1

AGGRESSION

TOPIC 1 - SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGICAL EXPLANATIONS OF AGGRESSION

Social learning theory and deindividuation
Learning from direct experience: aggressive behaviour may develop as a result of operant
conditioning, where an individual is rewarded for being aggressive, thus being encouraged and
reinforced to perform that behaviour in future. For example, if Josh punches Mark, and then Joshs
friends laugh and support Josh, then Josh may continue to punch Mark and others in future.
Bandura: Social Learning Theory
Vicarious learning: this is aggressive behaviour is imitated from a role model. For example, if Frank
saw his older brother Josh punching Mark and being rewarded for it, Frank may want to behave
aggressively to also receive that rewarding experience. Observing the role model allows the observer
to see when such behaviour is appropriate and what the likely consequences would be of
performing such particular behaviour. After such observations the behaviour is represented mentally
by the observer. If on a future occasion the opportunity to commit such aggressive behaviour is
available, they may take such opportunity and engage in the behaviour due to the mental
representation and the associated rewards which are brought to mind.
Bobo doll experiment
Bandura et al. (1963) : social learning and aggression
66 nursery school children 3 groups
all groups watched a film where an adult model kicked, punched, and expressed verbal
aggression (swearing) towards a toy doll.
Group 1 observed no punishment or reward occurring for the adult
Group 2 watched the adult being rewarded after hitting the doll
Group 3 watched the adult being punished after hitting the doll.
The children were then left to play with the doll.
Findings
Groups 1 and 2 (the neutral and rewarded observation conditions) were more likely to hit
the doll when left alone with it.
Group 2 were most aggressive / Group 3 were least aggressive
Study displays the effect of social learning theory. This is evident where children observing
an adult being rewarded for aggressive behaviour went on to imitate such behaviour.

Deindividuation

A process whereby people lose their sense of socialised individual identity and engage in
unsocialised, often antisocial behaviours.
Individuated behaviour: we are rational and conforming when on our own or when others
are aware of who we are e.g. in an interview.
Deindividuated behaviour Individuals may become deindividuated i.e. anonymous when
in a large crowd, as there is less awareness of their individuality, with them seeming almost
faceless and merged with a group of people. Because of this, primitive urges are more easily
brought about so the individual no longer conforms to societys norms. With their
deindividuation they feel less fear of punishment and guilt for their actions due to the
difficulties in being identified among the large number of people. In general the individual is
then less likely to be evaluated by others, which is significant in preventing antisocial
behaviour in society. Overall the larger the group is, the more difficult to identify individuals
within that group, therefore the higher the level of deindividuation.
Adam Clarke www.brain-freeze.co.uk

Support
Social learning theory can explain lack of
consistency in aggressive behaviour where
individuals learn to behave differently in a
variety of situations, expecting rewards in one
context and not the other
SLT explains cultural differences in aggression:
absence of aggressive models leads to less
opportunities to learn aggressive behaviour
(Deindividuation) Malamuth and Check (1981):
1/3 male students admitted they would commit
rape if there was no chance of identification
Zimbardo - Stanford prison experiment:
anonymity of guards and prisoners made it
easier for guards to treat prisoners badly.
Mann : 10/21 suicide cases where crowd
watched, the crowd urged individual to commit
suicide. The darkness, size of crowd, distance of
crowd were conditions that induced a state of
deindividuation.
Mullen: 60 lynchings, the more people in the
mob the greater the deindividuation and
consequently the more violence. Watson
12/13 societies that killed, tortured and
mutilated their victims changed their
appearance prior to battle. 7/10 less brutal
societies didnt change their appearance and so
they were less deindividuated and less violent.

Against
Bobo doll experiment methodology issue
where the BoBo doll is not a living person so
imitation aggression against humans is not
explained.
The aggressive child may have had an aggressive
disposition anyway.

Difficult to determine whether it is the

anonymity of the aggressor or the victim which
increases the likelihood of aggression.

