Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
The potential for aggression is biological, but the expression of aggression is learnt.
The social learning theory states that behaviours such as aggression can be learnt through
observation.
If a person observes aggressive behaviour in a model, they may imitate this behaviour.
Imitation is more likely if they identify with or admire the model, or if the model is rewarded
or succeeds. This is vicarious reinforcement.
For social learning to take place, Bandura suggested that a child must form a mental
representation of the event. This includes the possible rewards or punishments for a behaviour.
When a child imitates an aggressive behaviour, the outcome of this behaviour influences the
value of aggression for the child. If they are rewarded, they are likely to repeat the behaviour.
This is maintenance through direct experience.
Children develop self-efficacy, which is confidence in their ability to carry out aggressive
actions. If aggressive behaviours are unsuccessful, they will have a low sense of self-efficacy,
so will not continue the behaviour.
EMPIRICAL SUPPORT Strong support provided by Banduras Bobo doll studies. These
studies focus on children, so we are unable to generalise these results to adults. However,
Philips found that the daily homicide rate in America increased the week after major boxing
matches on TV, suggests social learning does apply to adults.
EXPLAINS OTHER BEHAVIOURS The SLT can be used to explain eating disorders and
personality.
EXPLAINS DIFFERENCES BETWEEN AND WITHIN INDIVIDUALS SLT can
explain differences between individuals, e.g. cultural differences. Some societies, e.g. the US,
are highly violent, and others, e.g. pygmies in Central Africa, live in cooperative friendliness.
Differences with individuals can be explained by selective reinforcement and contextdependent learning, which is when people have observed aggressive behaviour rewarded in
one situation and not in another.
NOT A COMPLETE EXPLANATION OF AGGRESSION SLT is not a complete
explanation of aggression because it cant explain the impulse to aggress. Even after watching
an aggressive model, you will only behave aggressively if you are frustrated.
REDUCTIONIST ignores biological factors, for example testosterone levels. However,
such variation between cultures shows that social factors are more important. For example,
Aronson found that when a certain area of the brain is stimulated in monkeys, a docile
monkey will become aggressive, but this doesnt occur if dominant monkeys are present.
Bandura et al.
Boys and girls aged 3-5 years
2 groups 1 exposed to aggressive models interacting with a Bobo doll, 1 group
exposed to models who were non-aggressive to Bobo doll.
Aggressive model showed physically aggressive acts, e.g. hitting the doll with a
mallet or kicking it, and verbal aggression.
Children then frustrated by being shown toys but not being allowed to play with
them. Then taken to a room with a Bobo doll and other toys.
Children who observed the aggressive model reproduced many of the physical and
verbal behaviours of the model. Those in non-aggression and control groups showed
virtually no aggression.
2.
3.
Investigated why a child would reproduce these behaviours in the absence of the
model.
Children in three groups and each shown a film of an adult model behaving
aggressively to a Bobo doll. In each film the behaviour had a different outcome
reward, punishment or no consequences.
Those who had seen the model rewarded imitated a high-level of aggressive acts.
Those who saw the model punished showed a low-level of aggression, and those who
saw no-consequences were in between these two levels.
Bandura concluded that children learn about the likely consequences of behaviours
and adjust their behaviour accordingly. He called this vicarious learning.
Bandura
To investigate if punishment prevented learning or if it prevented performance of
behaviour, Bandura repeated the study and offered all children rewards for imitating
the model. All groups imitated a similar number of behaviours, showing punishment
affects performance not learning.
COMMENTARY
CONCLUSIONS
Bandura et al. showed that children do learn and imitate specific aggressive
behaviours from observing a model.
Bandura showed that subsequent behaviour is based on selective reinforcement.
Aggressive behaviour is more likely if it is rewarded and less likely if it is punished.
Bandura showed that learning takes place regardless of reinforcements. However,
production of these behaviours is influenced by selective reinforcement.
These studies demonstrate the importance of frustration in aggressive behaviour.
importance of reduced private self-awareness rather than public self-awareness. PrenticeDunn and Rogers suggested that being in a crowd makes people less self-focused, so less able
to regulate their behaviour according to their internalised attitudes and moral standards.
