`

Aggressio
n
Social
Learning
Theory &
Mental
Representati
on

Theory
Detail
Bandura &
Walters
suggested that
aggressive
behaviour is
learnt by
observing others
in our immediate
social
environment.
They also said our
biological makeup can create
potentials for
aggression where the actual
expression is
learnt.
Children learn
aggressive
behaviour by
observing then
imitating the
behaviour. They
will see the
consequences of
their behaviour
and if they are
punished for it, it
is unlikely they
would repeat it
again vicarious
reinforcement.
For SLT to take
place, children
must create
mental
representations
of events in their
social
environment and
decide whether

Studies
Evaluation
The BOBO Doll Study:
Bandura et al: Children
observed aggressive and
non aggressive adult
models. Then they were
tested for imitation of the
models. Male and Female
children 3 5 years old
were divided into two
groups plus one control.
One group were shown
adults being aggressive
toward the doll (Hitting the
doll saying POW) and the
other were shown no
aggression at all.
When the children were
shown toys they could not
play with, it annoyed them.
Then they were taken into
a room with the doll to see
their behaviour.
The aggressive group
showed more significant
imitations of the
aggressive behaviour of
the adults with the doll
than the other group and
1/3 of aggressive-condition
group repeated verbal
abuse. Boys were seen to
be more aggressive than
girls.
Motivation to Aggress:
Bandura et al: Children
were split into 3 groups
each seeing a different
ending to a film of an adult
behaving aggressively to a
BOBO doll.
Group 1: Shown model
rewarded
Group 2: Shown model

Evaluation

Unlike operant condition

SLT can explain
aggressive behaviour
when there is no dire
reinforcement even
though the aggressive g
saw someone being
aggressive to the doll
wasnt rewarded.

Individual differences
can explain differenc
between aggressive a
non-aggressive
behaviour both betwe
and within individual
The culture of violence
theory proposes that in
some societies, there is
norm of violence and
aggressive behaviour.
People respond differen
different situations as th
have observed aggressi
being rewarded or not.

Validity: Its possible th

the children in Bandura
studies knew what was
expected of them =
demand characteristi
Considering the Doll wa
designed to be hit.

Noble: One child arriving at t

study said to his mother tha
the doll to hit.

Cultural Differences:
Kung San, when two
children argue, neither a
rewarded or punished b
physically separated so
focus of different things
Parents do not use phys
punishments. There is li

`
the reward is
greater than the
punishment
enough to repeat
their behaviour
again, in the
future.

punished
Group 3: Shown model
with no consequences at
all
All 3 were influenced by
the ending they saw.
High reward = More
aggressive behaviour seen.
No consequence = Varied
levels of aggression.
Clearly, children learnt
aggression through
observing and imitating.

Philips: Daily homicide

rates in US always
increased in the week
following a major boxing
match suggesting that
viewers were imitating the
boxers.

motivation for the

children to be
aggressive, so theyr
not.

Gender Differences: B
seem to be more aggres
than the girls in Bandur
doesnt necessarily m
its true.

BOBO Doll was not a

person, so were not aw
how children would act
toward a real person.
- Johnston et al (1977)
found correlation betwe
play aggression and rea
aggression so proved th
the BOBO doll has valid

SLT is also present in

adults.

Nature/Nurture: Some
would argue that aggres
is purely a learnt behav
SLT ignores biological
influences like genetics.

De individuati
on

Theory is
based on the
classic crowd
theory of
Gustav Le Bon
How an
individual was
transformed
when part of a
crowd.
Collective mid
takes
possession of
the individual.
A psychological
state

Anonymity: Zimbardo: Female

undergraduates with one group having
their faces covered and wearing bulky
lab coats with hood and no name tag.
The other group had normal clothes,
name tags and facing each other. They
had to shock each other.
The group with no name tag shocked
twice as much because they were
unidentifiable.
Johnson & Dowling: Participants
wearing nurses uniforms delivered
significantly less shocks than those who
were masked.

Zimbardo
study out
resembled
the outfit
worn by t
Ku Klux K
Therefore,
couldve
triggered a
need for
demand
characteris
from the fe
participant

No explana

`
characterized by
lowered selfevaluation and
decreased
concerns
about
evaluation by
others.
Increase in
behaviour not
expected due to
social norms
(E.g.: Anonymity
wearing
uniform)
People who
normally
refrain from
acting
aggressively
because there
are no social
norms that
accept this
are
identifiable.
Being
anonymous in a
crowd has the
consequence of
reducing inner
restraints and
increasing
behaviours
that are
usually
inhibited.