Adam Clarke www.brain-freeze.co.uk

Institutional aggression
Importation model: Inmates with particular characteristics are more likely to engage in
interpersonal violence than others.
Deprivation model: Characteristics of the prison environment lead to interpersonal violence.
Initiation rituals: Such rituals create a common bond among the members of a group within an
institution. They undergo painful psychological and physical rituals to prove that they can handle a
particular situation and to show that they are capable of going further and that they are committed
to the group.
Cognitive dissonance theory: people may endure a painful ritual believing that it is wrong, but come
to value the experience afterwards by changing their beliefs about it, reducing the dissonance. For
example, if someone wants to join a gang, but they have to be beaten up as a ritual to enter, at first
they think that the ritual is bad, so after experiencing it cognitive dissonance is created where there
is a conflict between what they believe about the ritual vs. them allowing themselves to experience
the ritual of being beaten up. To reduce this dissonance, they change their beliefs of the ritual that
they had experienced, believing instead that it was worthwhile. The more painful an experience is,
the more a person values it.

Importation model
Poole and Regoli: a prisoners level of violence
before they entered prison is the best way of
predicting how violent they will be, regardless of
which institution they went to.
Harer and Steffensmeier: black inmates = higher
levels of violence, reflecting racial differences in
society.
McCorkle: not much evidence supporting
connection between violence and bad living
conditions

Deprivation model
Sykes: prison results in aggression because of
loss of freedom/ relationships, with loneliness
leading to stress and eventually violence.
Limitations of importation McCorkle: model
fails to offer solutions to reducing prison
violence
DeLisi: gang membership related to importing
(personality) characteristics did not affect their
prison violence
Keller and Wang: violence is more likely to occur
in the environment where the most troublesome
inmates are held
(Initiation rituals) McCorkle: domination of
weak during initiation rituals is regarded as
essential to maintaining status.

Adam Clarke www.brain-freeze.co.uk

TOPIC 2 BIOLOGICAL EXPLANATIONS OF AGGRESSION

Neural mechanisms in aggression

Serotonin is a neurotransmitter that has a calming effect. Aggression is associated with low levels of
serotonin. The prefrontal cortex usually functions to prevent aggressive behaviour where it allows an
individual to inhibit aggressive impulses. With low levels of serotonin in that region, the individual is
less able to control impulsive and aggressive responses.
Dopamine is associated with high levels of aggression. Couppis et al: dopamine plays an important
reinforcing role in aggression, where individuals seek out aggressive encounters because of the
rewarding sensations that are caused by the increase in dopamine that those situations provide. This
is related to the way that dopamine is produced in response to rewarding stimuli such as food and
sex, where aggression becomes related to dopamine increase instead.
Support
Mann et al.: individuals with increased numbers
of pre-frontal cortex serotonin receptors
contemplated more violent methods of suicide.
Aggression is the result of increased number of
serotonin receptors rather than low levels of
serotonin, though an increase of receptors is
likely to occur with serotonin depletion.
Brown et al.: the spinal fluid of aggressive
individuals has low amounts of serotonin waste
product. This suggests that low levels of
serotonin may be linked to aggression.
Mann et al.: When individual use the drug
dexfenfluramine (which depletes serotonin)
there is an increase in hostility and aggression
for males.
Badawy: Alcohol consumption causes major
disturbances in metabolism of brain serotonin.
Acute alcohol intake was found to deplete
serotonin levels in normal individuals, so in
susceptible individuals such an increase could
further elicit aggressive behaviour.
Lavine: Increase in dopamine activity e.g.
amphetamine use, is associated with increase in
aggressive behaviour.
Buitelaar: Dopamine antagonists which reduce
dopamine also reduced aggressive behaviour in
violent delinquents
Ferrari et al.: in anticipation of fighting, rat
dopamine levels were found to increase and
serotonin levels decreased, even though the
animal didnt actually fight . Through experience,
they adapted their neurochemistry for fighting,
which is consistent with onset of aggressive
behaviour.

Against
Correlation not cause: dopamine is involved in
movement as well, therefore decreasing
dopamine may demotivate /prevent the animal
from moving rather than lower aggression.

Only the influence of nature is considered.

Reductionist: reduces aggressive behaviour

down to neurochemical reactions, ignoring social
influences.
Validity: research involving animals is difficult to
generalise to humans.

