Aggression

Q1. Briefly outline and evaluate the findings of one research study into genetic factors in aggression (4)

Outline -
Brunner et al found men from a Dutch family who behaved in a violent and aggressive manner were also involved in serious crimes of violence and had abnormally low lvls of MAOA and MAOA-L variant.
This shows that when the MAOA gene is dysfunctional, it affects the metabolism of serotonin which leads to higher aggression lvls

Eval -
Stating aggression is a result of purely genetic influences is biologically deterministic bc it’s arguing aggression is predetermined and therefore any aspect of free will is ignored. This has negative implications for society as it means that people can’t be held responsible for the actions which would create issues for the legal system when dealing with acts of aggression.

Q2. Discuss the role of genetic factors in aggression (16)

AO1>
The likelihood of behaving in a particular way is determined by a person's genetic makeup i.e inherited from parents. There are 3 ways to investigate genetic factors: family, twin and adoption studies.

MZ twins share 100% of genes and DZ twins share 50% (like siblings). We would expect to find a higher concordance rate in MZ twins than DZ twins in aggression

Adoption studies helps untangle the relative contributions of environment and heredity in aggression. There’d be a positive correlation with bio parents + adoptee (genetic - nature) and with adoptive parents + adoptee (environmental - nurture)

MAOA gene is an enzyme - its role is to mop up the NTs in the brain after synaptic transmission. It breaks down the NT esp serotonin into constituent chemicals to be recycled or excreted. dysfunction of this may lead to abnormal activity of the MAOA enzyme which then affects the levels of serotonin in the brain.
The 2 types of MAOA gene are MAOA-H = high lvls of MAOA
MAOA-L = low lvls of MAOA. Low lvl variant is linked to aggressive behaviour (More common in populations with a history of warfare
as they need to be more aggressive to fight)

Genes are crucial influences on aggressive behaviour but they do not function in isolation. MAOA-L is only related to adult aggression when combined with early traumatic life events.
Frazzetto et al (2007) found an association b/w higher lvls of antisocial aggression and low activity of the gene variant in adult males but only in those who had exp significant trauma e.g sexual or physical abuse. those who didn’t, didn’t have high lvls of aggression as adults, even w low variant.

AO3>
:) P - Research support
E - Rhee and Waldwan carried out a meta analysis of 51 twin and adoption studies of direct aggression and our behaviour and found that genetic influences accounted for 41% of the variance in aggression
E - Findings confirm importance of genes in aggressive behaviour showing link b/w the 2 variables. As there is research supporting a genetic basis for aggression, this increases our confidence that the genetic exp is a valid account of how genes influence aggressive behaviour.
CA - however, depending on the method or techniques used within the study, different results may be found. When self report techniques were used, genetic factors explained aggressive behaviour. With observational techniques there was more of an emphasis on env influences. decreasing internal val. of meta analysis. link b/w genetics and aggression can't be established from this research.

:) P - irl app for genetic exp
E - if genes predispose ppl towards aggressive behaviours, engineering should be used to change the genes and reduce this risk.
E - if possible, it could lead to a better society, with less crime and acts of aggressive behaviour
CA - however, the labelling of an individual as dangerous based on their genetic inheritance poses serious ethical questions in that it can lead to negative treatments towards the individual in terms of friendships relationships, and even job prospects. As a consequence, this would lead to lower QoL.

:) P - Research support
E - Brunner et al investigated family members in a Dutch family where many of the male members behaved in a violent and aggressive manner w a large proportion of them being involved in serious crimes of violence. they found that these men had abnormally low lvls of MAOA and MAOA-L variant.
E - this shows that when the MAOA gene is dysfunctional, it affects the metabolism of serotonin which leads to higher aggression lvls. therefore supporting the idea that aggression has a genetic basis
CA - however, stating that aggression is a result of purely genetic influences is biologically deterministic because it’s arguing that aggression is predetermined and therefore any aspect of free will is ignored. This has negative implications for society as it means that people can’t be held responsible for the actions which would create issues for the legal system when dealing with acts of aggression.

