Aggression 1 Neural and Hormonal Mechanisms in Aggression

Aggression

[1] Neural and Hormonal Mechanisms in Aggression Outline: Neural – Papez and Maclean identified the limbic system as including the cingulate Outline: Hormonal – Testosterone is a hormone responsible for the development of Eval 1: Limbic System explanation excludes other possibilities – the Eval 1: Plausible mechanism to explain testosterone’s effects – Mazur’s: Eval 2: Supporting evidence for the role of serotonin – Berman et al: Eval 2: Evidence in humans is mixed – research shows that there are gyrus, hypothalamus, fornix, amygdala. Speed and sensitivity of limbic system responses to stimuli are important predictors of aggressive behaviour in humans. The amygdala plays a key role in how we assess and respond to environmental threats. Gospic et al: carried out brain scans on participants in a lab based game that provoked aggression. Aggressive responses were associated with a fast and heightened response by the amygdala. When Benzodiazepine (reduces arousal of ANS) was taken before the game, aggressive reactions were halved and amygdala activity decreased. Normal levels of serotonin in the orbitofrontal cortex are linked with firing neurons associated with greater self-control. Decreased serotonin reduces self-control and increases impulsive behaviour Virkkunen et al: found lower level of serotonin metabolite in impulsive offenders. amygdala functions in tandem with the orbitofrontal cortex (OFC) to maintain self-control and inhibit aggression. Coccaro et al: showed OFC activity is reduced in patients with disorders that feature aggression. Therefore, the limbic system can’t explain aggression alone as it’s highly complex. found that participants given a serotonin-enhancing drug (paroxetine) gave fewer and less intense electric shocks to confederates than those in a placebo group. This was only true for those with prior history of aggressive behaviour. masculine behaviour. It helps regulate social behaviour via influences on areas of the brain involved in aggression. Dolan et al: found a positive correlation between testosterone levels and aggressive behaviour in male offenders in UK maximum security hospitals. They suffered personality disorders and had a history of impulsively violent behaviour. Animal studies (Giammanco et al)show experimental increases in testosterone are related to aggressive behaviour. The opposite is also true – proven in castration studies. Biological Model of Status (BMo. S) suggests that changes to testosterone levels after losing in a competition affects aggressive behaviour afterwards. Mehta and Josephs: found that 73% of losers whose testosterone levels rose decided to re-challenge their opponents whereas only 22% of losers whose testosterone levels fell decided to do so. This supports the validity of testosterone as an explanation for aggression. hormones other than testosterone that are involved in aggression. Carre and Mehta: dual hypothesis claims that high testosterone leads to aggression only when cortisol is low as high cortisol blocks its influence on behaviour. Both combined is a better predictor of aggressive behaviour rather than testosterone alone. Overall Evaluation Point: Research for neural/hormonal explanations is correlational – studies on human and aggression are impossible as they are unethical. Animal studies raise issues to generalisability to human aggression. Research showing a correlation between serotonin and aggression risks oversimplifying the true mechanism involved as other factors are overlooked. This means that neural and hormonal explanations are more complex than our understanding suggests.

