Aggression essays

AO1 - Social learning theory

Bandura -> aggression is learnt through observation of others

• Learnt through direct experience or vicarious experience -> vicarious learning occurs when a child sees a role model behaving in a particular way and imitates the behaviour of the model.
• SLT -> individuals learn about the nature of aggressive behaviour through the use of models 
• Operant conditioning -> When an action is reinforced it is more likely to occur in similar situations in the future -> determined by previous experiences of aggressive behaviour, success of past aggressive behaviour, likelihood of their aggressive behaviour being rewarded/punished & any environmental factors e.g. noise/temp may increase aggressive interactions
• Attention -> one of main methods of SLT -> someone can only learn through observation if they attend to the model’s behaviour.
• Retention -> model’s behaviour needs to be remembered and placed in LTM, enabling behaviour to be retrieved
• Individual needs to be able to reproduce behaviour (production) as well as expecting to receive a positive reinforcement for the modeled behaviour (motivation)

AO1

Bandura et al (key research)  

• Divided 66 nursery school children into 3 groups -> each group watched a film where an adult model kicked a Bobo doll
• Group 1 -> shown a model that was neither rewarded nor punished
• Group 2 -> shown a model that was rewarded
• Group 3 -> shown a model that was punished
• Bandura found that children in groups 1 and 2 produced spontaneous bouts of aggressive behaviour -> group 2 behaved most aggressively, and group 3 the least

AO2 - Bandura's study

• Supports SLT -> children in group 2 (model rewarded) copied their behaviour and displayed the greatest number of children behaving aggressively
• Children also showed an increased level of aggressive behaviour when a reward was offered
• Criticism -> low ecological validity -> Bobo doll is not living and therefore questions whether the findings of this study can be generalised to humans
• Others have criticised Bandura’s research questioning whether the child participants were just naturally more aggressive as apposed to learning the behaviour from the film clip -> child pps may have been influenced by demand characteristics
• Ethical issues -> informed consent, right to withdraw and risk of psychological harm
• Experiment was unethical and morally wrong -> children were encouraged to be aggressive
• Strength -> high reliability -> Bandura’s research predominantly carried out in a lab where he had complete control over IV and DV -> suggests same results could be achieved if research was carried out again -> supports idea that it's a scientific/reliable explanation of aggression
• Strength of SLT -> supporting cultural evidence
• Wolfgang and Ferracuti -> some cultures model and emphasise aggressive behaviour, whereas others model non-aggressive behaviour and are more likely to produce individuals with low levels of aggression

AO1 - Deindividuation

Hogg and Vaughan define deindividuation as a process whereby people lose their sense of socialised individual identity and engage in un-socialised, often anti-social behaviour.

Zimbardo suggested that being part of a crowd can diminish awareness of individuality. This is because in a large crowd the individual feels anonymous and does not therefore feel a sense of responsibility.

AO1/AO2 - Deindividuation

Malamuth is evidence that supports deindividuation -> questioned male students at a university in the USA

• Found that approximately one third admitted that there was a chance they would commit **** if there was no chance of them being caught
• This study supports the theory because as they are less likely to be identified they don’t feel they have to uphold their own moral values, less fear of retribution and diluted guilt
• Criticism -> the study only consisted of male students and therefore the study has age bias and gender bias
• Criticism -> the study was conducted in USA this means the study has cultural bias and the findings cannot be generalised across different cultures.
• To overcome these issues the study would need to be repeated using a variety of different ages, across both genders and in different cultural backgrounds.

AO1/AO2 - Deindividuation

Zimbardo also carried out research supporting deindividuation.

• Zimbardo converted a basement of Stanford University into a mock prison
• Advertised for students to play the roles of prisoners and guards
• 21 male college students were screened for psychological morality and paid $15 per day to take part
• Zimbardo found that within hours of beginning the experiment some guards began to harass prisoners -> they behaved in a brutal and sadistic manner
• The prisoners were taunted with insults and petty orders; they were given pointless and boring tasks to accomplish and were generally dehumanized.
• Support -> shows how people will readily conform to the social roles they are expected to play, especially if the roles are as strongly stereotyped as those of prison guards
• The ‘prison’ environment was an important factor in creating the guards’ brutal behaviour, none of which showed sadistic tendencies before the study -> therefore the roles that people play can shape their behaviour and attitudes. 

