On This Page:ToggleNeural and Hormonal causes of aggression.Genetical Origins of Aggression.Ethological Explanations of Aggression.Evolutionary Explanations of Human Aggression.Social-Psychological Explanations of Aggression.Institutional Theories of Aggression.Media influences on aggression.
On This Page:Toggle
On This Page:
Exam Advice
Neural and Hormonal causes of aggression.
The Limbic System
AO1
• TheLimbic System(including the Hypothalamus and Amygdala) tends to act as an alarm system triggering an aggressive response to certain types of threats.
• Giving testosterone to newborn female mice made them act like males with increased aggression when given testosterone as adults. However, control females given testosterone as adults did not react in this way (Edwards,1968).
This suggests that testosterone masculinizes androgen-sensitive neural circuits underlying aggression in the brain.
AO3
When theamygdalais stimulated electrically, animals show aggressive behavior, and when it’s removed, they no longer show aggressive behavior.
ThePhineas Gagestudy provides evidence that brain damage may have an effect on personality, including aggression.
Serotonin Research
• The PET-1 Gene is linked to theproduction of the hormone serotonin, which inhibits (i.e., stops) aggression. Damage to the gene in mice raises aggression. [sometimes referred to as “Knockout Mice] (Deneris, 2003).
• Drugs increasing serotonin production lead to reduced levels of aggression, suggesting that low levels of serotonin are linked to increased aggression (Delville et al., 1997).
• Low levels of serotonin result in reduced self-control and increased aggression. The serotonin deficiency hypothesis states that decreased serotonin disturbs the OFC and, therefore, reduces the inhibitory effect (of normal serotonin levels) with the consequence that individuals are less able to control impulsive and aggressive behavior.
• Research shows a relationship between low levels of serotonin and violent behaviors, suggesting that a lack of serotonin is linked to aggression (Linnoila & Virkunen, 1992).
• Lidberg et al. (1985) compared the serotonin levels of violent criminals with non-violent controls, finding the lowest levels of serotonin among violent criminals.
Rats selected for reduced aggression levels had higher serotonin and greater levels of serotonin-related activity than wild, more aggressive counterparts (Popova et al., 1991).
Most evidence linking low levels of serotonin and aggression is only correlational and does not indicate causality. Research shows a correlation between serotonin and aggression risks oversimplifying the true mechanisms involved as other factors which influence or even cause aggression is overlooked – The neural and hormonal regulation of aggression is almost certainly more complex than our current understanding.
Research support for the role of serotonin – Berman et al. found that participants given a serotonin-enhancing drug gave fewer and less intense electric shocks to a confederate than people in a placebo group – This gives evidence of a link between serotonin function and aggression that goes beyond correlational findings.
If the role of biochemistry can be understood, it can then be treated and managed – But it is unethical to give drugs to humans to alleviate aggression as it could lead to social control – This could be treated more ethically through diet and exercise which acts on neural mechanisms.
Testosterone Research
•Giving the hormone testosterone to newborn female mice made them act like males with increased aggression when given testosterone as adults.
However, control females given testosterone as adults did not react in this way, suggesting that testosterone masculinizes androgen-sensitive neural circuits underlying aggression in the brain (Edwards,1968).
• Testosterone affects certain types of aggression in animals, such as intermale aggression as a defense response to intruders, while predatory aggression is not affected (Bermond et al., 1982).
• Van Goozen (1997) conducted a natural experiment on trans-gender sex-change patients. This is one of the few cases where research was actually carried out on humans.
Findings revealed testosterone levels governed aggression. Males receiving testosterone suppressants became less aggressive. Females receiving testosterone became more aggressive.
• Aggressive Boys, violent criminals, and military offenders all had high levels of testosterone (Dabbs, 1996).
Individuals with elevated testosterone levels exhibit signs of aggression but rarely commit aggressive acts, suggesting that social and cognitive factors play a mediating role (Higley et al., 1996).
Dabbs and Morris (1990) “Blocked pathways to success” study: When a rich boy with high testosterone came home from the army, he was less likely to get into trouble, but when a poor boy with high testosterone came home, he was more likely to get into trouble.