[2] Genetic Factors in Aggression Outline: Coccaro et al studied adult male MZ and DZ twins. Outline: The ‘warrior gene’ is a variant of the MAOA gene For direct physical aggression, concordance rates was 50% for MZs and 19% for DZs. For verbal aggression it was 28% for MZs and 7% for DZs. Similarities in aggressive behaviour between an adopted child and their biological parent and adopted parents suggests that there are environmental and genetic factors involved. Rhee and Waldman: meta-analysis of adoption found that genetic influences accounted for 41% of variance in aggression. Monoamine oxidase A (MAOA) is an enzyme that mops up neurotransmitters after a nerve impulse between neurons. It breaks down neurotransmitters into constituent chemicals to be recycled or secreted (catabolism). The production is determined by the MAOA gene – a dysfunction leads to abnormal activity of MAOA enzyme which affects serotonin levels. that leads to low MAOA activity in the brain and is associated with aggressive behaviour. Brunner et al: studied 28 male member of a Dutch family that were repeatedly involved in aggressive criminal behaviours. They all had low levels of MAOA gene in their brains and low-activity versions of it. Stuart et al: studied 97 men in a treatment programme for domestic abusers that inflicted intimate partner violence (IPV). Those with low-activity MAOA gene were the most violent perpetrators of IPV. Frazzeto et al: found an association between anti-social aggression and the low-activity MAOA gene in adult males, but only those who had experienced trauma during the first 15 years of their life. Those who hadn’t experienced trauma were not aggressive, even if they had the low-activity MAOA gene. This show that there is a gene-environment interaction. Eval 2: There are multiple genetic influences – Eval 3: Findings depend on how aggression is the sizes of genetic influences are small so there are measured – different studies use different probably other genes involved. Stuart et al: found that IPV in men was associated with the serotonin transporter gene. A combination of this and the MAOA gene was linked to IPV. Hundred or thousands of genes interact in complex ways, which casts doubt over searches for single candidate genes. methods to measure aggression. In Rhee and Waldman’s meta-analysis, they found that genetics had a greater influence on aggression in studies using self-report rather than parent or teacher reports. Findings vary depending on how aggression is measured so it is difficult to draw valid conclusions. Eval 1: Genetic factors have been difficult to isolate – it is difficult to separate genetic and environmental factors as someone with aggressionassociated genes, may only act aggressive under certain conditions. Mc. Dermott et al: showed that participants with lowactivity MAOA gene behaved aggressively in a labbased task, but only when provoked. Therefore, it is challenging to prove how influential genetics are on aggressive behaviour. Eval 4: Support from prosocial behaviour research – low-activity MAOA gene is associated with greater aggression, so it is assumed that a highactivity variant should be more prosocial. Mertins et al: found that males with high-activity MAOA genes were more co-operative in a lab-based task and made less aggressive moves than those with the low-activity variant. This shows that MAOA gene is important in aggressive behaviour. Extra Evaluation Point: Support from animal studies – genetic deletion techniques enable researchers to ‘knockout’ single genes in mice to observe effects on aggression. Godar et al: showed that ‘knocking out’ MAOA genes in mice increased brain serotonin level and made them hyper-aggressive. When serotonin was blocked using fluoxetine, the mice reverted to non-aggression. This shows that MAOA gene has a function in relation to serotonin – presumably keeping it at a normal level.

[3] The Ethological Explanation of Aggression Outline: Aggression is beneficial for survival because it: Outline: Lea argues that FAPs are ritualistic (unchanging Eval 2: There are cultural differences in aggressive behaviour – Nisbett et al: found that Eval 3: There is some evidence against Eval 4: Evidence that FAPs are not that ‘fixed’ ritualistic aggression – Goodal: observed male chimps – Hunt: pointed out that behaviours that seem to fixed are 1. Reduces competition – defeated animals are forced into territory elsewhere 2. Establishes dominance hierarchies – may provide mating rights over females Pettit et al: observed how aggression in playgroups played a role in how some children became dominant over others – this is adaptive as it brings benefits. Lorenz: observed most intra-species aggression consisted mainly of ritualistic signalling (series of behaviour set out in a certain order) and rarely became physical. Intra-species aggression usually ends in appeasement display which are indications of defeat. This is adaptive as dying after every encounter may threaten existence of a species. An innate releasing mechanism (IRM) is a built in physiological structure or process that acts as a filter to identify threatening stimuli. When an environmental stimulus activates the IRM, it triggers fixed action patterns (FAP). southern US males were more likely than northern males to become aggressive when insulted. This was only true for reactive aggression triggered by arguments, so it was concluded that it was caused by culture of honour and that impulsive aggression was a learned social norm. ethological sees aggression as instinctive, so can’t explain how culture can override innate influences. behavioural sequence), universal (found in every individual species) and ballistic (follows an inevitable course of action that can’t be altered before completion) Key study: Tinbergen – Procedure: another male entering a stickleback’s territory in mating season initiates a sequence of aggressive behaviours (FAPs). A red spot on the underbelly of the competing male is the stimulus that triggers IRM that leads to aggressive FAPs. Male sticklebacks were presented with a series of wooden models of different shapes. Findings: If the shape had red underside, the stickleback would act aggressive towards it and wouldn’t if there was no spot. Tinbergen also found that the aggressive FAP didn’t change from one encounter to another and ran its course until completion when triggered. from one community systematically slaughtering another group in coordinated fashion. This happened despite victims showing signs of appeasement which didn’t inhibit aggression. This challenges the view that aggression is ritualistic and relatively physically harmless. Eval 1: There is supporting evidence – Brunner et al: found an association between low-activity MAOA gene and aggression, suggesting a biological basis. There is also evidence for IRMs in aggression – activity in the limbic system triggers aggressive behaviour in animals and humans. This is support for the ethological explanation as the ethological explanation argue that aggression is genetically determined. influenced by environmental factors and learning experiences. This means that FAPs are flexible and the term modal action plans are preferred. The flexibility of FAPs shows that aggression is effected by environmental influences, challenging the ethological approach. Extra Evaluation Point: Unjustified generalisations to human aggression – Lorenz didn’t study higher mammals such as primates and Tinbergen didn’t study extreme destructive violence that is a feature of human aggression. They both made generalisations about human aggression such as warfare from animal studies. Lorenz assumed that behaviour shown by animals is the same as that of entire countries. Generalisations can’t be made so easily especially when to complex behaviours which may the outcome of many influences.

