychiatric patients with disorders that feature aggression commonly have reduced activity in OFC. (Hugh levels of testosterone means activity in the OFC is reduced so increases aggressive behaviour).This suggests that regulation of aggression cannot be explained by the limbic system alone and that it is highly complex. Therefore the role of the limbic system as an explanation of aggression needs further investigation.

-Challenge with alternative explanation

-Biologically determinist and biologically reductionist

-Nature side of nature-nurture

-Animal extrapolation

-Cause and effect not established

The role of serotonin AO1

-Serotonin is a neurotransmitter involved in the communication of impulses between neurons. Normally serotonin works on the frontal areas of the brain to inhibit generation of impulses in neurons in the amygdala, the part of the limbic system in the brain that controls fear, anger and emotional responses. Therefore serotonin has a calming influence and associated with greater behavourial control. However of people have low levels of serotonin it means they can’t control impulsivity and may engage in more aggressive behaviour. (Low levels of serotonin could be caused by increased levels of testosterone).

-Serotonin also regulates the pre-frontal cortex therefore lower levels of serotonin affect our response to external stimulus meaning the person becomes aggressive easily and can’t control their responses in a normal way. They can’t anticipate the risk and therefore impulsively engage in aggressive behaviour. (Serotonin deficiency hypothesis therefore states that low levels of serotonin increase areas of the brain such as the amygdala and can lead to aggression).

The role of serotonin AO3 positives

+Raleigh et al studied vervet monkeys and found that individuals fed on a diet high in tryptophan (which increases serotonin levels in the brain) exhibited decreased levels of aggression. Individuals fed on a diet low in tryptophan exhibited increased aggressive behavior. This provides strong evidence for the role of serotonin in aggressive behaviour as it suggests a causal effect.

(However this animal research can’t be extrapolated and therefore it is unclear whether serotonin is an explanation in human aggression)

The role of serotonin AO3 negatives

-However the evidence base for the role of serotonin is mixed. Some studies show that greater amounts of serotonin in the system actually increase aggression. Huber et al found that increasing levels of serotonin in crayfish increased the length of time they were fighting for. The crayfish whose serotonin levels were increased continued to fight beyond the point which they normally would have. This suggests that the level of aggression they were experiencing was greater or that their natural response was overridden. Despite the contradictory evidence it still suggests that serotonin does play a part in aggression. Commonality is that faulty levels of serotonin (high or low) seem to be implicated in aggression.

-Animal evidence can’t be extrapolated

-Biologically reductionist and determinist

-Challenge with environment/SLT

Hormonal mechanism

-A hormone can be defined as a chemical substance produced by the endocrine glands and regulates the activity of certain cells and organs

-The role of testosterone

The role of testosterone AO1

-Observations across many species reveal that aggression occurs more often in males than females.

-This sex difference is often attributed to the effects of the male hormone testosterone

-It is of a class of hormones called androgens which are important in producing sperm and developing sexual characteristics e.g. deep voice

-These hormones exert an influence on a range of behaviours including aggression. High levels of testosterone from a very young age have been found to increase the likelihood of aggressive due to action on the brain areas involving controlling aggression and its role in affecting emotions

-Testosterone may affect activity in the Orbito Frontal Cortex. If the individual has high levels of testosterone, the activity in the OFC is reduced meaning that it if they are in an emotional situation there could be a heightened emotionally aggressive response.

-Testosterone also influence the activity of serotonin in the brain and can reduce serotonergic activity. Low levels of serotonin are implicated in increased aggressive behaviour.

-Therefore testosterone does not just have an effect in isolation but also effects other influence of other biochemicals

-It is unethical to administer androgens to humans to see if they become aggressive so instead people who are known to be violent have been investigated and their levels of testosterone correlated.

Evaluation of Hormonal Mechanisms AO3 positives

+Research support comes from Dabbs et al who investigated the relationship between testosterone, crime and prison behaviour and found that those who had committed sexual and violent crimes had the highest levels of testosterone. They were also more likely to be the most confrontational prisoners. This suggest that testosterone could be an explanation for increased levels of aggression.

(Doesn’t explain female aggression who have very little levels of testosterone)

Evaluation of Hormonal Mechanisms AO3 negatives

-However research suggests there is no predictive validity between testosterone levels and aggression and instead it depends on how aggressive the person was in the first place. Someone who is aggressive will have very high levels of testosterone as a result. Carrying out an aggressive act therefore increases testosterone levels not the other way round, implying that something else causes the aggressive act to be committed. This highlights the importance of other environmental factors such as environmental triggers and implies that hormones do not determine the aggressive behaviours but are a result of the aggression themselves. This reduces the link between hormones and aggression.

-Furthermore research is correlational and therefore we cannot infer causation between aggression and testosterone as a hidden third variable such as modelling behaviour from an aggressive model could be the cause of aggression not testosterone.

-Role of the environment is supported by Klinesmith et al who found that p’s who interacted with a gun had slightly higher levels of testosterone than those who played with a child’s toy. This suggests that environmental cues may trigger aggressive behaviour and not solely due to biological factors. Therefore this highlights the issue of reductionism as biological explanations try to reduce aggression a complex emotion into purely biological processes. Therefore a more holistic approach may be needed to successfully explain the inter-relationship between social, biological and cognitive factors.

