Você está na página 1de 10

OUTLINE AND EVALUATE TWO SOCIAL PSYCHOLOICAL THEORIES OF AGGRESSION The first psychological theory of aggression is the social

learning theory. This uses the principles of Banduras Bobo Dolls experiment which involved children observing aggressive and non-aggressive adults and then acting themselves. Those in the aggressive condition displayed aggression whilst the other children showed virtually no aggression. The four conditions which have been found to be effective for social learning are: attention; retention; reproduction; and motivation. For social learning observation is inevitably a key aspect, but Bandura suggests that children learn only by observing models with whom they identify and if the model is in a position of power. Bandura also said that social learning requires children to have mental representations of events in their social environment. A term synonymous with social learning theory is vicarious, or indirect, reinforcement. This is used to describe how a child learns the consequences of aggressive behaviour by observing others being reinforced or punished; through which a child learns what is considered appropriate and effective conduct and whether or not behaviours are worth repeating. There are two conditions on which the production of behaviour depends. First is maintenance through direct experience because a child is more likely to repeat behaviour is they have been rewarded for it previously. Second is self-efficacy expectancy because alongside learning aggressive outcomes children learn the confidence to be aggressive and a child who has failed at aggression in the past is less likely to use aggression. Therefore to be aggressive a child needs a high sense of self-efficacy since having self belief to do something means a larger chance of it being done. Strengths of the social learning theory include the role of vicarious learning since, unlike operant conditioning, social learning theory can explain aggression in the absence of direct reinforcement since at no point were children directly rewarded for any action in Banduras Bobo Doll study. The second strength is that social learning theory can explain individual differences and contextdependent learning. Additionally, social learning has face validity since we can see evidence for the theory. Also, social learning theory has the strength of application since it can explain other antisocial behaviours. Furthermore, social learning theory has many implications since it focused societys attention on the power of the media. Moreover, social learning is supported by cultural differences since there is little aggression among! Kung San of the Kalahan Desert where there is an absence of aggressive models. There is also research support for social learning theory, firstly for the role of punishment since it was found that learning takes place regardless of outcome but production is linked only to reinforcement. Second is applicability to adults since Phillips found that SLT applies to adults too as after a major boxing match daily homicide rates in the US almost always increase. Weaknesses of the social learning theory include the imposed etic since Banduras Bobo Doll study used a Western researcher in a Western country which limits the extent to which its findings can be generalised to other cultures. The second weakness is determinism since social learning theory presents learning to be a passive absorption of behaviour. Another weakness is that social learning theory ignores biological factors. The final weakness is that there is the issue of demand characteristics in Banduras Bobo Doll study since a young girl was heard saying on her way to participate in Banduras research look mum, there is the doll we have to hit. This suggests that Banduras findings may have been affected by factors other than the independent variable, thus having implications for the strength of Banduras findings. The second psychological theory of aggression is deindividuation. Deindividuation theory is based on the classic crowd theory of Gustave Le Bon that in a crowd the combination of anonymity, suggestibility and contagion means that a collective mind takes possession of the individual causing loss of self-control and the individual becomes capable of acting against personal or social norms. Deindividuation itself is therefore a psychological state characterised by lowered self-evaluation or concerns about evaluation by others which leads to behaviour which would normally be inhibited by norms. Deindividuation occurs in groups and contributing factors include anonymity and altered consciousness. The same conditions can increase prosocial behaviours, for example religious gatherings, but the focus of deindividuation theory has been on antisocial behaviour. Research on deindividuation includes research on anonymity. For example, in one study females gave electric shocks to aid learning and in the deindividuated condition (hoods and no names given) the participants shocked the learners for twice as long as the individuated condition showing that anonymity increases aggression. Also, in a game of handball the players in uniform played more consistently and more aggressively than those in everyday clothes showing that a uniform that gives