:( P - Genes not enough to explain aggression
E - Caspi et al (2002) looked at 500 male children and found that those w/ the MAOA-L variant were significantly more likely to exhibit anti-social behaviour later on, but ONLY if they had been mistreated as a child. They also found that children with the MAOA-H gene who were mistreated and MAOA-L gene who was not mistreated did not display anti-social behaviour.
E - this suggests possession of the MAOA-L variant isn’t enough to lead to aggressive behaviours but w the influence of env factors, you’re more at risk of displaying aggressive behaviours.
L - perhaps the diathesis stress model (explains behaviour as the result of an interaction between a pre-dispositional vulnerability and stress caused by life experiences) is a better exp. this would then provide a more useful way of explaining how genes and the environment interact to cause aggression.

Q3. Discuss the role of neural / hormonal mechanisms in aggression (16)

AO1>
The Limbic System is a system of structures beneath the cortex (subcortical structures) which includes the hypothalamus, hippocampus and amygdala. The amygdala and hippocampus work closely together.

The amygdala is important in processing the emotional importance of incoming information and is involved in selecting an appropriate response after analysing the situation. A damaged amygdala leads to aggressive behaviour. The Hippocampus is involved in the formation of long term memories so it allows an individual to compare a current situation w/ a past exp. If impaired, it prevents the NS from putting things into relevant and meaningful context and so may cause the amygdala to respond inappropriately to stimuli, resulting in aggression. The Hypothalamus helps regulate the body's physical response to stimuli and is involved in the expression of emotion such as aggression. If overstimulated, this can lead to aggression.

Serotonin is important in mood balance and plays a role in the limbic system. At normal lvls = calming, inhibitory effect on neurons firing in the amygdala. At low levels = calming effect is reduced. so when the amygdala is stimulated, it becomes more active, leading to a person being more IMPULSIVE and aggressive

Testosterone is a hormone produced mainly in the testes in males, but also occurring in females in smaller amounts. associated with the development of secondary sexual characteristics in males e.g body hair, but also has been implicated in aggression and dominance behaviours. Thought to influence aggression due to its action on brain areas involved in controlling aggression. e.g can increase amygdala reactivity.

AO3>
:) P - There’s research to support the role of serotonin
E - Mann et al found that when ps were given a drug known to reduce serotonin lvls, there was an increase in aggression scores in the male ppts
E - Supports role of serotonin as it shows that when there are lower lvls, behaviour self control is reduced therefore leading to an increase in aggressive behaviour, evidenced by higher aggression scores. shows there’s a link b/w serotonin and aggression.
CA - However, Increase in scores were only found in male ppts which suggests that females are not influenced by serotonin in the same way. example of beta bias, as the possibility of a difference between the effects of serotonin on aggression in men and women has been ignored and therefore is not fully understood. more research needed to include the effects on both sexes as this should not be inferred from this research.

:) P - Despite this, there’s research to support the role of the amygdala from a case study as a neural mechanism
E - Charles Whitman, who killed and injured several people was later found to have a tumour pressing on his amygdala
E - this tumour would've results in his amygdala becoming overstimulated making him unable to respond appropriately to situations i.e saw everything as a threat, thus leading to aggressive behaviour.
L - Therefore highlights the importance of the amygdala in aggression showing it plays an important role in how we assess and respond to environmental threats and challenges, and that when stimulated, leads to aggressive behaviours

:) P - There’s research to support the role of testosterone as a hormonal mechanism in aggression
E - Dabbs et al, who measured salivary testosterone in violent and non-violent criminals, found that those with the higher testosterone levels had a history of mainly violent crimes, whereas those with the lower levels had committed only non-violent crimes
E - shows support that testosterone may influence agg behaviour as those with higher levels clearly are more aggressive, evidenced by the violent crimes committed. thus there is a link between testosterone and aggression
CA - however, it’s correlational data so difficult to establish cause and effect relationship between testosterone and aggression. may have been a 3rd variable that cause those violent crimes to be committed rather than higher testosterone alone. this problem is highlighted in other research which has found that testosterone only causes high lvls of aggression when cortisol levels are low (dual-hormone hypothesis). this shows that claiming testosterone causes high levels of aggression may be too simplistic and other hormones e.g cortisol may also be involved in the rs. b/w hormones and aggression

:( P: Most research has been conducted using male ps
E: Baucom et al found that women with higher testosterone lvls had higher occupational status, possibly as a result of being more assertive and dominant.
E: this suggests there are gender differences in the way testosterone lvls affect males and females. for example, rather than it increasing the aggression lvls in females, it makes them more assertive instead.
L: thus the research into testosterone and aggression suffers with beta bias as it has ignored the idea that there may be gender differences in the effects of testosterone and instead just assumed that testosterone affects men and women in the same way, when this is clearly not the case.