Genetic explanations of aggression

-Twin studies

-The MAOA gene

Twin studies of aggression AO1

-Genes do not directly cause aggression but influence elements of our biology that contribute to it. A combination of structural (bone and muscle) and functional (neurochemical and hormonal) genetic factors contribute to aggressive behaviour.

-The genetic argument suggests that aggression is inherited, MZ twins share 100% of genes but DZ twins only share 50% on average. So we would expect greater similarities in MZ twins if aggression is mostly genetic. Twin studies show that genetic factors account for about 50% of variance in aggressive behaviour. Coccaro et al studied male adult MZ and DZ twins. For physical aggression the researchers found concordance rates of 50% for MZ twins and 19% for DZ twins. For verbal aggression the figures were 28 for MZ and 7% for DZ twins. Concordance rates are higher for MZ twins suggesting a genetic component in aggression. This seems to be more do for physical aggression than verbal aggression.

Evaluation of twin studies AO3

-Often MZ twins are raised in very similar environments so it is difficult to distinguish environmental and genetic factors in aggression. If genetics were the sole cause of aggressive behaviour it would be expected that the concordance rates would be 100%. Anything less than 100% would suggest an environmental influence, This therefore provides a problem for the genetic argument in explaining aggression.

+To overcome this psychologists consider adoption studies where a child has been adopted and raised outside of the home. Differences between an adopted child and biological parents suggest genetic influences are operating but similarities with adopted parent suggest environmental influences. Rhee and Waldman’s meta analysis of 51 twin studies and adoption studies found genetic influences accounted for 41% of variance in aggressive behaviour, suggesting a high level of aggressive behaviour was determined by genetics.

-Canter found a small correlation of 0.14 for MZ twins reared together but O’Connor found a correlation of 0.72 for the same population. This suggests that there is a wide variation in the findings reducing the reliability of conclusions drawn from twin studies. However, there is slightly less variability when looking at twins reared apart.

+Despite this there is a greater association of aggressiveness between MZ and DZ twins whether reared apart or not which indicates a genetic component even if people don’t agree how great this is.

-Maybe the variability is die to the differences in assessing aggression. Rhee and Walderman found a heritability estimate of 39% with self reported aggression and 53% when reported by others. This suggests we cannot trust findings that are not scientific as people may under/over estimate aggressive behavior.

The MAOA gene and aggression AO1

-Monoamine oxidase A (MAOA gene) codes for the Monoamine Oxidase A enzyme (MAO-A). This enzyme breaks down neurotransmitters after synaptic communication has occurred between neurons helping to clear the synapse and preventing additional unwanted synaptic transmissions. It breaks down neurotransmitters (serotonin and dopamine) into constituents chemicals to be recycled in the pre-synaptic neurone or excreted. Serotonin is associated with mood. A mutation of the MAOA gene can lead to abnormal activity of the MAO-A enzyme which then affects the levels of serotonin in the individual. Low levels of serotonin have been associated with impulsive and aggressive behaviour.

-Two mutations have been identified of particular interest the MAOA-L (low activity variant of the enzyme produced) and MAOA-H (high activity variant of the enzyme produced). Research has shown that MAOA-L is particularly related to aggression and the MAOA-L allele of the MAOA gene is sometimes called the warrior gene as it is associated with aggressive behaviour. It has been found more frequently in the gene pools of humans with aggressive tendencies e.g. Maori people.

Evaluation of the MAOA gene AO3

+Support comes form Cases et al who disabled the MAOA gene in the X chromosome of mice and found without the MAOA enzyme levels of dopamine and serotonin increased and males became highly aggressive. Females were unaffected. Restoring the function of the gene returned male mice to normal state. Gene knock out study.

-Animal extrapolation and doesn’t explain female aggression.

+Bruner et al discovered a defective MAOA gene in a Dutch family with a history of male violence. 28 members of the family were repeatedly involved in impulsively aggressive, violent criminal behaviours (e.g rape, attempted murder, assault). These men had both abnormally low levels of MAOA in their brain and the low activity version of the MAOA gene. This gene was passed onto men from the X chromosome of their mothers and men affected as they only have one X chromosome but women have two.

-Better explanations for male aggression- beta bias. Same family so same environment.

-However not all men with the gene mutation show the aggressive behaviour. The environment also plays a role as makes with low activity MAOA are more at risk of committing a violent crime if they have suffered abuse as a child (e.g. Moffit 1992). This shows the interaction with nature and nurture. Those who had suffered abuse had low activity of the gene and were more likely to indulge in antisocial behaviour including aggression.

Ethological explanation of aggression AO1

-Ethology is the study of animal behaviour in natural settings. Only use for animal aggression. The ethological explanation of aggression seeks to understand the innate behaviour of animals by studying then in their natural environments. Believes aggression is innate and extrapolated animal findings to humans.

-Ethological explanations suggest that aggression is adaptive to aid survival because it:

-Reduced competition: because a defeated animal is rarely killed but instead forced into territory elsewhere, reducing competition pressure. This means that members of a species spread our over a wide area and have to discover resources in a different place which reduces competition pressure and the possibility of starvation.

-Establishes dominance hierarchies: which gives dominant males special status including mating rights over females. Male chimpanzees use aggression to climb their troops social hierarchy. Their dominance gives them special status e.g. mating rights over the females. This happens in humans too.

