• Created by: LaraPope
  • Created on: 01-06-15 17:41

Social learning theory

classical/ operant conditioning: 
Bandura: 1961, observation/immitation. A and NA adults observed then tested for immitation. Deliberate frustration (unethical), in room with toys and bobo doll. watched A model= physical and verbal A. 1/3 repeated verbal 'pow', NA nothing. Boys= more A no diff in verbal or physical.
observation- vicarious reinforcement-(vicarious= experience/ direct= punishment) mental representations. Attention, retention, reproduction, motivation. (key concepts)

Bandura lacks validitydemand characteristics of what is expected 'the doll we have to hit'. calculates A towards doll not person (doll is demand characteristic) cannot be generalised to real life- lacks mundane realism- Bandura new film of clown and human A had higher validity.
Ethical issues associated with SLT: exposure to A with knowledge of immitaion= unethical they need protection from psychoclogical harm. A is hard to test and difficult to establish scientific credibillity of theory.
research cannot be applied to adults based on children however Philips homicide rates US increase after major boxing match showing adults immitate SLT. Correlation- could be down to other factors- time of year more common during summer and christmas holidays.
SLT explains A without direcrt reinforcement: Bandura showed A behaviour was immitated wihout direct rewards, highlights concept for vicarious learning is important. 
SLT explains cultural diff in A: areas such as (kung san) A is rare, devalued in society, no direct reinforcement or A models= no motivation for A in kung san children.

1 of 8


1) Annonymity- crowd 2) idetify with specific role- loss of identity
Le Bon: A in large groups- collective mindset, less identifiable and less guilt.
A happens when self awareness is blocked by environmental events- increased arousal or uniform. Traped in the moment and don't consider consequences.

Zimbardo showed link between D and increased A: ppts shocked 'aid learning'. D condition shocked x2 as long as if identifiable. Annonymity increases A. 
Johnson and Downing: A could be as result of local group norms rather than just D: Klu Klux Klan and nurses . KKK more likely to shock as they respond to normative cues in social context e.g A as more appropriate than dressed as a nurse. 
Mixed evidence for D: Meta-analysis of 60 studies of D insufficient research highlighting A is not more common in large anonymous setting
. Gender bias= M and F respond differently. All M groups increase A, greater disinhibtion of A in M.
D is desired in cyber space: adolescence moer comfortable reporting mental health probs on internet chats than to doctor, useful applications of D.
Mann et al= D explains bizzarre behaviour, crowd baiting: 21  suicide leaps un US analysed= 10/21 crowd baiting occured within a crowd, at night from a distance in a large crowd. D is supported by baiting crows.

2 of 8

Institutional aggression

Prisons= dangerous US 70,000 inmates are victim to sexual violence. Due to interpersonal/ situational factors.
Interpersonal- importation model= Irwin and Cressey bring own social histories and traits with them Normative systems dev outside then imported in (gang membership)
Gang membership: GM makes up proprtion of prison V. Gang outside = gang inside. GM in US 10x more likely to commit murder than if non gang member of similar age and background.
Situational factors- deprivation model: A= result of oppressive and stressful conditions (crowding and staff experience). Sykes: factors increase V due to loss of autonomy and security. Either withdraw or rebel with V.
Between groups (Genocide): institute- section of society characterised by hatred and hostility e.g holocaust. Dehumanisation: members are worthless, not worthy or moral considersations should be killed. Rwanda genocide HUTU controlled hate radio saying Tutsi's 'cockroaches' should die.
Obedience to authority: Milgram= holocaust was as result of situational pressures forcing Nazi soldiers to obey leaders.
Deportation model has support in terms of indiv behaviour: US data on black inmates= sig higher rates of V lower alochol/ drug misconduct than white. parallel to society= importation.
Contrasting evidence challenges pre prison GM on V: no more likely to be V= against importation. Often restricted to reduce V assaults by 50% 
Support for deprivation model: McCorkle overcrowding, no privacy or meaningful activities= influenced peer violence. Peer violence releases deprivation imposed by institution. x- not consistent increased personal space failed to decrease IA.
Deprivation model has real world applications: 2 units for violent prisoners set up (bigger, reduced noise, music, lowered temp)= eradicated V to staff and inmates- political pressures= treat too well.

3 of 8

Neural and hormonal mechanisms

Neurotransmitters: Serotonin and Dopamine
S= low levels increase suscepitbility to impulsive behaviour, A and V suicide. Drugs alter S levels and often increase A behaviour.
D= high increases A. Ampthetamines increase D therefore increasing A. Antipsychotics reduce D and A.
Hormonal mechanisms: Testosterone and Cortisol.
T= high, male sex hormone that influences  A from early adulthood onwards due to its action on areas in brain controlling A.V crimes= high T levels unlike non criminals.

C= low, mediates T, increases A and social withdrawl, high  C  ingibits T therefore  inhibiting A. low C=V
Non human animals support S in A: vervet monkeys: put on diets with high Tryptophan increases S, showed decreases levels of A. low tryptophan increased A- suggested that A levels varied due to S.
Research is  inconclusive about role of D in A: Meta analysis: looked at neurotransmitter levels in antisocial adults and children= low S role in A, S depletion=A but no diff on D levels. less clear role of  D- could be consequence, seek A due to the rewarding sensation D=pos reinforcer.
Inconclusive evidence about rel between T and A: Albert some studies show pos correlation but Albert found no rel. Research-biased, showing a rel= small sample/men in prison, self report, crimes
Reductionist: A caused by bio mechnisms- established in non human animals not in humans. complex human behaviour shows it is an isufficient explnt of the many aspects of A and V
Gender bias in studies concerned with T and A: mainly males, gender diff highlighted with T. Association of T and A= higher in F, higher occupation status (assertive). T shows F being nice depending on the situation.