Q1. What are innate releasing mechanisms? (2)

Innate releasing mechanisms (IRMs) are hard-wired brain networks that respond to specific stimuli (signs / releasers) by initiating a fixed action pattern, a set seq of behaviours.
IRMs are a key part of the ethological (instinctive) approach to aggression. Examples include the male stickleback showing aggressive behaviour to red-bellied sticklebacks (male rivals)

Q2. “News correspondents in inner cities have remarked upon how young males frequently carry weapons and engage in threatening behaviour” Using your knowledge of evolutionary explanations of aggression, account for these high lvls of aggression in young males (4)

Male aggression derives from need to acquire / defend resources such as mates or territory (in the city) / for status (in groups of peers or b/w gangs)
Male aggression also derives from sexual jealousy of other males who may have sex with or steal their mates.

Q3. Describe and evaluate evolutionary explanations for human aggression (16)

AO1>

Ethology is the study of animals in their natural setting. it states that aggression has an adaptive function. The 2 different ways in which aggression may benefit survival is through defeated (animals relocate, decr. comp. for resources) + dominance (establishes hierarchy, increases access to mates).

Ritualistic aggression is when a series of behaviours are carried out in a set order. Animals fighting rarely results in fatal injuries, instead they use rituals (if animals were killed in every fight, the species would likely become extinct. Therefore, these rituals prevent this)

IRMs are innate releasing mechanisms. They’re built in physiological processes / structures which are activated by an external stimulus (sign stimulus) that then triggers a specific seq of behaviours known as fixed action potentials (FAPs). The 5 FAPs are stereotyped (behaviour is unchanging) / universal (behaviour found in all animals of same species) / independent of individual experience (innate) / ballistic (can’t be changed once triggered) / specific triggers (sign stimulus).

AO3>
:) P - Research support for IRM and FAPs
E - Tinbergen presented stickleback fish with a series of wooden models which were diff shape, size and whether they had a red spot or not. He found that when fish saw red spot, it always produced an aggressive set of behaviours and attacked the model. These behaviours were the same each time and once triggered, always ran to completion.
E - This suggests that the red spot acted as a sign stimulus which triggers the FAP of the aggressive behaviour. the fact the behaviours were the same each time and carried out to completion supports the ballistic and stereotyped features of the FAPs.
L - This suggests the ethological exp can accurately explain aggressive behaviours because there is research support.

:( P - FAPs aren’t as fixed
E - This is supported by the findings that there are variations b/w the same species in their aggressive behaviours.
E - This contradicts what the etho. exp. tells us about FAPs because it suggests that aggression is not innate and may actually be influenced by env factors or learning experiences. therefore suggesting the ethological exp isn’t an accurate representation of aggression.
CA - arguably env deterministic to suggest that aggression is predetermined and occurs as a result of our biological structures, disregarding the fact that we have free will and choice to behave how we want to, thus limiting applicability of it as an exp for aggression.

:( P - Cultural differences
E - Nisbett found that killings were more common in white males from southern states than northern states in america. this is further supported by lab research that found when southern white men were insulted in a research situation they were more likely to become more aggressive than northern white males.
E - this is a problem as if the etho exp is right, aggression would be instinctive and not influenced by culture. this means aggression may be learnt and socially influenced arguably, it is difficult to apply the ideas of innate biological structures such as FAPs and IRMs to human aggression based off the research conducted on animals, and are unlikely to respond in the same way to the stimuli.
L - thus, the etho exp. for aggression can’t be used to explain human aggression as it’s too limited.

:( P - Contradictory evidence for ritualistic aggression
E - Research has shown male chimps kill members of other chimp groups and male lions can kill cubs from other male lions
E - This is a problem as ritualistic agg isn’t supposed to result in fatalities within the same species as they could go extinct. This decr. ext. val. bc of how limited this exp is, as it can’t explain agg in all animals
CA - However, there’s evidence in typically violent human communities to support ritualistic agg e.g inuit eskimos use song duels to settle disputes which prevent conflicts from escalating to dangerous physical agg. Although there’s contradictory evidence in animal research, human research does support the idea that ritualistic agg serves to stop confrontations being fatal and thus is an accurate exp. for human aggression

Q1. Briefly explain 1 limitation of the situational explanation for institutional aggression (2)

It doesn’t fully account for individual diff in resilience and coping mechanisms. It emphasises env factors (deprivation / crowding) but overlooks the fact individuals react differently to the same stressors. For example, some may cope well w prison life and maintain relatively low lvls of aggression while others may be more prone to aggression due to pre-existing personality traits / past exp.