Ritualistic aggression:

-This refers to a series of behaviours carried out in a set order. Lorenz observed that most intra species aggression consisted mostly of ritualistic signalling and rarely became physical. Intra species confrontations also end with ritualistic appeasement displays. These indicate acceptance of defeat and inhibit aggressive behaviour in the victor preventing any damage to the loser. This is adaptive because if every aggressive encounter ended with death of one of the combatants that could threaten the existence and survival of the species.

Innate Releasing Mechanisms:

-An innate releasing mechanism (IRM) is a built in physiological process or structure (a network of neurons in the brain). It acts as a filter to identify threatening stimuli in the environment. An environmental stimulus activated the IRM and it triggers or releases a fixed action pattern of behaviour. Lorenz suggested that animals have IRM and it triggers that aggressive behaviour as a release. This drive builds up until the next aggressive act is performed, when it is expended again.

Fixed action patterns:

-An environmental stimulus such as certain facial expressions trigger the IRM which then released a specific sequence of behaviours. The behavioural sequence is called a FAP and have 6 main features:

-They are relative unchanging

-They are universal and species specific

-Unaffected by learning

-Ballistic (once the behaviour is triggered it has to follow the inevitable course and can’t be altered)

-Single purpose (the behaviour only occurs in a specific situation and not in any other)

-A response to an identifiable specific sign stimulus

(S-stereotyped, A-affected universally, V-very forceful(ballistic), A-apathetic to learning, G-generated by a specific stimulus, E-exclusive purpose)

Evaluation of the ethological explanation AO3

+Tingenberg found when you presented male stickleback fish with a series of wooden models in different shapes to look like male sticklebacks (red underbelly) and females (swollen bellies). All male sticklebacks attacked the models with the red underbellies. No red underbelly meant no aggression. Tingenberg also found that the aggressive FAP did not change between encounters and once triggered it ran its course. Shows behaviour in invariable and all males do it and is a strong argument for behaviour being innate.

-However the ethological theory suggests that behaviour is universal to the species. This is not true for humans as even with the same situation some will react aggressively and others won’t. This makes the presence of an innate mechanism and a FAP unlikely.

-There is evidence against the idea that aggression within a species is mostly ritualistic. Goodall observed chimpanzees in Tanzania and found male chimps systematically slaughtered all members of another group . They did this as a coordinated and premeditated fashion and the attacks continued despite the victim offering signals o appeasement and defencelessness. These signals did not inhibit the aggressive behaviour of the attacking chimps as predicted by the ethological explanation. This therefore suggests that aggression has not evolved to be purely ritualistic and relatively harmful within species, thus weakening support for the ethological explanation.

-There is also unjustified extrapolation to humans. Lorenz extrapolated from the behaviour of animals to the behaviour of entire countries and states. This is an issue because the environment in which the an animal and human develop is very different and and for that reason there is no merit in generalising behaviours across species. Some species may well have an innate releasing mechanism and FAP because it is useful to them in their situation the same can’t be true for humans. Human aggression like war is the product of many factors such as politics, religion, which is overlooked by the ethological explanation.

-Biologically reductionist and determinist

-Nature > Nurture

Evolutionary explanations of human aggression

-The evolutionary approach argues aggression is an innate behaviour. Humans are most likely to survive if they have access to resources if they can defend their resources and protect their families and if they can attract and gain access to mates. Aggressive behaviour therefore evolved to support the human race in achieving these goals by maximising reproduction thus ensuring survival of the species.

-Buss and Duntley have identifies several adaptive functions of aggression including acquiring resources and increasing status. Two highly researched functions are defeating sexual rivals and retaining mates. This could explain bullying, inner city gang behaviour and warfare all which increase reproductive success and pass on genes to offspring.

-Men face the threat of cuckoldry (having to raise offspring that are not their own). It is a waste of resources because it contributes to the survival of a rival’s genes and leaves the father with fewer resources to invest in his own future offspring. Men in our evolutionary past who could avoid cuckoldry were more reproductively successful so psychological mechanism have evolved to increase anti-cuckoldry behaviors in men(sexual jealousy is felt more strongly by men than women). This drives the often aggression mate retention strategies men use to keep their partners and prevent them from straying. These were adaptive in our evolutionary history as they aided survival.

-Evolutionary psychologists argue that the fear of infidelity triggers and emotional state within the individual as it is perceived threat to the status quo of the relationship. Buss and Larston argues that this would naturally lead to the showing of behaviours that would reduce and eliminate the threat and often such action is violence or aggression.

-Wilson and Daly identify several mate retention strategies which involve aggression and physical violence:

-Direct guarding: male vigilance over a partner’s behaviour, seeing where they’ve been, who with, keeping tabs on their whereabouts, tracking apps.

-Negative inducements: issuing threats of dire consequences for infidelity (if you leave me I will kill myself)

The evolutionary explanation of aggression AO3 positives

+Many studies demonstrate that mate retention strtegies are associated with sexual jealousy and aggression. Wilson et al found women who reported mate retention strategies in their partners were twice as likely to have suffered physical violence at the hands of their partners. Of these 73% required medical attention and 53% said that they feared for their lives.

+Evolutionary explanations acknowledge that nature interacts with nurture and are less determinist than pure genetic explanations. However the emphasis still lies on biology and cultural influences are marginalised in this explanation therefore a more holistic approach to explaining aggression may be more suitable.

