C82SAD Aggression

1. C82SAD Aggression

2. Aggression • Aggression is prevalent in everyday life • We are regularly exposed to aggressive acts or people, e.g.  graffiti vandalism violent arguments  weapons  belligerent dress • Images of violence and aggression are rife in the media:  rapes  muggings  child abuse  assaults  robberies  terrorism  wars  gang violence  hooliganism  crowd violence • Children are also exposed to violence at school (Lind & Maxwell, 1986) • Jones et al. (1994) conducted UK-wide research on violence and aggression and found that 20% of women felt unsafe when walking although only 0.7% reported being attacked.

3. Prevalence of Aggressive Acts

5. What is Aggression? • There are numerous definitions which vary from physical parameters (e.g., pushing, shoving, striking) to features relating to threatening or hostile acts (e.g., abusive language, facial expressions) • “Behaviour that results in personal injury or destruction of property” (Bandura, 1973) • “Behaviour intended to harm another of the same species” (Scherer et al., 1975) • “Behaviour directed towards the goal of harming or injuring another living being who is motivated to avoid such treatment” (Baron & Byrne, 2000) • “Behaviour directed toward another individual carried out with the proximate intent to cause harm” (Anderson & Huesmann, 2003)

6. What is Aggression? • Definitions have some commonality: “Intent to harm” (Carlson et al., 1989) • Measuring aggression is also challenging – especially if the definition is vague • Means used in previous research to measure aggression: • Punching a inflatable plastic doll (Bandura et al., 1963) • Pushing a button to ostensibly deliver an electric shock (Buss, 1961) • Pencil-and-paper ratings by teachers and classmates of a child’s aggressiveness (Eron, 1982) • Self-report of prior aggressive behaviour (Leyens et al., 1975) • Verbal expression of willingness to use violence (Geen, 1978) • Ethical considerations in level of ‘aggressive acts’ people can be induced to do in experiments • The above measures are an analogue for measuring ‘real’ aggression

7. Theories of Aggression • Psychodynamic Theory (Freud, 1930) • Proposed distinction between ‘death instinct’ (Thanatos) and ‘life instinct’ (Eros) • Thanatos is initially self-directed but as we develop it can be directed toward others • Unifactorial (1-factor) model – aggression build up due to unconscious, primitive conflicts and must be ‘released’ • Neo-Freudians view a more rational but still innate view of aggression – basic to all animal species (Hartmann et al., 1949) • Largely theoretical with little empirical support – limited but a useful ‘starting point’

8. Theories of Aggression • Ethological Theory(Lorenz, 1966; Ardrey, 1966; Morris, 1967) • Ethology: Branch of biology devoted to the study of animal behaviour among members of a species in their natural physical and social and environment • Focused on an innate component to aggression as well as situational stimuli (‘releasers’) • Aggression has a ‘survival value’ • Species are naturally aggressive towards other members of its species so as to maintain an even distribution of members and resources – increased likelihood of survival

9. Theories of Aggression • Ethological Theory (Lorenz, 1966; Ardrey, 1966; Morris, 1967) • No actual violence – aggression is ‘displayed’ ritualistically • A 2-factor theory • Innate propensity to aggress • Situational cues give rise to aggression (or aggressive displays) • Lorenz (1966) mapped this to people (fighting instinct) • But criticism as to the survival value of aggression (e.g., people have no killing appendages) • Also people can kill with ease using weapons – no ‘instinct’

10. Theories of Aggression • Evolutionary Social Psychology(Krebs & Miller, 1985; Cosmides & Tooby, 2005) • Evolutionary social psychology: Biological approach claiming that social behaviour is adaptive and helps the individual, kin, and species to survive • Aggressive behaviour is adaptive in that it has evolved to permit the being to procreate and pass on genes to the next generation • In humans, aggressive acts can increase social and economic advantage – social advantage very important in sexual selection (Darwin’s ‘other’ theory)