Commentary on deindividuation theory
RESEARCH ON DEINDIVIDUATION
STANFORD PRISION EXPERIMENT
College students were randomly assigned the role of guards or prisoners in a mock
prison. The guards dressed in uniform and wore mirrored sunglasses, causing
anonymity. The prisoners wore smocks and caps and were known only by a number.
The guards behaved cruelly and inhumanely towards the prisoners showing that
deindividuation and anonymity leads to aggression.
Mann used the concept of deindividuation to explain the baiting crowd. Mann
analysed 21 incidents of suicides in American newspapers. He found that in 10 of the
21 cases where a crowd had gathered, baiting had occurred. This was more likely if it
was dark, the crowd was large or they were a long distance from the jumper. Mann
suggested these factors increased individuation.
COMMENTARY
STANFORD PRISON EXPERIMENT
The brutal behaviour of the guards can be explained by perceived social roles. When
asked to play a role, people act how they think they should. Deindividuation
increases their ability to act differently to their person norms and carry out this
expected behaviour.
This is a problem because the study tells us how people behave when acting like
guards, but not about how real guards behave. They may act more on personal norms.
Temperature may be causally linked to other factors, which in turn are causally
linked to aggression.
Cohen and Felsons Routine Activity Theory states that opportunities for
interpersonal aggression increase in summer as people change their routine activity
pattern, e.g. they are more likely to be outside and so come into contact with more
people, and there is an increase in alcohol consumption in summer.
Baron and Bells Negative Affect Escape Theory states that negative affect increases
as the temperature increases, causing aggressive behaviours and escape motives to
increase.
As temperature increases, negative affect increases, causing aggressive behaviour.
When the temperature becomes extremely hot, people attempt escape rather than
behaving aggressively. This results in a curvilinear relationship between temperature
and aggression.
If escape is not possible, aggressive behaviours are displayed.
RESEARCH STUDIES
COMMENTARY ON EXPLANATIONS
DIRECT OR INDIRECT LINK The routine activity theory states that the link
between temperature and aggression is indirect, and is caused by variables such as
spending more time outdoors in summer. This can explain results of naturalistic
studies, for example Andersons, but it doesnt explain research that shows that
temperature alone causes aggression. Baron and Bell put participants in rooms of
different temperatures. Participants were asked to give electric shocks to a
confederate and it was found that as the temperature rose, participants gave more
electric shocks. At extreme temperatures, the number of shocks decreased. This
shows that aggression can be a direct result of temperature.
NEGATIVE AFFECT ESCAPE THEORY In support of the negative affect
escape Baron and Bells study found a curvilinear relationship between temperature
and aggression. At low temperature, negative affect leads to aggression, but at high
temperature, people seek to escape. Field studies have supported this. For example,
Baron and Ransenberger examined US archival records and found that the number of
riots increased as temperature increased up until 85F, and the decreased. However,
Anderson and Anderson found a linear relationship between temperature and
aggressive crime with no decline even at very high temperatures.
BIOLOGICAL EXPLANATIONS In contrast to these explanations, there are
biological explanations. For example, high temperatures cause an increase in
Crowding, the psychological feeling if not having enough space is a potential source
of aggression.
Crowding may create arousal and therefore aggression because it people feel they
have insufficient personal space and a reduced sense of control.
For example, aggression often occurs on the most heavily congested roads.
There are more prison riots when the population density of the prison is higher. This
is linked to deindividuation.
Loo found that there is more aggression in a day nursery, as it got more crowded.
RESEARCH STUDIES
COMMENTARY
OVERALL COMMENTARY
It is hard to conclude the effects of environmental stressors on aggression because the
relationship is hard to study.
Lab studies are unlifelike ad lack ecological validity, but real-life studies have many
uncontrolled variables that can contribute to aggression.
There does however, appear to be evidence of an increase in environmental stressors
being associated with increased aggression up to a certain point. However, it is
unclear if aggression continues to rise as stress increases or if it levels off.
Both crowding and heat lead to physiological arousal, which can cause aggression,
but this depends on your perception of the arousal. Crowds can be uplifting, fun and
exciting, for example at a concert or party.
HUMAN ALTRUISM
ALTRUISM Voluntary helping without thought of cost or reward to yourself.
