A03

• What are the strengths of social learning theory explanation of aggression?

  1. Real-world application
  2. Research support
  3. Cultural differences in socially learnt aggression
• What are the limitations of social learning theory explanation of aggression?

  1. Studies have low external validity
  2. Unable to explain reactive aggression
• Strength = real-world application

  • The American Psychological Association developed the ACT (Raising Safe Kids) program, an early prevention intervention
  • Program is designed to educate caregivers to be positive roles models through a decrease in coercive parenting behaviour, encouraging positive discipline etc.
  • Weymouth and Howe (2011) found that completion of ACT proved successful at improving media violence literacy, positive parenting behaviour, child development knowledge, anger management, prosocial problem solving and discontinuation of physical punishment
• Strength = research support

  • Gee and Leith (2007) analysed penalty records from 200 games of the National Hockey League
  • Found that players born in North America were disproportionally more likely to commit aggressive penalties during play than players born in European countries
  • Hypothesised that players born in North America would have been exposed to greater media representation of aggressive models when young, likely experienced less punishment for their aggressive play and received reinforcement from parents, coaches etc. to readily engage in aggressive tactics compared to other players
• Strength = cultural differences in socially learnt aggression

  • SLT used to explain cultural differences in aggression
  • Among Kung, one of the San peoples who live in the Kalahari Desert, displays of aggression are rare
  • Could be due to their child-rearing practices
  • When children argue and fight, parents don’t reward or punish them, but separate them and divert their attention to other tasks
  • Overt lack of aggressive role models and absence of direct reinforcement of aggression has led to little motivation for Kung children to acquire aggressive behaviours through social learning
• Limitation = studies have low external validity

  • Many studies investigating aggression and social learning rely on experimental research conducted under controlled conditions
  • e.g. Bandura et al.’s (1961) Bobo doll study, has various methodological problems
  • The Bobo doll is not a living creature and doesn’t retaliate when hit as well as it being a toy designed to be struck
  • Raises questions about whether these studies tell us much about the imitation of aggression towards other human beings, who may retaliate
• Limitation = unable to explain reactive aggression

  • Principles of SLT don’t provide sufficient explanation for occurrence of reactive aggression
  • Poulin and Boivin (2000) found that aggressive boys aged between 9 and 12 yrs were much less likely to influence each other‘s reactive aggression outbursts
  • Can likely be understood by the unpredictability of the consequences issued for reactively aggressing,
  • This weakens the reinforcement experienced during observation
  • Reactive aggression may be better understood by ethological or evolutionary explanations, as some aggression may be instinctual