Aggression and Antisocial Behaviour – Chapter Eleven Notes

Aggression and Antisocial Behaviour – Chapter Eleven Notes

  • Learning objectives (overview)

    • Define aggression.
    • Discuss role of culture, gender and individual differences in aggression and attitudes towards aggression.
    • Consider origins of aggression and effects of socialisation.
    • Explain how situational influences impact arousal and cognition related to aggression.
    • Summarise immediate and long-term effects of exposure to violent media on aggression.
    • Discuss approaches to reducing violence (situational, sociocultural and multiple-level).

  • Introduction to aggression (context)

    • Aggression examined as disturbing aspect of human behaviour; focus on aggression by individuals (Chapter emphasises individual aggression; mobs and wars are in Chapter 7).
    • Real-world relevance shown via Port Arthur massacre (1996) and its long-term impact (PTSD, survivor guilt) alongside stories of restoration and resilience.

  • What is aggression?

    • Aggression: behaviour intended to harm another individual.
    • Violence: extreme acts of aggression.
    • Anger: strong feelings of displeasure in response to a perceived injury; nature varies by situation (outrage, hate, irritation).
    • Hostility: negative, antagonistic attitude towards another person or group; not always associated with attempts to harm.
    • Proactive (instrumental) aggression: harm inflicted as a means to an end (self-defence, personal gain, attention).
    • Reactive (emotional) aggression: harm inflicted for its own sake; may be impulsive or calculated; can range from hot-headed to cool and calculated.
    • Distinguishing difficulty between proactive and reactive aggression; some view aggression as a continuum rather than discrete categories (Anderson & Huesmann, 2007; Tedeschi & Bond, 2001).

  • Culture, gender and individual differences

    • Global and cross-cultural variation in aggression:
    • Homicide rates vary by world region; factors include poverty, drug trafficking, gun availability, political unrest; overall global homicide trend is decreasing in many areas but rising in some (e.g., certain parts of Africa).
    • Individualistic vs collectivistic cultures: individualistic cultures may show higher overt aggression in some contexts, while collectivist contexts influence how aggression is expressed and tolerated.
    • Cross-national studies show that culture influences aggression in nuanced ways (e.g., differences in responses to conflict in US vs China; higher endorsement of individualism associated with more school violence in some samples).
    • Culture and aggression data (examples):
    • Global homicide: intentional homicides around the world in 2012 show wide regional variation; rates per 100,000 vary by region (e.g., Central/Southern Africa higher than Oceania in some periods).
    • Independent variability persists across cultures with some collectivistic societies showing high violence in particular subcultures, and some collectivist nations also reporting high homicide rates (India, Korea) relative to some individualistic cultures (UK, France).
    • Gender differences:
    • Across virtually all cultures, males are more violent than females for most forms of aggression; meta-analyses show men more physically aggressive than women across ages and cultures (Archer, 2004; Card et al., 2008).
    • Women tend to engage more in indirect/relational aggression (gossip, social exclusion, social manipulation); small gender differences in some meta-analyses show women slightly higher on indirect aggression.
    • In intimate partner violence, gender differences are complex: men are more often perpetrators and women more often victims for severe injuries; however, among intimate partner aggression, women may report similar rates of aggression as men in some studies, partly due to reporting biases and the severity of consequences.
    • Individual differences in aggression:
    • Personality traits (Big Five): low agreeableness, low openness, high neuroticism predict aggression; narcissism linked to aggression especially under provocation; self-control is a strong predictor of aggression (poor self-control linked to higher aggression and crime).
    • Sensitivity to provocation interacts with personality traits (e.g., Type A, impulsivity, emotional susceptibility).
    • Self-esteem: findings mixed; high self-esteem can predict aggression when coupled with high narcissism or ego threat; in some cultures, higher self-esteem relates to greater aggression.
    • Sexual orientation and aggression:
    • Some evidence of group differences in physical vs indirect aggression; e.g., gay men may report lower physical aggression but not necessarily lower indirect aggression.
    • Culture of honour:
    • Cultures of honour encourage status-protecting aggression (often men) in regions like the American South and in other cultures (Brazil, Chile).
    • Norms about honour shape aggression: people perceive aggressive responses to threats to honour as normative; cultures of honour linked with higher rates of violence in certain contexts and higher perceived acceptability of aggression in threat situations.
    • Employers’ responses to felonies and perceptions of violent acts vary by culture of honour; these norms influence everyday behaviours and responses to provocation.
    • Violence against women and gender-based violence:
    • Global public health problem; WHO data show substantial prevalence of violence against women worldwide, with significant regional variation.
    • Domestic violence more often perpetrated by male partners; consequences include severe injuries, psychological distress, and fatalities; there are transnational and intraregional variations in prevalence.
    • LGBTI domestic violence exists with unique dynamics (outing, fear of seeking help, recognition issues).

