Outline and Evaluate one or more Social Psychological Theories of Aggression (8 & 16 marks)

One Social Psychological Theory of Aggression is Deindividuation. This says that an individual changes when part of a crowd due to the combination of anonymity, suggestibility and contagion which makes the individual take on a ‘collective mind’ with the rest of the crowd. Because of this they lose all self-control and become capable of acting in a way which goes against social norms and their personality.

People usually refrain from acting in an aggressive way partly because there are social norms which stop this kind of behaviour and partly because they are identifiable as an individual. In a crowd they are anonymous which has the psychological consequences of increasing behaviours that are usually not allowed.

According to Zimbardo, being part of a crowd can take away awareness of our own individuality. In a large crowd every individual is faceless and therefore anonymous, the bigger the crowd the more anonymity you have. Because of this you have less fear of consequences for your actions and a reduced sense of guilt, shame and thought for others.

Mann (1981) conducted a study to support deindividuation as a theory of aggression by analysing US newspaper reports of 21 suicide jumps in the 1960’s and 1970’s. He found that in 10 of these cases a crowd had gathered and baited the jumper. This was more common when the suicide jump had occurred at night and baiting occurred more when the crowd was large and a long distance away.  This supports Deindividuation as a theory of aggression as people only baited the jumper when in a crowd, no one did it alone suggesting that it was the anonymity of the crowd that encouraged it.

This study however is lacking in temporal validity. As it was conducted in the 1960/70’s it cannot be generalized to people nowadays as society has changed a lot since then. Also as it was only carried out in the US the results only apply to society in the US and therefore cannot be generalized across the world making the study lack population validity and have a culture bias. The sample of suicide jumps looked at was a very small sample of only 21 cases and therefore the study lacks reliability as well as validity. This means that it may not support deindividuation as a cause for aggression as well as it first appears to and so other studies should be looked at as well as this one to get a better idea of whether or not deindividuation is a cause for aggression.   

Mann’s study can also be criticized by the fact he looked at newspaper articles of the suicide jumps which tend to be over exaggerated and could mean his study was based on untruthful evidence. Also as it was an observational study he could not control any extraneous variables that could have contributed to his results. His results showed a correlation between a crowd and baiting however as it was a correlation, a causation cannot be found from it meaning his results may not support deindividuation even though they seem to. Again this would mean that more studies need to be looked at to get a good idea of whether deindividuation is a cause of aggression.      

Another Social Psychological Theory of Aggression is the Social Learning Theory. Bandura and Walters (1963) believed that aggression could be learnt through the observation of others. Bandura did a study to support their theory by having one group of children observe adults being aggressive towards a Bobo Doll and one group of children observing the adults being non-aggressive towards the doll. The children then got to interact with the doll themselves and it was found that those who had observed the adults being aggressive towards the doll were a lot more likely to show aggression towards it themselves. This supports the Social Learning Theory as the children showed aggression towards the doll but had not reason to other than watching the adults do it before hand.

There is a big ethical issue with Banduras study as he exposed children to aggressive behaviour knowing that they may produce it in their own behaviour which goes against the British Code of Ethics’ code that researchers have to protect their participants from psychological harm.

It is also possible that there was a lot of demand characteristics in Banduras study and that a lot of the children knew what was expected of them during the study. One child was reported saying ‘there’s the doll we have to hit’ upon arriving to take part in the study. This reduces the internal validity of the study as it means that it was not the observation that caused the aggression in the children in some cases so measures should be taken into account to reduce demand characteristics or to compensate for this if the experiment is ever repeated. 

Discuss the role of Neural and/or Hormonal Mechanisms in Aggression (8 & 16 marks)

Neurotransmitters are chemicals in the brain. Serotonin is a neurotransmitter which has been linked to aggression by inhibiting responses to stimuli which can lead to aggressive responses. Low levels of serotonin have been associated with increased aggression.