Q2. Outline research into institutional aggression (4)

DeLisi et al (2011) studied 813 juvenile delinquents confined in institutions in California and found inmates with several negative dispos. features (childhood trauma / high lvls of anger / history of substance abuse and violent behaviour) were more likely to engage in suicidal activity and sexual misconduct. They also committed more acts of physical violence.

Q3. Discuss explanations of institutional aggression (16)

AO1>
Institutional aggression is when aggressive or violent behaviour takes place within the social context of a prison or other formal organised setting. There are dispositional exp (importation model) and situational exp (deprivation)

Disp. exp. developed by Irwin and Cressey. Inmates bring in 'a ‘subculture of criminality’, not blank slates, but their characteristics will be imported into prison. Willingness of inmates to use violence in prison reflects solely on their lives before they were imprisoned so if they were aggressive outside, they’ll show aggression inside. Aggressive behaviour allows them to negotiate their way through unfamiliar env, establish power, status and access to resources. Therefore, aggression is a product of individual characteristics of inmates and not of the prison env. Inmates predisposed to using violence would be likely to do so in any setting, and were experienced in doing so outside prison.

Research for importation model comes from DeLisi et al (2011) who studied 813 juvenile delinquents confined in institutions in California. They brought in several negative disp. features (childhood trauma / history of substance abuse and violent behaviour / high anger lvls). Observation found inmates w those dispos. features were more likely to engage in suicidal activity and sexual misconduct + committed more acts of physical violence. This highlights pos. correlation b/w those disp. features and aggression.

Sit. exp. developed by Clemmer argues aggression occurs as a result of factors within prison setting. According to this model, harsh prison conditions are stressful for inmates. To cope, they engage in aggressive and violent behaviour. The environments likely to lead to this behaviour are poor hygiene, overcrowding, lack of freedom / independence, intellectual stimulation and intimacy.

Deprivation of material goods is important in this exp. as it leads to increased competition amongst inmates to acquire those who subsequently incr. aggression and argues aggression is influenced by the nature of the prison routine bc it’s unpredictable, and so creates frustration, reduced stimulation, and reduced access to goods. This is a recipe for violence which becomes an adaptive solution to the problem of dep.

AO3>
:) P - Research support
E - Camp and Gaes (2005) studied 561 male inmates w similar criminal histories and predisposition to aggression and found 33% of the prisoners in the low security prisons and 36% in higher security prisons were involved in aggressive misconduct within 2 years
E - This supports the dispositional exp. bc v little diff in percentages of prisoners who were aggressive based on if they were in a high or low security prison. Suggests sit. factors have little influence on aggression, perhaps institutional aggression is the result of disp. influences.
L - This is strong evidence to support bc the study used a field exp. w random allocation of inmates. Allows for the effects of individual differences to be reduced meaning more valid conclusions can be made that aggression is a result of disp. factors, not situational. Therefore, disp. factors are accurate at explaining institutional aggression.

:( P - Contradictory research
E - Dilulio criticises the importation model for ignoring the roles of prison officials and factors relating to the running of prisons when attempting to explain institutional aggression. Due to this he proposes an administrative control mode (ACM) which states poorly managed prisons are more likely to experience the most serious forms of inmate violence.
E - as this model argues it’s the prison environment that leads to aggressive behaviour this would suggest that situational factors are more influential in determining aggression than inmate characteristics (dispositional factors). Due to being mixed research, this implies that the dispositional explanation is inaccurate in explaining institutional aggression.
L - arguably this explanation is reductionist as it is reducing the complexity of institutional aggression down to the individuals characteristics and ignoring other influences such as situational variables that have an impact on whether institutional aggression occurs or not.