  • Origins of aggression

    • Is aggression innate or learned?
    • Two major perspectives: evolutionary psychology (innate, evolved tendencies) and biology (genes, hormones, brain structures).
    • Evolutionary psychology claims aggression has historical roots linked to resource competition, mate attraction, and intra-group bonding; bullying may be an evolved adaptive strategy under certain conditions (Volk et al., 2012).
    • Kin selection and inclusive fitness: aggression against close relatives is reduced; parental investment and paternal certainty influence aggression toward offspring and step-children (evidence from Daty & Wilson; step-parents more likely to aggress against stepchildren in some studies).
    • Gender differences and evolution:
    • Males historically compete for status and mates; aggression can help achieve status and attract mates, thus potentially evolving under sexual selection pressures.
    • Testosterone plays a role in aggression, but the relationship is complex and moderated by cortisol; high testosterone with low cortisol linked to more aggression in some contexts; cortisol can blunt testosterone effects on aggression.
    • Biological factors:
    • Genes: heritability of aggression evidenced in twin and adoption studies; MAOA gene variants associated with aggressive behavior in some samples.
    • Hormones: testosterone–aggression link is strongest in males but present in females as well; cortisol moderates this relationship.
    • Neurotransmitters: serotonin acts as a brake on impulsive aggression; low serotonin linked to higher aggression; SSRIs and other agents can reduce aggression in some cases.
    • Brain structure and functioning: prefrontal cortex and executive functioning important for inhibition of aggression; abnormal brain functioning linked to higher aggression; concussions and brain pathways (e.g., uncinate fasciculus) associated with aggression and impulsivity in some groups (e.g., athletes).
    • Learning and socialization:
    • Learning through rewards and punishments shapes aggression (Bandura’s social learning theory): aggression increases when rewarded and decreases when punished effectively; observational learning from models (parents, peers, media) influences aggression-related attitudes and scripts.
    • Aggressive scripts: learned patterns about how to respond to conflict; scripts may be activated automatically in situations.
    • Cycle of violence: exposure to violence in childhood increases the likelihood of aggression in adulthood and potential victimisation or perpetration of violence within families of origin; not deterministic, but higher risk.
    • Nature and nurture interaction:
    • Contemporary view emphasises interaction between biology and environment; genes and environment influence each other; not a strict dichotomy but complex interplay.

  • Is aggression learned?

    • Rewards (positive reinforcement) and the avoidance of punishment (negative reinforcement) promote aggression.
    • Observational learning from aggressive models (parents, media) fosters aggression and aggressive scripts; exposure to aggression in childhood predicts later aggression.
    • Punishment as a deterrent requires immediacy, severity, and perceived legitimacy; in many real-world contexts, punishment fails to meet these conditions and can backfire; corporal punishment is linked to higher subsequent aggression and antisocial behavior in many studies.
    • Social learning theory also explains how non-aggressive models can reduce aggression and how aggressive behavior can spread (contagion) and be replaced by prosocial models.

  • Developmental and sociocultural factors in gendered aggression

    • Gendered socialization: boys are often rewarded for overt, physical aggression; girls may receive social rewards for relational aggression in some contexts.
    • Mothers’ attitudes can influence girls’ acceptance of relational aggression; cultural norms about aggression and gender shape behavior.
    • Machismo and cultures of honour contribute to gendered patterns of aggression; aggression may be used to defend honour and status.
    • Studies of cultures of honour show that threats to status elicit stronger aggressive responses in cultures emphasising honour norms; these norms influence everyday behavior and support systems that legitimise violence in certain contexts.