This suggests testosterone doesn’t simply cause aggression, but it makes aggression more likely as a response to frustration.
Cortisol Research
•Low cortisol leads to Sensation seeking behavior, especially in males (Zuckerman, 2010).
•Low levels of Cortisol in delinquent teenagers with conduct disorder (Fairchild, 2008)
General Criticisms of Neural and Hormonal Research
Much of the evidence is only correlational and may not prove causation. It isn’t clear whether hormones promote aggression or aggressive behavior stimulates hormone production.
Comparative – much of the work on hormones andneurotransmittershave been done on animals and may not apply to humans so easily.
Reductionist: Sees only biological factors, overlooking social issues such as de-individuation
Heredity / Environment: Biological theories tend to overlook the effects of socialization and other environmental issues, such as environmental stressors.
Deterministic: Assumes humans have no choice and will follow primitive behavior patterns.
Genetical Origins of Aggression.
Genes alone do not control aggression. Rather, they affect the production of hormones and neurotransmitters, which in turn affects aggression. So you will also draw upon your knowledge of biological factors, but you MUST show a link to genetics for each one.
Basic Evidence of Genetic Influences on Aggression
• Animal studies show instinctive patterns of behavior, including aggressive behavior. If a whole species has a similar level of aggression, then it must have a genetic basis.
• Twin studies have shown that twins have similar levels of aggression.
Using old Danish police records, Christiansen (1977) demonstrated that levels of criminality showed a stronger correlation between identical twins – with the same genes than between dizygotic twins.
However, criminality is not always the same as aggression.
Genetical Research on Serotonin
• PET-1 Gene is linked to serotonin production, which inhibits aggression. Damage to the gene in so-called “knockout mice” raises aggression. Mutations in humans can have the same effect (Deneris, 2003).
• Acts of impulsive aggression, such as domestic violence, have a genetic link to the serotonergic system, suggesting that many genes may be involved in aggression (New et al., 2003).
Genetical Research on MAOa – The Warrior Gene
• The MAOA gene codes for the production of the enzyme MAOA, involved in breaking down neurotransmitters in the synapse, especially serotonin. Aggressive people with variants of this gene produce lower levels of the enzyme, causing certain neurotransmitters to remain longer in the synapse, causing brain dysfunction.
• When researchers found the MAOA gene present in 56% of New Zealand Maori men, it was nicknamed “The Warrior Gene.” Poa {2006] criticized this term as unethical – i.e., racist.
•It was later found that the gene is present in 58% of African American men and 36% of European men, so it is actually a mainstream genetic variation with adaptive advantages associated with risk-taking.
If we know that a person’s genes can predispose them to aggressive behavior, then genetic engineering can be used to remove the gene and reduce this risk; more extreme measures like chemical castration can be used but can pose serious ethical questions as individuals are labeled as dangerous based on their genes.
Brunner (1993) looked at a very large Dutch family with 28 males who had a history of rape, violence, and impulsive aggression associated with low levels of the MAOA gene.
Deterministic – Argues that our aggression is pre-programmed and ignores the human characteristic of free will – Can have serious implications on the justice system as people may not take responsibility for their actions and blame it on their biology.
Caspi et al. (2002): Interaction of MAOA problem AND abusive childhood led to aggression. If boys with the MAOa gene suffered abuse in childhood, they were 3 times more likely to be aggressive when they reached adulthood.
Genetic and environmental factors are impossible to isolate – McDermott et al. found that people with the low activity MAOA gene behaved aggressively in a lab-based game but only when provoked – We should study aggression using a more interactionist approach.
Genetical Research on Testosterone
• Bogaert et al. (2008) established that variations in male testosterone levels are inherited – and, therefore, genetic.
• Giving testosterone to newborn female mice made them act like males with increased aggression when later given testosterone as adults. Females given testosterone as adults did not react in this way, suggesting that testosterone masculinizes aggression systems in the brain at birth. It’s not just an environmental issue (Edwards, 1968).
• Rissman et al. (2006) investigated Sry, a gene leading to the development of testes and high androgen levels in males. Male and female mice with and without the gene were tested. The Sry gene was associated with high levels of aggression, suggesting that genes and hormones interact and that sex chromosome genes also have a role.