:) P - Research support
E - Cunningham et al (2010) analysed 35 inmate homicides in Texas prisons and found that motivations for the behaviours were linked to arguments over drugs, homosexual relationships, and personal possessions.
E - these are all factors predicted by the model that would lead to deprivation of intervene and goods leading to aggressive behaviour being displayed either to achieve those goods or out of frustration. As there is research supporting the idea that deprivation leads to aggressive behaviours in prison this increases the validity of the model.
CA - however, this study can be criticised for being ethnocentric as it was only conducted in Texas prisons. Texas prison environments may differ in terms of the environment and inmate behaviours so therefore the findings may only apply to that culture. This would lower the external validity of the findings and mean that the deprivation model shouldn't be used to explain institutional aggression in other countries.

:( P - Contradictory research
E - Hensley et al (2002) studied 256 m and f inmates of 2 prisons in Mississippi (allows conjugal visits) and found there was no link between involvement in these visits and reduced aggressive behaviour.
E - if the deprivation model were correct, a lack of freedom and heterosexual contact should lead to high lvls of aggressive behaviour in prisons. However these finding shows the opposite. perhaps institutional exp. have overestimated the influence of situational factors on institutional aggression and therefore offers an inaccurate exp.
L - Perhaps a combination of both models provided a better explanation for institutional aggression. For example inmate entering a prison will suffer deprivation but this does not necessarily lead to violence unless it is combined with the individual characteristics imported in the prison by inmates. Interactionist approach would reflect the complexity of institutional aggression which is unlikely to have just one cause as assumed by both models.

Q1. Briefly outline the possible role of cognitive priming in the effects of computer games on aggression (2)

Cog priming refers to the priming effects of media images on previously learnt behaviours / cognitive schema.
Repeated exposure to agg media provide us w a script abt how violent situations may play out which is stored in our memory. This results in us becoming primed to be aggressive when we encounter aggressive cues e.g a child learning from a computer game that aggressive acts are the best way to win / get what they want so this information is stored into their schema known as a ‘script’

Q2. Some people suggest that the media influences aggression through desensitisation. Eval desensitisation (6)

:) P: Research Support
E: Carnagey et al found that participants who had played a violent video game before viewing a film clip of real-life violence had a lower HR when watching the clip.
E: This supports the desensitisation explanation because it shows that exposure to aggressive media can affect physiological arousal - evident through the lower HR which leads to us becoming desensitised to aggressive behaviours. As there is research to support this, this increase the validity of the desensitisation explanation for media influences on aggression.
CA: However, participants in the supporting research study only viewed a film clip of the violence. Arguably, witnessing real life aggressive behaviour may lead to a different reaction as there are a number of other things happening at that time, such as an increase in anxiety. Therefore, it is difficult to use this study to support the idea that desensitisation occurs in real life after exposure to aggressive media.

:) P: Research Support
E: Krahé (2011) demonstrated that individuals who have a history of regularly viewing aggressive acts on TV, experienced more positive arousal and less anxious arousal when watching examples of aggressive media in a lab exp. compared to those w/o such regular viewing.
E: This suggests that desensitisation may be a precursor of disinhibition, overriding the innate reaction towards aggression of increased activity in the autonomic sympathetic division, which usually produces unpleasant symptoms such as increased heart rate and nervous laughter.
L: Media violence leads to aggressive behavior by removing the anxiety about violence. Someone who becomes desensitized to violence may therefore perceive it as more ‘normal’ and be more likely to engage in violence themselves. Therefore, there is a need for media regulation to avoid desensitisation to violence.

:( P: Research into desensitisation is primarily correlational
E: Difficult to establish cause and effect
E: It may well be that certain individuals are drawn to violent media because of genetic predisposition which makes them more desensitised anyways + Laboratory studies lack eco. val. and realism and as participants know they are being observed, their reaction to violent media may be very different in real world settings.
L: Therefore such studies may lack external validity due to the way media violence exposure is being artificially measured but also internal validity as the studies are not measuring a true desensitisation effect occurring.

Q4. Discuss media influences on aggression (8)

AO1>
There are 3 explanations for media influences on aggression: Desensitisation, disinhibition and cognitive priming.

Desensitisation means people are usually anxious about violence / aggression. Media violence may increase aggression as the violence removes the anxiety abt it. People who have lost this anxiety may have a reduction in physiological, arousal and violence e.g HR. People like this r less likely to notice violence irl and feel less sympathy for the victims of violence, having less negative attitudes towards it overall, meaning they are more likely to be aggressive themselves.