  • Biological factors: genes, hormones, brain and executive functioning (detailed)

    • Genes:
    • Twin/adoption studies show a heritable component to aggression; MAOA gene variants linked to aggressive behavior in some populations.
    • Hormones and neurochemistry:
    • Testosterone linked to aggression; however, the relationship is modest and moderated by cortisol; cortisol levels moderate the effect of testosterone on aggression.
    • Serotonin acts as a brake on impulsive aggression; low serotonin linked to higher aggression; pharmacological enhancement can reduce aggression in certain contexts.
    • Brain and executive functioning:
    • Prefrontal cortex and executive functioning play crucial roles in inhibiting aggressive impulses; poor executive functioning linked to higher aggression; adolescence and brain development trajectories influence aggression patterns.
    • Concussions and brain networks:
    • Damage to specific brain tracts (e.g., uncinate fasciculus) associated with aggression and impulsivity in some groups (e.g., retired contact-sport athletes).

  • Are aggression cues learned? (Cognition and aggressive scripts)

    • Aggressive cues: weapons can prime aggressive thoughts and increase aggressive responses even when the weapon is not used (weapons-priming effect).
    • Hunters vs non-hunters: associations between guns and aggression can differ by context (hunting guns vs assault guns).
    • Weapons exposure can influence testosterone and aggression in some studies; exposure to guns can raise testosterone and aggressive responses in some participants, especially when the weapon is salient.
    • Eye-witness interpretations: exposure to weapons can alter cognitive processing and subsequent behaviour.

  • Higher-order cognition and situational factors

    • Deliberate cost-benefit analyses can inhibit aggression when costs are high or social norms discourage aggression.
    • Perceived aggression by others can influence one’s own aggression; group dynamics can make aggression more likely (contagion effects).
    • Hostile attribution bias: chronic aggressors and socially rejected individuals tend to perceive hostile intent in others, creating a self-fulfilling cycle of aggression.
    • Hostile attribution bias prevalent among violent offenders; similar biases observed in chronically aggressive adults.
    • Rumination: repetitive anger-focused thinking increases aggression by reducing self-control and promoting aggressive responses; triggers longer-term arousal and aggression.
    • Self-control: poor self-control predicts aggression and crime; training self-control can reduce aggression in provocation contexts.
    • Alcohol and caffeine:
    • Alcohol reduces inhibitions, impairs executive functioning, and can increase aggression; alcohol myopia narrows attention to salient provocative cues.
    • Caffeine increases arousal and can increase aggression under cognitive load; caffeine’s net effect depends on depletion of cognitive resources and expected effects.
    • Other factors lowering self-control: high arousal, fatigue, heat, and stress can reduce cognitive control over aggressive impulses.

  • Frustration, arousal, and negative affect

    • Frustration-aggression hypothesis (Dollard et al., 1939): frustration always elicits the motive to aggress; displacement and catharsis were proposed as mechanisms to reduce aggression, but evidence is mixed and catharsis often fails to reduce aggression (and can backfire).
    • Negative affect approach (Berkowitz, 1989): frustration is one of many triggers for negative affect that can lead to aggression; a broad range of aversive conditions (noise, crowding, pain, social rejection, jealousy) increase aggression.
    • Heat and aggression: higher temperatures linked with more aggression and violent crime; heat can increase arousal and contribute to aggression via excitation transfer.
    • Provocation and social rejection: insults and rejection increase aggression; social rejection is a particularly strong risk factor for adolescent violence; disrespect intensifies the effect of rejection on aggression.
    • Culture and negative affect:
    • Different cultures experience and respond to anger and shame differently; in collectivist cultures, anger may violate social harmony, while in individualistic cultures anger may be more tolerated as an expression of status or dominance.