anonymity increases aggression. Research also focuses on the faceless crowd since it has been found that the bigger the mob, the more savage the killing and also that when a crowd watching a potential suicide jump is deindividuated baiting is more likely to occur. An alternate theory is that reduced self-awareness and not anonymity leads to deindividuation because if an individual submerges themselves in a group they may lose focus becoming less privately self-aware and therefore less able to regulate their own behaviour. Commentary on deindividuation includes the importance of local group norms since rather than deindividuation automatically increasing the incidence of aggression, any behaviour produced could be a product of local group norms. For example, when Zimbardos prison experiment was repeated but the participants were made anonymous, those dressed as Ku Klux Klansmen felt that aggressive behaviour was more appropriate than those dressed as nurses. Second is the lack of support for deindividuation since a study found that disinhibition and antisocial behaviour arent more common in large groups and anonymous settings. Neither was there much evidence that deindividuation is associated with reduced self-awareness, or that reduced self-awareness increases disinhibition of aggressive behaviour. The third piece of commentary is on prosocial consequences of deindividuation since it was found that deindividuation can lead to anti or prosocial behaviour depending on situational factors. When prosocial environment cues were present, deindividuated participants were more altruistic and less antisocial than the control group. Deindividuations desirable effects can be found through seeking help with mental health problems under deindividuated chatrooms compared to individuated appointments with health professionals. Another piece of commentary is gender differences since males are more likely to be aggressive when deindividuated. The final piece of commentary is the existence of cultural differences since it has been found that cultures that change their appearance, for example through the use of war paints, are more brutal in war.

DISCUSS PSYCHOLOGICAL EXPLANATIONS OF TWO OR MORE FORMS OF INSTITUTIONAL AGGRESSION The first psychological explanation of institutional aggression is institutional aggression within groups. The first form of aggression this explains is the origins of institutional aggression, the first factor being interpersonal factors or the importation model. This is because it has been found that prisoners arent blank slates when they enter prison, they bring their own social histories and traits with them which influence their adaption to the prison environment. The second factor is situational factors or the deprivation model because it was found that prisoner or patient aggression is the product of the stressful and oppressive conditions of the institution itself. These conditions include crowding, increasing fear and frustration as well as staff experience. A study found that trainee nurses are more likely to suffer violent assault, and in prisons more experienced officers are less likely to suffer an assault. Commentary on the importation model includes that it has had some support particularly in terms of individual factors such as age and race. For example, a study found that black inmates had higher rates of violent behaviour and drug related misconduct than white inmates, and these findings paralleled American society and so support the importation model. Commentary on the deprivation model includes that there is substantial evidence to support the claim that peer violence is used to relieve the deprivation imposed by institutional cultures such as prison. For example, a study found that overcrowding, lack of privacy and lack of meaningful activity all significantly increase peer violence. However, research is inconsistent as in psychiatric institutions personal space failed to decrease the level of violent incidents among patients. The second form of aggression which can be explained by institutional aggression within groups is hazing. Hazing is a form of institutional bullying based on a tradition of many groups to discipline junior members and maintain a strict pecking order. Initiation rituals can spiral out of control and cause lasting damage. For example, Private Andrei Sychev was so brutally beaten by other soldiers in Russia he required amputation of his legs and genitalia. Much research has attempted to explain why hazing happens and it has been found that social context has a strong influence of peoples willingness to harm others. For example, Zimbardos prison study had to be stopped after six days as the guards had become too viscious towards the prisoners. Another explanation for why hazing occurs is that there are notions that real men need to have physical and mental toughness as well as being obedient to superiors and it is perhaps these perceptions which account for why there are few female hazing deaths. For example, one study found that only three of sixty hazing deaths were women. Commentary on hazing includes research support, firstly that studies have supported the concept of hazing finding that it is also used to establish dominance in institutions other than colleges. For example, in prisons domination of the weak was seen by inmates as essential to maintaining status, with passive behaviour being interpreted as weakness or vulnerability. Hazing commentary also includes problems of definition since many people that are exposed to hazing regard it as innocent fun. For example, a study of American students showed that one in five reported they had experienced behaviours that met the researchers definition of hazing, yet only one in twenty thought that they had been hazed. The second explanation of institutional aggression is between groups. The first form of aggression this can explain is genocide. This first focuses on dehumanisation since humans usually have moral inhibitions about killing others, but this changes if the target group is dehumanised so that its members are seen as worthless animals and therefore arent worthy of moral consideration. For example, in the Rwandan genocide the influential Hutu-controlled radio station encouraged Hutu listeners to murder their Tutsi neighbours by calling the minority Tutsi cockroaches. Genocide focuses secondly on obedience to authority. Milgram said that the Nazi extermination of European Jews is the most extreme instance of immoral acts carried out by thousands of people in the name of obedience. He said this because his study showed people shocked others just in the name of obedience and so this can be applied to WW2.