THE EMPATHY-ALTRUISM HYPOTHESIS: BATSON
Batson et al. used a placebo drug that led participants to interpret their reactions as
either high or low empathy. The participants saw a female confederate (Elaine)
receive electric shocks, and the confederate appeared to become distressed.
Participants had to decide if they would take her place (empathetic concern) or leave
(personal distress). Those in the high-empathy condition usually stayed and those in
the low-empathy condition usually left. This supports the prediction that people high
in empathetic concern are likely to help others and those in low-empathy will choose
to escape if possible.
AO2 The situation was contrived. The participants may not have believed the
experimental set-up. They may have guessed what was being investigated and
therefore behaved in a more socially desirable manner. Participants may have offered
help because they feared social disapproval or feelings of guilt. Therefore they are
acting due to egotistic motives, not altruistic ones. However, Futz found that
participants in high-empathy conditions were not influenced by the possibility of
social evaluation. Oliner and Oliner found that 37% of those who had helped Jews in
the war acted for altruistic reasons.
COMMENTARY
There are studies to support this theory.
However, it is possible that the results can be explained in other ways. Participants
may have helped to avoid public shame because they feel it is the right thing to do.
However, Fultz found that in a person feels low-empathy they seek social approval,
but not if they feel high-empathy. This means seeking social approval cannot
completely explain altruistic behaviour.
The empathetic motivation to help may be biological. Altruism towards relatives may
be an innate natural response to increase the survival of our genes. Research has
shown that genetic closeness and altruistic help are positively correlated, especially
in a life and death situation.
Altruistic motivation due to empathetic concern may be overridden by self-concern.
A study by Batson supports this. The cost of helping was high because participants
were told that the shocks they would receive if they helped would be painful. This led
to egoistic helping even in the participants that said they felt high empathy. This
shows that the high cost of helping stops people focussing on the other person and
made them focus on themselves. Empathy doesnt always lead to altruism.
Cialdini et al. tested the assumption that a negative mood is improved by pro-social
behaviour or rewards. They found that after a transgression, which produced feelings
of guilt, the participants were more likely to behave pro-socially. However, if their
mood was first improved due to praise or a reward of money, the level of pro-social
behaviour was reduced. This supports the belief that people behave pro-socially
because they are attempting to overcome the negative mood that arises due to hurting
another person.
Manucia et al. caused some participants to be in a neutral mood and some to be in a
negative mood by asking them to recall certain memories. Participants were given a
placebo memory drug. Some were told the drug would have no effect on mood,
while others were told it would fix their mood so it wouldnt change throughout the
experiment. Results showed that participants in a negative mood would help only if
they thought helping could improve their mood. Those who were in a neutral state
and thought their mood wouldnt change were least likely to help.
AO2 Lacks external validity lab setting, artificial measures, demand
characteristics, social desirability, student volunteers. Difficult to generalise results to
helping in real-life situations.
COMMENTARY
A02 on research
The meaning of pro-social behaviour is a crucial concept. Helpful behaviour may
have meanings other than providing assistant, i.e. it has instrumental benefits. For
example, it can be a way to establish power. The meaning of helpful acts varies
across cultures.
Lab studies usually show that people are driven by individualist goals and are less
helpful than as found in field studies. It could be that in labs studies, participants
behave as they have been socialized to because they know they are being watched
and evaluated. There is also an absence of the social function of helping that there is
in real life, to create new relationships.
Cultural variation research has difficulties because we cannot be sure that the sample
is representative because subcultures in cultural groups behave differently, so one
sample may not represent the whole culture.
Studies that are conducted in a particular culture mat used methods that were
developed in another culture. This is an imposed etic and causes unjustifiable
conclusions to be made about the participants.
SUBCULTURAL VARIATIONS
GENDER DIFFERENCES
Empathy and Guilt
Eisenberg and Lennon conducted a meta-analysis of 16 studies.
The study found strong, consistent gender differences, with females showing greater
empathy.
Bybee found that females also typically feel greater guilt feelings than males, and
they spend longer thinking about the incident that caused these feelings of guilt.
A meta-analysis of 99 investigations found that men are more likely to intervene in
an emergency. 62% of the studies of a stimulated emergency, males were more
helpful.
Urban-Rural Differences
RESEARCH - Korte and Ayvalioglu investigated differences between people in two
cities and four small towns in Turkey. A variety of methods were used to assess
helpfulness, such as willingness to change money or participate in a short interview.