Most people have inhibitions about behaving aggressively. They feel hesitant to display aggression as it’s seen as socially unacceptable behaviour. The idea of how acceptable it is to harm others is transmitted socially including messages in the media. Violence in the media has legitimised the use of aggression towards individuals because it often appears justified w consequences of aggressive behaviour not really showing.

Cog priming refers to the priming effects of media images on previously learnt behaviours / cognitive schema. Repeated exposure to agg media provide us w a script abt how violent situations may play out which is stored in our memory. This results in us becoming primed to be aggressive when we encounter aggressive cues e.g a child learning from a computer game that aggressive acts are the best way to win / get what they want so this information is stored into their schema known as a ‘script’. This can be automatic w/o our direct awareness.

Longitudinal studies are also used to investigate changes in aggressive behaviour over time and the impact of early exp. on behaviour in later life. Anderson et al (2007) surveyed 430 children between ages 7-9 at 2 points in the school year. Children who had high exposure to violent video games became more verbally and physically aggressive + showed less prosocial behaviour

AO3>
:) P: Research Support
E: Carnagey et al found that participants who had played a violent video game before viewing a film clip of real-life violence had a lower HR when watching the clip.
E: This supports the desensitisation explanation because it shows that exposure to aggressive media can affect physiological arousal - evident through the lower HR which leads to us becoming desensitised to aggressive behaviours. As there is research to support this, this increase the validity of the desensitisation explanation for media influences on aggression.
CA: However, participants in the supporting research study only viewed a film clip of the violence. Arguably, witnessing real life aggressive behaviour may lead to a different reaction as there are a number of other things happening at that time, such as an increase in anxiety. Therefore, it is difficult to use this study to support the idea that desensitisation occurs in real life after exposure to aggressive media.

:( P: Research into desensitisation is primarily correlational
E: Difficult to establish cause and effect
E: It may well be that certain individuals are drawn to violent media because of genetic predisposition which makes them more desensitised anyways + Laboratory studies lack eco. val. and realism and as participants know they are being observed, their reaction to violent media may be very different in real world settings.
L: Therefore such studies may lack external validity due to the way media violence exposure is being artificially measured but also internal validity as the studies are not measuring a true desensitisation effect occurring.

:) P: Research Support
E: 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.
E: This supports disinhibition because it shows the link b/w removal of social constraints and subsequent aggressive behaviour as aggressive behaviour had become disinhibited when it was seen as justified, i.e. for vengeance.
L: If this is the case then there are several implications for society that should be implemented. One being that the media should be forced to always show the consequences of aggressive behaviour. In doing this, this would mean individuals may be less likely to view aggression as justified and acceptable, thus decreasing the number of aggressive behaviours that may occur as a result of media influences

:) P: Research Support
E: One study found that ps that had watched a violent film had faster reaction times to aggressive words than those who had watched the non-violent film.
E: This supports the idea of cog. priming as it shows scenes of violence primes aggressive thoughts and makes them more accessible, hence why the violent film p were quicker at identifying the aggressive words - they were already at the forefront of their memories. Therefore, suggesting, role of cognitive priming is an accurate exp. of the effects of media on agg.
CA: However, an issue with this research is that it lacks mundane realism. Reacting to different words as a measure of aggression is unrealistic and not typical of real-life behaviour. It cannot be assumed that, because the p had watched a violent film this resulted in an increase in reaction times. Arguably, this may be a result of extraneous variables, perhaps those individuals have better reading ability and that’s why they were quicker, rather than because they were primed. Therefore, this questions the internal validity of this study, making it unclear whether cognitive priming is a good explanation of media influences on aggression as it isn’t possible to actively observe cognitive processes such as 'priming'.

Q1. Outline and evaluate one social psychological theory of aggression (16)

AO1>
Social Psychological exp. argue aggression is the result of an interaction b/w an individual's characteristics and features of the situations in which behaviour occurs.

Frustration-Aggression hypothesis argues frustration is caused when people are prevented from getting what they want and this can lead to aggression. According to this theory, frustration is ALWAYS the cause of aggression and aggression is always the cause of frustration. This predicts cause and effect b/w frustration, aggression and catharsis. The steps involved are drive to goal, obstacle to goal, frustration, anger, aggression, catharsis and cues. If our attempt to achieve a goal is blocked, we exp frustration. creates agg drive which leads to agg behaviour. This is cathartic; aggression caused by frustration is satisfied and we feel better getting it 'off our chest'.