Gender and Aggression
General Criticisms of Genetic Research
Comparative – much of the work on genes has been done on animals and may not apply to humans so easily. However, the experiments which have been done on mice relate to chemicals and genes which are very similar.
Reductionist: Danger of seeing only biological and overlooking social psychology issues such as de-individuation. Tends to overlook the effects of socialization and other environmental issues, such as environmental stressors. Genetic factors do not work in isolation but interact with environmental factors as well.
Deterministic: Assumes that humans have no choice and will follow quite primitive behavior patterns.
Ethological Explanations of Aggression.
What is Etholgy?
Ethology is where we learn about human psychology from studying other animals.
This would be maladaptive – bad for the species. Therefore they fight until one backs down, not to the death, just to establish who is stronger and who is weaker. Lorenz observed that most intra-species aggression consisted mainly of ritualistic signaling (e.g., displaying teeth) and rarely became physical.
This creates a society in which each individual knows their place. They have evolved ways of warning others to back off: Dogs bark and snarl, cats hiss, apes beat their chest, or wave sticks about.
Niko Tinbergen called these Fixed Action Patterns [FAP]
Fixed Action Patterns [FAP]
Lea [1984] analyzed FAPs and identified five features:
Tinbergen presented male sticklebacks with a series of wooden models of different shapes. The red on the competing males’ underbelly is the stimulus that triggers the IRM that, in turn, leads to the aggressive FAP.
He found that if the model had a red underside, the stickleback would aggressively display and attack it, but no red meant no aggression. Once triggered, the FAP always ran its course to completion without any further stimulus.
Breland and Breland found that animals tend to revert to instinctive behavior regardless of training. This would support the FAP theory.
Eibesfeldt (1972) tried to identify human FAPS, such as smiling, to show non-aggression. However, he found that our culture changes so quickly that cultural differences in signs can change more quickly than evolutionary patterns. Rude words and hand signs can change, so not evolutionary. Humans are certainly capable of developing new ways of expressing aggression – such as cyber bullying!
Innate Releasing Mechanisms [IRM]
• Creatures have evolved an instinctive response to certain signs. [Like a red rag to a bull!]
E.g. Male sticklebacks will respond aggressively to the red underbelly of a rival male – but not to a female who does not have the red underbelly.
Cannot generalize to humans – We should be cautious about making such generalizations, especially to complex behavior like aggression, because humans can act upon free will, unlike animals – Human aggression is extremely destructive, but we seem to have an element of control (our processing might not be automatic/innate) – Aggression cannot truly be measured in animals because the intent is not known and cannot be communicated (may be an act of survival, not aggression).
The Hydraulic Model of instinctive behavior [Lorenz 1950]
It may be easier to understand and remember the hydraulic model if you compare it to a toilet! The water level gradually fills up till you flush it – then it has to be filled up again.
• Lorenz said that all creatures build up a reservoir of Action Specific Energy – you could call it “pent-up aggression.” When the Innate releasing mechanisms [IRM] trigger the Fixed Action Pattern [FAP] all the aggression is fired off.
Once it is out of the system, the animal is less aggressive again till the level of Action Specific Energy has built up again.
This explanation was probably an example of Lorenz trying to adapt Freudian ideas to animals! Freud wrote about the build-up of sexual energy [Libido], and Lorenz applied a similar idea here.
This theory fails to explain premeditated aggression and bearing grudges.
Holst [1954] found that instead of getting it out of the system, aggressive action could feed back to make the person angrier and increasingly more aggressive.
Arms et al. [1979] found that watching violent sports did not flush aggression out of the system but tended to increase it.
Bushman does not agree with the idea ofCatharsis– that aggression may lead to more aggression.
Evolutionary Explanations of Human Aggression.
Explains aggression through natural selection (survival of the fittest, aggressive genes are passed on to subsequent generations as aggressive individuals more able to compete for resources)
The central idea of this topic is that for aggression to be an adaptive feature, it has to serve a purpose.