+Further support comes from Daly and Wilson who found that sexual jealousy was the underlying factory in 58/214 cases of murder. They found that homicide rates are much higher when a man’s wife or partner is about to leave him suggesting that fear and jealously involved in losing a partner can have aggressive consequences supporting the theory.

The evolutionary explanation of aggression AO3 negatives

-In some cultures mates are required to act violently in order to gain status whilst in others aggression leads to a damaged reputation. The Yanamamo tribe require violence for status whereas the !Kung San tribe are non aggressive despite the risk of infidelity still being present. This therefore provides a problem for evolutionary explanations and other explanations may be better at explaining such cultural differences.

-Doesn’t explain female aggression so challenge with another explanation.

Social-psychological explanations of aggression

-Frustration aggression hypothesis

-Social learning theory of aggression

-Deindividuation

Frustration-Aggression hypothesis AO1

-Dollard’s hypothesis is based on the psychodynamic approach and argues that aggression is a drive (similar to bio drives of hunger)

-Suggested that aggression is a consequence of feelings of frustration.

-Frustration is the feeling you experience when you are trying to to achieve something e.g. working towards a goal and there are barriers (real or imaginary) that are preventing you from releasing your aggression.

-It is an unpleasant feeling and needs to be relieved. Aggression allows that relief to happen. Expression of the aggressive drive in behaviour is cathartic because the aggression created by the frustration is satisfied.

-This reduces the drive making further aggression less likely (we feel better for getting it off our chest) Do this by sublimation: using aggression in an acceptable activity e.g. sports or displacement: directing aggression outwards on something that isn’t the true source.

-Various factors that affect the likelihood of aggression occurring:

-Proximity to the goal. If the individual is very close to achieving their goal then the likelihood of aggression occurring is much greater than if achieving the goal is much less imminent or attainable.

-Whether the aggression will remove the barrier that is causing the frustration. If aggression will have no effect on removing the barrier it is less likely to occur.

-The presence of aggressive cues in the environment make acting upon this aggression much more likely if the person is already frustrated.

-The hypothesis also recognises that aggression is not always expressed directly against the source of frustration so ego defence mechanisms used if anger can’t be taken out on the source:

-The cause of our frustration may be abstract (economic, government)

-The cause may be too powerful and we risk punishment by aggressing against it (teacher, boss)

-The cause may be unavailable at the time

-Therefore our aggression is deflected or displaced onto an alternative one that is not abstract, powerful or unavailable.

Frustration aggression hypothesis AO3 positives

+Harris tested whether proximity to the goal had an effect on the level of aggression shown. She used situations where queues occurred such as shops and confederates pushed in front off people. If they were closer to the front of the queue ps were more likely to react in an aggressive way than if they were at the back. This supports the idea of proximity to the goal.

+Deterministic

+Real life applications

+Nurture>Nature

Frustration aggression hypothesis AO3 negatives

-Aggression is not always prompted by frustration. For example the premeditated and planned aggressive acts of psychopaths and killers are not usually underpinned by frustration. This suggests that there are other elements to aggressive behaviour. Berkowitz reformulates the theory to suggest that aggressive behaviour is triggered by negative feelings rather than just frustration e.g. jealously, loneliness, pain. This was called negative affect theory which is more plausible than focusing purely on frustration.

-Not everyone who experiences frustration reacts with aggression. It is possible that some may cry or withdraw rather than become aggressive. They may not feel anger so react in a different way, reflecting their emotional state. This suggests that there may be other factors that play a role in aggression like biological explanation suggest low MAOA activity is associated with aggressive behaviour.

-There is also research to suggest that aggression may not be cathartic. Bushman found that ps who vented their anger by repeatedly hitting a punchbag actually became more angry and aggressive rather than less. Doing nothing was more effective in reducing aggression than venting anger. The outcome of this study is every different from that predicted by the frustration aggression hypothesis. This casts doubt on the validity of the central assumption of the hypothesis.

Social learning theory AO1

-According to SLT aggression can be learned directly through operant conditioning (positive and negative reinforcement and punishment) e.g. a child who snatches a toy learns that aggression is rewarded an example of direct positive reinforcement. However Bandura argued that most aggression is learned directly through observation and vicarious reinforcement (we learn to be aggressive ourselves by observing others being rewarded for their aggressive behaviour). A child observes role models (parents) being aggressive and works out how aggressive behaviour is performed. Children also observe the consequences of a model’s aggressive behaviour- if it is rewarded the child learns aggression can be effective in getting what they want. This is vicarious reinforcement and it makes it more likely that the child will imitate the models aggressive behaviour.

-SLT argues that individuals interact reciprocally with their environment and individuals influence their environment which in turn influences them (reciprocal determinism). SLT tends to favour the nurture side of nature-nurture although it is generally assumed that the capacity for the observational learning must be innate (biological).

-A number of factors make imitation more or less likely. These include self efficacy and the characteristics of the role model:

-Self efficacy: the extent to which we believe our actions will achieve a desired goal. Aggression therefore is likely to be performed only in situations where the learner believes they will be successful (gain a reward)

-Characteristics of the model: the model is more likely to be imitated if it has status, power and if the individual identifies with them.