11. Theories of Aggression Frustration-Aggression Hypothesis (Dollard et al., 1939) • Aggression the product of an ‘anger response’ to the frustration of goals and desires • Aggression directed to perceived source of frustration • e.g. terrorism might be spawned by chronic and acute frustration over the ineffectiveness of other means (e.g., negotiation) to achieve socio-economic goals • However, limited because frustrating events (e.g., job loss, refereeing decisions, traffic jams) lead to lots of frustration but seldom aggression (Berkowitz, 1993)

12. Theories of Aggression • Excitation Transfer(Zillman, 1979, 1988) • Excitation transfer model: Considers the expression of aggression is a function of 3 factors: • A learned aggressive behaviour • Arousal or excitation from another source • The person’s interpretation of the arousal state – such that an aggressive response seems appropriate • Derived from a ‘drive’ model of emotion • People misinterpret arousal from one situation and it is transferred to another if there is further arousal and an aggressive response has been adopted previously • E.g. a greater tendency to shout or snap at a friend or partner if something else unrelated has annoyed us

13. Theories of Aggression • Excitation Transfer(Zillman, 1979, 1988) Aggression Student works out at gymnasium • High level of excitation: • Heart rate • Blood pressure • Muscle tremor Motorist takes last parking space TIME

14. Theories of Aggression Social Learning Theory (Bandura, 1977, 1997) • Observational learning (imitation and vicarious experience) during childhood may contribute to violent actions • Bobo doll experiments • Bandura et al. (1961): Children watched an adult playing with ‘Bobo doll’ (5-foot inflated plastic doll) • Children exposed to the violent model displayed significantly more aggression toward the doll

15. Theories of Aggression Social Learning Theory (Bandura, 1977, 1997) Source: Bandura & Walter (1963)

16. Theories of Aggression Social Learning Theory (Bandura, 1977, 1997) • Observational learning (imitation and vicarious experience) during childhood may contribute to violent actions (Bobo doll experiments) • Explained the social circumstances under which violent/aggressive acts might arise • Factors include: • Past experience of aggressive behaviour (personal and observed) • Previous ‘success’ with aggressive behaviours in terms of fulfilling personal goals • The expected pattern of reinforcement of aggression – rewarded or punished? • Psychological (e.g., personality), personal (e.g., verbal encouragement), and environmental (e.g., presence of significant others) factors • More comprehensive than frustration-aggression because it charts the development and conditions under which aggression occurs

17. Factors Influencing Aggression Type A Personality and ADHD • Type A personality is a behaviour pattern • Carver and Glass (1978) found Type A people to act more aggressively toward people perceived to be competitive • Type A people have also been found to experience more conflict with peers and subordinates but not superiors (Baron, 1989) • ADHD is a syndrome that includes poor attention span, hyperactivity and poor attention control • ADHD is predictive of aggression in children and adults (Hinshaw, 1987) • Solutions lie in pharmacological control through medication

18. Factors Influencing Aggression Direct Provocation • Research has shown that verbal and physical provocation results in people behaving aggressively (Geen, 1968) e.g., street fights, brawls in bars or sports grounds • Reciprocity principle: tendency to strike back if provoked – mutual aggression (also in ‘attraction’) • Age is a moderating influence on the link between provocation and aggression (Eagly & Steffenm 1986) • Aggression in retaliation to provocation may be seen as self-defense and therefore adaptive

19. Factors Influencing Aggression Gender and Socialisation • Men are more likely to engage in aggressive behaviour (Wrangham & Peterson, 1996) • Men are also more likely to display aggressive attitudes and beliefs (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993) • This may be due to: • Elevated levels of androgens (e.g., testosterone) • Evolutionary benefit to aggression in terms of status and dominance • Socialisation of aggressive tendencies during development

20. Factors Influencing Aggression Gender and Socialisation • Men are more likely to engage in aggressive behaviour (Wrangham & Peterson, 1996) • Men are also more likely to display aggressive attitudes and beliefs (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993) • This may be due to: • Elevated levels of androgens (e.g., testosterone) • Evolutionary benefit to aggression in terms of status and dominance • Socialisation of aggressive tendencies during development