Aggression is Adaptive
David Buss has identified 7 adaptations of aggression in humans:
• Self Defence
• Reputation to ward off future aggression
• To achieve status – more allies, fewer enemies
• Get and keep a better share of resources. Pinker (1997) states aggression evolved in men to compete for women. This may have been the MAIN reason for aggression, as there was no other property worth fighting over as we evolved.
• Deny own resources to children of rivals
• To prevent other males from sharing the prime females
• Prevent a partner from being unfaithful. For example, sexual jealousy may have evolved to ensure that men pass on their own genes rather than allowing other males access to their mate.
Inter-Group Aggression
This is aggression between different groups, such as warfare and gangs.
•Bussstates human males have evolvedcognitive biastowards organized aggression: E.g.
• Cognitive bias to expect an attack
• Cultivating a tough reputation
• Use of vengeance as a deterrent
• Strategies for planning and timing an attack
• Deception and the ability to detect deception
Intra-Group Aggression
This is aggression within a single group, mainly linked to male rivalry and sexual jealousy.
• Daly and Wilson: Male – Male aggression among young men is common in all human cultures – suggesting it is evolutionary.
• Pinker (1997) suggests aggression evolved in men to compete for women. This may have been the MAIN reason for aggression, as there was no other property worth fighting over as we evolved. Throughout most of evolution, there was no money, and no real property, so women were the only target of aggression.
• Potts and Hayden (2008): War and aggression aimed to control women’s mating habits since the development of farming made the inheritance of land important. Jealousy has evolved as a male response to the threat of infidelity. Jealous males are determined to pass on their OWN genes.
• Daley and Wilson (1988): Men may use jealousy and violence to control partners’ sexual behavior Violence is not intended to kill but may have that result. E.g., Fertile young women 10 times at risk of domestic violence.
General Criticisms of Evolutionary Research
Ethics:Waller says: Violence,Xenophobia, and even genocide are adaptive, but this is very deterministic and unethical.
Reductionist: Is this an over-simplification? Are there other issues that promote aggression, such as cultural or individual differences in testosterone and cortisol?
Heredity & Environment: Are environmental factors a greater cause of aggression?
• Environmental stressors, heat, noise, etc
• Cortisol levels in pregnant mother
• Childhood abuse and neglect
Deterministic: Evolutionary explanations may seem to suggest that aggression is natural, but Figuerdo [1995] suggests jealousy and domestic violence are context-specific, not inherent. Women are less likely to be victims of domestic violence if they have several brothers in town, so aggression can be controlled.
Socially sensitive– It suggests that aggression is somewhat excusable and out of the control of the individual committing the behavior – This has important consequences within the legal system – Brings into question the credibility of the theory and makes it imperative that such socially sensitive research is not released into the public domain.
Social-Psychological Explanations of Aggression.
Social learning Theory
In the 1960s, social learning theory, seen as a challenge to behaviorists, suggested children learn things even without doing them throughobservational learningand modeling.
Exam Tip: If the question asks about Social Learning Theory, it is not enough only to write about theBobo Doll experiment. That was only one experiment – not the whole theory.
Children learn aggressive behaviors through observing aggressive models. These may be live models, such as parents, or symbolic models, such as characters in the media.
• The central idea of social learning theory is that people do not need rewards to learn aggression, they may copy the behavior of others, but this is less likely if they see the other people being punished.
Bobo Doll experiments: Children copied adults
Contributory factors:
•Vicarious reinforcement: (i) Adult was rewarded, children were slightly more likely to copy; (ii) adult was punished, children were much less likely to copy.
•Disinhibition: People are more willing to do things if they see that others are already doing them.
•Bandura’s conclusions: Aggression is not inevitable. Children observe aggressive behavior in others, but how they act may depend on what the consequences of aggression are, particularly for those they use as role models.
Positive Criticisms of Bandura
Huge implications for society -provides the key to understanding the causes of good and bad behavior.
Negative Criticisms of Bandura
The experiment was in a lab – which may lack ecological validity.
Children may have known that the Bobo Doll was designed for punching and, therefore, more open to suggestion. Also, they may have been aware of the experiment from other children in the group.