Commentary on genocide is firstly on the importance of bystanders since doing nothing allows killing to continue and may escalate it by signalling apathy or consent. However, bystander intervention doesnt necessarily end institutional aggression since there is a difference between the effect of intervention on duration and on severity of violence. For example, in international conflict although intervention can shorten a conflict, it may hasten perpetrators to step up their genocidal policy in that period of time. The second piece of commentary is on dehumanisation since evidence for the destructive consequences of dehumanisation can be seen in many conflicts; however it may also explain violence to immigrants. The final piece of commentary is on obedience to authority since Mandel rejects Milgrams claim that obedience to authority explains the Holocaust, he says that Milgrams idea is monocausal and doesnt match historical record since it has been suggested that the main causal factor was a form of anti-Semitism in German people that condoned the war. General commentary on institutional aggression includes that dehumanisation is very difficult to research empirically. The second piece of commentary is that there are ethical issues in studying people who have been subjected to dehumanisation.

DISCUSS THE ROLE OF NEURAL AND HORMONAL MECHANISMS IN HUMAN AGGRESSION Neurotransmitters are chemicals that enable impulses within the brain to be transmitted from one area of the brain to another. Serotonin is thought to reduce aggression by inhibiting responses to emotional stimuli that might otherwise lead to an aggressive response. Low serotonin in the brain has been associated with an increased susceptibility to impulsive behaviour, aggression and even violent suicide. A meta-analysis found that serotonin depletion leads to impulsive behaviour which can cause aggression. The second neurotransmitter is dopamine but the dopamine-aggression link is not as well established as with serotonin. Increases in dopamine activity via amphetamines have been associated with more aggression, and antipsychotics reducing dopamine activity have been shown to reduce aggression in violent delinquents. Commentary on serotonin includes evidence from non-human studies. Support for the importance of serotonin in aggressive behaviour was found in a study of vervet monkeys since individuals fed on diets increasing serotonin in the brain showed lower aggression and vice versa suggesting that aggression can be attributed to serotonin levels. Additionally, selectively bred animals for domestication show a corresponding increase over generations in docile temperaments and concentrations of serotonin. Commentary for serotonin also looks at evidence from antidepressants since if low levels of serotonin are associated with more aggression; drugs which raise serotonin levels should therefore lower aggression. This has been shown to be true since drugs which raise serotonin levels tend to reduce irritability and aggression. Commentary on dopamine includes that although there is inconclusive evidence on the causal role of dopamine in aggression, new research suggests that it might be a consequence instead, for example, a mice study showed a reward pathway in the brain becomes engaged in response to an aggressive event and that dopamine is involved as a positive reinforcer in this pathway. This suggests that individuals will be aggressive since there is a rewarding sensation. Hormonal mechanisms affecting human aggression include testosterone. Testosterone is an androgen thought to influence aggression from young adulthood onwards due to its action on brain areas in controlling aggression. There have been many research studies on the testosteroneaggression link, for example a study which measured salivary testosterone in criminals found that those with high levels had a history of primarily violent crime, whereas those with low levels had committed only non-violent crime. Similar trends have been found in studies on non-prison populations. Another study found that young males who behave aggressively when drunk had higher testosterone levels when drunk than those who didnt act aggressively. A further study showed that male mouse castration reduces aggression but if the mouse is then given testosterone aggression will increase. A weakness of this study is however that the findings are correlational and so we cannot determine causality. Another study found that people who play aggressive sports have higher testosterone levels than players of non-violent sports; this study doesnt however explain individual differences. One study found that after giving men testosterone a frustrating game increased aggressive responses. However the changes were primarily psychological and there were few behavioural effects. Finally, a large meta-analysis established a mean correlation of 0.14 between testosterone and aggression; however methodological problems meant that a correlation of 0.08 was more appropriate. Explanations of the testosterone-aggression link also includes the challenge hypothesis since it was proposed that in monogamous species testosterone levels should only rise in response to social challenges such as male-on-male aggression. In such situations there will be a testosterone surge increasing aggression provided that the threat is deemed relevant to reproductive competition, for example a dispute over a female. The second hormone which appears to have a mediating effect on other aggression related hormones, such as testosterone, is cortisol possibly because it increases anxiety and the likelihood of social withdrawal. High levels of cortisol inhibit testosterone levels and so inhibit aggression. Studies have reported low cortisol levels in violent offenders and violent schoolchildren which suggest that whilst high testosterone is the primary biochemical influence on aggression, low cortisol has an important role in increasing the likelihood of aggressive behaviour. The final group of hormones affecting aggression are female hormones. In the United Kingdom there have been several cases where hormonal fluctuations surrounding pre-menstrual tension have been

