Aggression Social psychological explanations Biological explanations Evolutionary explanations

Social psychological explanations of aggression Social learning theory Deindividuation Institutional aggression

Social learning theory • All humans have the biological potential for aggression but the expression of aggression is learnt • We learn aggression by observation and imitation of the behaviours of others • Bandura et al. – children imitated behaviours of an aggressive model on a bobo doll

Social learning theory • Children observe consequences of behaviours via vicarious reinforcement (Bandura & Walters) • Teaches child about appropriate and effective social conduct • Children form mental representations of social events • These influence expectancies of future outcomes – if expectation of reward is bigger than punishment, children display the behaviour

Social learning theory • Production of behaviours is influenced by… Direct experience – rewards for aggression attach value to it Self-efficacy – successful use of aggression gives children more confidence that it is effective

Evaluation • Does punishment prevent imitation or learning itself? Bandura – children rewarded for aggression, and all 3 groups showed similar levels of aggression, suggesting learning is independent of reinforcements but production of behaviours is not • Is social learning evident in adults? Phillips – homicide rates in the US increase after boxing matches

Evaluation • The concept of vicarious learning is necessary to explain findings when direct reinforcement is inevident • This theory can explain individual differences in aggression Different individuals learn differently in different cultures (‘culture of violence’ theory) Different situations have different aggressive requirements (context-dependent learning)

IDA • Is social learning theory valid? Results may have been due to demand characteristics Results may not be generalisable to real people • Ethical issues (protection from harm) make it difficult to scientifically test social learning theory

Deindividuation • A process whereby people lose their sense of socialised individual identity and engage in unsocialised, often antisocial, behaviour • 2 things prohibit antisocial behaviour: Identifiability (so anonymity enables it) Social norms (so collective mind enables it) • Groups reduce these constraints, making aggression more likely

Deindividuation • Milgram – separation from victim makes it easier to shock them, outlining the role of anonymity • Zimbardo – faceless crowds diminish awareness of individuality so there is less fear of retribution and diminished sense of guilt • Anonymity decreases public self-awareness so larger crowds mean greater anonymity meaning more aggression

Evaluation • The Stanford Prison Experiment – relative anonymity of guards decreased selfawareness, so brutally treated prisoners. This is because they were deindividuated • Anonymity – does it matter whether the aggressor or aggressed is anonymous? Does it matter if the out-group or in-group cannot identify you?

Evaluation • Watson – 23 different cultures changed appearance in battle; the more dramatic the change, the more savage the soldier • Postmes & Spears meta-analysis – antisocial behaviour not more common in large groups • Spivey & Prentice-Dunn – deindividuation is situational so prosocial cues lead to prosocial behaviours (e. g. religious gatherings, concerts)

IDA • Application – Mann – crowds form that urge suicide jumpers to jump, and this is most common when the jumper is high, it is dark and the crowd is large (i. e. more deindividuated) • Gender bias Cannavale et al. – men more deidividuated Diener et al. – men more disinhibited

Institutional aggression • Within groups: Prisons - The importation model Aggressive social histories are imported into prisons and influence adaptation to prison environment Pre-prison gang membership is a key determinant of prison violence (Huff – gang members are 10 x likely to murder, 3 x likely to assault)

Institutional aggression • Within groups: Prisons - The deprivation model Oppressive prison conditions (e. g. overcrowding, lack of staff experience) cause aggression Davies & Burgess – experienced guards are less likely to suffer assault Sykes – loss of liberty, autonomy and security increase anxiety that causes violent rebellion

Evaluation • Harer & Steffensmeier – black inmates are less associated with drug/alcohol-related crimes than white inmates, reflecting US society and supporting the importation model • De. Lisi et al. – gang membership is not correlated with prison violence. This could be due to isolation of pre-prison gang members – Fischer – isolating gang members reduces violent assault by 50%

Evaluation • Mc. Corkle et al. – lack of privacy, meaningful activity and overcrowding influence peer aggression • Importation model may explain prisoner/prisoner aggression and the deprivation model explains prisoner/staff aggression