These are both examples of demand characteristics.
Media Implications
Viewing violence may cause children to develop cognitive scripts which involve violence in dealing with situations.
A danger is that media violence makes children more desensitized and more hardened to acts of violence in real life.
Social Theory: De-Individuation
• The central idea of this theory is that humans have a natural tendency to be aggressive if they think they can get away with it. Being disguised or part of a crowd will therefore lead to increased aggression.
• LeBon suggested that when in a crowd, the combination of anonymity, suggestibility, and contagion (likelihood of a behavior being copied) mean that a ‘collective mind’ take control of the individual.
•Contagion Theory: Starting point for deindividuation
Gergen 1973: Deindividuated persons in dark areas became more affectionate. Therefore de-individuation need not always lead to aggression
Postmes & Spears (1988): Deindividuated people are not necessarily aggressive – Crowds may be happy and good-natured – as at pop festivals
Research support for anonymity – Zimbardo found that when asking females to elicit electric shocks to each other, more severe shocks were given in the deindividuated condition (participants wore hoods that hid their faces) than in the controlled condition (participants were introduced to each other and wore nametags) – There is support for anonymity as a factor of de-individuation, causing aggression.
Deiner et al. (1976) Studied 1300 American children “trick or treating” on Halloween. Children in disguise or in a large group behaved worse. Supports deindividuation theory.
Mullen (1986) studied lynch mobs. The greater the number of people tended to correlate with the level of violence.
Emergent Norm Theory & convergence theory
These ideas can be used as criticisms of de-individuation. They suggest that groups or sub-cultures come together because they have some sort of similarity (convergence) and then establish their own norms (emergent norms).
Often one person or a few people will behave in a certain way that others like – so they copy. This argues against de-individuation and the faceless crowd. It does not imply aggression will result. A very good example would be the hippy culture of the 1960s.
TheFrustration-Aggression Hypothesis
• Aggression is a result of frustration. Frustration is any event or stimulus that prevents an individual from attaining a goal and its accompanying reinforcement quality (Dollard & Miller, 1939).
• When people are frustrated, they experience a drive (links to the psychodynamic approach) to be aggressive towards the object of their frustration, but this is often impossible or inappropriate, so the source of their aggression is displaced on something or someone else. (The cause may be abstract, too powerful, or unavailable.)
• Displaced Aggression [Dollard 1939] ‘You can’t kick the boss, so you kick the cat.’ Like Lornez, Dollard thought that getting aggressive cleared the mind of frustrations [a Catharsis], and life could then go on as normal.
• Berkowitz (1989 ) updated version is known as “Negative – affect theory.” Frustration is just one factor. Others may include feeling uncomfortable [eg. Heat, Reifmann [1991]] – but could also be noise or loud music. Certain cues may increase the tendency towards aggression, such as seeing a weapon on the table – Berkowitz used a baseball bat in experiments. Also, if the problem is unexpected, the individual is less likely to control their aggression.
• So, the level of aggression will depend on the following:
Bandura (1973) Frustration may lead to aggression if that has worked for someone in the past and they have internalized that way of dealing with problems.
Harris (1974) Found that people at the front of a cue were less aggressive if someone pushed in, whereas people at the back of a long cue felt a greater sense of frustration and, therefore, made a bigger fuss.
Wright and Klee (1999): Societies will be more stable and peaceful if they have systems that allow clever or hardworking people to rise to the top. Otherwise, a strong but angry working class will develop, filled with people who resent being “kept down.”
Priks (2010) has tried to explain football violence this way. Supporters seem much more likely to misbehave when their team is losing.
The danger is that it justifies deviant behavior: Plenty of people suffer injustice or unfairness and do not turn to violence. Therefore there must be some additional factor, such as a biological dimension, to explain why some people turn to violence or aggression when faced with problems and others don’t.
Contradictory evidence – Bushman found that participants who vented their anger using a punch bag actually became more angry and aggressive, and doing nothing was actually more effective in reducing aggression – The study casts doubt on the validity of the hypothesis: that aggression reduces arousal and one is then less likely to continue to be angry and aggressive and suggests that aggression may not be cathartic.