[4] Evolutionary Explanations of Human Aggression Outline: Men face threat of cuckoldry (raising offspring that aren’t theirs) which is a waste of resources to contribute to the survival of rival genes. Those in the past who avoid cuckoldry were more productively successful, so psychological mechanisms have developed in males to increase anti-cuckoldry behaviour. This may cause males to become aggressive (mate retentions strategies) in order to prevent their partner from straying. Wilson and Daly identified two mate retention strategies: • Direct Guarding: a mans vigilance over a partners behaviour (who they see) • Negative Inducements: threats for infidelity e. g. “I’ll kill myself if you leave me” Wilson et al: found that women who reported mate retention strategies were twice as likely to suffer physical violence. 73% required medical attention and 53% feared for their lives. Men that used these two mate retention strategies were more likely to be physical violence – they were able to predict aggression towards wives. Eval 2: Evolutionary explanation explains gender differences – males engage in physical acts more than women. Campbell: argues that female aggression risks their offspring's survival, so they use verbal aggression to retain a partner that provides resources. The fact that this theory can explain and predict gender differences increases its validity. Outline: Bullying is a power imbalance where a stronger person uses aggression repeatedly against a weaker person. Evolutionary ancestors used bullying to increase their chances of survival by promoting their health and increasing reproduction opportunities. In men, bullying suggest dominance, acquisition of resources and also wards off rivals. These characteristics give more access to females and minimal threat from competing males. Bullying was naturally selected as these males would have had more reproductive success. Female bullying occurs within a relationship rather than outside – it’s used to control their partner. It is used to make sure their partner provides resources for future offspring – it would be naturally selected as it enhancing women’ reproductive success. Eval 3: Real-life applications – Rigby: reviewed many bullying prevention interventions. Despite these interventions, bullying remains prevalent. Most intervention fail to recognise that people bully to gain an advantage and that it’s not voluntary without compensation. Knowing this will help can help find better ways of tackling bullying. Eval 1: Research support for central evolutionary concepts – Many research studies show that mate retention strategies are associated with sexual jealousy and aggression. Shackelford et al: found that direct guarding and negative inducements were overwhelmingly used by males against females or other males. This shows that the risk of cuckoldry, infidelity and aggression are linked. Eval 4: Cultural differences in aggression – the evolutionary explanation assumes that aggression is in all cultures because it is used to increase survival chances through greater reproduction. However, the Kung San people of the Kalahari discourage aggression and those who use it lose reputation. The Yanomamo of Venezuela use aggression to gain status in their structured society. The fact that these two groups have different attitudes towards aggression suggests that it isn’t a universal behaviour. Extra Evaluation Point: Methodological issues with research evidence – it is hard to test hypotheses about the evolution of behaviour to solve problems of adaptation in our past, so research is correlational. Even a very strong correlation doesn’t establish cause and effect, so we cant conclude that evolutionary factors cause aggression. This makes it difficult to establish how valid an evolutionary explanations of aggression is.

