Aggression

• aggression

  various definitions in social psychology (BANDURA, 1973; BARON & BYRNE, 2000; ANDERSON & HUESSMAN, 2003;)

  CARLSON ET AL. (1989) common element = intent to harm

  observable beh intended to harm those who are motivated to avoid harm (BUSHMAN & HUESSMAN, 2010; DEWALL ET AL., 2012)

  violence is a sub-form of aggression that intends to cause severe harm.

  what we see as aggression is influenced by societal norms, cultural norms and the context
• individual and situational factors

  personality

  alcohol

  disinhibition

  deindividuation

  dehumanisation

  crowding
• type A personality

  FRIEDMAN & ROSENMAN (1959) type A vs type B personality

  A = competitive, overachieving, overactive

  • coronary prone personality, a risk factor for vascular disease

  B = relaxed, easy going, quiet

  A more aggressive than B
• type A: support

  CARVER & GLASS (1978) type A more aggressive competitors

  BARON (1989) type A managers more in conflict with peers and employees

  FEN ET AL. (2017) type A linked to increased driving anger
• type A: critique

  outdated research practices

  personality is a dimension, not a category. one cld have type A traits instead of personality

  some other personality traits, e.g. dark triad, linked to higher self-reported aggression (BARLETT & ANDERSON, 2012; KJAERVIK & BUSHMAN, 2021)
• alcohol & aggression

  makes us do things we normally wouldnt do

  effects cortical ctrl, where thinking and other cog functions r carried out

  increases activity in primitive areas (e.g. affecting breathing, heartbeat)

  can reduce activity in regions for decision making

  GIANCOLA ET AL. (2010) alcohol myopia = narrows cues to provocative cues in environment

  (BARTHOLOW ET AL., 2003; BARTHOLOW & HEINZ, 2006) causal link btwn alcohol and aggression
• TAYLOR & SEARS (1988)

  male ppt -> alc or placebo condition

  competitive reaction time task -> slower responding ppt received electric shock from opponent

  told to choose an intensity (reality, all were low)

  confederate would interact w ppt to choose

  no encouragement - mild - strong - no encouragement

  allowed them to look at affect of alcohol and environment
• TAYLOR & SEARS (1988): findings

  show interaction btwn alcohol and social pressure

  alc cond ppt gave more high intensity shocks when pressured and even after pressure was gone
• placebo & priming effects

  BEGUE ET AL. (2009) ppts who thought they consumed alcohol were more aggressive even if it was a placebo. actual alcohol lvls not related to aggression.

  PEDERSEN ET AL. (2014) reading alcohol related words can increase aggression

  BUT

  not everyone who consumes alcohol will behave aggressively -> many other important factors:

  • alcohol outcome expectancies (AOEs) individual belief abt drinking influence drinking beh, can be positive or negative (BECK & HEINZ, 2013)
  • GIANCOLA ET AL. (2011) cues in the environment
• disinhibition

  when ppl disengage from social cues that stop antisocial, immoral or illegal beh

  • can be triggered different factors e.g. alcohol

  the 'online disinhibition effect':

  • ppl say/do things they wouldnt in real life
  • lowers restraint and empathy
  • SULER (2004) outlines 6 factors to explain online disinhibition
• #1 DISSOCIATIVE ANONYMITY

  online beh can be completely anonymous

  • can make ppl behave differently than they wld in real life - develop online identities

  separation of online and offline identities

  a key factor of online disinhibition
• #2 INVISIBILITY

  not feeling seen or heard amplifies online disinhibition effect

  can give courage to do things you normally wouldnt

  online spaces = no eye contact & no f2f visibility
• #3 ASYNCHRONICITY

  emails/words online not always seen immediately -> dont have to deal w ppls immediate response
• #4 SOLIPSISTIC INTROJECTION

  feel like you know ppl online -> feeling anything can be shared/said
• #5 DISSOCIATIVE IMAGINATION

  online world is seen as a game where social rules and norms dont apply
• #6 MINIMISATION OF AUTHORITY

  online environment feels like peer 2 peer rs -> no authority figure may make ppl more willing to speak out and (potentially) misbehave
• deindividuation

  often applied to severe violence

  situational changes that make ppl lose their identity and therefore influence lvl of aggression exhibited

  lowers perceived likelihood of being punished:

  • presence of others (wont be seen)
  • anonymity (wont know who)
  • diffusion of responsibility, DoR (not personally responsible)
  • grp size (greater grp size = greater DoR)
• dehumanisation

  thinking of another person as anonymous, wo thoughts, feelings or emotions

  KTEILY & BRUNEAU (2017) 2 types:

  • blatant dehumanisation - seeing grps as non-human
  • subtle dehumanisation - denying traits associated w humanity

  changes how victim is perceived and denies pain experienced

  long history of its role in violence:

  • psychiatry, prisons WWII mass killings, Rwandan genocide
• Crowd violence

  GUSTAVE LE BON (1895)

  19th century - century of revolution

  crowd is mindless, violent and irrational

  ppl feel anonymous in corwd situations

  more suggestible to specific behaviours

  idea that crowd behaviour is contagious
• REICHER (1984)