It was found that helpfulness was higher for people in small towns than for people in
large cities.
INFORMATION OVERLOAD THEORY, MILGRAM People in urban
environments, e.g. large cities, are exposed to excessive environmental stimulation
and are so familiar with emergencies that they treat them as everyday events. To cope
with this high level of stimulation, people screen out events that are not personally
relevant to them. This results in people in urban areas having a more indifferent
attitude to others needs, causing lower levels of pro-social behaviour.
COMMENTARY
Gender Differences
Research has suggested that women display more empathy and guilt, and men are
more likely to intervene in an emergency.
This can be explained by a combination of cultural and biological factors.
The evolutionary approach is that women who tend and befriend in times of need
are more likely to reproduce, leading them to take a nurturing role in a relationship.
Men have evolved a fight or flight response to threatening situations, so they take a
protective role. This is called nurturant versus heroic altruism.
In contrast, men may behave heroically to fit in with male stereotypes that have been
acquired through socialization. It has been found that men may help because the cost
of helping is low and the cost of not helping is high. They are expected to help in an
emergency situation and may be negatively evaluated if they dont. It has also been
found that infant boys are more emotionally responsive than girls, and as this changes
as they get older, this suggests that there are strong cultural influences.
Urban-rural Differences
The Korte and Ayvalioglu study is limited to Turkey, so we may question how valid
the results would be if generalise to other countries. However, a meta-analysis of 65
comparisons between rural and urban populations from all over the world, found
similar results. Whatever the help required, more help was offered in rural areas than
urban areas. The Korte and Ayvalioglu study therefore has ecological validity.
There are other explanations for urban-rural differences, besides Milgrams
information overload theory. For example, it may be due to the fact that urban
societies are industrialised and more competitive, so assertiveness and aggression
are important, and pro-social norms become less important.
Social learning applies to pro-social behaviours in the same way it applies to learning
anti-social behaviours.
People learn by observation how to do something and when it is acceptable. They
may then imitate these behaviours, and the consequences will determine the
likelihood of repeating that behaviour.
Pro-social acts on TV are more likely to represent social norms such as generosity
and helping, than anti-social acts.
Therefore, these pro-social acts are likely to reinforce social norms rather than
contrast with them. We are also more likely to be rewarded for imitating pro-social
behaviours than anti-social behaviours.
Therefore, we would expect that exposure to pro-social behaviour on TV will be
equally or more influential than exposure to anti-social content.
Developmental Factors
COMMENTARY
although many programmes are pro-social, these are not as popular, so children may
not actually be exposed to many pro-social messages from the media.
ACQUISITION OF PRO-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR Research has shown that
children are influenced greatest when they are shown the exact steps of a positive
behaviour, possibly because it is easiest to remember concrete acts than abstract ones.
Learning pro-social norms rather than specific behaviours from the media may be
uncommon, unless a discussion follows the viewing. Johnston and Ettema found that
the largest effects occurred when the programme was shown in a classroom and was
followed by a teacher-led discussion. However, this can have the opposite effect, as
Rubenstein and Sprafkin found when studying adolescents hospitalised due to
psychiatric problems. Post-viewing discussions decreased altruism. This may be
because the adolescents wanted to have a view that was opposite to the adults.
PRO-SOCIAL VERSUS ANTI-SOCIAL EFFECTS Children seem to be better
at generalising from watching aggressive acts than pro-social acts. According to both
theories, both pro- and anti-social programmes would have the same effect, but there
are other differences also. It may be because pro-social models are often not as
attractive to viewers as they may be portrayed as weaker than anti-social models.
Lovelace and Huston suggested that pro-social effects could be achieved by setting
pro-social goals against anti-social ones. However, it seems that mixing of pro- and
anti-social behaviours has a damaging effect on the acquisition of pro-social
behaviour. It was found that children who had watched a conflict resolution were less
cooperative when playing a game than a control group.
DEVELOPMENTAL FACTORS This explanation would suggest that pro-social
programmes would least affect younger children, but the meta-analysis by Mares
found that the weakest effect was with adolescents, and was strongest for primary
school children. It may be unrealistic to expect that the media has any effect on the
development of pro-social behaviours, both because children are not ready to absorb
this information and also because they will probably be more influenced by
experiences at home.