Agg isn’t directly expressed at the source of frustration as cause may be abstract, unavailable and too high of a risk, therefore displaced onto an alternative e.g 'kicking the dog effect' --> scapegoat needs to be found.

Justified frustration means situation may cause frustration but if there is a justification for that situation then it is less likely to cause anger and less likely to lead to aggression eg bus driver drives past you but it is not in service.
Unjustified is when the situation causes frustration, but there is no justification for why it’s happening. will lead to more aggression and more likely to cause anger e.g bus driver drives past you but it's still in service.

AO3>
:) P: Research support for FAH
E: Geen (1968) conducted a study on male uni students and found ps who were insulted by a confederate were more likely to give stronger shocks to them than students who weren’t.
E: findings show frustration leads to an incr. in agg. behaviour as the more frustrated students (due to being insulted) displayed more agg. behaviours. supports claim of hypothesis therefore incr. val. of theory, suggesting its a good explanation.
CA: conducted in lab, artificial setting, lacks eco val. unclear whether ps would carry out actual aggression when frustrated in irl settings. sample = all male uni students. androcentric, difficult to generalise. lots of limitations, therefore difficult to confirm whether frustration leads to aggressive behaviours in other settings w diff people.

:) P: However there is supporting irl evidence
E: Priks (2010) found that when a football team performed worse than expected, supporters threw more things onto the pitch and were more likely to fight with the opposing supporters. found that a one position drop in the league led to a 5% incr. of unruly behaviour.
E: findings suggest supporters become more aggressive due to the frustration when the expectations of good performance aren’t achieved. supports FAH because the more frustrated sports fans were, higher the aggression.
L: theory can help explain outbreaks of aggressive behaviour irl in particular regarding sports fans.

:( P: There's research to contradict assumptions
E: Bushman (2002) found that ps who vented their anger by repeatedly hitting a punch bag acc became more angry and agg. found that doing nothing was more effective at reducing agg than venting anger.
E: findings contradict key claim of the hypothesis that engaging in aggressive behaviours cause catharsis and ultimately a decrease in agg.
L: casts doubt on the validity of the hypothesis. can only explain some cases of agg but not all. arguably, in taking a nomothetic approach, it ignores the influences of individual diffs as to whether aggression achieves catharsis and thus a reduction in agg behaviour. therefore, FAH is a limited explanation, lacks generalisability, and a more idiographic approach focusing on individuals may offer a better exp. for agg behaviour.

:( P: agg isn't always an automatic consequence of frustration
E: Bandura argues agg behaviour is only one possible response to frustration. this is bc frustration produces arousal in the individual but it’s social learning that determines how that arousal influences an individual's behaviour. e.g individual may respond to frustration by engaging in agg behaviour only if it has been effective for them / observed it being effective in others.
E: contradicts the claims made by the FAH that frustration always leads to some form of aggression. instead, this alt view suggests that an individual learns to produce aggressive actions and also learns the circumstances under which they are likely to be successful.
L: as a result, this further confirms that the hypothesis is a limited explanation of agg and shouldn’t be used to solely explain this behaviour. arguably, reducing the complexity of agg to purely being a consequence of frustration is reductionist and overlooks the influence of other factors e.g SLT on aggression.

Q2. Describe and evaluate the social learning theory of human aggression (16)

AO1>
SLT states aggression is learnt through behaviour. this can be directly or indirectly.

Bandura argued aggression can be learnt directly through operant conditioning based on punishment/reward (i.e consequence). Examples of positive reinforcement are high fives or status while examples of negative reinforcement are shutting someone up or removing yourself from bullying situation. Direct reinforcement increases the chances that the child will do this again in a similar situation. Aggression is maintained in SLT through direct exp. i.e a child getting rewards for engaging in the aggressive behaviour
rewards: getting what you want / popularity / status

Bandura also claims that children can learn aggressive behaviour indirectly by observing role models engaging in that behaviour.(parents, siblings, friends, celebrity. This shows the child how aggressive behaviour is performed but doesn't mean they WILL behave aggressively themselves. instead they observe and learn abt the consequences of agg and what is considered appropriate and effective behaviour in the real world. If model's behaviour is rewarded / not punished = more likely to be agg. If model's behaviour is punished = less likely to be agg

Bandura claims that for social learning to take place the child must form a mental representation of events in their social environment.
Mental rep. will contain the likely consequences of engaging in agg behaviour - child will only show this if they have the expectation of reward for showing this outweighing the punishment. Child will create a schema from building this mental rep and the script of aggression will be internalised and once established, aggression will become a way of life.