  • Arousal, cognition, and aggression (continuation)

    • Arousal from various sources (exercise, noise, violent media, arousing music) can transfer to subsequent aggressive responses; students exposed to violence-related arousal show heightened aggressive responses in later tasks.
    • Weapons effect and aggressive cognitions: exposure to weapons can prime aggression-related thoughts and increase aggression; different weapons (hunting guns vs assault rifles) elicit different cognitions depending on individuals’ prior associations.
    • Higher-order cognition and moral reasoning can inhibit aggression; recognizing costs, social norms, and moral standards can reduce aggression in provocation contexts.
    • Social modelling (Bandura): aggressive models (parents, media) can lead to imitation of aggressive acts and the development of aggressive scripts.
    • Hostile attribution bias among violent offenders and chronically aggressive individuals contributes to a cycle of aggression.
    • Rumination and alcohol interplay with self-control to predict aggression; interventions that reduce rumination or strengthen self-control can reduce aggression.

  • Media effects on aggression

    • Extent of media exposure:
    • Children’s screen time: 2 hours per weekday at age 4-5; by age 12-13, more than 3 hours per weekday plus weekend time; substantial time spent on computers and gaming.
    • NZ study found 8.02 incidents of violence per hour of TV viewing; 65% of violence incidents in television viewing; 200,000 acts of violence by age 18 on TV alone.
    • Video game prevalence and industry:
    • High prevalence of violent video game playing among youth; global video game industry revenue high; many households own multiple screens.
    • Evidence linking media violence to aggression:
    • Longitudinal, cross-sectional, and experimental studies consistently show a link between childhood exposure to media violence and later aggression (thoughts, feelings, behaviors).
    • Meta-analyses show robust associations: playing violent video games increases aggression-related thoughts, feelings, and behaviors; prosocial games have opposite effects.
    • Violent video game exposure linked with reduced empathy and prosocial behavior; increased arousal and hostile cognition.
    • Cross-cultural consistency and critiques:
    • Effects observed across Western and Eastern countries; some researchers (e.g., Ferguson) dispute robust effects; others strongly defend the consistency of findings and meta-analytic conclusions.
    • Mechanisms of media effects:
    • Aggressive thoughts and hostile attribution biases can be stimulated by media violence;
    • Arousal from media violence can be misattributed to anger (excitation transfer);
    • Desensitization: habituation to violence reduces physiological reactivity to real violence; can increase willingness to commit violence and reduce empathy.
    • Cultivation: media constructs a social reality that can shape beliefs and attitudes about violence; heightened fear and aggression in response to perceived threats.
    • Prosocial media effects:
    • Prosocial content can foster helping behaviors and reduce aggression under certain conditions.
    • Pornography and aggression:
    • Non-violent pornography: little evidence for direct causal link to sexual aggression; may be linked to attitudes that tolerate violence against women.
    • Violent pornography: associated with higher aggression, particularly male-to-female aggression; effects may be more pronounced among individuals with other risk factors (e.g., hostility toward women, rape-supporting beliefs).
    • Individual differences in media effects:
    • “Rapist’s profile” concept: men who are highly aroused by violent pornography and hold permissive attitudes toward violence against women show greater sexually aggressive intentions and behaviors.
    • Policy and public health implications:
    • Media literacy and parental monitoring are proposed as mitigating strategies; some interventions show reductions in violent media exposure and aggression.