Zimbardo
Being part of a
crowd can
diminish selfawareness of
their own
individuality.
Each person is

Colour Shirt: Rehm: Germal school

children had one group with orange shirt
and the other with mixed clothing. They
played handball.
Orange shirt played more aggressively.
Stanford Prison Experiment:
Zimbardo 1973: Prisoners were dressed
in smocks and nylon caps and were
addressed only by their numbers. Guards
wore uniforms and reflective sunglasses
= Deindividuated = Guards became
abusive and extremely aggressive
towards prisoners. But it is argued that
guards were acting on their own terms of
perceived social roles = conformity.
The Faceless Crowd: Mullen: Analysed
newspaper cuttings of 60 lynchings in
US. He found that the more people in the
mob, the greater the aggressive
behaviour to the victim.
The Baiting Crowd: Mann: When
suicide is threatened by disturbed
people, baiting/jeering crowds gathered.
Studies of 21 suicide leaps in the US
showed 10 out of the 21 leaps had a
crowd watching them jump they even
urged them to jump. Baiting occurred
more at night in a large crowd as
unidentifiable. And the crowds usually
jeered from the bottom = distance.
Black Room Study:
George et al: Participants spent an hour
together in a darkened room after
exploring the physical space and
engaging in the conversation. 90%
deliberately touched each other and 80%
reported sexual feelings. Although
deindividuation created by the darkened
room reduced inhibitions, it resulted in
positive and friendly behaviour.
Silke, 2003: Studied 500 violent assaults
that had occurred in Northern Ireland and

to why crow
and groups
not engage
aggressive
behaviour
because
Deindividu
is shown to
increase
compliance
with situati
norms. If n
is aggressio
Deindividu
should incr
aggression

Deindividu
using evide
from Georg
als Black R
Study lead
anti-social
behaviour
only particu
situations =
Deindividu
is not a goo
enough
explanation
aggression

Reduced
Private
Awareness

faceless

206 cases were carried out by people

wearing masks/disguises. It was found
that the severity of violence was related
to whether the offender was disguised or
not supporting Zimbardos anonymity
theory.

Prentice
Dunn: Offers
an alternative
perspective to
Zimbardos
conclusion that
anonymity is an
important
determinant.
Reduced selfawareness
rather than
anonymity leads
to deindividuation.

Johnson &
Dowling: Any
behaviour
produced could
be a product of
local social
norms. Same
experiment as
Zimbardos but
used masks to
maintain
anonymity.

Lack of support: Meta Analysi

60 studies provides insufficient sup
to the major claims of deindividuati

Zimbardo:
Prison
Experiment

Gender Differences: Are males m

aggressive?

If an individual
is self-focused,
they are less
likely to lose
identity. If
individual
submerges in a
group, and
loses focus,
deindividuatio
n occurs.

Institution
al
Aggressio
n (Within
Groups):
Importatio
n Model

Irwin & Creesey:

Suggested that prisoners
bring their own social norms
and traits with them into
prison.
They influence the
behaviour of the prison.

Postmes et al: Disinhibition and a

social behaviour are not more comm
in larger groups. Not much evidenc
that deindividuation- may also incre
the incidence of pro-social behaviou

Conformity to own perceived so

roles or deindividuation?

Cannavale et al: Male and Female

groups respond differently under
deindividuation conditions. Increase
aggression only visible in males = m
prone.

Cultural Differences: 23 societies

changed their appearance before g
to war so theyre not identifiable =
They were more destructive to thei
victims than if they didnt change t
appearance at all.
Research: Study of
individual factors such
as age, educational
levels and race.
58 US Black prisoners
were violent.
White prisoners were
alcohol and drug
abusers.
This behaviour was the
same outside of prison.

Individual
Differences: No
black/white peop
can be classified
this

Culture Bias:
Studies were on
done in the US
Gender Bias:

Poole & Regoli, 1983:

Involving 4 juvenile
correctional institutes
found that pre
institutional violence
was a reliable predictor
of inmate aggression
DeLisi et al, 2004:
Found prison records of
831 male inmates from
the south western US
being violent caused by
deprived means like
sub-cultural gang
membership.