4 of 8

Genetic factors

Twin/ adoption studies: twin= investigates certain genetic lins (mz/dz genes) adoption= gene/envi
MAOA gene: not one specific gene for A but this one prooduces MAOA protein associated with A. regulates metabolism of S, as it lowers increases A. Dutch family, males were A and V committed serious crimes like **** and arson. low MAOA=A and found fam to have defectiive gene later.
The XYY synndrome:  M= more A then F, men have an extra Y chromosome= XYY occurs in 0.1% of pop Jacobs: 3% of inmates have XYY. often taller, lower IQ, higher T.
Nature Vs Nurture devbate: more than one gene contibutes to A behaviour, environment contributes too= interaction between gene and environment= reductionist to state just genetics
Supprt for gene environment interaction: Caspi low MAOA exhibits ASB only if maltreated as child. Low MAOA and no maltreated= no ASB. Gene and environment that manifest A
Problems assessing A: parental/ self report lacks validity difficult to make firm conclusions
Methodological problems with studies of inheritance and criminal V: more V attack than convicted representing a small minority. dont distinguish diff between A and NA crimes cannot establish genes role in A, doesnt conclude if they are frequent offenders or one off. 
Research challenges rel between XYY and A: no link, had lower levels of intelligence. More crimes but lower V in nature. often caught- not good criminals lower IQ= more likely to get caught, higher XYY's in prison. unlikely link tto XYY and A. 
Unethical to label individuals: questions of treatments arise and may lead to chemical castration so its important to understand limitations as conclusions have for reaching implications.

5 of 8


Jealousy: Daly and wilson: strategies to deter female partners from committing adultery are fuelled by male sexual jealousy. Risk of cuckoldry- wasting resources= adaptive function of SJ. Mate retention strategies are used to deter sexual infidelity minimising risk if cuckoldry  Buss: Direct guarding- restrict their autonomy. Negative inducements- threat/ risk of violence. SJ= primary cause for V against women, in US its most common motivation for killing in domestic disputes. Love triangles- 92% male- male killings
Infidelity: sexual coercion- partner **** linked to percieved infidelity, Violence against pregnant partners; terminate pregnancy to eliminate risk of investing in another mans baby, free to have his own offspring. Uxorocide: wife killings, men with little resources may accidentally kill them to eliminate risk of infidelity Daly and Wilson: designed to control them no actually kill them.
Shackleford- rel between mate retention strategies and SJ: use of mate retention= pos correlated with V scores. Emotional manipulation predicted mens V against women. (surveys= social desireability and cultural bias, wouldnt be honest about V towards spouse,)
Practical aplications of research: alert fam/ friends of danger signs= valuable to prevent V before.
Male SJ linked to A: Takashi: imagine scenes of partner unfaithful- brain imaging techniques. Men= greater activation of H and A, areas linked to A= physiological basis for jealousy based A.
Limitations of Evolutionary explanation:  Doesnt explain why some act in diff ways to infidelity= murder, V, drunk? only explained through context dependent learning nurture rather than nature.
Gender bias: M retention strategies. Women X2 murder out of jealousy. lack validity, generalised

6 of 8

Group display

Survival- reproduction-resources- territory 
Sport and warfare= evolutionary to reproduce (need resources and stable territory) GD= act together to increase coop and commitment. out group= deterred from taking advantages of benefits from GM. GD = not A displays but rituals that can become a catalyst for A, shows skills strengths, behaviour attractive to F for reproduction of genetic factors. Adaptive co-operations outgroup= constant threat, ingroup= support, altruism.
Xenophobia: fear of outsiders/ foreigners= evolutionary to protect and leave offspring, exaggerate neg stereotypes of out group as overperception is better. 
Sport= home matches surge of T to defend home= more A displays aka Hakah for intimidation

Warfare= A and bravery attractive to F for reproduction.
Support for group display comes from football fans: sig contributing factor to 'inspire team to victory' and psyche up home or to distract and add fear to opposition. Showing origial adaptive displays may no longer be relevant in todays society.
Does home advantage really exist: measles epidemic= game played with no crowd and performance was analysed by points scored= displays of support from home crowds doesnt increase performance
Sexual selection in warfare support: Leunissen et al: military men had greater sex appeal if showed bravery in combat- evolutionary that women are attracted to bravery.
War is not in the genes: nomadicc to settled= war emerged as they could not run from it, too many resources to lose= emerged as a rational response to a changing lifestyle. not a biological compulsion= consequence of environment changes (pop and resources)- reductionist.
Gender Bias: doesnt reflect F behaviour, rare exceptions where F fight- more to lose in reproductive capacity. limits GD in warfare to M not F

7 of 8


8 of 8


No comments have yet been made

Similar Psychology resources:

See all Psychology resources »See all Aggression resources »