Institutional Theories of Aggression.
The situational approach: prisons make people aggressive – it’s the situation to blame.
The dispositional approach: prisoners are aggressive people who make the prison violent.
The Situational Approach: Sykes’ (1958) Deprivation Model
• Some institutions have harsh living conditions, such as prisons, army camps, and refugee camps This is less of a problem if the deprivation is for a good reason; if you were on a “round the world yacht race” or a mountaineering trip you have positive attitudes to keep you going.
• Some institutions deprive people of things they want, which reinforces the feelings of rejection from society, causing them to become more aggressive. E.g.
• This deprivation causes stress and frustration, which leads to an aggressive sub-culture. But this only applies to places with harsh conditions: E.g., in prisons, the army, refugee camps, etc. Less likely to be a problem if the deprivation is for a good reason, Eg. fitness & diet camp.
Effects
Support for Situational Model
McCorkle (1995) In a study of 317 United States prisons, poor facilities, and overcrowding were found to influence levels of violence.
Franklin (2006): Age and overcrowding led to aggression, with younger inmates (18-30) being most aggressive in conditions of overcrowding. Her Majesty’s Prison Woodhill: Major improvements at this prison included less noise, better ventilation, attractive views, and especially less crowding. This led to a massive improvement in behavior in the 1990s.
Criticism
Harer and Steffensmeir (1996) found that age, race, and criminal background were the only variables that affected levels of aggression. This strongly argues for the importation model, not the deprivation model.
The Situational Approach: Dysfunctional Institutions
Another situational argument is that the prisons themselves are dysfunctional.
Milgram believed that people are loyal to the hierarchy of the organization, but sometimes the hierarchy encourages cruel behavior.
The Stanford Prison Experiment
Zimbardo found that ordinary students became aggressive and cruel when they took on the role of prison guard. At the time of theZimbardo experiment, there were many prisons in the united states where conditions were extremely poor, violent, and overcrowded. Some even used the prisoners as slave labor on prison farms. Zimbardo’s experiment strongly supports the situational approach.
Historical Context
At the time of theZimbardo experiment, there were many prisons in the united states where conditions were extremely poor, violent, and overcrowded. Some even used the prisoners as slave labor on prison farms. Zimbardo’s experiment strongly supports the situational approach.
Features of dysfunctional Power Systems (Zimbardo)
Dispositional Explanation: The Importation Model
The Importation Model focuses on the characteristics of the individual.
Irwin and Cressey argue that the prisoners import their aggressive tendencies into prison with them, and this is why the rate of violence is high.
A prison is a violent place because aggressive people are in there. Their aggressive attitudes become part of their nature. It’s a dispositional approach because everything depends on the attitudes of the prisoners. This may also apply to other groups and institutions; The army / Extreme political groups, / Street gangs.
Irwin and Cressy 1962: People who are sent to prison already have well-established criminal behavior patterns. Prisoners were often gang members before going to prison, and their loyalties and relationships are continued in the prison environment.
They also have certain learned patterns of behavior – “The code of the Streets.”
They may also have problems that cause problems with relationships. E.g., Lack of self-control – Delisi (2011); Impulsive, anti-social – Wang & Diamond (2003).
Support for Irwin and Cressy/importation model
Men who were members of gangs before they went to prison are more likely to be involved in violent offenses whilst in prison. Drury and Delisi (2011)
Mears (2013) believed that the code of the street is imported into prison and is the fundamental cause of aggression.
Poole and Regoli 1983: Violence before the prison was the best indicator of violence inside prison.This supports the importation model.
Fischer (2001) Segregating gang members inside prison so that they did not come into conflicts with other gangs led to a 50% reduction in assaults.
Criticism of the Importation Model
Delisi (2004) found that gang members were NOT more violent than other prisoners. However, this is a rather weak piece of research as it does not allow for the fact that those gang members had already been segregated away from other gang members.
The importation model does not really explain why some organizations act aggressively when they are made up of good people who are supposed to act sensibly. Police officers, school teachers, traffic wardens, psychiatric nurses, and salesmen are all members of organizations that have sometimes been accused of acting in an aggressive way, and yet these are very law-abiding people who joined those organizations willingly and for good reasons.