[5] Social Psychological Explanations: Frustration-Aggression Outline: Dollard et al: frustration-aggression hypothesis Outline: Berkowitz and Le. Page: found that once students Eval 1: There is research evidence – Marcus- Eval 2: There is evidence that aggression isn’t cathartic – Bushman: found that participants who Eval 3: The original hypothesis was reformulated to fit the evidence – Frustration Eval 4: effects of justified and unjustified frustration – Dill and Anderson: showed participants a based on psychodynamic approach. Aggression is a drive and we experience frustration when our attempt to achieve something is blocked by an external factor. Frustration creates an aggressive drive leading to aggressive behaviour. Expression of an aggressive drive is cathartic because aggression created by frustration is satisfied. This reduces the drive making further aggression unlikely. Aggression may be experienced indirectly because the cause of frustration is: • Abstract (e. g. government) • Too powerful/we risk punishment (e. g. teacher) • Unavailable (e. g. teacher left before you see your grade) Aggression is therefore displaced onto an alternative – one that is weaker, not abstract and is available such as your younger sibling. vented their anger by hitting a punchbag became more aggressive rather than less. Venting to reduce anger is like trying to put out a fire with petrol but many therapists tell patients to do this. This casts doubt over the validity of the issue. became frustrated in a lab task, they were more likely to give electric shocks when they could see a weapon next to them. Weapons affect shows that frustration only creates a readiness for aggression, and that cues in the environment make aggression more likely to occur. Key Study: Green: Procedure – Male uni students completed a jigsaw puzzle during which level of frustration was manipulated in one of three ways: • Impossible to solve • Ran out of time because confederate kept interfering • Insulted by confederate Participants then gave the confederate electric shocks (fake) in another task Findings – insulted participants gave strongest shocks on average, then interfered group, then impossible task group. All three selected more intense shocks than the control group (nonfrustrated). doesn’t always lead to aggression and aggression can occur without frustration. Berkowitz: argued that frustration is one many aversive stimuli that creates negative feelings. Aggression is triggered by negative feelings generally rather than frustration specifically. Frustration can lead to more than one response, on of which is aggression. This shows that theory is flexible. Newhall et al: conducted meta-analysis of 49 studies of displaced aggression. Participants who were provoked but unable to retaliate against the source were more likely to aggress against an innocent party than people that weren’t provoked. This proves that displaced aggression is a reliable phenomenon and increases the validity of the frustration aggression theory. paper-folding task, but frustrated them by making it difficult by either doing it fast because the researcher wanted to meet his girlfriend (unjustified) or his boss had told him to (justified). Those who experienced unjustified frustration were more aggressive than the justified group, however the justified group were more aggressive than a control group. This shows that some forms of frustration can produce more aggression than others. Extra Evaluation Point: useful real-life application – Berkowitz’s argument that the trigger can pull the finger has featured in gun control debate in the US. Some states allow open carry where guns don’t have to be concealed. The presence of a weapon acts as a cue to aggression making its use more likely. Research into weapon effect may reduce gun violence and save lives.

[6] Social Psychological Explanations: SLT Outline: Bandura’s social learning theory acknowledged that aggression can be learned through operant conditioning. If a child snatches a toy, they find out it results in a reward (the toy). Observational learning explains most aggressive behaviour. A child observes models being aggressive and works out how it is performed. They observe the consequences of the model’s aggressive behaviour and learns that rewarded behaviour will help them get what they want. This is called vicarious reinforcement. There are four cognitive conditions needed for observational learning to take place: • Attention: noticing behaviour • Retention: remembering behaviour • Motor Reproduction: being able to repeat behaviour • Motivation: the will to repeat behaviour Eval 2: SLT can’t explain all forms of aggression – children who use proactive aggression (cold, calculating) have high self efficacy which SLT can explain. However, reactive aggression (angry, impulsive) occurs only as retribution in the heat of the moment and not to gain anything. SLT can’t explain this, so is an incomplete explanation. Outline: Self-efficacy is the extent to which we believe our Eval 1: There is supportive research evidence actions will achieve our desired goals. A child’s confidence in – Poulin and Boivin: found that most aggressive their ability be aggressive grows as they learn that it can bring rewards. Key Study: Bandura et al: Procedure – Young children individually observed an adult model playing with a bobo doll. Some watched them behave aggressively others non aggressively. Children were then taken to a room with toys including the bobo doll. Findings – children who observed aggressive behaviour behaved aggressively towards the bobo doll. The behaviour was very similar including specific verbal phrases. Children in the non-aggressive group didn’t show aggressive behaviour. boys formed friendships with other aggressive boys – ‘training ground’ for antisocial behaviour. This meant that they were exposed to aggressive models (each other) more often, as well as to its reinforcing consequences (rewarding approval). This shows that aggression increases in precisely the conditions predicted by SLT. Eval 3: SLT highlights the benefits of nonaggressive models – people aren’t passive Eval 4: useful real-life applications – Huesmann recipients of reinforcement. They choose situations that which reward aggression. In order to reduce aggression, this cycle must be broken by having kids for friendships with others that aren’t aggressive. Children are provided with non-aggressive models which reduces violence – a practical benefit. and Eron: media portrayals of aggression can be powerful influences on a child’s acquisition of aggression. This is true if the character is rewarded for aggression. SLT predicts this and can lead to the practical benefit of providing non-aggressive models in media. Extra Evaluation Point: SLT has difficulty explaining cultural differences in aggression – different cultures have different norms about which behaviours should be reinforced. Some cultures don’t encourage aggression (Kung San), so aggressive models are rare whereas others achieve status through it (Yanomamo), so there are many aggressive models who can encourage vicarious reinforcement. But Kung San people still behave aggressively. This shows that there is more to behaviour than social learning.