Mann et al (1990) did a study to support this by giving 35 healthy male participants a drug which decreases the levels of serotonin in the brain. They then filled out a questionnaire on hostility and aggression and it was found that aggression levels had increased since the drug treatment. This supports the fact that serotonin is linked to aggression as when the participants had lower levels of serotonin than usual their aggression level was higher in all participants which suggested that the serotonin change was the reason for higher aggression levels and not an extraneous variable.

Mann’s study used a self-report method of gaining information from the participants. This reduces the validity of the study as participants could have given answers which they thought were socially desirable or what Mann wanted to hear and not truthful ones which means the conclusions Mann drew form the study could be based on invalid evidence.

Raleigh et al (1991) also conducted a supporting study into serotonin as a factor of aggression where he found that when monkeys were fed on a diet high in tryptophan, which increases levels of serotonin, their aggression levels dropped compared to that of monkeys fed a diet not high in tryptophan. This supports serotonin as a factor in aggression as a change in serotonin levels in the monkeys changed their aggression levels.

Raleigh’s study however is lacking in external validity because it was carried out on animals. It cannot be fully generalized to humans as it cannot be proved that we have the same psychological makeup and therefore our brains may not work in the same way as theirs. This is a big weakness in animal studies and means that this study is not as supporting of serotonin as a factor of aggression as studies that have been carried out on humans.  

Another neurotransmitter which is said to affect aggression is dopamine and high levels of this have been linked to high levels of aggression. There has however no conclusive evidence to show a causal role of dopamine in aggression, research suggests it may be a consequence instead. Couppis and Kennedy (2008) did a study which supported dopamine as more a consequence than a causal factor of aggression by finding that in mice, a reward pathway in the brain becomes engaged in response to aggression and that dopamine is a positive reinforce in this pathway. This suggests that it may be involved in aggression in some way however not actually be a factor for it. This study has the same problems with external validity as Raleigh’s study as it was carried out on mice not humans.

Testosterone is a male sex hormone which is thought to influence aggression due to its action in the areas of the brain which are involved in controlling aggression.  Archer (1991) did a supporting study where he analysed 230 males over five studies and found a positive correlation between aggression and testosterone levels. This would show that testosterone was a factor involved in aggression however as it was a correlational study it can show a relationship between the two but not a causation which means that this study cannot show that testosterone is a cause of aggression.

Dabbs et al (1987) also did a study to support testosterone as a factor of aggression by measuring salivary testosterone levels in violent and nonviolent criminals. He found that those with the highest testosterone levels had a predominantly violent and aggressive history whereas those with the lowest had committed only nonviolent crimes. He found similar results when doing the same experiment on non-criminal communities. This supports testosterone as a factor for aggression as the most aggressive people were found to have the most testosterone across many communities which suggests that it is testosterone having this effect and not another extraneous variable. 

Most studies concerning testosterone and aggression have a huge gender bias. As testosterone is a male sex hormone the majority of studies into the effects of testosterone on aggression are carried out solely on males which means that the results cannot be generalized to females. 

Discuss Research into Institutional Aggression (8 and 16 marks)

Lots of research into institutional aggression was conducted in prisons as it is a good opportunity sample of both aggressive and non-aggressive individuals in an institution. One model that was proposed by Irwin and Ceressey (1962) is the Importation Model which says that prisoners bring their own social histories and traits with them into prisons and this has an influence on how they adapt to a prison environment. They argued that prisoners are not blank slates when they enter prison but import in all normative systems with them.

Harer and Steffensmeier (2006) conducted a study to support the Importation Model where they collected data from 58 US prisons and found that black inmates has a significantly higher violence rate but a lower alcohol and drug misconduct rate than white inmates, which is the same pattern as in US society. This would support the importation model as the same traits found in US society were found in the prisons suggesting that the inmates already possessed them and brought them into prison with them.

This study however cannot be generalised to the whole population as it was only done in the US which may not be a representative sample of the rest of the world and therefore it lacks population validity. Therefore Harer and Steffensmeir might not be as supporting of the Importation models as other studies which have been carried out and should be looked at along with these before any conclusions are drawn.