  1980, St Paul's riots, Bristol

  violence against individuals and property

  • violence targeted at symbols of the state e.g. police banks
  • crowd beh not illogical or irrational
  • riot was confined

  suggested rioters had shared social identity which can guide collective behaviour

  crowd acts according to grp norms

  • crowd behaviour more sophisticated than Le Bon suggested
• general aggression model

  personal factors + situational factors

  |

  present internal state (feelings, thoughts, arousal)

  |

  appraisal

  |

  behaviour (thoughtful or impulsive)
• social theories

  frustration aggression hypothesis, social learning theory,

  looks at factors in the environment
• frustration-aggression hypothesis

  DOLLARD ET AL. (1939)

  theory of contextual influence seeking to address lynching murders

  aggression is always caused by frustration

  aggression to source of frustration (retaliatory) or others (displaced)

  criticisms:

  • not clear how frustration leads to aggression
  • frustration doesnt always lead to aggression
  • some forms of aggression not linked to frustration
• social learning theory (SLT)

  behaviour learned from appropriate models

  learning by direct experience or by vicarious experience
• bobo doll experiment

  BANDURA ET AL. (1963)

  4-5 yo children. watched adult play w bobo doll. 4 conditions:

  • live
  • videotape
  • cartoon
  • ctrl

  children who watched aggressive adult in any cond behaved more aggressively later

  live cond was strongest facilitator for modelling aggression

  cartoon and videotape cond also increased imitative aggression

  • shows aggression can be learnt through vicarious experience
• video games & aggression

  APA review (2015) on violent video games and aggression:

  • findings were exaggerated (e.g. FERDUSON ET AL., 2020), however didnt evaluate

  PRZYBYLSKI & WEINSTEIN (2019)

  • UK; 14-15 yo (N = 1004)
  • measured amount of violent video games played in past month and carers assessments of aggressive and prosocial behaviour
  • no rs between playing violent video game and aggressive or prosocial beh
• cultural factors

  different values:

  • peaceful societies, honour systems
  • individualism/collectivism
• lvls of violence vary globally

  murder rate as an indicator of global aggression

  • big difference between cultures and within cultures
• cooperation and competition in peaceful societies

  BONTS (1997)

  examined 25 non violent societies - interpersonal or intragrp

  CHEWONG - MALAY PENNINSULA -> no words for quarrelling, fighting, aggression, warfare

  IFALUK - MICRONESIA -> in 12 months, 1 tiny act of aggression

  AMISH, MENNONITES, HUTTERITES - USE & CANADA -> H never recorded a murder

  KADAR - INDIA -> local police say crime is absent

  JAINS - INDIA -> habitual criminality unknown. competitive and join military
• general themes in peaceful societies

  cooperation and grp success > individual competition and achievements

  children cherished till 3, then ignored

  • teaches them they are not more important than others

  positive interpersonal rs must be re-enforced

  competition associated w aggressiveness and violence

  self-perpetuating, non violence leads to non violence

  re-enforced by rituals emphasising cooperation and individual humanity
• honour systems

  Southern USA has more homicides

  • particularly in males and amongst ppl who know eo

  one possible reason is cultural response to threats against 'honour'

  used to explain regional differences in behaviour
• COHEN ET AL. (1996)

  ppt needed to walk down a narrow hallway

  confederate bumps into them

  looked at ppt behaviour and physiological response

  southern ppt -> higher lvls of aggressiveness and testosterone
• honour systems: why this difference?

  1. historical issues w policing. little law enforcement in south, so necessary to rely on reputation and honour
  2. origin of southern settlers: ppl in south were cattle herders, made them more vulnerable
• cultural values

  HOFSTEDE (1980, 2001)

  individualism/collectivism + uncertainty avoidance + power distance + masculinity/femininity = cultural values

  cultural values are "like underground rivers that run through our veins" LEBARON (2003)
• collectivist

  interdependent, attend others, rely on other and vice versa, obey ingrp authority, distrust outgrp, less distinction btwn ind and grp goals
• indivdualist

  independent, assert the self, exchange rs, links btwn society members week, promote own achievements, ppl want to stand out
• how I-C influence what is justifiable behaviour

  FUJIHARA ET AL. (1999)

  asked japanese, spanish and american students abt past aggressive behaviour. findings:

  • indirect verbal aggression - seen more acceptable in ind cult.
  • direct verbal aggression - seen more justifiable in col cult.
  • physical aggression seen more acceptable in ind cult if done in self defense

  your values can determine what you think is acceptable or aggressive beh
• why have cultures developed this way?

  ind cultures focus on personal desires:

  • self-assertiveness important
  • need to look after yourself

  many col cultures focus on confucianism:

  • emphasise importance of social harmony, avoidance of conflict, and obligation to others
  • aggressive = shameful and socially damaging
  • self-assertiveness = selfish and antisocial
• culture and in/out group dynamics

  culture impacts in and out group treatment:

  • TRIANDIS (1993) col cult more focused on distinctiveness of in and out grps

  nearly all cultures restrict aggression against in grp

  • observed more freq in col cultures
  • both cultures relatively indifferent to out grps

  suggested col cultures display more aggressive beh towards out grp (e.g. BROWN ET AL., 1992)
• FORBES ET AL. (2011)

  312 chinese students and 249 US uni students

  ppt read conflict situation, varied by in and out grp

  ppt then indicated likelihood of 4 responses:

  • conflict reducing
  • verbal aggression
  • physical aggression
  • indirect aggression