IDA • Application – Wilson at HM Woodhill lowered temperature, increased space, gave an outside view and played radio in prison. Prison violence was eradicated, but the prison shut down due to political pressure (the worst people can’t have the best things)

Institutional aggression • Between groups: genocide - Staub’s stages of genocide 1. Difficult social conditions 2. Scapegoat of a target group 3. Dehumanisation of that group 4. Killing begins 5. Passivity of bystanders allows killing to continue

Evaluation • Intervention by outside agencies may shorten genocide, but cause the aggressors to intensify their efforts. In the Rwandan genocide, the death toll rose to 8, 000 per day. But, doing nothing signifies apathy/consent to the killing

IDA • Application – dehumanisation of outgroup members allows individuals high in social dominance orientation* to act more hostile towards refugees and asylum seekers *Social dominance orientation = supporting social hierarchies and inter-group inequality

Biological explanations of aggression Neural & hormonal mechanisms Genetics

Neural mechanisms • Low serotonin = high aggression Mann et al. – serotonin inhibitors increased hostility & aggression in participants • High dopamine = aggression Amphetamines increase dopamine and increase aggression Antipsychotics lower dopamine and lower aggression

Evaluation • Bond – antidepressants increase serotonin and lower aggression • Raleigh et al. – monkeys fed diets high in tryptophan (chemical that increases serotonin) lowered aggression • Dogs selectively bred to be domicile (i. e. less aggressive) had increased levels of serotonin over generations • Couppis & Kennedy – dopamine levels increased after aggression in mice so may be a reward mechanism rather than a cause

Hormonal mechanisms • High testosterone = high aggression Increased levels of salivary testosterone evident in violent criminals Increased levels of testosterone evident in violent drunks The challenge hypothesis – testosterone rises to influence aggression in response to social challenges • Low cortisol = high testosterone = high aggression Low levels of cortisol in habitual violent offenders and children

Evaluation • Albert et al. – some studies find no correlation between testosterone & aggression and those that have use self-report techniques so may not be valid • Mazur – testosterone influences dominance behaviours other than aggression in humans • Mc. Burnett et al. – low cortisol levels in children with behavioural problems

IDA • Reductionism – complex human aggression cannot be completely explained by biological mechanisms • Application – the presence of weapons increases testosterone which may explain gun/knife crime • Gender bias – testosterone has been found to increase aggression greater in females than males, and high levels of testosterone were found in women of higher status but this has been ignored in research

Genetics • Twin studies 87%: 72% MZ: DZ concordance (these are both high so genetics is not a likely factor) Coccaro et al. – genetics accounts for 50% of the variance in aggression • Adoption studies Humphreys & Mednick – the most aggressive adoptees have aggressive adoptive and biological parents (especially fathers)

Genetics • MAOA regulates the metabolism of serotonin, so low MAOA means unregulated serotonin metabolism so low serotonin, and this has been linked to aggression • There is a gene coding for MAOA so indirectly coding for aggression • Brunner et al. – violent dutch family members all had genetic MAOA deficiency • Caspi et al. – low MAOA + childhood maltreatment = aggression

Evaluation • Genes are difficult to study: - More than one gene may contribute to a behaviour - There are many environmental as well as genetic factors in aggression - Genes and environment may affect each other • Observational studies are more valid, and these have found less of a link between genetics and aggression

Evaluation • Is aggression being measured? Studies do not distinguish between violent and non-violent crime; habitual or non-habitual violence. Therefore, is aggression truly being measured? • Walter’s meta-analysis – genetics has a low influence on aggression, especially in more recent studies

IDA • Application – genetic studies could have serious consequences on people labelled as ‘genetically violent’ (e. g. chemical castration, genetic modification) • Determinism – do ‘violent’ genes make criminals less liable for their crimes? • Gender bias – if a gene is found, it may not have the same effect on both sexes