The 4 cognitive cond: Attention - seeing aggressive behaviour
Retention - remembering agg behaviour + form mental rep
Motor reproduction - must be physically able to reproduce the aggressive action + assessing ability to perform it.
Motivation - observer must have a reason to copy the behaviour; depends on what the observer expects to happen if they copy the behaviour (punishment / reward).

Self efficacy refers to an individual's belief in their ability to carry out the aggressive acts to achieve a desired goal and plays a part in maintaining aggression. Child forms expectations of the likely outcomes of their aggression. If they have the confidence they can successfully use agg, they’re more likely to continue to be aggressive. If a child has unsuccessfully used agg, they’ll have LOWER self efficacy of their ability + more likely to turn to someone else / other means to get what they want.

AO3>
:) P: Research Support
E: Bandura et al found 3-5 yr olds who observed an adult model behaving aggressively to a Bobo doll were more likely to reproduce this same behaviour when allowed to interact w the doll themselves. children even improvised their own aggression actions towards the doll. this was particularly the case when they saw adults being rewarded for their agg behaviour.
E: supports idea surrounding SLT showing that children are likely to imitate aggressive behaviours they have observed. findings also support concepts of vicarious reinforcement and mental reps by showing that the expectation of a reward influences the likelihood of a behaviour being performed. therefore, as there is research support, this would suggest SLT is a good exp. of human aggression.
CA: however, this case study lacks internal validity because the children may have been aware of what was expected of them, leading them to display demand characteristics. difficult to conclude whether children were behaving naturally and therefore questions whether the assumptions of SLT can actually explain aggressive behaviour.

:) P: irl app
E: principles of SLT can be used to help reduce agg by educating parents on the consequences of their children seeing agg models. has led to development of effective intervention programme called ACT Against Violence where it was found that after watching the programme, parents displayed an increase in pos. parenting and discontinuation of physical punishment
E: supports SLT as it shows that aspects of the theory (observational learning, imitation etc) play an important role in whether agg is displayed or not and we can use this info to prevent agg behaviours from occurring. this will hopefully reduce the level of aggression in both parenting techniques and children's behaviour, benefitting society greatly.
L: this is advantageous as it shows how psychological research can have beneficial impacts on society by reducing the rates of aggressive behaviour.

:) P: Can explain cultural differences
E: among the Kung San of the Kalahari desert, aggression is RARE. if children fight or argue, parents neither reward or punish them, instead they are separated and distracted. parents don't use physical punishment and aggression is devalued by the society as a whole.
E: according to SLT, there is less agg behaviours in this culture because parents are not providing models for aggression (resulting in lack of opportunities for observational learning), nor do they reward agg behaviour in children (resulting in lack of direct reinforcement). as a result, there’s no motivation for children in this culture to act aggressively. therefore this would suggest SLT is a good exp. for human aggression.
CA: however the theory predicts that an absence of agg models should result in very little aggressive behaviour being imitated. this is not the case as some people in this community do act aggressively. SLT is limited; perhaps it's instinctive, and therefore a bio. exp. would be more approp. to explain this cultural finding.

:) P: Can explain inconsistencies in individuals use of agg.
E: Young male may behave agg when out w friends but not respond in the same way when at school / work.
E: SLT would explain this diff in terms of consequence of acting aggressively in the 2 situations. when out w mates, acts of aggression may be more likely to receive positive consequences e.g status and encouragement., whereas positive consequences for aggressive behaviour would be less likely at school or work. this supports the claim made by the SLT that the expectations of consequences in a situation will determine the likelihood of aggression.
CA: however, although it can explain inconsistencies in aggression, SLT cannot explain all types of aggressive behaviour. for example, why reactive aggression occurs. this type of aggression isn’t premeditated or planned, and occurs instantly in response to a trigger such as jealousy, pain, or loneliness. this would suggest some aggressive actions are instinctual and so aren’t learned as the theory predicts. perhaps reactive aggression may be better explained by the FAH rather than as a result of observational learning as proposed by SLT further confirming that SLT offers a limited exp. for human aggression.