Research was on
done on males s
cannot generalis
this to everyone

This model fai

provide an
explanation fo
reduction of
aggressive
behaviour or its
practical uses.

Racial and ethnic

tensions remain in
mainstream American
society and are
imported into prisons,
playing a huge role in
the levels of violence.

Institution
al
Aggressio
n (Within
Groups):
Deprivatio
n Model

Prisoners or patient
aggression is the product
of stressful and
oppressive/deprived
conditions in the
institute. Prison length of
sentences affect level of
aggressive behaviour.

Research: Peer
Violence is used to
relieve the deprivation
imposed by institutional
cultures such as prisons.
Overcrowding and lack
of privacy induces
violence.

Individual
Differences: No
Black/White peo
can be classified
way

More experienced officers

are less likely to suffer
assaults.

Keller & Wang, 2005:

have shown that higher
levels of assault on staff
by inmates happen in
high-security prisons
than in low security
prisons

Gender Bias:
Research only d
on males, what
about female
aggression in fe
prisons?

Deprivation of:
- Autonomy: Little
control of themselves
and require
permission for
everything. Inducing
feelings of
helplessness.

Richards, 2007:
Examined inmate on
staff assaults and
inmate on inmate

Culture Bias:
Research in US o

Levels of
deprivation
remain consta
institutions and
burst of violence

`
-

Institution
al
Aggressio
n (Between
Groups):
Dehumaniz
ation

Institution
al
Aggressio
n (Between
Groups):
Obedience
to
Authority

Goods & Services:

Little availability of
material possessions.
Inducing feelings of
failure
Security: Fearing
their wellbeing/physical threat.
Inducing feelings of
insecurity and lowesteem.

Humans normally have

social norms about
killing each other but
this changes as target
groups are
dehumanized.
Members may be
seen as worthless
animals and prey =
easier to kill.

Milgram: Believed
that the Holocaust was
primarily the result of
obedience to authority,
regardless of any
personal moral
obligations.
If someone can be so
influenced by uniform,
they can be influenced
by others to kill

assaults in 900 US State

prisons during the years
198 1995. Some prison
programmes increased
male rates of assaults in
prisons, while others
decreased.

spontaneous li
prison riots. This
model does not
explain this.

McCorkle et al, 1995:

Study of 371 state
prisons in US challenged
Deprivation Model. Little
evidence of a
relationship between
violence and overcrowding.

This may explain

reasons for
violence against
immigrants
Holocaust: Nazi
attitude toward
Jews and other
Inferiors
Abu Ghraib: Iraqi
prisoners abused
by guards.

Mandel: REJECTS
Milgrams idea
saying that
Milgram ignores
other possible
factors
Lack of valid
research.

Simplistic: Too
simplistic a mod
be a whole
explanation.
Behaviour is the
interaction of
personality and
situation and its
complex.
Socially sensitive topic

Ecologically Valid: Huge

social norms and research
support from many differe
areas but none are really e
generalised

Individual Differences:
Usually involve case studie

Culturally biased: Differe

societies have different no
and not all have been
investigated
Ecologically valid reaso

Individual Differences: N
everyone is the same as th
who are easily pressured i
acting

Culturally Biased: Not ev

society is the same

Biological
Neural:
Neurotransmi
tters:

Serotonin
&
Dopamine

Biological
explanations
suggest that
aggressive
behaviour can
be in the
make-up of
the individual
rather than in
the
environment.
Neurotransmit
ters are
chemicals that
enable
impulses
within the
brain to be
transmitted
from one area
of the brain to
another.
Serotonin has
been seen to
link to
aggression
Low levels of
serotonin =
Aggression

Violent criminals had high

testosterone
Low levels of serotonin = More
aggression
Mann et al: Gave 35 healthy
participants Dexfenfluramine
(reduces serotonin in brain) then
using a questionnaire, he found
that the drug caused Men to
become more violent.
Popova et al, 1991: Evidence
shows that animals that have been
selectively bred for domestication
and for increasingly docile
temperaments, there is a
corresponding increase, over
generation, in brain concentrations
of serotonin.
Diets high in serotonin used to
monkeys caused a decrease in
their aggressive behaviour.
Findings indicate that major
metabolite waste products of
serotonin tend to be low in the
cerebrospinal fluid of people
displaying aggressive behaviour.