Exam Tip
In January 2012, there was a short question (4 marks) that just said;
Describe one experiment which investigated Institutional Aggression.
A short summary of Zimbardo was all that was needed.
Media influences on aggression.
Exam Tip: Many criticisms can be made of the methodologies used in studying the link between Media and Aggression. Click here for AO3 suggestions on this unit.
In recent years computer games have replaced film as the target of claims that children are taking on immoral attitudes and copying violence. Especially those involving violence, especially first-person “shoot-em-ups,” “Grand Theft Auto” is a very good example.
Five psychological theories could be mentioned to support the view that repeated exposure to video game violence may lead to real-life aggression:
- Learning theory [Skinner]
Everything you have ever learned about Operant Conditioning can be beautifully applied to this argument. The computer game is the world’s most effective “Skinner Box.”
- Learning theory [Bandura]
Attention retention production motivation
Individuals model aggressive acts in the game. Some characters, and some types of behavior, are more likely to be copied because they are seen as attractive and appropriate, etc. There is no sense of real punishment for making mistakes – just game over and start again. This creates disinhibition, and individuals unconsciously feel that if they commit aggression, they will not be punished.
- Social Cognitive Observational Learning Theory [an updated version of Bandura]
Psychologists have identified certain mechanisms which explain why we learn and copy behavior:
- The General Aggression Model [Anderson and Dill]
This model brings together elements of Social learning and Cognitive Priming Theory and suggests that if we live in a violent environment – such as a war zone, we will adapt to it; our thoughts, feelings, and actions will be based around violence, and that is how we will survive. But could over-exposure to gaming have the same effects?
Evidence for General Aggression Model: Meta-Analysis Findings: Anderson et al. [2004] 35 studies examinedFound that video game violence exposure is related to increases in aggressive affect, cognition, and behaviorincreases in physiological arousal; decreases in helping behavior.
- Neurological Effects
Ritterfield and Mathiak [2006] –
Participants were subjected to a functional magnetic resonance imaging scan whilst playing a violent video game. It appeared to suggest that emotional areas of the cortex are to some extent “switched off” during the game, perhaps an adaptive mechanism that permits an animal to focus on survival. This is the same as happens when engaged in real acts of violence.
Strength – RWA – We can show more non-aggressive models and promote more prosocial behavior that is rewarded in the media. Aggressive behavior should always be shown to be punished – Research can be used to reduce the effect of computer games on aggression.
Weakness – Measures of aggression are artificial – Experimental studies compare participants who play a violent computer game with those who play a non-violent computer game, but it is difficult to be certain that the two are equivalent in terms of game dimensions and the complexity of keys used – Casts doubt on the validity of experimental studies and the link between media violence and aggression.
Weakness –Confounding variablesin longitudinal studies – Over lengthy periods of time, many sources of aggression interact with media influences such as role models; therefore, it is difficult to separate them and assess contributions to aggressive behavior – It is impossible to conclude that violent media rather than confounding variables have affected aggression.
Weakness – Publication bias – There is a tendency for only statistically significant findings to be published, which is a particular problem for meta-analyses because they generally only include published studies – This creates a false impression that the effects of violent media on aggression are greater than they actually are.
Cognitive Priming
• Cognitive priming is based on the idea that memory works through association.
It, therefore, contends that events and media images can stimulate related thoughts in the minds of audience members. For example, if we have often seen clowns throwing custard pies at one another, then when we encounter a custard pie in real life, we may think about throwing it at someone.
• A schema is a model of what we think normally happens. We assume that our parents will feed us and our friends will be pleased to see us because that is what normally happens.
• A cognitive script is a way of dealing with a situation. We have learned that in a hotel restaurant, we sit down and wait to be served, but in a burger bar, we line up at the counter.
• Berkowitz thinks watching violent movies could lead to storing schemas and cognitive scripts which involve aggression, e.g., the students in the Stanford Prison experiment had never been in a real prison but they may have had a schema based on movies they had seen.
E.g., Students who play “Grand Theft Auto” might develop a cognitive script for what to do when traffic lights turn amber. This may be different from the way their Grandma drives!