AO2/AO3 - Deindividuation

Zimbardo

• Criticism -> serious ethical issues concerning Zimbardo’s study and they would not be allowed to take place in the present day
• The risk of psychological harm was high in the prison whereby one prisoner had to be released after 36 hours because of uncontrollable bursts of screaming, crying and anger -> his thinking became disorganised and he appeared to be entering the early stages of a deep depression
• Within the next few days three others also had to leave after showing signs of emotional disorder that could have had lasting consequences.
• Reductionist -> assumes all aggressive behaviour is learned, doesn't ocnsider behaviour is complex
• Assumes environmental influences (nurture) are more important than biological influences (nature)
• Approach doesn't consider free will -> inidividuals may choose to behave aggressively
• Deterministic -> assumes all individuals who observe aggressive behaviour will act aggressively 

AO1

Xenophobia -> the fear and hatred of strangers or foreigners

• Often present in sports events -> racist chants/signals often exhibited in the crowds of football matches
• Many psychologists believe that natural selection has favoured the genes that cause humans to be altruistic towards members of their own group but intolerant towards outsiders
• Another explanation for the evolution of group displays in sport is based on territoriality -> the protective response to an invasion of one’s territory 
• Aggressive displays when defending territory may have been adaptive for our ancestors because they allowed groups to defend valuable resources associated with their territory

AO1/AO2

Foldesi -> evidence to support link between xenophobia and violent displays among Hungarian football crowds

• Found that racist conduct of a core of extremist supporters led to an increase in spectators’ violence in general.
• Criticism -> Gender bias -> predominantly male-based, results can't be generalised
• Real-world applications of research into the link between sports and xenophobia
• -> The power of xenophobic group displays to invoke violence has motivated football clubs to take steps to minimise its influence
• In December 1992 all the teams in the German Bundesleague played in shirts displaying the slogan ‘My friend is a foreigner’ and some teams have made contributions to local ethnic communities and donated to anti-racism charities

AO1/AO2

Marsh offers an alternative explanation of the aggressive displays of football crowds.

• He claims that much of what passes for violent behaviour is actually higher organised and ritualised
• Being a football hooligan enables young males to achieve a sense of personal worth and identity in the eyes of their peers.
• Therefore, according to marsh, group displays of aggression are not an indication of underlying xenophobic tendencies, but part of an alternative ‘career structure’ for working class males

AO1/AO2

Home advantage in sports events is thought to be due to territoriality -> players are more determined not to lose in their own territory than in another team’s.

• However, football fans have rated crowd support as the most significant factor contributing to a home advantage -> supports the evolutionary notion that the home advantage is due to territoriality
• This has been supported by further research as one study analysed the results of several professional basketball matches performed with crowds and without crowds (due to a measles epidemic)
• They found that the absence of home crowds actually increased performance of the teams -> suggests home advantage is not due to crowd support but to territoriality instead, thus supporting the evolutionary view

AO1/AO2

Warfare is another aggressive display that may be explained in terms of evolution

• Any behaviour associated with war would have evolved because of the adaptive benefits for the individual and their offspring
• Divale and Harris proposed that in traditional societies men compete for mates and those who do well in battle are rewarded with access to females -> because displays of aggression and bravery are attractive to females
• Palmer and Tilley (research support) for the sexual selection explanation -> found that male youth street gang members have more sexual partners than other males -> supports the claim that aggressive displays increase the sexual attractiveness of male warriors
• Leunissen and Van Vugt found that military men have greater sex appeal but only if they have been observed showing bravery in combat

AO2

Warfare -> promotes group solidarity

• The costliness of permanent displays e.g. scars/mutilation serve as signals of commitment to the group -> this means they can benefit from the profits of warfare against another group
• LeBlanc and Register suggest that warfare and the aggressive displays that go with it are not biological compulsions but are a consequence of environmental changes
• War emerged when humans went from a nomadic existence to a settled one and being tied to agriculture or fishing sites -> gave them something to defend in which people had to fight in order to protect these sites
• Therefore warfare is not an evolved adaptation but emerged as a response to a changing lifestyle