Evidence of seroto
in aggressive
behaviour using
animals cannot be
generalised onto
humans.

Also has low ecolog

validity.

Reductionist Theo
Not reasonable enou
of an explanation to
sufficient enough fo
complex behaviours
such as aggression.
Individual
Differences: some
people may be
aggressive anyway.

Therefore cannot
generalise results

Lack of validity an
Reliability.

Correlations do no
show cause and
effect. There may b
other underlying fac

Anti-Psychotic drugs which

High level of reduce dopamine activity in the
Determinism:
Dopamine =
brain have been shown to reduce
Dopamine may jus
Aggression
aggressive behaviour.
be an effecter rath
The Role of Dominance: Mazur,
than a cause.
1995: argued that aggression is a Research: Fairly inconclusive
form of dominance behaviour. In
non-human animals,Male
the influence
sex
Dabbs et al: looked into
Small samples tested
Biological
of testosterone on dominance
hormone is salivary testosterone of violent
Unreliable
Hormonal:
behaviour might be thought
shown asto
and non-violent criminals. Those
aggressive behaviour.
In humans, with highest testosterone levels Gender Bias: Only men
influence
Testostero
dominance is likely to
be shown inhad history of primarily violent
aggression
used in studies!
ne
many different other
ways
that
from young crime
increase status or achievement,
for example mostly nonaggressive.
Evidence: Dominant but nonaggressive criminals also have

`
adulthood
onwards due
to its action
on the brain.

Archers, 1991: Meta-Analysis

of 5 studies involving 230
males, found a low positive
correlation between
testosterone and aggression but
there were methodological
problems with this metaanalysis.
Cross Cultural evidence that
physical violence is most
common among those who
would be expected to have the
highest level of testosterone
Young adult males.
Direction of Causality:
Sapolsky, 1997: argues
that aggression drives
testosterone levels that
testosterone is an effect,
not a cause.
Evidence: Testosterone
levels rise in the winners
and fall in losers in
games like chess
matches.
(Bernhardt, 1997)
Same with mice and
monkeys

Biological
Hormonal:
Cortisol

Appears to have
mediating effect on other
aggression linked
hormones such as
testosterone =
increasing anxiety.
Low levels of cortisol
increases testosterone

Cultural Bias: Only US

society studied
The measurement of
aggression was not
consistent across the
studies, for example.

Bain et al, 1987: foun

significant changes in le
of testosterone in violen
men who had been char
with murder/assault and
those who have been
charged with non-violen
crimes.

Tomaszewski et al, 20
Examined 933 healthy
young men and found th
there was no difference
testosterone levels betw
the most angry and
aggressive men.

Determinism: Hormon
cannot determine a
particular behavioural
outcome. Individual
differences in testostero
levels do not predict
aggressiveness. Since, i
present in males aggres
or not, other factors are
obviously involved like
cognition and
environmental.

Not much
conclusive research
has been brought
yet.

Inconclusive resear
on whether it does ha
an effect or not lower
reliability and validity

Research:
Investigators
measured levels of
cortisol in male

Gender Bias: Only m

were used

Unreliable evidenc

`
levels = aggressive
behaviour
Not only affecting
testosterone

The
Challenge
Hypothesis

Wingfield et al:
Monogamous Species levels
should only rise above the
baseline breeding level in
response to social
challenges or threat to
status.

violent prisoners
and make
schoolchildren and
found that the
most violent had
lowest cortisol
levels.

some studies contrad

others

High ecological val

as all research has be
on real people.

Albert et al: Despite

many studies, showed
positive correlation
between testosterone
and aggression. Mostly
prison men tested.

Small samples
tested = Unrelia

Gender Bias: On
men

Cultural Bias: O
US society studie

Such as male male

aggression.

Biological
Genetic:
Twin
Studies

Trying to
determine
the role of
genetic
factors in
aggression
with the
Nature vs.
Nuture
debate.
M/Z twins
share their
genes
D/Z Twins
only share
50%
If M/Z twins
aggressive
behaviour is
genetic, then
both must
have the same
levels of
aggression

Adoption Studies: Hutchings &

Mednick, 1973: 14000 adoptions
in Denmark studied and were
found that a significant number of
adopted boys with criminal
convictions had biological parents
who had criminal convictions.

