Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
11 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Social Learning Theory of aggression Operant conditioning and vicarious reinforcement AO1 |
Operant conditioning suggests that if we are ‘rewarded’' for committing an aggressive act we are more likely to repeat it.
Social Learning Theory (SLT) developed this idea claiming that we just need to observe a role model being rewarded for an aggressive act, we too will imitate this aggression. This is called vicarious reinforcement.
Role models, like celebrities, get our attention and if the memory of their aggressive act is retained the person may imitate their aggression. Imitation is most likely if the child has confidence in their ability to replicate the aggressive act.
|
|
|
Social Learning Theory of aggression Bandura's research AO1 |
Bandura (1986) claimed that a child must be able to form a mental representation of possible rewards or punishments that might arise as a result of their aggression.
Aggression will be demonstrated if expected rewards outweigh expected punishments.
+ Bandura (1961) reported 3-5 year old children exposed to an aggressive role model were more aggressive towards a Bobo doll than children exposed to a non-aggressive role model. Boys showed more physical aggression than girls, but they were equal in the amount of verbal aggression they demonstrated.
|
|
|
Social Learning Theory of aggresssion Strengths AO2 |
+ Bandura's research allows us to scientifically investigate the relationship between role models and aggression + Phillips (1986) noted that the homicide rates in the US increase in the week after a boxing match, suggesting that adults may be as influenced by role models of aggression as the children in Bandura's research were. + SLT can easily explain individual differences in aggression. Some people may be members of subcultures that promote violence, whilst others may not have been exposed to any role models; hence individual differences in aggression may arise.
|
|
|
Social Learning Theory of aggression Drawbacks AO2 |
- Bandura's research cannot be replicated because of ethical restrictions, so we cannot assess if his findings are reliable and valid. - Charlton, Gunter and Hannan (2002) conducted a longitudinal natural experiment into levels of aggression after the introduction of TV on the island of St. Helena in Fiji. No increase in levels of aggression were found, even though the children were exposed to more aggressive role models.
|
|
|
Social Learning Theory of aggression AO2 - IDA |
SLT theory of aggression is very good at explaining cultural differences in aggression. The !Kungsan of the Kalahari demonstrate little to no aggression. When children are aggressive they are distracted and their parents do not demonstrate aggression towards them. Hence they grow up with little opportunity or motivation to be aggressive. |
|
|
Deindividuation AO1 |
Deindividuation occurs when an individual becomes part of a group.
Le Bon believes a ‘collective mind’ takes over when we become part of a crowd – he believed that the combination of anonymity and suggestibility found in a group was ‘contagious’.
The individual may start behaving in a way which is very different to that of their personal values. As a result of loosing their inhibitions, people may behave in a more aggressive manner.
As part of a group there is less fear of being negatively judged by others if you are behaving in a way which is similar to people in the rest of the group.
Deindividuation may be increased by any factor that aids anonymity or suggestibility, such as wearing a uniform or being under the influence of drugs/alcohol.
|
|
|
Deindividuation Zimbardo's research AO1 |
Deindividuation has been used to explain group aggression, such as lynchings, hooliganism and genocide, however Zimbardo also notes it can also be used to explain pro-social behaviour. + Zimbardo (1969) – found groups of four female undergraduates who had been ‘deindividuated’ (wore lab coats and pillowcase hoods) shocked a stooge for twice as long as a group of ‘individuated’ female undergraduates who wore their own clothes and a name tag.
|
|
|
Deindividuation AO2 Strengths |
+ Rehm (1987) found that german school children were more aggressive when they wore an orange team uniform then when they wore their own clothes to play handball. |
|
|
Deindividuation AO2 Drawbacks |
- Johnson & Downing (1979) showed how the effects of anonymity derived from a uniform were not sufficient for inducing deindividuation. They found people dressed as KKK members were more aggressive than people dressed as nurses. This suggests that group norms also play a role in if deindividuation occurs. -Postmes & Spears (1988) conducted a metanalysis of 60 deindividuation studies and found insufficient evidence for the claim that disinhibition was more common in large crowds, anonymous settings or reduced self awareness.
|
|
|
Deindividuation AO2 IDA |
Gender bias may exist with deindividuation theory. Cannavale (1970) found that groups of males and groups of females responded differently under deindividuation conditions. All male groups showed aggression whereas all female groups tended to be less aggresive. This indicates that possibly differences in biology or gender socialisation may also influence whether a person becomes deindividuated. |
|
|
Social Psychological theories of aggression CONCLUSION |
SPToA offer a logical and reasonable explanation, in both individual and group aggression, however they are not without their limitations.
Another possible limitation of SPToA is their complete disregard of biological evidence relating to aggression, the evidence for which is also quite impressive. So perhaps it is fair to say that SPToA may explain SOME aggression, if not all. |