AO3

• Gender biased -> explanations are limited to behaviour of males rather than females, as women would have considerably less to gain from fighting in near certain death situations and considerably more to lose (e.g. loss of reproductive capacity) -> results from research cannot be generalised to the wider population

• Reductionist -> fail to offer a complete explanation of displays of aggression in human reproductive behaviour; it reduces it to simple genetic pressures

• Deterministic -> because the evolutionary explanation says we have little or no control over our behaviour and are unable to exercise free will

AO1

A major concern for our male ancestors was not to find a mate and even when having one was to maintain influence over her. In this way it could be seen that aggressive behaviour was adaptive to prevent the female from leaving, this is why males today may experience sexual jealousy.

Daly and Wilson claim that men have evolved several different strategies to deter their female partners from committing adultery. These range from vigilance to violence, but are all fueled by male sexual jealousy, an adaptation that evolved specifically to deal with the threat of paternal uncertainty. 

AO1/AO2

Shackelford et al.

• Studied samples of 461 males in relationships (Study 1) and 560 women in relationships (Study 2) in the US
• All participants were in committed relationships and none of the men in Study 1 were married to the women in Study 2
• Generally the males were always older than their female partners
• Both groups had to answer a MRI (Mate Retention Inventory) test -> males described which techniques they used to retain their mate up to and out of a possible 104 displayed on the sheet
• They we also asked how often the 26 violent techniques were used and how often the female receive injuries out of the possible 20
• Results -> males used two main violent forms of technique to retain the females these were; shouting at their partner for looking at other males and direct guarding (i.e. monopolizing her time at party for example)
• Men also reported to emotionally bully females i.e. by making them feel guilty by threatening to kill themselves. Women also agreed that men who were more emotionally manipulative were also more violent towards them

AO2 -> Shackelford et al.

This study shows a clear relationship between sexual jealousy, mate-retention strategies by males, and violence towards women.

• Criticism -> limitation of correlation -> as the research was correlational it meant that no causal relation could be established.
• Criticism -> data was collected using a survey technique -> surveys are a form of self-report technique that have particular problems, especially when used in sensitive areas, such as violence against a spouse. Answers may not be truthful because of the social desirability bias – a tendency to respond in a way that will be viewed favourably by others. This takes the form of over-reporting desirable behaviour and under-reporting undesirable behaviour.
• Criticism -> culturally biased -> all participants are from the US and therefore it cannot be assumed that all individuals within all cultures will behave in the same way. As a result it is difficult to generalise the findings of the study with accuracy across the population.

AO2/AO3

Another problem linked to mate violence is sexual infidelity -> this is a voluntary sexual relation between an individual who is married and someone who is not the individual’s spouse.

• The link between infidelity and partner violence is supported by Camilleri -> found that the risk of a partner’s infidelity predicts sexual coercion among males, but not among females. This is significant because males, not females, are at risk of cuckoldry, i.e. unwittingly investing resources in genetically unrelated off-spring
• Camilleri and Quinsey found that men convicted of ****** their partners were more likely to have experienced cuckoldry risks prior to their offence compared to men convicted of non-sexual partner abuse (also supports link between infidelity and partner violence)
• Criticism -> most studies of infidelity suffer from gender bias as they have focused solely on men’s mate retention strategies and men’s violence against women; whereas women also engage in mate retention tactics and sometimes behave violently towards their partners
• Research suggests that women initiate and carry out physical assaults on their partners as often as men do

AO3

• Reductionist -> as it fails to offer a complete explanation of displays of aggression in human reproductive behaviour; it reduces it to simple genetic pressures (nature). This makes the theories easier to understand, but means that they miss out on some details, such as the role of social learning theory in shaping our reproductive behaviour (nurture)

• This is further emphasised by individual differences, which the evolutionary theory cannot account for, such as why males react differently with the same adaptive problem. This therefore suggests that the evolutionary explanation is a limited explanation of why aggressive behaviour isn’t universal within sexual aggression and infidelity by not applying to everyone. 