Determinism: some may be naturally born with

susceptibility to aggression and cant do anything
to change it.
Gender bias: beta bias where the differences
between males and females are not considered
regarding the effects of neurotransmitters.

Adam Clarke www.brain-freeze.co.uk

Hormones
Testosterone: Males produce testosterone in the testes and females produce testosterone in small
amounts from the adrenal glands. Testosterone is a hormone that has been found to increase
aggression in males.
Cortisol is a hormone necessary for maintaining levels of blood sugar. It is released when the
autonomic nervous system is aroused e.g. through stressful situations. If the body is not
experiencing enough physiological arousal then insufficient cortisol is produced. Aggressive
behaviour can lead to stressful situations that enable an increase in cortisol. It is because of this that
low levels of cortisol may increase aggressive behaviour as a means of increasing cortisol.
Support
Olweus et al. (1980): found that adolescents
with naturally higher levels of testosterone
responded more aggressively in response to
challenges from teachers and peers.
Archer (1991): meta-analysis of five studies
found a low positive correlation between
testosterone and aggression.
Book et al. (2001) meta-analysis of 45 studies
found a mean correlation of 0.14 between
testosterone and aggression.
Pope et al. (2000) double blind studies injected
testosterone or placebo, it was found that those
who received testosterone were more likely to
punish others.

Against
Bain et al.: no significant differences in
testosterone levels between men who had been
charged with violent crimes compared with
those charged for non-violent crimes e.g. fraud
Kreuz and Rose: no difference in testosterone
for 21 prisoners in those who were violent
compared to non-violent
Gerra et al.: higher (not lower) cortisol
concentrations associated with higher aggression

Popma : significant positive relationship

between testosterone and aggression in those
with low cortisol, but not in those with high
cortisol levels.
McBurnett et al. (2000) boys with lower
cortisol levels exhibit three times the number of
aggressive symptoms compared with boys of
higher cortisol levels.

Nature :effect of nurture is not considered

Deterministic: difficult to change hormone levels

in the body, making it difficult to change
aggressive behaviour in those born with high
testosterone levels.

Reductionism: social influences arent

considered, where aggression is reduced down
to physiological changes.

Adam Clarke www.brain-freeze.co.uk

Twin and adoption studies

McGuffin and Gottesman (1985): aggression in twins concordance rates i.e. where one twin is
aggressive what is the % chance of the other twin also being aggressive: 87% concordance rate
monozygotic twins (identical twins) 72% concordance rate dizygotic twins (non-identical twins)
Mason and Frick (1994): 12 twin studies, 3795 twin pairs, 50% of difference between antisocial and
non-antisocial behaviour could be attributed to genetic factors.
Coccaro et al. (1997): 182 MZ/118 DZ, genes accounted for 40% of the individual differences in
overall aggression, for 50% of individual differences in physical aggression, 70% verbal aggression
Hutchings and Mednick (1973): 14,000 adoptions. Biological father with convictions for criminal
violence positively correlated with convictions for criminal violence in sons who were adopted by
another family.
Miles and Carey (1997): meta-analysis: 24 twin and adoption studies, 50% genetic influence in
aggression. At later ages influence of rearing is less significant and genes are more important.
Rhee and Waldman (2002): meta-analysis, 51 twin and adoption studies, 87000 individuals. Genetics
40%
Button et al. (2004): 258 twins aged 11 to 18. Aggressive/non-aggressive behaviour result of genetic
influence. Heritability significantly higher in girls for aggressive behaviour indicating a stronger
genetic effect on aggression in females.

Support
Large sample sizes for aggression twin studies =
good population validity
Ecological validity: real life settings using cases
of twins and adoptive children.

Against
MZ twins share environment where they are
treated more similarly than DZ twins. The studies
do not perfectly measure genes vs. environment.
Sharma et al. (1998): children given up for
adoption may display a higher rate of antisocial
behaviour before they were adopted.
Trembley (2003): parents who give their children
up for adoption display higher levels of antisocial
behaviour compared with other parents, so it
may be their parental behaviour rather than
genes that results in aggressive children.
Low internal validity: multiple variables which
are difficult to control.