-4 mediational processes: Attention, Retention, Motor reproduction and Motivation.

Social learning theory of aggression AO3 positives

+Support for SLT comes from Bandura who looked at the effects of observing a model being punished or rewarded. They found that children who had seen a character in a film being rewarded for aggressive behaviour used more aggressive behaviour whilst playing than those who had not witnessed this. This supports SLT as it suggests that children may learn by vicarious reinforcement. Those who witnessed a role model being reinforced for their aggressive behaviour were more likely to imitate the behaviour suggesting aggression is a learnt process.

+Another key strength of SLT comes from cross cultural research of !Kung San tribe where aggressive behaviour is frowned upon and therefore there was an absence of aggressive role models. They had found that there was no aggressive acts were made throughout the tribe as the children were only able to observe, retain and copy the calm behaviour modelled. This therefore supports the main ideas for the SLT as it suggest that aggression is learnt via vicarious reinforcement of aggressive behaviour by role models. As there were no aggressive models there was no aggression. This suggests SLT has predictive validity and provides support for its main assumptions. It can also explain cross cultural differences in aggression.

Social learning theory AO3 negatives

-Some studies only look at the immediate impact of watching a role model acting aggressively. In reality exposure to role models might have different long term effects. Therefore such research could have different long term implications for each child’s behavior some children may not continue to be aggressive in the long run. Therefore this weakens the support of such studies for SLT as an explanation of real life aggression.

-Despite the support SLT can be criticised for being too deterministic. Although the approach appears less mechanistic than behaviourism social learning theorists generally do not believe in free will and take a deterministic view of behaviour, Their emphasis on the role of the cognitive and motivational factors may appear to give freedom if choice in the role of behaviour but it should be remembered that a person’s motivation is a product of learning that took place at an earlier time that therefore their choices are not free.

Deindividuation AO1

-Defined as a process whereby people lose their sense of socialised individual identity and engage in unsocialised often antisocial behaviour.

-Zimbardo distinguished between individuated behaviour which is rational and conforms to acceptable social standards and deindividuated behaviour which is based upon primitive urges and does not conform to society’s standards,

-The psychological state of deindividuation is aroused when people join large crowds or groups. This is most pronounced when we have: a loss of identity e.g. wearing a uniform, diffusion of responsibility, large group size, altered conciousness due to taking drugs or alcohol. All these factors result in a loss of identity and provides the individual with anonymity,

-Anonymity means that the individual gains the identity of the groups (being hidden by a uniform or being in a large crowd) and engage in less inhibited behaviour. This leads to an increase in behavior that would normally be inhibited by a personal or social norms such as aggression. We become impulsive, emotional and irrational because we lose individual self identity and responsibility for our behaviour (loss of private self awareness). Anonymity also provides fewer opportunities for others to judge us negatively so we care less about how others see is (loss of public self awareness).

Deindividuation theory AO3 positives

+Research support comes for Rehm who investigated whether wearing a uniform when part of a sports team also increased aggressive behavior. They found that children wearing uniform (orange clothing) played the game consistently more aggressively than the children in their everyday clothes. This suggests a loss of identity by wearing a uniform can result in the loss of identity which deindividuates people and causes aggressive behaviour.

+Zimbardo Stanford Prison Study also support deindividuation as he set up a mock prison and assigned people the role of prisoner or guard. He found that despite it being role play the guards became increasingly aggressive towards the prisoners. One explanation for this may be deindividuation as the guards were all dressed in prisoner outfits and wore sunglasses thus supporting the idea that increased anonymity may lead to decreased concern about evaluation by others and therefore aggressive behaviour.

Deindividuation theory AO3 negatives

-However Zimbardo’s research the prisoners were also given a smock to wear and referred to as a number instead of their names. throughout the course of the experiment they became increasingly passive, suggesting that deindividuation does not always lead to aggressive behaviour.

-Maybe a better explanation for their behaviour is that conformity to social roles as the prisoners were simply taking on the role of they were given. This suggests deindividuation may not explain aggressive behaviour.

-Spivey and Prentice Dunn found people who are deindividuated can act pro-socially instead of anti-socially if they are in a pro social crowd(charity event, marathon).

-Challenge with other explanations

-Deterministic and ignores biology nurture>nature

Media influences on aggression

-The media including films. tv, computer games may influence people’s aggression through observations of different role models (SLT). There are 3 underlying mechanisms: Desensitisation, Disinhibition, Cognitive priming.

-Most of us live in a media saturated world. TV, radio, newspapers, books, magazines, internet and social media to fill the lives of most individuals. Psychologists have been interested to investigate whether these media influences have an effect on our aggressive behaviour. Any form of communication an be defined as media and new media apparent in the technological advances in gaming.

The effects of TV/film viewing

-Excessive TV viewing: Aggressive behaviour may be linked to viewing excessive amounts of TV, regardless of whether the content is violent or not. Lyndsay Robertson et al measured the TV viewing hours of over 1000 New Zealander’s at regular intervals up to the age of 25 years. The researchers found that time spent watching TV in childhood and adolescence was a reliable predictor of aggressive behaviour in early adulthood(defined as convictions for aggressive and violent crimes). According to researchers excessive time spent watching TV is associated with reduced social interaction and poorer educational achievement. This means the link between excessive TV viewing and aggression may be indirect (due to reduced social interaction)

-Violent film content: Viewing violent film content is perhaps the most significant media influence if aggressive behaviour, Albert Bandura et al followed up their earlier research by looking at the effects of aggression viewed on the screen. They replicated their earlier study except that the children watched a film of the Bobo doll being beaten by an adult model. The outcome was similar with children imitating the aggressive behaviour of the model and also of the cartoon version. The social learning processes identified by Bandura operate through media as well and face to face.