21. Factors Influencing Aggression The Cathartic Hypothesis • Catharsis: The feeling of release after an emotion-expressing experience • Often thought that aggression assists in this process helping express ‘pent-up’ frustration • People need to ‘let off steam’ borne by frustration • Research in the area is inconclusive – some studies has shown catharsis to reduce aggression while others shown it actually increases (Koneçi & Ebbesen, 1976) • Some have suggested that the cathartic hypothesis is little more than a belief (Wann et al., 1999) and research has rejected the hypothesis completely Bushman et al. (1999)

22. Factors Influencing Aggression The Cathartic Hypothesis Angered Not Angered Source: Bushman, Baumeister, and Stack (1999)

23. Factors Influencing Aggression Alcohol • Disinhibition hypothesis of alcohol – detraction from cortical control and increases activity in more ‘primitive’ areas • Strong link between alcohol consumption and aggression (Bushman & Cooper, 1990) • Experimental studies also support this such as Taylor and Sears’ (1988) electric shock study using win-loss scenarios in a reaction time task • Taylor and Sears also provided verbal encouragement from a confederate and found that this interacted with the level of shocks given • Gustafson (1992) provided additional support but used provocation instead • Implications for real life scenarios e.g. goading person into acting aggressively

24. Factors Influencing Aggression Alcohol Alcohol condition Placebo condition Source: Taylor & Sears (1988)

25. Factors Influencing Aggression Disinhibition • A breakdown in the learned controls (social forces) against behaving impulsively or aggressively • Numerous ways in which people become disinhibited and act aggressively • E.g. Deindividuation is one process that might lead to disinhibition through presence of others and lack of identifiability (c.f. nurse and KKK uniform study; Johnson & Downing, 1979) • Examples of deindividuation, disinhibition, and aggression: • My Lai incident in Vietnam war (Hersh, 1970 • Mann’s (1981) study of baiting behaviour by crowds in suicides in 1960’s and 1970’s

26. Factors Influencing Aggression Deindividuation • Night time • Large crowd • Distant from victim • Anonymity • Low concern • for victim Baiting Behaviour Aggression • Irritability • Frustration • Long wait Source: Based on Mann (1981)

27. Situational Factors • Physical environment: Heat and crowding • Research has shown a link between temperature (or hotter than normal conditions) and • Domestic violence (Cohn, 1993) • Violent suicide (Maes et al., 1994 • Collective violence (Carlsmith & Anderson, 1979) • Aggravated assault (Harries & Stadler, 1983) • Motorists honking in traffic! (Kenrick & MacFarlane, 1986) • Aggression and temperature show an inverted-U relationship (Cohn & Rotton, 1997) • But not all violence is related to temperature (e.g., ‘rape’) • Distinction between affective (emotional) and instrumental (means to an end) aggression • Temperature only affects affective aggression (Anderson et al., 1997)

28. -15 -4 7 18 29 41 Situational Factors Source: Cohn & Rotton, 1997

29. Situational Factors • Disadvantaged groups: Relative deprivation (Runciman, 1966) • Cultural variation: Cultural norms and values – cultural norms of violence and aggression vary • Subculture of violence: High level of violence is accepted as the norm (Baumeister & Heatherton, 1996) –defining conditions under which violence is disinihibited • Interactionism: Violence and aggression are never a simple act from one specific cause, it is multifactorial

30. What is Motivation? • Think about ‘motivated’ behaviour: • Eating and drinking • Displaying aggression • Sexual behaviour • What common ‘features’ do these motivated behaviours have?

31. What is Motivation? • Motivation covers all types and categories of human behaviour • Questions regarding the origins, drives and predictors of motivation and behaviour are addressed by many areas of psychology – e.g. biological psychology, social psychology, personality etc. • Motivation is the ‘driving force’ behind volitional behaviour and determines the… • Strength • Direction • Persistence …of behaviour (Geen, 1995)

32. Biological Needs • Biological needs serve the evolutionary purpose of ‘survival’ and are powerful influences on motivation • Organisms have regulatory mechanisms to guide behaviour • Features of a regulatory mechanism: • System variable (what is regulated) • Set point • Detection mechanism • Correctional/regulatory mechanism • Aims to maintain HOMEOSTASIS – ‘drive reduction’ hypothesis • However, drive-reduction is problematic and seems to have flaws – what about investigative behaviour? • Optimal arousal theories – ‘preferable’ level of stimulation necessary to satisfy needs (Yerkes & Dodson, 1928)