• Deterministic -> this is because the evolutionary explanation says we have little or no control over our behaviour and are unable to exercise free will
  

AO1

Institutional aggression -> violent behaviour that takes place within/between members of different institutions, groups or social collectives.

• Irwin and Cressey -> Importation Model
• This theory states that individuals who enter prison with particular characteristics are more likely to engage in violence than those who do not possess these characteristics
• It suggests that violence is not a product of the institution itself, but of the characteristics of those within the institution.
• Younger inmates are thought to find adjusting to prison life more difficult, and so are more likely to engage in violence than others

AO2/AO3 -> Importation model

• Adams -> younger inmates are more likely to view violence as an appropriate way of solving conflicts -> this supports the importation model as it is showing that violence in prisons is a result of a characteristic (young age) of the inmates as apposed to being because of the institution.
• Research in the US has shown that blacks are more likely to engage in institutional violence than whites -> because blacks often come from impoverished backgrounds, and so import characteristics that encourage violent behaviour
• This also supports the importation model as it suggests violence is the result of someone being from a particular social background
• Criticism -> conducted solely in the US and therefore it is culturally biased -> all participants are from the same culture and it cannot be assumed that all individuals within all cultures will behave in the same way. As a result it is difficult to generalise the findings of the study with accuracy across the population

AO2/AO3 -> Importation model

• According to the importation model, members of violent gangs prior to imprisonment will show higher levels of violence in prison, as they will show important characteristics of their gang membership
• Evidence against importation model -> DeLisi et al -> found that in 800 male inmantes, gang membership prior to imprisonment had no effect on violent conduct
• This is strong evidence against the importation model as it suggests that particular characteristics of inmates had no impact on the violence that arouse in the prisons
• Criticism -> gender biased -> all participants were males, therefore, it cannot be assumed that females will behave in the same way as males and the results cannot be generalised across both genders

AO1/AO2

The Deprivation Model 

• This theory acknowledges that whilst inmates may enter prison with characteristics that may be more suited to violence, it is the prison environment that causes stress and frustration, which in turn leads to violence
• Harrer and Steffensmeir -> violent behaviour in inmates is a response to the ‘problems of adjustment posed by the deprivations of imprisonment’
• Sykes identified some of these ‘problems’, for example, loss of heterosexual relationships.
• The problem of deprivation is particularly common in overcrowded prisons, where the conditions lead to worsened tensions between inmates and staff
• This shows support for the deprivation model as it suggests that tensions between inmate and staff worsened due to the conditions of the prison, not the characteristics of the inmates

AO2 -> Deprivation model

• McCorkle et al -> found no evidence to support a correlation between violence and aspects of the prison environment in a sample of 371 US prisons
• Strength -> large sample size -> ensures different types of social backgrounds are covered in the sample, therefore the results can be generalised to a wider population
• Criticism -> the evidence is correlational which shows a relationship but does not show cause and effect
• McCorkle also pointed out that whilst the deprivations of prison life are constant, serious outbreaks of violence are not. He suggested that prison violence was more to do with the poor management of offenders than deprivation
• Poole and Regoli -> studied young offenders in 4 institutions
• Found that pre institutional violence was the best predictor of inmate aggression, regardless of the features of the institutions -> evidence against the Deprivation model as they found that the characteristics of the institution itself had no effect on inmate aggression

AO3

• Reductionist -> fail to consider other factors such as biological that may also lead to aggression in prisons

• Deterministic -> fail to consider free will in the individual, for example, the inmates may simply choose to behave aggressively.

• Strong evidence from both theories regarding the nature/nurture debate. Nature being the characteristics brought in to the prison compared with environmental factors (nurture).