RESEARCH
MARES META-ANALYSIS Mares analysed all available published research on the relationship
between television and pro-social behaviour. The study considered the four main behavioural effects of
pro-social television.
ALTRUISM Studies of the effect of television on pro-social behaviour usually use
explicit modelling of specific behaviours. For example, in one study, children were
rewarded for imitating specific acts they saw on a video. One study found that
children who had watched an episode of Lassie in which a child rescued the dog were
more likely to help puppies in distress than those who saw a neutral programme.
Mares conclude that children who viewed pro-social content would behave more
altruistically than children who had viewed neutral or anti-social content. The effect
size on altruistic behaviours was moderate to large.
SELF-CONTROL In all the studies, the children who were exposed to a model
showing self-control then showed greater self-control in their own behaviour. In a
naturalistic study, 4 year old children watched either a pro-social programme, an
aggressive cartoon or a neutral programme over 4 weeks and it was found that those
who saw the pro-social programme were more persistent and obedient to rules, which
are aspects of self-control. The effect size for self-control was moderate.
POSITIVE INTERACTION In a study by Freidrich and Stein, the childrens play
was observed, and the number of aggressive acts, friendly behaviours, affection etc,
was recorded. Children who had seen a pro-social programme showed more positive
behaviour to each other than those who had seen a neutral programme. The effect
size for self-control was moderate.
ANTI-STEREOTYPING Johnston and Ettema conducted a study in which
children watched a television series that was designed to reduce sex-role stereotypes
over a number of weeks. There was a large reduction in stereotypical attitudes about
gender roles. There were moderate positive effects in studies using counter-
COMMENTARY ON RESEARCH
Mares overall conclusion was that the effects of pro-social programmes is moderate.
An earlier analysis of 230 studies by Hearold had found a much stronger positive
effect. However, Comstock has suggested that this could be because most of the
studies used programmes that were specifically designed to be pro-social. Mares
meta-analysis tended to use real-life television shows, not pro-social programmes
made especially for the study.
ALTRUISM AND POSITIVE INTERACTION A limitation of studies of altruistic
modelling is that they only measure behaviour immediately after viewing the
programmes, so we cant be sure if there are any long-term effects. Also, when
generalized pro-social behaviours are measured, the effects are much less.
SELF-CONTROL The study by Friedrich and Stein showed individual differences.
Children who came from lower socio-economic backgrounds were more cooperative
and friendly after exposure to pro-social programmes than children from higher
socio-economic backgrounds. However, all effects tapered off after 2 weeks,
demonstrating the short-term nature of these effects.
ANTI-STEREOTYPING The concept of anti- or counter-stereotyping is flawed
because it assumes that some stereotypes are better than others. People dont always
agree about which stereotypes are desirable. But using anti-stereotyping presumes
that one person can and should decide which is best. It has also been argued that antistereotyping doesnt work. It was found that stereotyping decreased after children
viewed a commercial featuring women in non-traditional roles, but in contrast, preadolescent boys showed a counter-reaction, showing stronger stereotypes.
AO2 Cumberbach challenges this theory by claiming that although people may get
used to violence on screen, they dont necessarily get used to real-life violence.
both pro- and anti-social changes. The two significant changes that were found were
actually decreases in anti-social behaviour scores.
AO2 Another naturalistic study, by Williams, challenges this study. This found that
aggression did increase after the introduction of television. It may be that the
difference in St Helena is that it was a community with a strong sense of identity and
no reason to be aggressive.
Video Games and Aggression A study of 15-16 year olds found a positive
correlation between video game playing and aggressive delinquency. A recent
conclusion stated that exposure to video game violence increases aggressive
behaviour and other aggression related phenomenon. Anderson and Dill surveyed
psychology students and found that those who reported playing more violent video
games engaged in more aggressive behaviour.
AO2 The link between video games and aggression is inconclusive. Most studies
that have shown a link are correlational. Even if there is a definite correlation
between the amount of time spent playing violent video games and aggressive
behaviour, this does not mean video games are the cause of aggressive behaviour.
Studies rarely distinguish between aggressive play and aggressive behaviour.
Observers may confuse mock aggression with real aggression, which can lead to
faulty conclusions, as suggested by Goldstein.