used for claims of temporary insanity. For example, in 1979 a murder charge was reduced to manslaughter when PMT was accepted as a contributory factor behind the killing. A study found a positive correlation between levels of androgens in the body and aggressive behaviour in both female and male prisoners. A criticism of this study is that androgen levels werent measured at the time of aggression and so it isnt clear is they were the only variable affecting behaviour. Commentary on the testosterone-aggression link includes that there is inconsistent evidence since some studies have found no link, particularly those comparing testosterone levels of aggressive and less-aggressive individuals. Most studies showing a positive correlation have used small samples of men in prison using either self-report measures of aggression or judgements based solely on the crime committed. Further commentary on testosterone includes that the research needs to distinguish between aggression and dominance. Aggression is when there is the intent of inflicting injury whereas dominance if when there is the wish of maintaining status over another. It has been suggested that aggression is just one form of dominance and that in non-humans the influence of testosterone on dominance behaviour might be shown in aggressive behaviour. But in humans the influence of testosterone on dominance is likely to be expressed in more varied and subtle ways. Commentary on the cortisol-aggression link includes support for its moderating effect since a study of boys with behavioural problems found that low cortisol meant earlier antisocial acts and more aggressive symptoms showing that cortisol levels are strongly and inversely related to aggression. General commentary on the neural and hormonal aggression link includes reductionism. This is because whilst the link between biological mechanism and aggression is well established in nonhumans, humans are more complex and therefore biological factors represent an incomplete picture. There is also gender bias to the research since it tends to focus on males despite the fact that studies of females also show an important role for testosterone. There are also ethical issues with socially sensitive research. Finally the research has real world applications, for example gun crime has increased perhaps because there are more guns and they are seen as a threat which increases aggression. Also in a study where males gave a saliva sample and then played with a childs toy or a gun for fifteen minutes and then gave a second sample showed that those who interacted with the gun showed more testosterone and aggression than those who played with the childs toy.

DISCUSS THE ROLE OF GENETIC FACTORS IN HUMAN AGGRESSION Genetic factors in human aggression questions if aggression is inherited, and to determine the answer to this research used a variety of different studies. Firstly, twin studies which have mainly focused on general criminal behaviour, but one of the studies to specifically study aggressive behaviour using adult twin pairs found that nearly 50% of the variance in direct aggressive behaviour could be attributed to genetic factors. Second is adoption studies, for example a study of over 14,000 adoptions in Denmark found that a significant number of adopted boys with criminal convictions had biological parents, especially fathers, with criminal convictions which provides evidence for a genetic effect adoption studies have also shown that the highest rates of criminal violence in adopted children occur when both the biological and adoptive parents have a history of violent crime which is clear evidence of a gene-environment interaction or a mix or nature and nurture. However some adoption studies have found that genetic influences are only significant in cases of property crime, and not in cases of violent crime. Further research into the genetics of aggression look at whether or not there is a gene for aggression. MAOA gene has been associated with aggression and it regulates the metabolism of serotonin in the brain. In the 1980s the males in a Dutch family were found to be particularly aggressive which was later attributed to a defect which led to abnormally low levels of the MAOA gene. Research also looks at gene-environment interaction since researchers have found a variant of MAOA where those with low levels were more likely to grow up and be aggressive but only if they had been maltreated as children. Those with high MAOA who were maltreated and those with low MAOA who werent maltreated didnt display aggression. So it is the interaction between genes and environment that determines aggression. Commentary on whether or not aggression is inherited includes difficulties determining the role of genetic factors since more than one gene usually contributes to a given behaviour. As well as genetic factors there are many environmental influences on aggression and genetic factors may affect which environmental factors have an influence and vice versa. Commentary also includes problems in assessing aggression since a meta-analysis found that genetic factors explained much aggression in parental or self-reports, but those using observational ratings showed much less genetic contribution and many more environmental factors. For example a repeat of Banduras Bobo Doll study using twins found no difference in correlations between monozygotic and dizygotic twin pairs, suggesting that individual differences in aggression were more a product of environmental influences rather than genetic influences. Many studies fail to distinguish between violent and non-violent crime and habitual and one-off crime. Commentary also includes the inheritance of criminal violence since a metaanalysis found only a low to moderate correlation between heredity and crime. Better designed and more recent studies provide less support for the gene-crime hypothesis. A recent review said the data do not suggest a strong role for heredity in violence. Commentary also includes real world applications because if people are predisposed to aggression then genetic engineering or chemical castration remain attractive to many, however this creates many ethical issues. The final piece of commentary for is aggression inherited is the value of animal research since using animals allows experimental manipulation and selective breeding. Further genetic factors in aggressive behaviour include brain dysfunction. Phineas Gage showed that the frontal cortex and frontal lobes is closely connected to the functioning of the amygdala and hypothalamus and is therefore in a good position to influence other brain areas that stimulate aggression. This is paralleled with the finding that individuals with damage to the frontal cortex during infancy are more at risk of aggression. Brain dysfunction looks at the hypothalamus since stimulation of the lateral hypothalamus in cats made them more likely to show predatorial aggression, and stimulation of the medial hypothalamus made viscious attack more likely. It also looks at the amygdala since Amygdalectomies reduced aggression and this has been found by several studies. Also, during electrical stimulation of the amygdala a woman showed increasing aggression and ultimately flung herself at the wall. Further genetic factors in aggressive behaviour include chromosomes. The 47YY kartotype, which is a male with 47 chromosomes instead of 46, has been said to be best hospitalised due to an increased likelihood of aggressive behaviour. However this was said without examination and isnt actually true.