Case Studies are

all too easy to
generalise becau
not everyone has b
adopted or have
parents with crimin
backgrounds.

Sharma et al, 1998: Parents who

gave away their children showed
much more anti-social behaviour
than adoptive parents.

Research is
inconclusive.

Rhee & Waldman, 2002:

Suggest that variability of the
findings may be partly due to
methods used to assess
aggressive behaviour.
Meta Analysis: Miles & Carey:
51 twin and adoption studies
investigated genetic bases for
aggression.
It was seen to have strong genetic
correlation/link and that
aggressive behaviour was more
from older cases via genes than
younger.

It relied on selfreports which me

there isnt much
reliability/accuracy

Little was observed

Age differences a
very important and
environmental fact
are only important
when younger

Sharma et al resea
on aggression show
that it is difficult
draw conclusions

Biological
(All): MAOA

No identifiable
gene has been
found for
aggression yet.
MAOA protein
regulates the
serotonin in
the brain
It is responsible
in breaking
down serotonin,
dopamine and
noradrenaline.
Gene
responsible for
MAOA
production
correlates with
aggressive
behaviour
positively

Evolutiona
ry:
Infidelity &
Jealousy

Dutch Family:
1960, found that
lots of males in
their family had
been very violent
and aggressive
and had very low
levels of MAOA in
their bodies
Gene
Environment
Interaction:
Caspi et al, 2002:
Studied 1037
children, 442
males born in
1972, New
Zealand, till they
were 26years old.
and saw that
those with low
levels of MAOA
were seen to grow
up aggressive but
only if they were
mistreated as
children

Evolutionary psychologists
argue that the different
reproduction challenges
faced by our ancestors
led to a number of
evolved sex differences
including sex differences in
jealousy
Daly & Wilson: Men have
evolved several different
strategies to deter women

because the behav

couldve been dow
genetics or
environments.
Case study: Lack of generalisabil
Gender Bias: Only males studied
Ecological validity is there becau
real people in natural environment
studied
It is difficult to establish geneti
contributions to aggressive
behaviour because there may b
more than one gene responsibl
There may be other non-genetic
influences
The results rely on self reports of
children from institutions Social
desire-ability effect.
Individual Differences due to
environmental and genetics

Samples seem to be of criminal

compared against each other w
is a small minority, therefore canno
generalise it to the public =
Low reliability

The theory that: X Chromosome f

girls cancels out the other version
the MAOA gene so dont show much
aggression could be true. This limit
generalisation of findings on MAOA.

Wilson et al, 1995:

found that women who
agreed with
questionnaire items
such as he is jealous
and doesnt want you
to talk to other men
were twice as likey to
have experienced
serious violence from
their partners 72%
having required

Correlations do
show cause/effe

Sexual jealousy
seems to be the
key motivator o
same sex aggress
and homicide w
men more than
women but there
other explanation

`
from committing adultery.
Violence is fuelled by male
jealousy evolved to deal
with the threat of paternal
insecurity (cuckoldry)

Evolutiona
ry:
Homicide
&
Uxorocide

medical attention.
Dobash & Dobash,
1984: Studied
battered women of
which they cite
extreme jealousy on
part of their husbands
or boyfriends as the
key cause.

Buss: Males have a number

of direct guarding
techniques that have
evolved to specifically keep
the mate
Murder or WifeDaly & Wilson: Death
Killing triggered
of a partner from
by extreme
physical violence may
bouts of
be unintended outcome
aggression
of an evolutionary
caused by
adaptation that was
sexual/insecurity used for control rather
or threats to
than death.
status etc.

Majority of studies show

that males are both the
victim and killer.

High ecological
validity since all
studies based on
people from natu
environment.

Individual Differences: N
males are violent toward th
wives

Gender Bias: Research onl

done on males where wome
can be abusers also

Sampling Problems: Thos

being seriously abused wou
not have agreed to do a
questionnaire.
Socially sensitive subject

May lie on questionnaire to

avoid husband knowing so
desirability.

Younger women much more

likely to be killed regardless
husbands age/ womens
reproductive age.

