Social psychological explanations for human aggression
- Created by: sophie98campbell
- Created on: 26-04-17 11:36
The frustration-aggression hypothesis
Based on work of Dollard et al (1939), suggests aggression consequence of feelings of frustration (feeling experienced when trying to achieve smth eg working towards goal where barriers exist). Barriers can be real/imaginary. Unpleasent feeling - needs to be relieved -> aggression.
Factors affecting likelihood of aggression occurring:
- proximity to goal (closer to achieving, more likely aggression will occur)
- whether aggression will remove barrier causing frustration - whether or not it's justified (if aggression no effect on removing barrier, less likely to occur)
Part of hypothesis, when frustration experienced, experience a drive to be aggressive towards object of frustration.
F-A hypothesis - Research
Doob + Sears (1939) - asked participants to imagine how they'd feel in diff situations eg waiting for bus + it didn't stop. Most reported would feel angry
Pastore (1952) - able to distingush this mainly when individuals felt situation unjustified (more frustration) than justified (less frustration).
F-A hypothesis - Strengths
Provides real-world app - Staub (1996) - mass killings rooted in frustration, caused by social + economic difficulties people face w/in society. F -> scapegoating of particular group -> discrimination + aggression against them. Used to explain aggression directed towards Jews in WW2
Harris (1974) - supports proximity. Situations involving shop queues, confederates pushed in front of real people - closer people were to front, more likely to act aggressively.
F-A hypothesis - Weaknesses
Aggression not always prompted by aggression. Eg in threatening situation, some may choose fight rather than flight. Could be seen as self-preservation rather than frustration. Suggests other elements to aggression than frustration. Aggressive acts of psychpaths/killers not usually thought to be frustration either.
Most of research based on hypothetical situations that participants had to imagine/answer questions on. Answers may not reflect true feelings + unethical to manipulate someone to feel frustration to measure aggression. Would have low predictive validity as participants say how would feel, may react differently in reality.
Not everyone who experiences frustration reacts w/ aggression. May cry/withdraw + may not feel anger - react differently to refelct emotional state.
SLT - human aggression
Environmental influences. Acknowledges cognitive mediating factors play role whether aggressoin displayed/not. Suggest learn aggression through observation of aggresive models + consequences of behaviour (reinforced/punished). Develops cognitive schema.
Learning of aggression can be direct experience + assessing outcome, or through vicarious learning (observing aggressive models) + whether they're reinforced/punished (vicarious reinforcement) + act accordingly.
Bandura (1986) - for social learning to occur, children must be able to form mental representation of events w/in social environment as well as imagine rewards + costs. When situations arise (appropriate), child will display behaviour provided expectation of reward greater than cost.
SLT - Factors aff reproducing behaviour
Level of confidence + self-efficacy child believes they have. If enact aggressive behaviour + develop level of confidence in use through favourable outcomes - more confident in repeating it. If attempts to enact + is met w/ bad consequences or have low level of self-efficacy in using aggression, may avoid it, opting for alternatives.
Fits w/ 4 cognitive mediating factors Bandura believed played a role in reproduction of aggression: Attention (aggressive acts stand out - may be why they're easily learnt), retention (needs to be memorable so can be recalled later), reproduction (must be capable of reproducing behaviour w/ sufficient physical ability + skill set to enact it), + motivation (must be motivated to engage in behaviour + want to enact it). Would account for individual differences in people who observe same aggressive acts - some happy to imitate, some not.
SLT - human aggression - Research
Bandura, Ross & Ross (1961) - 36 boys, 36 girls, 3-5 years. Divided into equal size groups (6 childen in each). Brought to room individually, invited to play game as toys available. Adult models (male/female) entered room + played w/ some toys. Two conditions - 1) aggressive w/ Bobo doll, 2) non-aggressive.
Larger amount of aggression in children who observed aggressive condition. In 70% of children in control + non-aggressive groups, no aggressive behaviour observed at all. Both boys/girls more influenced by model of same gender.
Children can learn aggression observing models.
SLT - human aggression - Strengths
Guerra et al (2003) - children aged 5-12, ethnically diverse sample (4,458) living in urban neighbourhoods. Found imitation of violence occurred. Suggests LT effect on behaviour of children exposed regularly to violence in environment.
Williams (1981) recorded behaviour of children after intro of TV to remote area of Canada. Found verbal + physical aggression levels increased. Suggests media sourve of aggressive behaviour to children as observers.
Useful for explaining why people become aggressive only in certain situations. Could be argued to be because only seen aggression reinforced in specific contexts or b/c mediating factors prevent aggression in certain circumstances. If due to biological drive, aggression wouldn't be so situation specific.
SLT - human aggression - Weaknesses
Gender bias - useful for high levelsof male violence, but can't fully explain low levels of female aggression. Exposed to similar levels of aggression, but male aggression higher than females. Can't explain beyond stating males can relate to other males (identification).
Bobo doll study - lacks population validity as sample based on young children who may be easily infleunced - cannot generalise behaviour/thinking to wider population.
De-individuation
Based on Le Bon's crowd theory (1985), later further developed by Zimbardo - D-E. Le Bon - how an individual transformed in behaviour when part of crowd: anonymity (Zimbardo - cloak of anonymity), suggestibility + contagion - collective mind takes possession -> loss of self control, capable of acting in way that may go against norms.
Factors contributing to D-E drugs, alcohol, uniform (loses sense of identity).
Described by Festinger et al (1952) - psych state inner restraints lost. Characterised by lower self-awareness + decreased concerns about own evaluation by others.
Being in crowd makes people think they're anonymous, can't be held to account for behaiour. Reduced guilt. Zumbardo proposed same conditions could also lead to increase in pro-social behaviour dependent on context.
D-E refied to distinguish between effects of reduced public self-awareness + reduced private self-awareness. W/in large group - less privately aware. Can also occur if identity hidden. Less likely to lead to aggression as still some awareness, no outward focus/distractions by crowd.
De-individuation - Strengths
Zimbardo's prison study (1972) - guard wore mirrored sunglasses + uniforms, increased anonymity -> D-I.
Real world app - anonymity increases chances of de-individuation. CCTV cameras + use have been found to decrease crime when people aware they can be identified, + areas kept well lit so darkness can't D-I. Ensures personal responsibility for behaviour maintained, -> less anti-social behaviour, which benefits society.
Mullen (1986) found evidence of baiting mob when analysed 60 lynchings in US (1899-1946). Greater number w/in mob, more savagery occurred to lynching victims - supports D-I. Less attentive, more anonymity, self-regulation processes break down -> increase in level of violence committed through D-I.
De-individuation - Weaknesses
Can only explain aggression tha relates to specific contexts. Aggression does, however, occur outside these contexts, so the theory can be seen to have a narrow application.
Postmes + Spears (1968) - meta analysis on 60 research studies + general conclusion was evidence base for D-I weak. Effects stated by D-I theorists not widespread across all crowds.
Related discussions on The Student Room
- Psychology Aggression 16 marker »
- Ethological explanations aggression »
- Marking AQA a-level Psychology Essay: Evaluate and outline the social learning theory »
- Is it possible to have an ONLY evaluate 16 mark psychology question? »
- Paper 3 psychology »
- AQA A-level Psychology Paper 3 (7182/3) - 5th June 2023 [Exam Chat] »
- Edexcel A-level Psychology Paper 3 (9PS0 03) - 5th June 2023 [Exam Chat] »
- Can I get all 10 evaluation marks on a Psych 16 marker without using other studies? »
- Why do some soldiers rape? »
- Psychology AQA 4 Marker- Ethological Explanation of Aggression »
Comments
No comments have yet been made