DISCUSS EVOLUTIONARY EXPLANATIONS OF HUMAN AGGRESSION The first evolutionary explanation of human aggression is infidelity and jealousy since it is claimed that men developed strategies to deal with the threat of paternal uncertainty through deterring their partners from infidelity. These strategies are used to prevent cuckoldry and sexual jealousy since men can never be certain that they are the father and so are at risk of cuckoldry which is the reproductive cost on a man for his partners infidelity. The consequences of cuckoldry are that a man may invest his resources in offspring that arent his own. The adaptive functions of sexual jealousy would have been to deter a mate from sexual infidelity to minimise the risk of cuckoldry. Sexual aggression includes mate retention and violence which can be done firstly through direct guarding. By restricting their partners sexual autonomy males can deter rivals from gaining access to their mates. A modern example is vigilance or coming home early to see what a female is doing. Women who answered questionnaires with he is jealous and doesnt want me to talk to other men were twice as likely to have experienced serious violence from their partner. This shows the link between sexual jealousy and aggression. Another method of mate retention is negative inducements since men may also retain their partners by offering threats for any infidelity. Sexual jealousy is the primary cause of violence against women and therefore women perceived by their partners to threaten infidelity are at more risk of violence. This is supported by studies of battered women citing extreme jealousy as the key cause of sexual violence. The final method of mate retention is uxorocide or wife-killing since men can guard their partners infidelity through benefits or costs and those who cannot provide benefits are prone to using violence or threats. Therefore, death of the partner from physical violence may be an unintended outcome of an evolutionary adaption that was designed for control rather than death. For example, a man was freed from killing his wife taking into account his jealous rage after she visited her former sweetheart. Commentary on infidelity and jealousy includes research support for a clear relationship between sexual jealousy, mate-retention strategies by males, and violence towards women has been found since mens use of two broad types of retention techniques was positively correlated with violence scores. Additional research support is that men who suspected that their wives may be unfaithful in the next year gave more punishment which is consistent with evolutionary claims that mate retention strategies are evoked when an adaptive problem is faced. Commentary on infidelity and jealousy also includes practical applications since the findings from studies on this topic can potentially be used to alert friends and family members to danger signs that can lead to future violence. Commentary also includes uxorocide since the claim that uxorocide is the unintended consequence of spousal violence has been challenged since a study found that younger women were at a greater risk of uxorocide regardless of the age of their partner which contradicts evolutionary logic since it shows that men kill their wives when they are most reproductively valuable. The second explanation is the evolution of homicide. Homicide is the most extreme aggression and worldwide statistics show that most of the killers and victims are men. One reason for homicide is lack of resources and inability to attract a long-term mate which appears to increased social competition and male-male homicides. For example a study of Detroit homicides showed that 43% of male victims and 41% of male perpetrators were unemployed, despite that only 11% of men in Detroit were unemployed that year. Additionally, 73 % of male perpetrators and 69% of male victims were unmarried. Another reason for homicide is loss of status since one key motive of male-male homicide is defence of status in peer groups. Since humans evolved in the context of small groups, a loss of status could have been catastrophic for survival and reproduction. Although maladaptive now, these mechanisms continue to operate, triggered by events that would have done so in the past. The final reason for homicide is sexual jealousy since it is a key motivator of same-sex aggression and homicide, with male-male aggression being the most common. For example, eight studies of samesex killings involving love triangles found that 92% were male-male homicides and only 8% were female-female homicides. Commentary on the evolution of homicide includes anti-homicide defences and the costs of homicide. The evolution of these defences increases the costs of homicide since its success rate falls and attempting to kill becomes more dangerous. So selection favours the development of deceptive strategies such as concealment of homicidal intent from victims. Limitations of the evolutionary perspective on homicide include that an evolutionary perspective cant account for why three men confronted with a wifes infidelity will result in a beating, a homicide and getting drunk. Nor can it

