Aggression

• Hostile aggression: Motivated by anger, hostility or wanting to hurt the other person
• Instrumental aggression: Motivated by things other than hostility like wanting attention, get resources or advance a cause
• Situational determinants = Influences in environment that increase aggression

External influences: 1. Heat   2. Media/video games   3. Weapon presence   4. Social rejection   5. Income inequality

• Income equality = Differences in % of wealth owned by richest and poorest in any society
• Heat = HIgh temp leads to aggression. Violent crimes reach maximum in Summer. Anger -> Increased blood pressure -> Fighting body parts (hands). Higher temp - increases arousal
• Media = Social learning theory (modelling, observation) More aggression after exposure
• Cartoons = Violence can lead to as much observational learning as real people violence

Factors increasing aggression: 1. If person identifies with who they're watching   2. If person focuses on violence whilst watching   3. If violence is justified e.g. against criminals

Weapon presence: Berkowitz & LaPage (1967): Male ppt + actor worked on problems, then took turns evaluating. Either shocked once or multiple. Took turns to provide shock - next to machine either nothing, badminton gear or revolver and shotgun. Already angry - weapon increases anger

Frustration-aggression theory: Frustration occurs when goals are blocked. What increases amount of aggression expected? 1. How completely goal progress is blocked?  2. How frequently goal progress is blocked? 3. How close to achieving goal   4. How satisfying thought it would feel

Norton & Ariely, 2011: Americans dramatically underestimate current wealth inequality.

Reasons for social inequality: 1. Social rejection - people at bottom feel left out.   2. Lack of cohesion - inequality undermines cohesiveness and creates us vs them mentality.   3. Violent competition may pressure males into fiercer competition for access to economic resources/mates

Two big theories: a. Frustration-aggression theory    b. Neo-associationistic account of aggression

Horland & Sears (1940): Negative strong correlation between price and cotton and lyncings. Price went down -> economy worsened -> lynchings went up

• Neo-associationistic account:Aversive event->Pain, heat, blocked.Anger ->Perceived injustice, thoughts attack, elevated arousal. Aggression ->Attacked physically, harm emotionally
• Construal chnges how people respond to goals being blocked.
• Neo-associationistic account of aggression: Event construed as angry, become more likely to aggress. Won't if same event is construed in a way that doesn't make you angry (depends)

Critiques: a. Frustration is not necessary for aggression. Hostile aggression can arise because of heat, pollution e.t.c.    b. Frustration isn't sufficient for aggression. Same stimuli that trigger aggression can also trigger other responses - learned helplessness.

Burnstein & Worchel, 1962: Worked on maths problems. Confederate disrupted either because: 1. They weren't paying attention   2. Hearing aid malfunctioned.   Only kicked out 1st ppt, construal matters. Anger displaced onto scapegoat targets.

• Three types of cultures: 1. Dignity     2. Honour    3. Face
• Dignity - strong, internal sense of self-worth, independent, derived from self. North US, Europe

• Honour - concerned with respect, strong focus on competition, individualist (US South, Latin)
• Face - Dictated by others, about appearance, guided by status + hierarchy (Asia)
• Gender is biggest predictor of aggression
• Condry & Condry, 1976: Shown baby, said angry if boy, scared if girl. Boys discouraged from showing emotions, supporting men are socialised into being more physically aggressive

Culture of honour: Member's strong concern about own and other reputations. Payback is important - leads to hypersensitivity to insults, violence used against insults or wrongs. Display anger, firmer grip, severe spikes in testosterone, aggression likely.

Misperception: Asked about...a. Own attitude on politics   b. Attitude of political opponents on issue Opponent's attitudes estimated as more extreme, but they are actually more similar than we think

• Simple attitude = few points, complex attitude = many points and connections
• Is complex or simple attitude better? Politicians are simple before elected when campaigning. Good for elected to be complex. Hold extreme viewpoints = similar.