-TV/film effects not strong: Other research has found that the negative effects of TV/film violence are not as strong as it often assumed. Paik and Comstock carried out a meta analysis of 200 studies. They found a significant positive correlation between viewing/TV violence and antisocial behaviour. However they estimated that TV/film violence probably only accounted for between 1-10% of the variance in children’s aggressive behavior. This implies a minor role for TV and film compared with other sources of aggression.

The effects of computer games

-Computer games have become increasingly violent. Players of these games get increasingly desensitised and may even get positive reinforcement from using violence. This ,ay then reinforce the aggressive behaviour in everyday life or lead to disinhibition. Computer games may also be beneficial as a way of venting anger or relieving stress(cathartic).

-Researchers have also used a variety of methods to investigate the effects of computer games on aggression. This includes experimental studies(lab based and short term effects), correlational studies (which investigate real life variables and may be short term or longitudinal) and meta analysis brings together these three types to give an overall judgement of the size and the effect of violent media on aggressive behaviour.

-Experimental studies: Bartholow and Anderson used a lab based experiment where students played either a violent computer game or a non violent game for 10 minutes. They then all carries out the Taylor Competitive Reaction Time task (TCRTT) a standard lab measure of aggression in which the students delivered blasts of white noise at chosen volumes to punish a non existing component. Those who played the violent vide games selected significantly higher noise levels than those who didn’t.

Correlational studies: De Lisis et al studied 277 juvenile offenders all with histories of serious aggressive behaviours such as hitting a teacher or parent or gang fighting. Using structured interviews they gathered data on several measures of aggression and violent computer game playing. They found that offenders’ aggressive behaviour significantly correlated with how often they played violent video games and how much they enjoyed them. The researchers argued that the link is so well established that aggression should be considered a pubic health issue.

Meta analysis: Anderson et al performed a meta-analysis of 136 studies which included experiments, correlational and longtitudinal studies and found that exposure to violent computer games was associated with increases in aggressive behaviour, thoughts and feelings. The finding was true for both males and females and across collectivist and individualist cultures. Furthermore the higher quality studies in the analysis showed an even greater significant effect.

The role of desensitisation AO1

-Desensitisation theory proposes that with continual exposure to a stimulus, our responses to that stimulus decreased. Therefore if aggression is presented to us on a daily basis there is a reduction in our response to the aggression.

-Normally when we witness violent actions the sympathetic nervous system is activated which results in increased heart rate, higher blood pressure, sweating etc. However when children repeatedly view aggression they become habituate to its effects. So stimulus that is usually aversive has a diminishing impact resulting in anxiety and physiological arousal on repeated viewing or playing.

-This desensitisation is psychological as well as physiological. Repeated exposure to violent media promotes a belief that using aggression as a method of resolving conflict is socially acceptable. Negative attitudes towards violence weaken, less empathy felt for victims and the injuries are minimised and dismissed.

-Continual use of a computer game that exposes the player to violence can therefore reduce the impact and the revulsion they may have for such violence. In theory this then makes them more likely to act in aggressive way because they have reduced emotional reaction to it. Today our environment consists of a media saturated world and violence and aggression are often presented in news reports. however violence is also a feature of many computer games. Psychologists propose that desensitisation as a response to violence viewed in video games cam have a negative effect Individuals may not respond to real aggression with any physiological arousal such as that associated with fear. The result of this effect is that individuals may be more likely to accept violence and aggression an may be more likely to respond violently and aggressively when presented with the opportunity to do so.

Evaluation of the role of desensitisation AO3

+Weisz and Earls showed ps the fil Straw Dogs which contained graphic rape scene. male viewers showed greater acceptance of rape myths after watching a mock trial rape (compared to male viewers of a non violent film). They also showed less sympathy to the victim and were less likely to find the defendant guilty (no similar effect for female ps. This supports the view that the repeated exposure to violent media does weaken negative attitudes to violence and that less empathy is felt towards victims thus supporting the theory for an explanation of aggression.

-However Belson found no evidence to suggest a link between violence and anti-social behaviour. He studied 1500 teenage boys and correlated the number of hours watching tv violence and anti-social attitude. The lack of a link between the two suggests that desensitisation may not occur at all. A more valid explanation could be catharsis.

-It is hard to establish a connection between media exposure and desensitisation. media exposure is widespread and yet we ate not all affected equally. individual vulnerability in terms of leek if emotion experienced may explain why some people are more desensitised than others. bio explanations better like atypical serotonin is thought to cause increased aggression.

The role of disinhibition AO1

-A further theory to explain how the media can influence aggression is through a process of disinhibition. Disinhibition theory proposes that our normal restraints are loosened after exposure to media violence.

-Generally violence and aggression are viewed as anti-social and harmful. There are powerful social and psychological inhibitions against using aggression to resolve interpersonal conflicts. These are learned directly and indirectly by social learning theory.