33. Psychological Needs • Not all motivated behaviours are directed by HOMEOSTASIS • Sexual behaviour is motivating, but not related to homeostasis • Exploratory behaviour – ‘intrinsic motivation’ when left in new environment is not driven to achieve homeostasis • Rogers (1960), Maslow (1962), and Deci and Ryan (1985) suggest that humans have psychological needs for ‘self-actualization’ or ‘autonomy’ – explains motivated behaviour such as exploratory behaviour and seeking tasks

34. Reinforcement, Reward, and Motivated Behaviour • Reinforcement can determine motivated behaviour • Intermittent reinforcement help maintenance of behaviour • Conditioned reinforcement – motivation is determined by stimuli that are reinforcers e.g. extrinsic: money, status or intrinsic: satisfaction, confidence, enjoyment • Deci and Ryan (1985) persistence is only likely if the reward system is intrinsic

35. Learned Helplessness • If persistent behaviour results in no change in the environment then negative emotion and reduced motivation result • Overmeier and Seligman (1967) experiments with animals • Expectation of success is lowered as the result of continued failure (inability to avoid electric shocks), so persistence decreases– ‘learned helplessness’ • When the situation is structured so that behaviour and outcomes are independent, non-intentionality and maladaptive behaviour are the likely result (Seligman, 1975) • Moderated by personality – some people still try hard, regardless of repeated failure • Lead to research on incompetence and self-efficacy (Bandura, 1977)

36. Cognitive Evaluation Theory: Classic Research on Intrinsic Motivation • Deci (1971, 1972) College students offered money for solving problems, while another group of students just solved the problems without any external reward unpaid students spent more time solving the problems in free time • Lepper, Greene, and Nisbett (1973) effect of extrinsic rewards on children's’ intrinsic interest and motivation

37. Cognitive Evaluation Theory:Classic Research on Intrinsic Motivation • Method • One group of children asked to draw pictures and rewards promised for the best drawing (reward condition) • Another group drew pictures, without the promise of a reward (non - rewarded condition) • Another group drew pictures and given a surprise reward (unexpected reward condition) % time spent drawing

38. Rewards & Intrinsic Motivation • Results suggest that intrinsic motivation is undermined by extrinsic, tangible rewards like money (‘undermining effect’ – Deci and Ryan, 1980) • “When a behaviour is controlled by events such as rewards, the behaviour only tends to persist so long as the controlling events are present” (Deci & Ryan, 1987, p. 1026) • Undermining effect is similar (but not identical) to the overjustification effect • Overjustification effect: rewards make it clear to the actor that the cause of their behaviour is external to themselves – people do the behaviour for the reward rather than the behaviour itself

39. Research on the ‘Undermining Effect’ • Deci, Koestner and Ryan (1999) conducted a research synthesis to examine the effect of rewards in reducing intrinsic motivation • Meta-analysis of 128 studies on effects of rewards on intrinsic motivation • Average ‘effect size’ (d) of undermining effect for different types of rewards: • Engagement-contingent rewards d = -.40 • Completion-contingent rewards d = -.36 • Performance-contingent rewards d = -.28 • Undermining effect very strong across studies – no effect for task non-contingent rewards

40. Mechanisms in CognitiveEvaluation Theory • How the recipient perceives rewards is critical in determining whether their intrinsic motivation will be enhanced or diminished • Rewards that are perceived to control a person’s behaviour (i.e., perceived as emanating outside a person) or suggest that the person is not competent decrease (undermine) intrinsic motivation • This is because they cause a ‘shift’ in the person’s perception of the causality from within the self (internal) to outside the self (external)

41. Mechanisms in CognitiveEvaluation Theory • The reward is said to result in an external locus of causality for the behaviour undermining intrinsic motivation • Rewards that are perceived as emphasising the informational aspect (i.e., perceived as coming from inside the individual) or provide positive feedback that supports competence increase intrinsic motivation • In this case the perceived locus of causality is within the individual