AO1

Twin studies

• MZ twins share all genetic information whereas DZ twins only share 50% of genetic information
• If a researcher compares a trait such as aggression between MZ twins and DZ twins and finds that MZ twins behave more alike then this could be down to genetics rather than environmental factors
• DZ twins may have greater environmental influences affecting there behaviour
• McGuffin and Gottesman (support) -> found an 87% concordance rate for aggressive/antisocial behaviour in MZ twins compared with 72% rate in DZ twins
• This supports genetic factors as the MZ twins were found to have a higher concordance rate than DZ twins -> suggesting similar behaviour was due to genetic information
• -> does show a definite correlation between genetics & aggressive behaviour
• Criticism -> the research has not found a 100% concordance rate; therefore it is impossible the say that genes definitely cause aggression, as other factors clearly have an influence
• Criticism -> only showed a correlation -> suggest a link but not neccessarily a cause

AO1/AO2 - Adoption studies

• Adoption studies can help determine the relative contributions of environment and heredity in aggression
• A positive correlation between adopted children and their biological parents implies a genetic effect, while a positive correlation between the child and their adoptive parents implies an environmental effect
• A study of over 14,000 adoptions in Denmark found that a significant number of adopted boys with criminal convictions had biological fathers with criminal convictions, demonstrating a genetic effect
• Criticism -> the way adoption studies are interpreted could cause problems -> aggressive/antisocial behaviours may be due to environmental factors such as abandonment by their biological parents rather than genetics

AO1/AO2 - MAOA

MAOA -> regulates the metabolism of serotonin in the brain, and low levels of serotonin are associated with aggressive behaviour -> low levels of MAOA are also associated with aggression

• Studies of violent criminals have found that they often have a defect in the gene that produces MAOA

Cases et al. (support) -> disabled the MAOA gene in mice

• Found that levels of serotonin and dopamine (both of which are associated with higher levels of aggression) increased and aggression increased -> suggests that MAOA reduces aggression by regulating levels of these neurotransmitters
• Non-human animal studies have an important role in helping us understand aggression in humans, as genes can be manipulated and the effects of these manipulations can be observed -> allows us to precisely identify the role of specific genes
• Criticism -> mice have a different genome and physiology to humans, so the effects of genes may be different and the results found cannot be generalised to humans. The use of non-human animals in such studies can also be considered unethical

AO2 - MAOA

• Although there is a relationship between genes and aggression, it is very difficult to determine the nature of this relationship.
• This is because many different genes contribute to aggression in various ways.
• The net effect of genes is extremely complex, and we are only aware of the influence of a few genes (such as the gene coding for MAOA). 

AO2

Studies mentioned have measured aggression using self-report techniques or observational studies

• Problems with methodology -> studies using self-report techniques found a greater genetic influence on aggression, while studies using observation found a greater environmental influence -> suggests problems with the methodology of many studies: if these studies were valid, one would expect no differences between the results of self-report studies and those of observational studies.

Many of the studies in this area have focused on individuals convicted of violent crime

• Criticism -> these results only represent a small minority of those who are regularly involved in aggressive behaviour, as many violent attacks do not result in a conviction
• These individuals may also not be habitual offenders; they may be usually calm people who were designated as violent for a one-time offense -> may explain why so many studies have found little or no evidence of heritability for violence

AO3

Reductionist -> as well as genetic factors, there are many environmental factors that influence the manifestation of aggressive behaviour. This explanation only focuses on genes, though genes and the environment are intrinsically related: one cannot be fully explained without the other

Deterministic -> argue that our aggression is pre-programmed, while ignoring the human characteristic of free will. If aggression is purely biologically determined, people cannot be held responsible for their actions; this may have further implications for the legal system when dealing with acts of aggression

AO1

Neurotransmitters are chemicals that allow impulses from one are of the brain to be transmitted to another area -> therefore all behvaiour are influence by the action of neurotransmitters

• Serotonin ia neurotransmitter that has a calming effect -> aggression is associated with low levels of serotonin
• High levels of dopamine are associated with aggression

AO1/AO2 - Serotonin and aggression

Cases (support) -> suggestes the brain exerts a calming effect on neurons in the brain under normal levels of serotonin

• however -> low levels of serotonin removes this calming effect and individuals are less able to control impulsive and aggressive repsonses
• supports theory that low levels of serotonin results in aggressive behaviour as without the calming effect of serotonin, individuals became more aggressive

Brown et al. (support) -> found major metabolite of serotonin tends to be low in the cerebrospinal fluid in people who display impulsive and aggressive behaviour

• low level of metabolite indicate low levels of serotonin -> linked to aggression

AO1/AO2 - Serotonin & Dopmaine

Ferrari et al.