Adam Clarke www.brain-freeze.co.uk

Genes
Genes for aggression are related to faulty dopamine receptors.
Faraone et al. (2001) : dopamine receptor D4 is coded by gene DRD4, which is associated with
ADHD.
Retz et al. (2003): faulty dopamine receptors have been linked to impulsivity / ADHD-related
symptoms in violent offenders.
Enzyme monoamine oxidase (MAOA): breaks down noradrenaline (a neurotransmitter which
typically raises alertness/blood pressure), serotonin, dopamine (imbalances associated with
aggression) after these neurotransmitters have carried nerve impulses from one cell to another. The
gene associated with MAOA may be associated with aggressive behaviour.
Brunner et al. (1993): study in Holland regarding a family with extremely violent behaviour. All the
men were found to have a genetic defect on x chromosome which prevented functioning of an
aggression-regulation enzyme. Brunner analysed the X chromosomes on 28 members of the Dutch
family. A marker was found on the X chromosome that was present in only the violent men of the
family. A gene for MAOA was in the region near the marker and with defective levels of MAOA,
increased levels of other neurotransmitters accumulated. In the urine of the males from the family,
excess levels of neurotransmitters were found. Excess neurotransmitters may predispose men to
violence when under stress.
Support
Morley and Hall (2003): findings from genetic
research on antisocial/violent behaviour may
help offender treatment and rehab. New
treatments could be developed for personality
disorders that have been identified as risk
factors for criminal behaviour. Genetic tests
could be used to understand diminished
responsibility

Against
Morley and Hall (2003): genes associated with
aggression dont determine higher levels of
aggression. Presence/absence of environmental
influences cant be detected. Caspi et al (2002):
early abuse of male children caused a decrease
in serotonin which may be related to some
antisocial behaviour.
May be due to shared environmental influences
involving the family, where bad parenting and
inappropriate role modelling lead to aggression
instead.
Genes arent the cause: they only increased the
likelihood the behaviour will be displayed
Free will: if aggressive behaviour is genetically
determined then it is difficult to blame the
individual for their behaviour, where it could be
said to be outside their control.
Nature: No consideration of how environment
and nurture increase aggression.
Reductionist: behaviour reduced down to
genetic level
Beta bias: the studies claim that males and
females are affected by genes in the same way.
Effect of culture upon behaviour is not
considered. Data only from western cultures

Adam Clarke www.brain-freeze.co.uk

TOPIC 3 AGGRESSION AS AN ADAPTIVE RESPONSE

Infidelity - Daly and Wilson (1988)
Competition with other males may lead to aggression. Violence originates from mate-retention
strategies which deter the female mate from leaving them because they are required to mate to
pass genes on. These are a means of enhancing reproductive fitness. Males will attempt to prevent
the female sexual autonomy (freedom) by preventing her from interacting with other men.
Buss and Shackelford (1997): mate retention behaviour has been found in married couples where
men may threaten other men. Women may use threats to prevent male infidelity.
Cuckoldry: This is where a female deceives a male into raising another males offspring. The men
that are involved waste their resources on a child that doesnt have their own genes. Behaving
aggressively towards the female allows a sense of security where fear of punishment prevents the
female from mating with other males. Sexual coercion prevents the female mating with other men,
therefore reducing the chances of cuckoldry.

Support
Dobash and Dobash (1984): domestic violence is
a result of sexual jealousy
Wilson et al (1995): men have been found to not
allow women to talk to other men and would
threaten assault if they did.
Camilleri (2004): risk of partners infidelity
predicted likelihood of sexual coercion in men.
Men are likely to be cuckolded.
Shackelford (2006): men who sexually coerced
their partners thought the partner was being
unfaithful (and the partner actually was)
Practical applications: mate retention factors
are indicators of potential violence against a
partner. Counselling can prevent such situations.
Lalumiere et al (2005): to decrease paternity
uncertainty, men have been found to rape
partners.
Thornhill et al (1992): woman resisting sex with
partner signals that they are sexually unfaithful
which increases the males sexual jealousy and
fear of cuckoldry, therefore making them more
aggressive.

