Week 10 Lecture Notes – Social & Community Psychology: Aggression and Violence

Welcome & Acknowledgement of Country

  • Lecturer begins by acknowledging Traditional Custodians across Australia, specifically the Wurundjeri people of the Kulin Nation.
  • Pays respect to Elders past, present, and emerging, and extends respect to all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples listening.
  • Sets inclusive, respectful tone for the lecture.

Recap of Week 9 (Immigration, Acculturation & Place)

  • Place identity: how individuals develop identity tied to physical places; relation to place evaluations & well-being.
  • Acculturation theories & styles: integration, assimilation, separation, marginalisation.
  • Measurement challenges: migrant well-being & acculturation outcomes are difficult to quantify.

This Week’s Focus: Aggression & Violence

  • Outline:
    • Definitions of aggression & violence.
    • Frustration–Aggression Theory (old & revised versions).
    • Factors influencing aggression:
    • Gender & culture.
    • Cognitive biases (esp. Hostile Attribution Bias).
    • Alcohol.
    • Social learning & violent media.
  • Reminder: take notes — all material examinable.

Real-World Relevance

  • Aggression spans from daily hassles (road-rage, verbal spats) to extreme acts (murder, genocide).
  • Public desire for explanations → social-psychology research aims to identify causes (dispositional vs environmental).

Key Definitions

Aggression

  • Research definition: Any behaviour intended to harm another person who does not want to be harmed.
  • Three critical components:
    1. Behaviour (observable action) – not just feelings/thoughts.
    2. Intentionality – accidental harm ≠ aggression.
    3. Non-consensual victim – victim wants to avoid harm (excludes suicide & consensual S/M).
  • Aggression can fail to produce harm yet retain intent (e.g., missed projectile).
  • Forms:
    • Physical (hitting, kicking).
    • Verbal (yelling, insulting).
    • Relational (rumours, social exclusion).

Violence

  • Subset of aggression: behaviour intended to cause extreme physical harm (serious injury/death).
  • All violence = aggression; not all aggression = violence.

Frustration–Aggression Theory (FAT)

Original Formulation (Dollard et al., 1939)

  • Postulates a strict one-to-one relation:
    • Frustration ⇒ Aggression.
    • Aggression ⇐ Frustration (necessary & sufficient cause).
  • Frustration defined as an event that blocks goal attainment.
  • Illustrative examples:
    • Grocery store sells out of key ingredient → aggression.
    • Internet outage thwarts Netflix relaxation goal → aggression.
  • Problems:
    • Other antecedents of aggression (anxiety, fatigue) ignored.
    • Frustration can lead to non-aggressive emotions (despair, sadness).

Reformulated FAT (Frustration–Aggression Theory 2)

  • Adds negative affect as mediator.
  • Sequence:
    1. Goal blockage (frustration event).
    2. Generates negative affect if certain moderators present.
    3. Negative affect → aggressive inclinations (not inevitable behaviour).
    4. Inclinations may translate into aggressive acts depending on further factors.
  • Moderators at each stage:
    • Appraisal of frustration: justified vs arbitrary, anticipated vs unexpected, closeness to goal.
    • Personality/Mood: trait anger, current mood.
    • Contextual constraints: social norms, potential sanctions, victim characteristics (gender, age, similarity).
    • Situational provocation/discomfort: pain, heat, odors.

Gender & Aggression

Meta-Analytic Findings

  • Hyde (1984): gender accounts for ext≈5%ext{≈ 5 \%} of variance in aggression.
  • Betancourt et al. (1996; 1998):
    • Unprovoked: men > women.
    • Provoked: gender gap shrinks.
  • Knight et al. (2002): gap largest at moderate arousal; men more sensitive.
  • Typology:
    • Physical/Overt aggression: men higher.
    • Relational/Indirect aggression: equal or women slightly higher.

Cross-Cultural Evidence (Archer & McDaniel 1995)

  • Study in 11 countries (Europe & Asia):
    • Within every culture: males wrote more violent story endings than females.
    • Between cultures: Australian/NZ females > Swedish/Korean males → cultural modulation.

Parental Socialisation Study (Endendijk et al.)

  • Sample: n=299n = 299 Dutch two-parent families; target child aged 3–4 y.
  • Variables:
    • Parental implicit gender stereotypes (IAT).
    • Physical control during parent–child interaction (toy restriction paradigm).
    • Child aggression (1-year follow-up questionnaire).
  • Findings:
    • More physical control used on boys; fathers’ use moderated by their stereotype strength.
    • Physical control at Time 1 predicts higher child aggression at Time 2 (rr significant for both parents).
    • Suggests social learning mechanism underpinning gender gap.

Cultural Influences: Culture of Honour

Concept

  • Societal norm where individuals must defend reputation via violent retaliation to insults/affronts.
  • Emerges in contexts with weak formal law enforcement (e.g., herding economies, frontier regions).
  • Tied closely to masculinity.

Southern United States Example (Cohen et al., 1996)

  • Historical roots: herding, clan rule, self-reliance (“Every man sheriff on his own hearth”).
  • Contemporary indicators:
    • Higher argument‐related (not felony-related) homicide rates.
    • Social approval of violence for self-protection & insult retaliation.
Cohen et al. Experiments
  • Participants: White male undergrads, classified Southerners vs Northerners.
  • Provocation: hallway shoulder-bump + “asshole” insult.
  • DV array (across 3 studies): facial affect ratings, hostile word completions, story endings, cortisol/testosterone changes, shock intensity, hallway “chicken” distance, handshake dominance.
  • Key significant results (Southerners when insulted):
    • More angry facial affect; less amusement.
    • More violent story endings.
    • Greater rises in cortisol & testosterone.
    • Approached confederate closer (“chicken”); firmer, more dominant handshake.
    • Public vs private manipulation largely null except in perceived masculinity ratings.
  • Broader impacts:
    • Honor culture linked to longer, more forceful wars by Southern-raised US presidents (2016 data).
    • Associations with intimate-partner violence, school violence, mental-health help-seeking reluctance.