Evolutiona
ry: Lack of
resources
& Status

Research shows that women are

attracted to males who are dominant
over other males and are therefore, able
to provide for potential offspring through
the resources they can provide.
Daly & Wilson, 1988: Summary of 8

Homicide can be seen as co

So if its evolutionary, why d
they do it? Its technically
pointless.
Reductionism: Evolutionar
explanations have been
accused of being reductioni
because of all their emphas
adaptiveness but it has bee
recognised that previously,
wouldve promoted fitness t

`
studies of same-sex killing involving love
triangles found 82% were male-male
homicides and 8% female-female.
In another study by them, over
conflicts that resulted in murder in
Detroit throughout 1972 revealed that
the main motive was status = offenders
likely to be unemployed, unmarried
young men.

Adaptive
Response:
Group
Display

environment unlike the curr

Determinism: Evolutionary
explanations accused of bei
determinist because it view
genes determining
aggression/behaviour. It red
an individuals responsibility
(Free-will) over themselves
it has been recognised that
genes can influence behavi
and that it can be modified
other factors including cultu

Meta-Analysis: shows sex-differences in

aggression exist for both direct physical
and indirect, and verbal and
psychological aggression. Females
exceed males in indirect aggression.
It reinforces feelings of
Studying: the
in-group/out-group and
growth of
may serve an important
xenophobic
adaptive function for the
political
individuals within those
organization
groups. A benefit of intra(Northern League)
group solidarity is the
in Northern Italy
ability of a united group to
accompanied
compete and defend itself. overtly racist
chants and
Evolutionary psychologists banners at
would argue that natural football games.
selection favoured
those genes that
caused humans to be
Evan & Rowe,
altruistic towards
2002: Examined
members of their own
data from 40
group but intolerant of
football matches
outsiders.
played in Europe
It may be an adaptive
during 1999/2000.
response, to exaggerate
They found that
negative stereotypes about there was more
outsiders overdisorder with
perception of threat is
games involving
less costly than not.
the National side
than club sides.
So, one
interpretation is
that Nationalism
and xenophobia
is more likely to

Correlations do not s
cause/effect

Real-Life Application:
Power of xenophobia to
invoke violence has
motivated football clubs
take steps to minimize i
influence. Thus, there is
real potential for real lif
application of research i
this area.

Reductionism: May ha
promoted fitness of the
species in different, pas
environments but it doe
really fit anymore becau
of its huge emphasis on
adaptiveness.
Determinism: Genes
cannot always determin
behaviour but it has bee
recognised that it can
influence behaviour as w
as adapt and be temper
with using other factors
culture etc.

`
occur when the
national team
plays.

Adaptive
Respons
e:
Religious
Rituals &
Warfare

Rare in the animal kingdom only

social insects, chimpanzees,
dolphins and humans appear to
form coalitions to attack other
members of their species.

Sosis et al, 2005:

Collected data from 60
societies on the cost of
group rituals and the
frequency of warfare.

Fighting to the end is a bad

strategy as it reduces the chances
of that groups ability to pass on
their genes etc. Their opponents
may even have evolved to gain
the same resources and strategies
too.

Found that the

frequency of warfare
was the strongest
predictor in the
costliness of that
societys male ritual
displays.

Logically, it would be better for

two parties to agree on the likely
winner beforehand because
otherwise, both would have paid
for their loss/win with energy and
resources.

Also found that the

type of displays
favoured within a
particular society as a
signal of commitment
depended on the
nature of warfare
common in that
society.

Group displays include

demonstrations of military
strength = Soldiers marching.
Or religious rituals. By making
membership costly, group
solidarity is increased.
But, sticking together means
winning and more benefits than
fighting alone.

This research showed

a positive
correlation between
external warfare and
permanent badges
of group
memberships which
supports the theory
that costly signalling
has evolved to signal
commitment and
promote group
solidarity.

Nature vs.
Nurture: Diffi
to provide
evidence for t
existence of t
genetic
contribution o
group display
aggression.

Gender Bias
Most of the
research into
group display
involved male

Reductionis
Gross & Roll
2009: argue
that there is n
agreed definit
for what
constitutes gr
display. It is
unclear if the
term refers to
crowd or prot
march. So,
unlikely that a
single explan
is suited to al
different type
behaviour.