-In violent media, aggressive behaviour is made to appear normal and socially acceptable especially if it appears to minimise the effects of violence on its victims and suggest that it is justified. It is not unusual for video games to show violence being rewarded at the same time its consequences being minimised or ignored. This created new social norms in the viewer. The disinhibition effect when on a computer can be explained in several ways:

-Anonymity and invisibility: while playing a computer game means responsibility for behaviour is perceived as reduced.

-Solipsistic introjection: players often have a feeling of becoming cognitively merged with the alter in the game. Therefore uncharacteristic behaviour may occur because the individual is not acting as themselves.

-Minimisation of authority: occurs in computer games as there is often no law enforcement or awareness of potential legal consequences as there might be in everyday life. This means that behaviour which would be classified as criminal is carried out as it is a virtual world.

Evaluation of disinhibition AO3

+Berkowitz and Alioto found that ps who saw a film depicting aggression as vengeance gave more (fake) electric shocks of longer duration to a confederate. This suggests that media violence may disinhibit aggressive behaviour when it is presented ad justified. This is because vengeance is a powerfuk justification for violence, and justified violence is more likely to be seen as socially acceptable. This adds validity to the disihibition conceot because it demonstrates the link between removal of social constraints and subsequent aggressive behaviour.

+Another strength of disinhibition is that it can explain cartoon violence. Children do not learn specific aggressive behaviours from cartoon models (it is not possible to punchsomeone so their head spins 360 degrees) instead they learn that aggression in general is acceptable (socially normative). This is especially true the cartoon model is not punished. This disinhibits aggressive behaviour. Disinhibition can therefore explain how cartoon aggression can lead to real aggression.

-It is highly likely that not all forms of media will evoke feelings of disinhibition and there is a bias in the research towards disinhibition in playing computer games. This suggests that disinhibition may only apply to certain forms of the media and that the strongest effects are found in computer gaming. The extent to which someone may become involved in the media they are experiencing will also vary. So disinhibition may occur only in people who are fully engaged in playing and are not easily distracted by external stimuli (introverts). This narrows the number of people who can be affected this way and limits the extent to which disinhibition can explain all instances of aggression.

-Effects from disinhibition seemed to be contained in time to the period while playing the computer games. This means that the effect is relevant only while engaging with the media and that the effect is negligible while away from the computer game medium.

-Likely a number of factors so the relationship between aggressive media and aggression is not straight forward.

The role of cognitive priming AO1

-Cognitive priming refers to the priming effects of media images on previously learnt behavior s or cognitive schema activating the memories and making aggression more likely. Aggressive images in the media (guns) act as a priming stimulus/cue for a script/schema/memory of an aggressive behaviour. Exposure to these cues in a similar context can trigger the memory leading to reproduction id the aggressive or anti social behaviour.

-The effect may be specific (reproduction of specie aggressive acts) or more general(tendency to behave in a generally violent /aggressive/anti social way.

-Violent computer games increase the likelihood of aggression in players who have learned aggressive responses in the past and/or who hold an aggressive schema.

-Repeated viewing of aggressive media especially game playing can provide a script about how to respond to aggressive cues.

-Huesmann suggests this script is stored in a memory and so we become ready or primed to be aggressive. The process is mostly automatic it can direct our behavior without us even being aware of it. The script is triggered when we encounter conflict in a situation that we perceive as aggressive.

-We may be exposed to cues on tv or on computer games and that these cues can trigger behaviour in us. These cues can be anti-social, such as an aggressive act, or pro-social such as helping behaviour. The effects of these cues are moderated by context. We do not blindly act out what we see and the cues will act as triggers id the context is similar which it rarely is.

Evaluation of the role of cognitive priming AO3

+Fischer and Greitemeyer (2006). They looked at the priming of aggressive scripts in memory by investigating violent song lyrics. Male participants listened to songs featuring aggressively derogatory lyrics about women. Compared with when they listened to neutral lyrics, participants subsequently recalled more negative qualities about women and behaved more aggressively towards a female confederate. This procedure was replicated with female participants using men hating song lyrics with similar results. ​

+Neuroscientific evidence for priming was found in research by Murray et al (2007). The researchers took fMRI brain scans of children watching violent and non violent films and found those watching violence had increased activity in brain areas associated with emotion, together with areas linked to personal memories. This seems to suggest that the memories were formed which could later react to cues and prompt aggressive or violent behaviour. ​

-The research is mixed with regard to whether specific or general behaviours are affected by cognitive priming. There does seem to be an effect, but exactly how specific it is is unclear. It may be that cognitive priming has an effect on someone only if they have a predisposition to a certain type of behaviour due to their personality. The effects are likely to be subtle, so changing an aggressive individual into someone who is prosocial is unlikely with cognitive priming. ​

-It is hard to establish cause and effect with cognitive priming as research is mostly correlational and therefore we can only establish that the two factors (exposure and aggression) are related. It is possible that aggressive and violent people choose to watch more violent programmes, not that the violent programmes cause the violent behaviour ​

Explanations for Institutional aggression

-Dispositional explanation: The importation model

-Situational explanation: The deprivation model

-Institutions are places where there are strict rules that give little choice to members of that institution e.g. prisons, armed forces and metal institutions. institutional aggression refers to aggressive behaviours adopted by members of an institution for example prisoners may form gangs that commit violence against other inmates.