Against
Reductionist: behaviour broken down to
evolutionary/biological functions, ignoring
emotions
Nature / Nurture debate: influence of
socialisation related to nurture is not considered
Cultural differences : explanations ignore
cultural variation
Alpha bias: the differences between male and
female aggression may be exaggerated
Self-report methodology of studies: demand
characteristics may be involved

Adam Clarke www.brain-freeze.co.uk

The evolution of murder

Buss and Duntley (2006): Murder can be functional in solving adaptive problems e.g. the prevention
of harm to family and community, the management of reputation and the protection of resources
such as food.
Predisposing factors for murder
Daly and Wilson (1988): there are differences in reasons for murder. Males may murder to kill
sexual rivals and those who challenge their dominance. Females may murder for self-defence.
Age of violence: there is a peak in early 20s for criminals, which is when males are in peak years of
reproductive competition.
Sexual jealousy: Men are mostly both the murder victims and murderers, where they attempt to
murder mostly to prevent infidelity and cuckoldry.
Daly and Wilson (1988): 8 studies of love triangles. 92% of the same sex killings were male on male.
Regions with lack of resources: Wilson and Daly (1985): women are attracted to men with more
resources e.g. money. Lack of resources increases male-male competition and the risk of murder. In
Detroit in the USA where there is a high 11% unemployment rate, 41% of murderers were found to
be unemployed and 43% of victims were also unemployed.
Threats to male status: females seek men who are dominant so men have evolved to seek such
dominance. Murder can be a way of achieving dominance. The countries with more income
inequality have higher murder rates.
Support
Ghiglieri (1999): male lions/cheetahs kill rivals
offspring, which allows the mothers of the dead
children to be available for reproduction again.
Fossey (1984): gorillas have been found to kill
rival male adults.

Against
Hrdy (1999): individuals consciously calculate the
costs and benefits and they regard the future
consequences of different actions. Sometimes
the calculations conclude that murder was the
right means to achieve a particular goal, so a
cognitive approach could be taken instead.
Comparative studies: generalising evidence from
animals may not be appropriate
Reductionist: breaks down murder to its
adaptive biological function, perhaps ignoring
the influence of culture and media.
Nature: no consideration of the effects of
nurture which can result in desire to murder

Adam Clarke www.brain-freeze.co.uk

10

Adaptive explanations for religious/cultural displays of aggression

Glucklich (2001): ritual practises of torture and violence are present worldwide. Examples of selfinflicted violence have been depicted by Shia Muslims where they practise self-flagellation (whipping
themselves). Such displays of violence have evolved to solve a problem that all societies face, that is
the problem of specific individuals that take resources without offering anything in return. Such
individuals are not desirable within a group. Because of this, the displays of violence committed
upon oneself display commitment to the group, making it is less likely they will attempt to abuse the
benefits of the group without offering anything in return.
Religious displays and cooperative gains
Irons (2001): engaging in painful rituals such as self-flagellation signals commitment to a group.
Commitment displays cooperation which is desirable for the group, because cooperation allows
sharing of resources and skills.
Costly signalling to deter free riders
Costs of ritual deters those who may want to join group to take selfish advantage of the benefits.
Zahavi found that harmful rituals also show that the individual is worthy of the society and that they
can endure what lower members cant.

Support
Evolution: intragroup (within group) cooperation
results in increase for intergroup (between
groups) aggression. Roes and Raymond: society
with stricter religious displays have higher levels
of intergroup conflict.
Sosis et al.: meta-analysis of 60 societies.
Frequency of warfare is strongest predictor of
the severity of the societys male ritual displays.
Positive correlation found between ritual and
warfare, where costly male rituals can display
that there is commitment among the males who
have to fight in wars.
Ruffle and Sosis: More obvious displays of
commitment are related to higher levels of
cooperation within a group.
Sosis: Haredi men display religious devotion by
praying whilst wearing uncomfortable clothing

Against
Deterministic: if aggressive ritual behaviour is
evolutionarily/ biologically determined then it is
out of the individuals control.

Reductionist: behaviour is reduced down to its

evolutionary function.

Cultural bias: while interpreting the data from

another country which they are studying,
researchers interpretations are likely to be
influenced by the values of their own culture.
Alpha bias: adaptive explanations exaggerate
aggression differences between males and
females

Adam Clarke www.brain-freeze.co.uk