Cognitive Influences: Hostile Attribution Bias (HAB)

  • Definition: Tendency to interpret ambiguous behaviour of others as having hostile intent.
  • Developmental roots:
    • Early exposure to violence (child abuse, peer victimisation, community violence) → formation of hostile schemas.
  • Consequences:
    • Higher childhood & adult aggression.
    • Relational problems (marital conflict, harsh parenting).
    • Increased mortality risk (4× likelihood of death by age 50).

Dodge Puzzle-Drop Study (Grades 2–6)

  • 90 boys categorised as Aggressive vs Non-Aggressive by peers/teachers.
  • Three conditions during “puzzle break”: Hostile, Benign, Ambiguous.
  • Outcome: behavioural aggression toward confederate’s (supposed) sabotage.
  • Results:
    • Hostile condition: both groups aggressive.
    • Benign: both groups low aggression.
    • Ambiguous: Aggressive boys responded aggressively; non-aggressive boys did not → HAB drives aggression when intent is unclear.

Adult Meta-Review (Verhoef et al.)

  • 25 studies, N > 9{,}000 adults.
  • 80%80\% showed positive HAB–aggression correlation.
  • Caveats: correlational designs, hypothetical vignettes, directionality unclear.

Situational Factor: Alcohol

  • High proportion of violent offenders intoxicated at arrest.
  • Lab experiments: legally drunk participants more aggressive to provocation.
  • Historical use: soldiers given alcohol to boost aggression, lower fear.

Mechanisms

  1. Disinhibition: lowers social & internal restraints (ties into FAT Stage 3).
  2. Reduced self-awareness & self-control (glucose depletion).
  3. Expectancy (Schema) Theory: cultural script “alcohol → aggression”.
Brown et al. Study (11–14 y olds, UK)
  • Two-part design:
    1. Subliminal priming (alcohol vs water) → lexical decision RTs to aggressive words.
    2. One week later: exposed to alcohol vs non-alcohol images → noise-blast game.
  • Findings:
    • Priming portion: hypothesis not supported (unexpectedly faster RTs after water prime).
    • Image portion: alcohol images → higher noise intensity; interaction strongest for 14-year-olds with faster alcohol–aggression associations.
  • Implication: even without drinking, cultural pairing of alcohol & aggression can elicit aggressive behaviour.

Situational Factor: Violent Media

Social Learning Theory Refresher

  • Bandura’s Bobo Doll: observation → imitation of aggressive acts.

Television Violence

  • Longitudinal correlations: Childhood violent-TV exposure predicts teen aggression (controls needed for directionality).
  • Lab evidence: Children after violent TV play more aggressively than after non-violent sports.
  • Adult longitudinal study (17 yrs, 700 families): TV hours during adolescence predict later serious violent acts (controls: SES, neighbourhood).
  • Field data: Homicides rise after heavyweight boxing matches; victim race matches losing boxer’s race.
Desensitisation Effects
  • Heavy TV viewers show blunted physiological reactions (heart rate/skin conductance) to viewed violence.
  • Post-viewing, reduced emotional response to real-life aggression (police drama vs volleyball study).
Thomas (1982) Experiment (Male Students)
  • Stimuli: 15 min violent police show vs Secretariat documentary.
  • Provocation manipulation: low 25¢25\text{¢} + insults vs high 2\text{24} + praise.
  • Outcomes: number of shocks delivered; pulse rate.
  • Result:
    • Violent-TV + provocation → highest aggression (more shocks).
    • This group showed lower, not higher, arousal before/after shocks → supports desensitisation/legitimisation pathway over arousal-energising pathway.

Video Games (Preview for Readings)

  • Hypothesis: interactive nature may amplify effects beyond passive TV.
  • Students must read assigned 8-page article + worksheet (Moodle); content examinable & for tutorial discussion.

Ethical, Philosophical & Practical Implications

  • Understanding multifactorial roots of aggression aids:
    • Designing interventions (parenting programs, alcohol policies, media guidelines).
    • Informing legal & correctional systems (culture-of-honour contexts, intoxication defenses).
    • Guiding media regulation & parental monitoring.
    • Addressing public health (early HAB screening, anti-violence education).
  • Recognises balance between individual responsibility and societal influence.

Connections to Earlier Lectures

  • Week 2: theories & experiments as explanatory tools → revisited here (FAT, social learning).
  • Week 4 (Attribution Biases): HAB extends biases to hostility domain.
  • Week 6 (Self & Self-Awareness): alcohol lowers self-awareness → aggression.
  • Week 7 (Stereotypes & Prejudice): similar structuring of dispositional vs situational factors.

Numerical & Statistical References

  • Gender explains 5%5\% aggression variance (Hyde).
  • Adults w/ HAB: 4× mortality risk by age 50.
  • Cohen studies: sample sizes n=42n = 42 to n=173n = 173 across 3 experiments.
  • Southerner presidents’ wars: 2× longer, 3× more likely US victory.
  • Boxing-match homicide effect: race-matched increases.

Study Tips & Exam Prep

  • Memorise definitions (aggression vs violence).
  • Understand FAT sequence & moderators.
  • Be able to explain at least one key study for each factor (gender, culture, HAB, alcohol, media).
  • Apply concepts to novel scenarios (road rage, bar fights, online trolling, war decisions).
  • Complete Moodle worksheet on video-game article & participate in forum for applied examples.