• Allowed a rat to fight every day for 10 days at approximately the same time
• On 11th day rat was not allowed to fight and researchers measured levels of serotonin and dopamine in the brain
• Findings -> in anticipation of the fight the rat's dopamine levels had increased and serotonin levels had decreased, depsite the fact that the rat did not fight
• shows that experience had changed the animal's brain chemistry -> preparing for a fight by altering levels of serotonin and dopamine in ways consistent of aggressive behaviour
• Strength -> lab based study -> high reliability, easy to replicate, extraneous varibales controlled
• Weakness -> non-human animals -> the use of non-human animals lacks external validity as it cannot be assumed that humans will behave in the same way, therefore it is difficult to generalise the findings of the study due to differences in biology 
• It is questionable whether harming animals for research is morally right – animals rights to be treated with respect – a cost-benefit analysis may be needed to determine if the benefits to society outweigh the harm inflicted

AO2 - Dopamine

Lavine -> suggests increase in dopmaine is associated with an increase in aggressive behaviour

• use of dopamine antagonists e.g. amphetamines successfully reduced aggressive behaviour
• supports theory as when dopamine levels were reduced so was aggressive behaviour

AO2 - Serotonin

Strength -> Badaway -> claims that influence of serotonin on aggressive behaviour may be important in explaining the relationship between alcohol and aggression

• found that alcohol consumption deplete serotonin levels
• this depletion may induce aggressive behaviour

Weakness of neural explanation -> most research into link between neurotransmitters and aggression relies on correlational evidence. Therefore a causal relationship cannot be established as it is difficult to explain whether low levels of serotonin and high levels of dopamine influence aggressive behaviour or if they are a by-product of aggression.

AO1/AO2 - Testosterone

Testosterone is the male hormone produced by the testes -> found to increase aggression in males

Archer -> analysed the results of 230 males over 5 studies and found a low positive correlation between testosterone and aggression.

• However, the type of participant, and the form and measurement of aggression, differed substantially between studies and therefore this reduces the reliability of the results.

Brook et al. -> larger meta-analysis of 45 studies established a mean correlation of 0.14 between testosterone and aggression -> although archer et al claims that methodological problems with this study meant that a correlation of 0.08 was more appropriate. As these studies consist of correlational results it is not possible to conclude that testosterone causes aggression

AO2 - Tesosterone

Olweus et al (support) for the suggested link between levels of testosterone and aggression

• They took samples of blood and measured levels of testosterone from delinquent male adolescents and ‘normal’ male students.
• The researchers found slightly higher levels of testosterone in the delinquent adolescent males than the ‘normal’ male students.
• However, the difference was not statistically significant.
• Criticism -> only used students -> age biased. Therefore it cannot be assumed that all individuals within all age groups will behave in the same way. As a result it is difficult to generalise the findings of the study with accuracy.
• Criticism -> As most studies concerned with aggression and testosterone have involved male participants they can be criticised, as they are gender biased. This means that because all participants are males, it cannot be assumed that females will behave in the same way and as a result it is difficult to generalise the findings of the studies with accuracy across the population. 

AO2 - Testosterone

• There is inconsistent evidence between testosterone and aggression 
• A number of studies have found that high testosterone levels correlate positively with high levels of aggression
• Bain et al found no such relationship 
• They found no significant differences in testosterone levels between men who had been charged with murder and men who had been charged with non violent crimes eg burglary

AO3 - neural/hormonal 

Reductionist -> all theories suggests that our aggressive behaviour is a result of biological factors only and ignore the importance of situational factors on our aggressive behaviour such as influence of peers. 

Deterministic -> all theories fail to consider the role of free will in that we have a choice in how we behave and thus fail to take into consideration individual differences shaped by situational factors. With a lack of individual differences the theory fails to provide a good explanation into institutional aggression of all individuals. As a result the external reliability of all theories is weakened.