Evolutionary explanations of aggression Infidelity & jealousy Explanations of group displays (lynch mobs & religious groups)

Jealousy • Males have evolved to manifest aggression as sexual jealousy to prevent cuckoldry (investing resources in offspring other than their own) • Buss – aggressive mate retention strategies include direct guarding (restricting the partner’s autonomy) and negative inducements • Sexual jealousy may explain extreme violence: Daly et al. – sexual jealousy is the most common motivation for killings in domestic disputes in the US Dell – sexual jealousy is the cause of 17% of murders in the UK with males predominantly the perpetrators

Evaluation • Shackleford et al. – males who report using mate retention strategies are also more aggressive; femals who have been victim to mate retention strategies say their mates are more aggressive • Buss & Shackleford – males who anticipated infidelity (i. e. were sexually jealous) were more aggressive when it happened than those who did not expect it • Mate retention strategies may be used to look for signs of domestic abuse

Evaluation • Takahashi et al. – higher activation in amygdala and hypothalamus (parts of the brain associated with aggression) in males imagining scenes of infidelity • Edlund & Sagarin – research doesn’t tell us how the perceived locus of responsibility or degree of sexual act affects the aggressive response

Infidelity • Camilleri – sexual assault by a male partner directly linked to perceived risk of infidelity • Shields & Hanneke – victims of partner rape more likely to report engagement in extra-marital sex • Violence towards pregnant partners is an attempt to eliminate the offspring of a rival and free the partner to bear the male’s own offspring • Daly & Wilson – wife-killing is an unintended outcome of evolved strategies of extreme control

Evaluation • Camilleri & Quinsey – males convicted of partner rape more likely to have experienced cuckoldry risk • Burch & Gallup - pregnant women 2 x more likely to be assaulted • ½ a sample of pregnant women suffered blows to their abdomen (assumedly to terminate pregnancy) • Taillieu & Brownridge – women abused while pregnant were more likely to be carrying another man’s baby

IDA • Evolutionary approach cannot explain why different people have different reactions to sexual jealousy/infidelity – some abuse their partners, some kill their partners and some just drink • Gender bias – females also use mate retention strategies but this is ignored in research

Group displays: Lynch mobs • Groups of people that unlawfully kill others for some presumed offence • Blalock’s power-threat hypothesis states that lynch mobs form to prevent political power falling into the hands of the majority • This explains Tolnay & Beck’s findings of reasons for lynchings: “trying to vote” and “voting for the wrong party” • Lynch mobs evolved as a form of social control

Group displays: Lynch mobs • Hyatt – lynch mobs form due to dehumanisation of the target group • Hysterical desecration of bodies demean victims, leaving them unrecognisable • Lynchings are preceded by propaganda that reduce groups to animalistic stereotypes • Lynch mobs evolved to combat perceived threats

Evaluation • Clark – brazillian lynch mobs didn’t consider victims a threat to the majority politically or economically • Rothenberg – burning bodies very common in guatemalan lynchings, supporting dehumanisation • Rothenberg – lynchings not characterised by deindividuated conditions (lynch mobs are small and lynchings in broad daylight) so social psychological approach is inapplicable

Group displays: Religious groups • Some religious groups self-inflict violence that signals commitment to a group (Irons) • Committed group members are more likely to be cooperative • Cooperation leads to benefits e. g. food sharing & hunting • Religious groups have evolved to promote and maintain cooperation

Group displays: Religious groups • Self-inflicted violence deters selfish individuals • Zahavi – costly signalling rituals are ‘handicaps’ that deter free-riders but incur pain for in-group members • Religious groups have evolved to deter potential free-riders who may exploit the group

Evaluation • Ruffle & Sosis – religious males in Israeli Kibbutz are more cooperative than females because their rituals are more conspicuous • Sosis et al. – cultures in external warfare use more permanent displays of group membership

IDA • Social psychological approach may be necessary as Mullen found that, as lynch mobs grow, their killings are more savage • Application – solidarity within groups enables defence and competition between groups that explains religious conflict