[7] Social Psychological Explanations: De-individuation Outline: Zimbardo – argued that aggressive behaviour is usually discouraged by social norms. But when we become part of a crowd, we lose restraint and may behave in impulsive ways – we become de-individuated and lose individual self-identity and responsibility for our behaviour. Responsibility is shared by the crowd and we experience less guilt for harmful aggression towards others. Anonymity is provided by the group which promotes aggression. We fear less for retribution because we are unidentifiable in the crowd. There are fewer opportunities for people to judge us negatively. Prentice-Dunn and Rogers: argue that anonymity reduces private self-awareness as attention is focused towards events around us, so we care less about our own values and are less self-critical and evaluative. Eval 2: There is contradictory evidence – Gergen et al: put strangers in a darkened room and told them to do what they wanted – they soon started kissing and touching each other. In a repeat study, they would be face-to-face with each other after the dark room. Touching and kissing was reduced in this repeat study. Despite condition for aggressive behaviour being made (de-individuation and anonymity), aggressive behaviour wasn’t displayed as theory would predict. Outline: Anonymity also reduces public self-awareness as we realise that we are anonymous and our behaviour is less likely to be judged by others. We no longer care how others see us and are less accountable for our aggressive actions. Key Study: Dodd: Procedure – Dodd asked students what they would do if there was complete assurance that they would not be detected and held accountable. Students knew their answers were anonymous. Three independent raters who didn’t know the aims categorised responses as either prosocial or antisocial. Findings – 36% of responses were antisocial behaviour and 26% criminal acts. Only 9% were prosocial acts. This shows that there is a link between anonymity and aggressive behaviour. Eval 3: De-individuation doesn’t inevitably lead to aggression – Johnson and Downing: Eval 1: There is supportive research evidence – Douglas and Mc. Garthy: looked at aggressive online behaviour in chatroom and instant messaging. They found a strong correlation between anonymity and posting hostile messages. The most aggressive were sent by those who hid their identities. This suggests that there is a link between anonymity, deindividuation and aggression. Eval 4: Useful real-life application – de- individuation can help us understand aggressive behaviour in online gaming services such as Xbox female participants gave shocks to a confederate either wearing a mask, dressed as a nurse or wearing Live. These services have features promoting deindividuation such as hiding identity and using their own clothes (control). Masked group gave intense shocks and nurses gave fewer, weaker ones. ‘handles’ to identify themselves. This confirms the relevance of de-individuation concepts in aggression. Nurses were more compassionate as they took the role associated with a nurse. This shows that there are potential prosocial outcomes of de-individuation. Extra Evaluation Point: Alternative explanations may account better for aggression – Spears and Lea: applied SLT to de-individuation in their Social Identity model of De-individuation Effects (SIDE model). De-individuation leads to behaviour that conforms to local group norms (antisocial or prosocial) because anonymity shifts a persons attention to group identity rather than identity as a group member. Anonymity and reduced self-awareness doesn’t have the wider effects which de-individuation theory predicts – aggression isn’t inevitable when in a de-individuated state.