  • Reducing violence: interventions and policy implications

    • Overall trend: violence has declined over long periods in many regions; this is partially attributed to better education, improved moral reasoning, and enhanced self-control.
    • Four promising psychological interventions for reducing reactive aggression (Denson, 2015):
    • Self-control training: strengthening self-control can reduce aggression after provocation.
    • Cognitive reappraisal: teach reinterpretation of provocations in less emotional terms.
    • Cognitive control: stronger emotion regulation and inhibition of impulses.
    • Mindfulness: nonjudgemental awareness reduces reactive aggression (evidence strongest for self-control and cognitive-reappraisal; mindfulness less well established).
    • Aggression Replacement Training (ART): combines social skills training, anger-control training, and moral reasoning; shown promising results, especially for juveniles.
    • Multisystemic Therapy (MST): multi-level approach addressing adolescent antisocial behaviour by working with family, peers, school, and community; strong evidence for reduced arrest rates and sustained improvements; cost-benefit analyses show potential taxpayer savings.
    • Other strategic directions:
    • Reducing exposure to guns and promoting non-violent conflict resolution.
    • Public education to improve empathy, perspective-taking, and moral reasoning (empathy-training programs show reliable effects).
    • Public policy and community initiatives to improve economic conditions, reduce poverty, and strengthen social supports to lower frustration and negative affect.
    • Public campaigns against the legitimisation of violence in media; promote prosocial media and regulate violence in media and advertising where feasible.
    • Social and environmental strategies:
    • Cooperative and prosocial group goals; reducing competition to lower intergroup aggression.
    • Community policing and addressing minor acts of vandalism to prevent escalation.
    • Media self-censorship and public pressure to reduce glorification of violence; parental guidance and media literacy programs.
    • Organizational and programmatic examples:
    • Aggression replacement training, MST, self-control training, cognitive reappraisal, cognitive control, mindfulness.
    • Public health approach recognizing multiple interacting levels of influence (individual, relational, community, societal).

  • General Aggression Model (GAM) and i3 theory (integrative frameworks)

    • GAM (Anderson et al., 1996; DeWall, Anderson, & Bushman, 2011): integrates situational inputs (aversive experiences, situational cues, individual differences) with affect, arousal, and aggressive thoughts; higher-order cognition can inhibit or facilitate aggression.
    • i3 theory (instigation, impellance, inhibition): emphasizes the balance between instigating factors, impelling factors (e.g., personality, rumination, arousal), and inhibitory control (self-control).
    • Both frameworks highlight the dynamic interaction between situational factors and individual differences in producing aggression; they incorporate biological factors and learning histories.

  • Key empirical data and illustrative figures (selected references)

    • Global homicide and violence prevalence:
    • 2016 global violent deaths: about 5.6imes1055.6 imes 10^5; 7.5 violent deaths per 10510^5 population.
    • 2015-2016 global homicide rate rose from 5.115.11 to 5.155.15 per 100,000 (McEvoy & Hideg, 2017).
    • WHO 2015 data: global homicide rate around 6.46.4 per 100,000; 80% of homicide victims are male (global male victimization elevated).
    • Media violence exposure and aggression:
    • Longitudinal studies (Huesmann et al., 2003): higher exposure to TV violence at age 8 predicts higher aggression and criminality in adulthood (controls for SES, parenting).
    • Germany study (Krahe, Busching, Müller, 2012): exposure to media violence predicted increases in aggression over two years.
    • Canada study (Willoughby et al., 2012): violent video game exposure linked to aggression in youth; some effects limited to video game domain.
    • Meta-analyses (Anderson et al., 2010; Greitemeyer & Mugge, 2014): violent video games increase aggression-related thoughts, affect and behavior; prosocial games have opposite effects; overall effects observed across cultures.
    • Desensitization and brain activity:
    • Functional MRI studies show reduced neural responses to violence after frequent exposure to violent media (Gentile et al., 2016); exposure can reduce emotional responsivity to others’ pain.
    • Aggression and gender-based violence statistics (Australia and NZ examples):
    • In Australia (2013-14), 88% of homicide victims were male; 64% of homicide victims were male across incidents; 79% of intimate-partner homicide victims were female.
    • In NZ (2009-2015), around 119,000 family-violence incidents in 2016; 1 in 3 NZ women experience physical or sexual violence from a partner in their lifetime.

  • Summary: connections to broader principles and real-world relevance

    • Aggression is a multifaceted phenomenon influenced by biology, development, culture, gender, and individual differences, as well as learning and immediate situational factors.
    • The interaction between innate dispositions and environmental context explains why aggression varies across individuals and societies, and why interventions must be multi-level.
    • The General Aggression Model and i3 theory offer integrated accounts that capture how negative affect, arousal, cognitions, and self-control interact with situational and personal factors to determine aggressive behavior.
    • Media violence and pornography are important risk factors but are neither necessary nor sufficient causes of aggression; their effects operate through multiple pathways (cognitions, arousal, desensitisation, social scripts).
    • Reducing violence requires a combination of individual-level interventions (training in self-control, cognitive reappraisal, mindfulness) and broader sociocultural and environmental changes (economic improvements, reducing weapon availability, media literacy, prosocial modelling).

