aggression

• JAMES PAPEZ + PAUL MACLEAN [NEURAL MECHANISMS]

  linking lambic system to emotional behaviours = most important structure is amygdala (how organism assesses + responds to environmental threats + challenges)
• KATRINA GOSPIC ET AL [ULTIMATUM GAME] 


  lab experiment ; proposer + responder = (proposer offers if accepted then money is split but if rejects then both receive nothing) + ppts (responders) = brain scan; fmri showed when researchers rejected unfair offers (aggressive reaction to a social provocation + fast and heightened response by amygdala
• DENSON ET AL [NEURAL MECHANISMS; SEROTONIN]

  decreased serotonin may well disturb this mechanism reducing self control + leading to increased in impulsive behaviour including aggression
• BERMAN ET AL [SUPPORT NEURAL EXPLANATION;SEROTONIN] 

  drugs that increase serotonin activity also reduce levels of aggression (paroextine- drug enhances serotonin activity); gave less electric shocks
• EMIL COCCARO ET AL [AGAINST NEURAL MECHANISMS]

  patients with psychiatric disorders (features aggression) + activity in OFC; orbifrontal cortex reduced distrusting its impulsive control function + leading to increased aggression = shows other neural structures involved; highly complex
• DOLAN ET AL [HORMONAL MECHANISMS]

  found a positive correlation between testosterone lvls + aggressive behaviours in male offenders in UK maximum security hospitals + impulsively violent behaviour
• CARRE + MEHTAS [AGAINST HORMONAL MECHANISMS]

  dual hormone hypothesis claims high testosterone leads to aggression only when cortisol is low/high + cortisol blocks its influence on aggressive behaviour (combined may be a better predictor)
• EMIL COCCARO ET AL [GENETIC FACTORS]

  studied monozygotic or dizygotic + expect to find greater similarities in MZ of influenced by genetic factors = found concordance rates 50% [MZ] + 19% [DZ] - direct physical assault + 28% [MZ] + 7% [DZ] - verbal aggression 
• SOON RHEE + IRWIN WALDMAN [ADOPTION STUDIES] 

  meta analysis of adoption studies of direct aggression + antisocial behaviour - genetic influences accounted for 41% of variance in aggression 
• BRUNNER ET AL [MAOA GENE]

  28 males; dutch families (repeatedly involved in impulsively aggressive violent criminal behaviours) found had abnormally low levels of MAOA in their brains + low activity version of the MAOA gene (brunner syndrome)
• FRAZZETTO [GENE-ENVIRONMENT INTERACTIONS] 

  found association between higher lvls of anti social aggression + MAOA-L gene variant in adult males; only for those who experiences significant trauma in first 15yrs + who didnt experience trauma had lower lvls (diathesis - stress model)
• VANESSA MERTINS [SUPPORT MAOA GENE]

  males with low activity + high activity variants of the MAOA gene took part in money distrubtuting game + males with MAOA-H; more cooperative + made fewer aggressive moves as opposed to MAOA-L however showed non genetic factors are crucial 
• VASSOS ET AL [AGAINST MAOA GENE]

  meta analysis could find no evidence for association between any single gene ang aggression (very complex)
• GREGORY PETTIT ET AL [ETHOLOGICAL EXPLANATIONS] 

  studied play groups of young human children + observed aggression + played important role in development of some children’s dominance over others (main function is adaptive - naturally selected)
• LORENZ [ETHOLOGICAL AGGRESSION; RITUALISTIC EXPLANTATION]

  fights between animals of the same species produced little actual physical damage; most aggressive encounters consisted of prolonged period of ritualistic signalling = intra species aggressive confrontations end with ritual appeasement displays - acceptance of defeat + inhibit aggressive behaviour 
• STEPHEN LEA [ETHOLOGICAL EXPLANATION = FAP]

  fixed action patterns (6); stereotype, universality, independence of experience, ballistic, singleness of purpose
• TINBERGEN [RESEARCH INTO IRMs + FAPs]

  stickle back (fish) regardless of shape if had red spot would act aggressively + aggressive FAPs unchanging + once triggered the FAP always ran its course to completion without any further stimulus
• BRUNNER ET AL [SUPPORT ETHOLOGICAL EXPLANATIONS] 

  MAOA-L gene closely associated with aggressive behaviour + twin and adoption studies + adaptive behaviour (validity as ethological explanation is genetic)
• RICHARD NISBETT [AGAINST ETHOLOGICAL EXPLANATIONS]

  cultural differences; one type of homocide (result of reactive homocide) was more common amongst white men in southern more than western to become aggressive [difference caused by ‘culture of honour’]
• GOODALL [AGAINST RITUALISTIC]

  during ‘4 yr war’ male chimps from one community killed all members of another group (challenges ethological views that same species aggression has evolved into self limiting + relatively harmless ritual)
• MORTON HUNT [AGAINST FAPs]