[8] Institutional Aggression in the Context of Prisons Outline: Dispositional Explanation (Importation Model) – Irwin and Cressey: inmates import criminal subcultures into prison – including beliefs, values, norms and characteristics. Inmates use these to negotiate their way through the unfamiliar prison environment where existing inmates use aggression to establish power, status and access to resources. Aggression is the result of individual characteristics of inmates, not the prison environment. De. Lisi et al: studied juvenile delinquents in California institutions who imported several negative dispositional features such as childhood trauma, anger, history 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 a control group. Outline: Situational Explanation (Deprivation Model) – Clemmer: argued that harsh prison conditions cause stress for inmates who cope by behaving aggressively. Aggression is also influenced by another situational factor which is when prisons do regular ‘lock ups’ to control behaviour – this causes frustration and reduces access to ‘good’ even further. Aggression becomes an adaptive solution to deprivation. Harsh conditions include: • Psychological Factors (lack of intimacy, deprived freedom) • Physical Factors (deprivation of material goods – increases competition) Steiner: investigated factors predicting inmate aggression in 512 US prisons. Inmate-oninmate aggression was more popular where there was more female staff, African-American inmates, Hispanic inmates and those in protective custody. These are prison-level factors as they are independent of a prisoners personality. Eval 1: Research support – Camp and Gaes: placed half of their male inmate Eval 1: Research support – individual level factors can predict aggression participants in low-security prisons and the other half in the second highest category of prisons. There was no significant difference in aggressive misconduct between the two groups – feature of prisons were not important for aggression. This shows that characteristics of inmates are more important in aggression which the dispositional explanation states. independent of the environment, but research shows that some situational variables are highly influential. Cunningham et al: analysed homicides in Texas prisons and found that motivation was some of the deprivation Clemmer had identified. This increases the validity as the situational explanation predicts this. Eval 2: Alternative explanation may be better – Dilulio: claims that the Eval 2: Contradictory research evidence – the deprivation explanation dispositional explanation is inadequate as it ignores roles of position officials and factors linked to running prisons. He proposed an Administrative Control Model (ACM) which states that poorly managed prisons are more likely to experience most serious forms of inmate violence. According to ACM this is more important that characteristics which threatens the validity of the dispositional explanation. predicts that lack of freedom and heterosexual contact leads to high levels of aggression in prisons, but Hensley et al: studied inmates that were allowed conjugal visits which didn’t have any link to aggressive behaviour. This shows that situational factors don’t necessarily effect prison violence and cast doubt over the validity of this theory. Overall Evaluation Point: Interaction model may be better than both explanations – Dobbs and Waid: deprivation doesn’t lead to violence unless it combines with imported characteristics. This explanation is more valid as it explains the experiences of institutional aggression. It explains a greater variety of aggressive behaviors. It is also more realistic as it reflects complex nature of institutional aggression which is unlikely to have one cause as assumed by the two models.

[9] Media Influences: Effects of Computer Games Outline: There are 4 different studies on computer games and aggression: Experimental, Correlational, Longitudinal and Meta-analysis. Experiment – Bartholow and Anderson: participants played a violent or non-violent video game for 10 mins then carried out Taylor Competitive Reaction Time Task where they had to choose volume of noise blast. Those who played violent games selected much higher noise levels than non-violent players. Correlation – De. Lisi: studied 227 juvenile offenders with histories of serious aggressive behaviours. Structured interviews were used to gather data on aggression and violent video games playing. Aggressive behaviour was positively correlated with how often they played violent video games. Outline: Longitudinal – Robertson et al: studied 1, 037 people born in NZ, measuring their TV viewing hours at regular intervals up to the age of 26. Time spent watching TV was a reliable predictor of aggressive behaviour in adulthood and diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder. The most important factor was how much TV they watched rather than whether it was violent. Meta-analysis – Anderson et al: meta-analysis of 136 studies including experimental, correlational and longitudinal research. Exposure to violent video games was associated with increases in aggressive behaviour, thoughts and feelings. This applied to males and females across collectivist and individualist cultures. Anderson et al: claim that the effect of violent video game playing on aggressive behaviour is greater than the effect of second hand smoke on cancer. The analysis also showed no indication that publication bias influenced results. Eval 2: Non-equivalence problem in Eval 3: We can’t draw cause and effect experimental studies – people who play violent video conclusions from correlations – no variables are games are compared to those who play non-violent ones. It is difficult to be sure whether these games are equivalent apart from the presence or absence of violence. Przbylski et al: looked at two often played games – Marathon 2 (violent, uses 20 keys) and Glider pro 4 (non-violent, uses 2 keys). The difference in complexity is a confounding variable which may cause aggression rather than the violence. manipulated or controlled and there is no random allocation of participants to violent or non-violent media. A positive correlation can be due to socialisation or selection (people choose violent games as they are aggressive). The direction of causality cant be settled so correlations don’t help make valid conclusions. Eval 1: Measures of aggression in experiments are artificial – the Taylor Competitive Reaction Time Task measures aggression as the volume of noise selected by participants as punishment which is an unrealistic measure. Aggression are also unrealistic because they aren’t retaliating, the experimenter just gave them permission to be safely aggressive. This casts doubt over the validity of experimental studies as evidence for aggression and media. Eval 4: Confounding variables in longitudinal studies – longitudinal studies take place over long periods of time. Many sources of aggression interact with media influences over this period such as role models. It is difficult to separate them and assess contributions to aggressive behaviours. Therefore, we cant conclude that its violent media that causes aggression. Extra Evaluation Point: Publication bias – there is a tendency for only statistically significant findings to be published. This is a problem for meta-analyses as they generally only include published studies which show a significant effect. Publication bias creates a false impression that effects of violent media are greater than they actually are.