Gang Memberships in prison has also been linked to Institutional Aggression. Pre Prison gang membership seems to be a determining factor of violence in prison. However DeLisi (2004) conducted some research which undermines this idea and found that those with pre prison gang memberships were no more likely to act violently when in prison than anyone else. He said that the lack of correlation between the two may be down to the fact that in prison violent gang members are isolated form the other members meaning less opportunities for violence. This study can be criticised though by the fact that it is only a correlational study and therefore can never show the causation for the correlation.   

Another model suggested to impact on institutional aggression is the deprivation model which argues that prisoner aggression is the product of stressful and oppressive conditions in the institution itself. This includes crowding and staff experience.

This model was supported by Magaree (1976) who found that aggressive incidents in prisons were negatively correlated to the amount of living space each prisoner had. Also when little space was available for each prisoner strategies were put in place to compensate for this which often results in less inmate interaction which can lead to deprivation also. This supports the deprivation model as it shows that when there is little space and therefore overcrowding prison inmates become more violent.

McCorkle et al (1995) also supported by the deprivation model when he found that overcrowding, lack of privacy and lack of meaningful activity increased peer violence significantly. This would support the deprivation model as it would show that prisoner conditions do in fact influence violence, however this was undermined by Nijman (1999) who found that increased personal space does not in fact decrease violent incidents amongst prisoners. This would undermine the deprivation as if making the conditions better does not decrease violence it would suggest that these were not the cause of it in the first place.

Research into Institutional Aggression has also been done by looking at genocide in which case the institution would be a whole section of society. Dehumanisation was found to be something which fuelled institutional aggression as dehumanising the person you are aggressive towards takes away your moral inhibitions about killing another human as they are not seen to be human at that time.

There are many real world applications for this such as the Jews Holocaust and the Tutsis Rwandan genocide, both of which were dehumanised which meant that normal people off the streets lost all their inhibitions about killing other humans and killed these people with less hesitation.  This would suggest that the aggression was institutional rather than personal as these people would usually not act against social norms in this way.

There is a lot of Gender bias in research into institutional aggression as it is often carried out on prison communities or armed forces which are a predominantly male environment, therefore this research cannot be generalized to communities where it is more mixed or predominantly female. This decreases the validity of the study and is results which needs to be taken into account when drawing any conclusions form these results.

               
Studies into Institutional aggression ignore the nature side of the nature vs. nurture debate as behaviours that are carried out in a community, especially in prisons and armed forces, are down to things which have been learned and are not innate, therefore being nurture rather than nature which could also have an impact on why institutional aggression takes place. 

Discuss Group Displays as an Adaptive Response to Aggression (8 and 16 marks)

Men have adapted to survive better as a group with the larger and more aggressive groups getting the most resources. Nowadays this is most apparent in Sport and War.

Xenophobia, a fear and hatred of strangers of foreigners, is often present at sporting events with the home team showing violence, often in the form of chanting and signals, towards the away team to hold their own territory and the away team showing aggression to try and claim this.

Foldesi (1996) conducted a study to support the link between xenophobia and violent displays by looking at Hungarian football crowds. He found that racist behaviour from a small group of supporters led to an increase in aggressive, particularly xenophobic, outburst towards the opposing team. This would support xenophobia as an adaptive response to aggression as it shows that aggressive acts form a small group can lead to more violent acts from a large group, which would suggest a link to an evolutionary basis of our ancestors standing up for their own people and holding their territory and resources as a group.

Another supporting study was conducted by Evans and Rowe (2002) who looked at police reports from 40 football matches in Europe in 1999/2000 that involved at least one English team or England national team. They found more xenophobic abuse and violent displays in national games rather than club games. They said this could be due to the fact that club teams are more rationally diverse and therefore less likely to produce xenophobic responses from foreign supporters like the national games tend to.

Warfare is another aggressive group display that can be explained in evolutionary terms. In our EEA and through evolution there has been a relatively small number of women to men and therefore the aggressiveness and bravery shown in war, amongst each other and as a group, was used to attract women. However as in most societies a woman soldier is unheard of in term of evolution this is a very gender bias view of group aggression and as all research into this topic is carried out on men rather than women our understanding of it is limited to just the behaviour of men making it non-generalizable to women.

