Outline and evaluate one or more social psychological theory of aggression. (24 mark)
Aggression is defined as behaviour that is intended to harm or injure, this is directed towards another living being and can include physical injury. There are two approaches to aggression that I will be discussing in this essay, social learning theory and deinidividuation.
Social Learning Theory (SLT) is defined as learning behaviour that is controlled by environmental influences rather than innate or internal forces. The behaviour shown by individuals during this theory of aggression is often referred to as modelling or observational learning; this is a form of vicarious experience. It is believed that humans are not born as aggressive individuals so the acts of aggression can only be acquired through direct experience and the observation of others.
The behaviourists’ explanation emphasises on reinforcement. This is when certain behaviour is rewarded, encouraging it to be repeated and learned. Aggression that is associated with a reward is likely to be learned.
Bandura et al (The Bobo doll) tested this theory of aggression and found that children who observed a model behaving aggressively towards a doll were likely to carry out the same behaviour when allowed to interact with the doll. His findings found that when left alone with the doll children would even improvise their own aggressive actions towards the doll. This behaviour was more commonly shown when the adult’s aggressive behaviour was rewarded; this supports the claim that rewards influence the likelihood of imitation.
This study can be criticised based on two factorsthe lack of ecological validity and demand characteristics. The children participating in this study may have been aware of what the study required of them, also it is difficult to generalise the findings as the study took place in a lab which makes it unrealistic. In addition it does not take into account real life aggression; as the behaviour inflicted upon the Bobo doll may not apply to other settings and towards other people. The exposure of aggression to children is seen as unethical and morally questionable, due to this hypothesises based on this theory cannot be tested.
Experiments are the only means by which cause and effect can be established. Therefore it can be said that the model did have an effect on the child's subsequent behavior because all variables other than the independent variable are controlled.The experiment can be replicated, as standardized procedures and instructions were used. In fact the study has been replicated with slight changes, such as the use of videos were similar results were found.
Further limitations of the procedure include the laboratory studies as they tend to have low ecological validity. The situation itself involves the child and an adult model, this is a very limited social situation and there is no interaction between the child and the model at any point; certainly the child has no chance to influence the model in any way. Also as they are strangers it is not like normal modelling that takes place within the family. The behavior witnessed during the Bobo doll experiment was only a snap shot but no research was taken to test the long term effects caused by this exposure, the research itself is therefore unethical.
Bandura did believe that aggression reinforced by family members proved to be the most prominent source of modelling. Although there are a number of factors that influence imitative behaviour, the most important being the gender of the role model. Boys are more likely to imitate the behaviour of their fathers and girls that of their mothers. A strength of this study would be the useful applications that can be applied towards other social and cultural settings.
Deindividuation as defined by Festinger is a state of affairs in a group where members do not pay attention to other individuals and each member does not feel as though they are being singled out by each other. As they are in a group they fail to see the consequences of their actions, they now have a group identity and have a new found confidence.
Zimbardo carried out research on anonymity. Female students who wore lab coats and hoods to cover their faces gave twice as much electric shock as participants who wore their own clothes and large name badges. The hood acts as a buffer and hides the student’s identity; this makes them feel less guilty when providing shocks.
Another study carried out by Zimbardo et al is the prison experiment in the basement of Stanford University Psychology department. This is where 24 emotionally stable male participants were recruited. One group assigned as groups and the other prisoners, they became anonymous members of their group. They saw each other as the ‘Us and them’ as the uniform itself removed their personality; they were forced to accept the conditions put upon them. The guards had almost complete control over the prisoner actions, they wore reflective sunglasses in which their identity remained hidden, but power and aggression was firmly asserted. Every guard at some point behaved in an abusive, authoritarian way and enjoyed the control they had.
The sample itself was unrepresentative as it was only made up of young males. The acts of aggression inflicted upon the prisoners are unethical. Cameras were placed during the entirety of the study; did this affect how the guards behaved? Also even though the setting was changed it still took place at Stanford University, where the variables were controlled making the study itself easily replicated. Zimbardo himself took part in the study, as he played the role of ‘governor’ this causes researcher bias as he could have easily influenced what happened; this affects the accuracy of the overall experiment.
Other studies in to deindividuation, include Diener et al’s trick or treat study (TOTS). This tested the effects of disguise, anonymity and group membership on the anti-social behaviour of young ‘trick or treaters’ in Seattle, USA. 27 women gave out sweets to 1000 trick or treaters during halloween; this is a large sample size so results can easily be generalised towards the target population. Some of the children were on their own and others in groups, half were asked for their names and addresses whilst others remained anonymous. Whilst chatting to the children, women had to go answer the phone and so the children were left with the strict instruction to take one sweet each. It was found children were more likely to steal in groups when they were anonymous.
This study can be criticised as only children are used therefore findings cannot be generalised to other age groups. Also is this really the operationalization of aggression, as it tested the stealing of sweets and anti-social behaviour, it did not measure aggression. The act of stealing sweets itself is innocent as children do not tend to harm anyone. The research was carried out in the USA, Seattle therefore research is culturally biased only focuses on American children and those in a particular area.
People may learn behaviour through social learning, but not exhibit it due to social constraints and the fear of punishment. However if given the opportunity later when in a crowd, where they remain anonymous and are deindividuated they may act violently.