[10] Media Influences Outline: Normally when we witness aggression, we experience Outline: It isn’t unusual for violent video games to show Eval 1: Research support for desensitisation – Eval 2: Catharsis may be a better explanation Eval 3: Research support for disinhibition – than desensitisation – Krahe et al: failed to find a Berkowitz and Alioto: showed participants a film Eval 4: Disinhibition can explain the effect of cartoon violence – Kirsh: children don’t learn arousal associated with the SNS (e. g. increased heart rate). However, if a child repeatedly views aggression through media, physiological factors are reduced (desensitisation). Repeatedly viewing violent media promotes a belief that aggression as a method of resolving conflict is socially acceptable, so they feel less empathy towards victims. Weisz and Earls: showed participants the film Straw Dogs which contained a graphic rape scene. Male viewers showed greater acceptance of rape myths at a mock rape trial compared to those who watched a non-violent movie. They also showed less sympathy for the victim. Most people see violence and aggression as antisocial, however violent media gives it social approval if effects on victims are minimised and violence is justified. Usual restraints are therefore loosened (disinhibited) after exposure to violent media. link between media viewing, lower arousal and reactive aggression. This may be because catharsis occurred. Viewing violent behaviour acted as a safety valve where people were able to release aggressive impulses without behaving violently. Desensitisation can’t explain this so aggression isn’t the outcome of it. violence being rewarded and consequences minimised. This enhances disinhibition. Cognitive priming occurs when we continuously view violent media and are provided with a script about how violent situations may play out. Huesmann: argued that is stored in memory so we are ready (primed) to be aggressive. It is an automatic response and can happen without us being aware. The script is triggered when we encounter cues in a situation we perceive as aggressive. Fischer and Greitemeyer: investigated song lyrics as a form of media violence. Male participants listened to songs with aggressive derogatory lyrics towards women. Compared to when they listened to neutral lyrics, they recalled more negative qualities about women and behaved more aggressively towards a female confederate. Similar results with women and men hating lyrics. depicting aggression as vengeance. People gave more electric shocks for longer to a confederate. Media can disinhibit aggressiveness when it is justified. Vengeance is a socially accepted version of aggression. This adds validity to disinhibition as it demonstrates the link between removing constraints and aggressive behaviour. Krahe et al: showed participants violent film clips while measuring physiological skin arousal using skin conductance. Viewers showed lower arousal after watching violent films. Arousal was negatively correlated with unprovoked aggression in a noise blast task. This shows that violent media causes desensitisation and more willingness to be aggressive. specific behaviours from cartoon models. They learn social norms instead as aggression carried out by cartoon models is socially normative especially if it goes unpunished. Children learn that aggression is rewarding as disinhibition states. Extra Evaluation Point: Cognitive priming has useful practical applications – understanding how cognitive priming influences aggression can save lives. Bushman and Anderson: claim that someone who regularly watches violent media accesses stored aggressive scripts more regularly so are more likely to interpret cues as aggressive and resort to violence. This raises the possibility that effective interventions could reduce aggressive behaviour by challenging cognitive scripts and considering alternatives.