  FAPs are greatly influenced by environmental factors + learning experiences (patterns of aggressive behaviour are more flexible than lorenz thought)
• MARGO WILSON + MARTIN DALY [EVOLUTIONARY EXPLANATIONS; MALE RETENTION STRATEGIES] 

  direct guarding + negative inducements (such behaviours are linked to violence) + support research women who agreed with statement ‘he insists on knowing who you are with and where you are at all times’ were 2x more likely to have suffered physical violence at the hands of their partners  
• TONY VOLK ET AL [EVOLUTIONARY EXPLANATIONS; MALE BULLYING]

  argued characteristics associated with bullying behaviours are attractive to females + bullying behaviour naturally selected due to greater reproduction success 
• CAMPBELL [EVOLUTIONARY EXPLANATIONS; FEMALE BULLYING]

  bullying often takes place in relationships + method of controlling partner + secure partners fidelity + continue to provide resources for future offspring (behaviour naturally selected)
• CAMPBELL [AGAINST EVOLUTIONARY EXPLANATIONS] 

  female with offspring is motivated to be less aggressive because such behaviour would not only put her at survival risk but also of the child (+ explain why women would more likely use non aggressive methods to resolve disputes)
• DOLLARD + COLLEAGUES [FRUSTRATION AGGRESSION HYPOTHESIS] 

  frustration always leads to aggression  (aggression is always the result of frustration) -> based on psychodynamic concept of catharsis + believed psychological drive and if our attempt to achieve the goal is blocked by an external factor it leads to aggressive behaviour 
• RUSSELL GREEN [RESEARCH SUPPORT FRUSTRATION AGGRESSION HYPOTHESIS]

  male uni students with task to complete a jigsaw + manipulated in 3 different ways(impossible to solve, ran out of time as confederate was interfering, confederate took to insulting ppts as failed to solve the puzzle) + then had to give electric shock to confederate when made mistake on another task = found insulted ppts gave strongest shocks on average then interfered group then impossible task (all selected higher than control group)
• ANTHONY LEPAGE + LEONARD BERKOWITZ [RESEARCH SUPPORT; ENVIRONMENTAL CUES = WEAPON EFFECTS]

   arranged for student participants to be given electric shock in lab situation, creating anger = frustration + confederates gave shocks but ppts had chance to shock the confederate = number of shocks given depended on presence/absence of weapons in lab (1 condition 2 guns on table next to shock machine) + average number of shocks given in this condition was 6.07 when no guns present 4.67  
• AMY MARCUS- NEWHALL [SUPPORT FRUSTRATION-AGGRESSION HYPOTHESIS]

  meta analysis of 49 studies of displaced aggression + investigated situation in which aggression had to be directed against a target other that the one that caused the frustration = ppts provoked but unable to retaliate directly were significantly more likely to aggress against an innocent party than ppts not provoked 
• BRAD BUSHMAN [AGAINST FRUSTRATION-AGGRESSION HYPOTHESIS] 

  ppts who vented anger repeatedly by hitting punch bag become more angry (doing nothing was more effective in reducing aggression) + many therapists/consellors use this for their clients + questions validity 
• BERKOWITZ REFORMULATION [NEGATIVE AFFECT THEORY]

  argued frustration is just one of many aversive stimuli that create negative feelings so aggressive behaviour is triggered by negative feelings (original frustration-aggression theory was inadequate)
• BANDURA [SLT]

  direct + indirect learning, vicarious reinforcement, mediation all processes + research support BOBO DOLL STUDY + self efficacy
• FRANCOIS POULIN + MICHEL BOIVIN [SUPPORT SLT]

  applied slt to aggressive behaviour boys [9-12] + found most aggressive boys formed friendships with other aggressive boys + gained reinforcement from rewarding approval of the rest of the ‘gang’
• GUSTAVE LE BON [DEINDIVIDUATION]

  explain behaviour of individuals in crowds (constrained by social norms + society where most aggressive behaviour is discouraged + lose sense of individual self identity + responsibility 
• PHILLIP ZIMBARDO [DEINDIVIDUATION LEADS TO AGRESSION]

  distinguished between individuated [rational, normative] + deindividuated [anti normative, disinhibited] behaviour  
• STEVEN PRENTICE-DUNN + RONALD ROGERS [DEINDIVIDUATION; SELF AWARENESS] 

  believed this isn’t due to anonymity directly but consequences of aggression + explain in 2 types of self awareness; private + public
• DAVID DODD [RESEARCH SUPPORT DEINDIVIDUATION]

  psychology teacher who developed classroom excercise to illustrate deindividuation; asked 229 undergrad psych students in 13 classes ‘if you could do anything humanely possible that you wouldn’t be detected or held responsible, what would you do’ + 3 independent rasters = 36% (antisocial behaviour), 26% (criminal acts i.e rob a bank - most common), 9% (proscial behaviour) = link between anonymity, deindividuation and aggressive behaviour.
• KAREN DOUGLAS + CRAIG MCGARTY [SUPPORT DEINDIVIDUATION]

  strong correlation between anonymity + ‘flaming’ + most aggressive msgs sent by those who didnt show their identity (link between anonymity, deindividuation and aggressive behaviour.
• GERGEN ET AL [AGAINST DEINDIVIDUATION] 

  8ppts (deviance in dark study); placed in darkened room for 1hr + told top do whatever but would never see the people again (increased intimacy + when repeated but told would come face to face amount of  intimacy decreased) - all behaviour given to rise aggressive wasn’t one.
• JOHNSON + DOWNING [AGAINST DEINDIVIDUATION]

  female ppts given false electric shocks 1 condition = KKK } masks covering face; more intense shocks , 2 = nurses; more compassionate to victim (pro social) - aggression + pro social behaviour are potential outcomes of deindividuation