-Psychologists are interested in whether institutional aggression is caused by the personalities of the institution members (disposition) or the situation in which the members find themselves (situational).

Dispositional explanation: The importation model AO1

-Irwin and Cressey proposed the importation model it suggests prisoner’s aggression is caused by the personality characteristics that the prisoners have brought with them to prison.

-This explanation suggests that prisoners bring their own social histories and traits with them to the prison environment. This includes beliefs, values, norms and attitudes and a history of learning experiences as well as other personal characteristics such as gender, race and class. For this reason it is believed that aggression is explained as a result pf the disposition or personalities of the prisoners themselves rather than the situation that they’re in. Therefore a prison is a concentration of aggressive members of society.

-Often it is younger inmates that tend to behave violently as they are more likely to find it harder to adjust to prison life, and may therefore engage in more conflicts with others and are more likely to view aggression as an appropriate way to deal with conflict.

-Prisoner characteristics include anger and traumatic experiences. Irwin and Cressey identified 3 subcultures and offended types:

-Criminal: Repeat offender: Follows criminal norms does not betray others.

-Convict: Familiar with gangs: Believes in the hierarchy of power, uses aggression on other prisoners.

-Conventional: One-off: Not usually aggressive, maintains a low profile.

-This suggests aggression is likely to be seen in prisoners who are criminal and convicts as the characteristics they have brought in to prison with them make them more likely to engage in aggression. The social histories of Primary Importance within the prison system, they influence the prison subculture that they individual joins which then in effect determines their level of aggressive behaviour inside e.g. criminal subculture, convict subculture.

Evaluation of the Importation model AO3

+De Lisi et al studied juvenile delinquents in California institutions who imported several negative dispositional features e.g. childhood trauma, anger, histories of substance abuse and violent behaviour. These inmates were more likely to engage in suicidal activity and sexual misconduct and committed more acts of physical violence brought to the attention of the parole board (compared to control group of inmates with fewer negative dispositional factors).

+Poole and Regoli also assessed the impact of deprivation and importational factors on inmate violence in 4 juvenile correction institutions. Pre institutional violence (importational factor) amongst the juvenile inmates emerged as the best predictor of inmate aggression (more so than the level of deprivation experienced).

+Harer and Steffensmeier found that in US prisons black inmates were significantly more aggressive than white inmates but that white inmates were significantly more likely to engage in alcohol and drug taking than black inmates. They argued that these behaviours reflected the cultural norms that black and white societies hold outside of prison, and so the behaviours have been imported to the prison supporting the importation model.

-Socially sensitive research can have negative implications on these groups in society and how they are treated.

-Major weakness is it doesn’t accurately predicy which inmates will behave aggressively in prison. This is because the model states that prisoners who were members of violent gangs before prison will be more m= likely to behave aggressively in prison but De Lisi et al found no evidence that gange membership prior to imprisonment was linked to violence inprison.

-No practical real life applications

Situational model: The Deprivation model AO1

-Clemmers argues that the origin of the prison subculture emanates from within the institution not from the outside. This is therefore a situational explanation as it suggests that the aggression occurs as a result of the environment that the individuals are in an not necessarily as a result of the individual’s disposition.

-The deprivation model argues that it is the situation inmates find themselves in within the prison that causes violent behaviour. deprivations within the institution are the cause of aggression such as:

-Deprivation of liberty

-Deprivation of autonomy

-Deprivation of goods and services (goods are particularly important as it increases competition amongst inmates to acquire them and is accompanied by an increase in aggression)

-Deprivation of heterosexual relationships

-Deprivation of security

-All the above deprivation can lead to increased stress for inmates. It is therefore as a consequence of these deprivations that some inmates act aggressively towards others in order o both reduce stress and obtain the desired resources. aggression is therefore an adaptive way in which prisoners can gain some control over the social order imposed on them in prison.

-Evaluation of the Deprivation Model AO3

+Harer and Stefffensmeier suggest that inmates behave in a way that is caused by the difficulties they have adjusting to the pains of imprisonment. The pains of imprisonment include the loss of freedom, relationships, isolation from the community, boredom, discomfort and loneliness. An example is when prions are overcrowded there is a greater loss of comfort and personal space which in turn leads to higher levels of interpersonal violence.

-However not all research has been found to support the deprivation model. McCorckle et al sampled 371 US prisons and found little evidence to support the prediction that overcrowding in prisons leads to increased levels of violent behaviour. They also found that stress amongst inmates such as feelings of loneliness or isolation are relatively constant among inmates in prison whereas serious outbreaks of violence such as riots are relatively isolated. They argue that the way a prison is managed is a greater predictor of serious violence than overcrowding and stress amongst inmates.

-Alternatively Colvin suggests that a better explanation may include levels of relative rather than absolute deprivation that is the prisoner’s perceived discrepancy between what they receive and what they expected. Poole and Regoli collected data from 4 young offenders institutions and found pre conviction violence was a greater predictor of aggression than overcrowding and other stresses within an institution. This is in direct support of the importation model over deprivation model.

Gender biased only focuses on male aggression so beta biased as it minimises differences in gender in terms of aggression.

-Importational model considers the underlying personality as well as the pre prison environment but the deprivation model only considers the environment the individual finds themselves in. Iti s likely a combination of these factors which affect institutional aggression'.