  • Key terms to remember (glossary-style)

    • Aggression: behaviour intended to harm another.
    • Proactive (instrumental) aggression: harm used as a means to an end.
    • Reactive (emotional) aggression: harm carried out for its own sake; often impulsive but can be calculated.
    • Hostility: negative, antagonistic attitude toward others.
    • Culture of honour: social norms that promote responding with aggression to threats to one’s reputation or status.
    • 2D:4D ratio: index-to-ring finger length ratio; lower ratios linked with greater prenatal testosterone exposure and certain aggression-related traits (more robust in men than women according to meta-analytic reviews).
    • MAOA gene: genetic variant linked to aggression in some contexts.
    • GAM: General Aggression Model; an integrated framework for understanding aggression across situations and dispositions.
    • i3 theory: Instigation, Impellance, Inhibition; a framework highlighting triggers, urges, and self-control.
    • Desensitisation: reduced emotional responsiveness to violence due to repeated exposure.
    • Cultivation: media’s construction of a social reality that can influence beliefs and behaviours about violence.
    • Multisystemic Therapy (MST): multicontext intervention for juvenile offenders targeting family, peers, school, and community.
    • Aggression Replacement Training (ART): combines social skills, anger control, and moral reasoning.
    • Empathy-training: programs designed to increase perspective-taking and prosocial behavior.

  • Connections to broader chapters and real-world relevance

    • Situational and sociocultural factors connect to chapters on helping others, social learning, and cultural diversity, as well as to discussions about media effects and public policy.
    • The Port Arthur topical reflection highlights how trauma and collective responses to violence intersect with aggression research, resilience-building, and community healing.

  • End-of-chapter reflections and study prompts (examples)

    • How do culture and gender norms shape the expression of aggression in your region?
    • What are the strongest predictors of aggression in contemporary society, and how can interventions target these predictors at multiple levels?
    • How might media literacy and parental guidance alter the relationship between media violence and real-world aggression?
    • Consider the ethics and practicalities of policies aimed at reducing weapon availability while preserving civil liberties.

  • References to key figures and studies (indicative list)

    • Dollard et al. (1939): Frustration-Aggression Hypothesis; displacement and catharsis concepts.
    • Anderson & colleagues (1996-2011): GAM framework, media violence effects, heat and aggression, and cross-cultural comparisons.
    • Crick, Archer, and colleagues (various): indirect/relational aggression, gender differences.
    • Buss & Duntley; Griskevicius et al. (various): evolutionary perspectives on aggression and status.
    • Huesmann, Moise-Titus, Podolski, & Eron (2003): longitudinal studies on TV violence and aggression.
    • World Health Organization and UNODC data on global violence against women and homicide (global health perspective).

  • Quick reference to formulas and numerical data (LaTeX)

    • Global homicide rate example: 5.11o5.15extper105extpeople(2015−2016)5.11 o 5.15 ext{ per } 10^5 ext{ people (2015-2016)}
    • Global homicide victims: extapprox.470,000ext(2015,WHOdata)ext{approx. } 470{,}000 ext{ (2015, WHO data)}
    • Global violence deaths (2016): extabout560,000ext{about } 560{,}000
    • Homicide rate (global): extabout6.4extper105ext{about } 6.4 ext{ per } 10^5
    • 2D:4D ratio concept: 2D:4Dextratio2D:4D ext{ ratio} (lower ratios indicate higher prenatal testosterone exposure; gender differences in strength of association vary by outcome)

  • Final takeaway

    • Aggression is shaped by a network of interacting factors: biology, learning and memory, social norms, culture, gender, and situational context. Effective reduction of violence requires integrated, multi-level strategies that address individual capacities (self-control, empathy, cognitive flexibility) and broader social conditions (education, economic stability, media practices, and weapon policy).