• Priming means that a particular event, image, or even word may be associated with these thoughts. We call that a trigger. When we encounter the trigger, we may respond in the way we have been primed.
E.g., if a football comes bouncing towards me – without thinking, I put out my foot to stop it or kick it back, but if it’s a cricket ball, I would pick it up and throw it back. I am primed to respond differently to the cricket ball.So Berkowitz argues that we learn anti-social attitudes from the media, and these are associated with certain triggers.
Steve Berkowitz [1984] did an experiment involving an argument in an office. In condition A, there was a baseball bat on the side of the desk. In condition B, there was a badminton racquet. Berkowitz found the presence of the baseball bat led to more aggressive responses.
Bushman [1998] Participants who had watched a violent film responded more quickly to aggressive words than those who had watched a non-violent film.
Anderson and Dill [2000] Found that playing a violent computer game led to more aggressive thoughts. They claimed that even playing the game just once could have this effect, although the effect might only be short-term.
Zelli [1995] found that cognitive priming could be used to make people suspicious of the intentions of others. This, in turn, led the people who had been primed to act in a more aggressive manner.
Atkin [2003] found that priming was more pronounced when the media was more realistic.
However, this may not simply mean it “looked better”. It might relate to how much the participant believed it was realistic.
Desensitization
Measuring desensitization
• Carnagey [2007] found that experienced computer gamers show less of a reaction to a film of real-life violence.
Effects of Desensitisation
• Bushman and Anderson [2009] found that desensitization made people less likely to help others in unpleasant situations.
• Dolf Zillman suggested that if we survive the real-life danger, we feel good afterward [winners]
During an action movie, we feel excited and stimulated. Later we want that excitement again, but we become de-sensitized, so we need more scary films to get us excited. This could transfer to seeking violence in real life.
Disinhibition
• Disinhibition explains that watching or playing violent media may change the standards of what is considered acceptable behavior. The media gives aggressive behavior social approval, especially where effects on victims are minimized and appear justified.
Individual factors [Collins 1989] make disinhibition more or less likely:
• Disinhibition is less likely if Strong family norms against violence or when adults discuss issues from the film with their children.
• Disinhibition can explain the effect of cartoon violence – Children learn social norms through cartoon characters as the aggression they carry out is socially normative, especially when it goes unpunished – Children learn that aggression is rewarding and achieves goals in a socially acceptable way, therefore, are more prone to copy it.
The main criterion is that benefits must outweigh costs.Animal research also raises the issue of extrapolation. Can we generalize from studies on animals to humans as their anatomy & physiology is different from humans?General criticisms and/or strengths of theories and studies.E.g., ‘Bandura’s Bobo Doll studies are laboratory experiments and therefore criticizable on the grounds of lacking ecological validity.’To gain marks for criticizing the study’s methodologies, the criticism must be contextualized: i.e., say why this is a problem in this particular study.‘Therefore, the violence the children witnessed was on television and was against a doll, not a human.
The main criterion is that benefits must outweigh costs.
Animal research also raises the issue of extrapolation. Can we generalize from studies on animals to humans as their anatomy & physiology is different from humans?
General criticisms and/or strengths of theories and studies.E.g., ‘Bandura’s Bobo Doll studies are laboratory experiments and therefore criticizable on the grounds of lacking ecological validity.’
To gain marks for criticizing the study’s methodologies, the criticism must be contextualized: i.e., say why this is a problem in this particular study.
‘Therefore, the violence the children witnessed was on television and was against a doll, not a human.
Saul McLeod, PhD
BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester
Saul McLeod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.
Bruce JohnsonA-level Psychology TeacherB.A., Educational Psychology, University of ExeterBruce Johnson is an A-level psychology teacher, and head of the sixth form at Caterham High School.
Bruce JohnsonA-level Psychology TeacherB.A., Educational Psychology, University of Exeter
Bruce Johnson
A-level Psychology Teacher
B.A., Educational Psychology, University of Exeter
Bruce Johnson is an A-level psychology teacher, and head of the sixth form at Caterham High School.