Two studies which support warfare as an adaptive response to aggression were conducted by Palmer and Tilley (1995), who found that young male street gang members have more sexual partners than other young males, and Leunissen and Van Vugt (2010) who found military men have a greater sex appeal but only if they have been observed showing bravery in combat. These studies both support warfare as an adaptive response to aggression as they both show the fact that men who show aggression and bravery are more attractive to women which comes from our ancestors wanting to mate with the male who could protect them the best and get them the best resources.    

A criticism of Group displays as an adaptive response to aggression is that it stresses evolutionary factors which determine agression. This means that it is very on the side of nature in the nature/nurture debate. This is an issue as it does not recognise the value of approaches such as the social learning theory which would explain the influence of nurture in agression. Therefore Group displays as an adaptive response to aggression can be criticized as being too simplistic an explanation and it could be argued that both nature and nurture are important in explaining agression.  

Discuss Evolutionary Explanations of Aggression including Infidelity and Jealousy (8 & 16 marks)

One evolutionary explanation claims that Jealousy causes aggression and a big cause of jealousy is cuckoldry. This is where a woman deceives her male partner into investing in offspring conceived with another male. Men have evolved mate-retention strategies driven by sexual jealousy to stop this from happening to them which often involve aggression.

Camilleri (2004) devised the cuckoldry risk hypothesis which says that men will be more willing to use sexually coercive tactics when there is a high risk of cuckoldry. This was backed up by Lalumiere (2005) who found that men carry out partner rape in order to decrease paternity uncertainty.

Buss and Shackelford (1997) conducted a study which supported the idea mate-retention strategies involving violence have evolved in men by looking into what mate-retention strategies occurred in married couples. Men reported a higher use of intrasexual threats than women who were more likely to use verbal possession signals. They also found that men with younger female partners used more mate-retention tactics including violence and threats. This shows that mate retention strategies are used to deter cuckoldry as men with younger female partners are most likely to use it and they are thought the most likely to commit cuckoldry.

Another supporting study was carried out into mate-retention strategies by Shackelford (2005) who used a survey method to ask males about how often they used mate-retention strategies and how often they used violent acts towards their partners. In support of the evolutionary explanations they found that a male’s use of mate-retention strategies and emotional manipulation correlated positively with their use of violence against their partners.

Shackelford’s study however had a huge metholodgical issue in the fact that his data found a correlational link. This therefore cannot show a causal relationship between mate-retention strategies and violence against women. Also a self-report method was used and so there is a chance that people could have given answers they thought were social desirable rather than truthful ones which reduces the validity of the study’s results.

Research into mate-retention also has a very useful real world application as use of these strategies can now alert families and friends to the fact that violence is a big possibility in the future and therefore it is more likely it can be stopped in advance of any violence occurring.

All research done into mate-retention strategies has a large gender bias as it has all been focused on males and usually on male-male and male-female mate retention and can therefore not be generalised to other situations.

Infidelity can also be the cause of violence and aggression in males. This is where voluntary sexual relations take place between a married individual and someone other than their partner. This when taken part in by a married woman can lead to cuckoldry as they then often expect their partner to invest in any offspring that occur from the infidelity. Camilleri and Quinsey (2009) supported Infidelity and cuckoldry leading to aggression and violence when they found that men convicted of partner rape where more likely to have experienced infidelity and/or cuckoldry prior to this occurring than those who were convicted of non-sexual partner abuse. This would support aggression as an evolutionary response as the males are trying to stop cuckoldry which would cause them to invest all their resources in another man’s genes rather than his own which would have been terrible for our ancestors in our EEA.

The evolutionary explanation also fails to say why some cultures require male violence for social status whereas in other cultures it damages this. If aggression was the result of evolution surly it would be universal which suggests that there may be more complex factors involved in aggression, such as genetic or neural factors rather than just evolutionary ones.