explain why some cultures seem to require male violence to attain status, whereas for others aggression leads to reputational damage. General commentary for evolutionary explanations of aggression includes problems with surveys including social desirability bias. Also that there is gender bias in the research since most focus on mate retention strategies by males even though many assaults are by women. Furthermore, there is time bias since relationship expectancies are always changing. Additionally, many studies used animals limiting the extent to which the results can be generalised. Finally, the research doesnt explain adoption because why would someone raise another persons genes. However, perhaps there is some truth in evolutionary explanations since there is seven times more abuse for stepchildren and one hundred times more violent abuse for stepchildren than for biological children.

DISCUSS TWO OR MORE EXPLANATION OF GROUP DISPLAY AS AN ADAPTIVE RESPONSE The first explanation of group display as an adaptive response is lynch mobs. Social transitions and the need for conformity have been cited as the fundamental cause of American lynchings because of the fear of the Negro, and a lynch law was a means of social control. Of the documented lynchings in the late 1800s, nearly three quarters of victims were black it is said that lynch mobs were more active during that period since it was a time of major social transition after the collapse of slavery, where the entire community felt at risk so survival of the group becomes more important. The power threat model is also linked to lynchings since the racist myth of Negroes uncontrollable desire to rape white women was defence of the lynching practice and the threat model of lynch mobs is based on the hypothesis that groups posing a threat to the majority are more likely to be lynched or discriminated against. Commentary on social transitions and the need for conformity includes that groups in which cooperation thrived were also those that flourished which explains why, when a majority group is more at risk as a consequence of social change, individual self-interest would give way to groupinterest. Commentary on the power-threat hypothesis includes evidence from lynchings in Brazil contradicts ideas that the threat of dangerous classes in society was a key factor in lynchings since the percentage of Afro-Brazilians in the community was negatively correlated with lynch-mob violence. The second explanation is religious rituals and the cost-signalling theory. The costs of religious rituals are the critical feature contributing to the success of religion, and natural selection would have favoured their development. Engaging in painful rituals signals commitment to a group and for what it stands and it has been suggested that the significant costs of rituals deter anyone who doesnt believe the teachings but wants to take advantage of the benefits. The adaptive benefit of rituals is to promote and maintain religious cooperation. Commentary on religious rituals includes research support since religious groups tended to impose twice as many costly requirements and their use was positively correlated with the lifespan of the group. This supports the idea that religions which require commitment produce the most committed members, so last the longest. Commentary also includes costs and benefits since the costs of rituals should be related to incentives of group membership since religious institutions provide social insurance. So when benefits are very high, for example during financial crises religions provide help for the needy, higher costs should be incurred to deter fake followers. The final explanation is sports events and xenophobia since natural selection has favoured genes that cause humans to be altruistic to members of their own group but intolerant to outsiders. It was suggested that it is adaptive to exaggerate negative stereotypes about outsiders, as the overperception of threat is less costly than its underperception. From the end of the 1980s extreme right-wing movements were led in Italy and this was most evident in the football terraces in Northern Italy. The chants and banners strengthened the cultural identity of the supporters by highlighting the differences between Northern and Southern Italians. Further evidence is that xenophobia is more evident with national sides than with club sides that are more ethnically diverse. Commentary on sports events and xenophobia includes research support since a link has been found between xenophobic outbursts and crowd violence among Hungarian crowds as racist conduct of extremist supporters led to an increase in general spectator violence. Commentary also includes football violence as a career since an alternative explanation for football violence is that it is a career since being a football hooligan enables young men to gain identity to their peers. General commentary on explanations for group display as an adaptive response includes that lynch mob behaviour can be explained in terms of deindividuation. Commentary also includes evolutionary approach since increased inter-group solidarity may lead to increases in inter-group conflict. Finally there are real world applications since the power of xenophobia to invoke violence has motivated football clubs to take steps to minimise its influence.

Você também pode gostar