AGGRESSION WEEK 11 CHAPTER 10 HOUSEKEEPING This Week: Week 11  Monday  Chapter 10: Aggression  Wednesday Next Week: Week 12  Monday  Chapter 11: Prejudice, Stereotyping, and Discrimination  Wednesday  Discussion board due before class   We will go over exam #2 in class  Friday  Friday  Quiz #5 due at 11:59 PM  Discussion board due before class Application paper #3 due at 11:59 PM PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR DISCUSSION FROM LAST WEEK CHARLES MANSON & “FAMILY”  Patricia Krenwinkel   Charles Watson   Trouble children Joined a commune led by Manson   A-student, athletic star Susan Atkins and Linda Kasabian (refused to participate but drove the car)   Normal child, in church choir, Catholic college in AL Drugs, free love, scorned conventional society August 1969  Brutal, ritualistic murders of 5 people in a wealthy LA home  Next day joined by cult leader Charles Manson, 2 strangers were murdered in their home  Cult members recalled laughing as they watched the subsequent news reports  Why? WHAT IS AGGRESSION?  Aggression – Any behavior intended to harm another  Three criteria for defining aggression WHAT IS AGGRESSION?  Aggression — any behavior intended to harm another  Three criteria for defining aggression 1) 2) 3) Behavior  Not emotion (i.e., anger)  I.E. a person can feel angry and not act aggressively or act aggressively without being angry Purposeful  Not accidental  I.E. making a comment that was meant to be a joke but hurting someone’s feelings is not aggression Causes harm  Goal is to harm  Aggression is different from assertiveness or playful aggression TYPES OF AGGRESSION  Indirect vs. direct  Emotional vs. instrumental  This distinction is not always clear  Some aggressive acts cab be both emotional and instrumental TYPES OF AGGRESSION  Direct aggression –  Behavior intended to hurt someone via face-to-face confrontation  Physically attacking someone   I.E. hitting, kicking, shoving, etc. Direct verbal insults  I.E. insulting, threatening, etc. TYPES OF AGGRESSION  Indirect aggression –  Behavior intended to hurt someone without face-toface confrontation  I.E. malicious gossip TYPES OF AGGRESSION  Emotional aggression –  Hurtful behavior that stems from angry feelings  Little to no planning  Impulsive/”blind rage” TYPES OF AGGRESSION  Instrumental aggression –  Hurtful behavior in order to accomplish some other goal  Nature of goal not aggressive  Involves planning POP QUIZ: IS IT DIRECT OR INDIRECT?  A schoolyard bully pushing a kid off the slide  DIRECT  An employee badmouthing a coworker behind their back  INDIRECT  A student writing insults about another student on the bathroom wall  INDIRECT  A truck driver flipping “the bird” at another motorist  DIRECT POP QUIZ: IS IT EMOTIONAL OR INSTRUMENTAL?  A guy spreading rumors about another guy to steal his girlfriend  INSTRUMENTAL  A customer yelling at a barista for making the wrong drink  EMOTIONAL  An employee punching the copier machine for printing the wrong documents  EMOTIONAL  A pitcher hitting a batter with the ball to break their concentration  INSTRUMENTAL TYPES OF AGGRESSION  Under cover of night, an irritated tenant deflates the tires on the landlord’s car Direct Emotional Instrumental Indirect TYPES OF AGGRESSION  Under cover of night, an irritated tenant deflates the tires on the landlord’s car Direct Emotional Instrumental Indirect X TYPES OF AGGRESSION  A bank robber shoots a guard who attempts to thwart the robbery Direct Emotional Instrumental Indirect TYPES OF AGGRESSION  A bank robber shoots a guard who attempts to thwart the robbery Direct Emotional Instrumental X Indirect TYPES OF AGGRESSION  A political candidate launches a smear campaign against a rival candidate to decrease voter attitudes toward the rival candidate Direct Emotional Instrumental Indirect TYPES OF AGGRESSION  A political candidate launches a smear campaign against a rival candidate to decrease voter attitudes toward the rival candidate Direct Indirect Emotional Instrumental X TYPES OF AGGRESSION  An angry husband slaps another man for telling a joke about his wife Direct Emotional Instrumental Indirect TYPES OF AGGRESSION  An angry husband slaps another man for telling a joke about his wife Direct Emotional Instrumental X Indirect TYPES OF AGGRESSION Direct Indirect Emotional An angry husband slaps another man for telling a joke about his wife Under cover of night, an irritated tenant deflates the tires on the landlord’s car Instrumental A bank robber shoots a guard who attempts to thwart the robbery A political candidate launches a smear campaign against a rival candidate to decrease voter attitudes toward the rival candidate WHO’S MORE AGGRESSIVE?  Women or men?  Well, if we look at homicide stats…  Men in the United States, as in all societies, commit most of the homicides.  Maybe these differences are due to sex-role stereotypes?  If so, since the Manson murders, we should see more women committing homicides  Changes in sex role norms since the 1960s have not been followed by a tendency for American women to commit a greater proportion of homicides. Source: Statistics based on Department of Justice, FBI Uniform Crime Reports. 2019 rates: 88% Male WHO’S MORE AGGRESSIVE?  Women or men?  In everyday life there is a shared assumption that women are less aggressive  Early research supported this idea; however…  Depends how aggression is defined and measured  Men use more physical aggression   Fighting, homicide Women use more indirect aggression  Gossip, social rejection, spreading rumors  However, women equally likely as men to use physical aggression on romantic partners  But why are abuse shelters disproportionately filled with women?  Biological differences tend to result in different levels of physical damage – a woman physically attacking a man is less likely to reach the legal definition of violence (Archer, 1994; Strauss, 2012)  Also, likely influences in societal level of acceptability may lead men to not report  Doesn’t take into account retaliation WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF AGGRESSION? EARLY THINKING…  Aggression as a goal in itself  Sigmund Freud’s “death instinct”  An innate drive to end one’s life  Conflicts with “life instincts”  e.g., reproduction, survival  Redirected toward others  Problem  “death instinct” – likely not adaptive (contradicts what is known about Darwin’s Theory of Natural Selection) WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF AGGRESSION? EARLY THINKING…  Aggression as a goal in itself  Konrad Lorenz’s aggressive urges  Humans have an innate urge to attack  Builds up over time like others drives   E.g., hunger, sex Needs to be released  Catharsis-Aggression Theory  Catharsis – discharge of aggressive impulses  Direct or indirect (displacement) release provides physiological relief  Displacement – indirect expression of an aggressive impulse away from the person or animal that elicited it Alfred Hitchcock, “One of the television’s greatest contributions is that it brought murder back into the home where it belongs. Seeing a murder on television can be good therapy. It can help work off one’s antagonism.”  Problem:  Research suggests that catharsis increases aggression  Acting aggressively increases the likelihood of aggressive behaviors later WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF AGGRESSION?  Aggression and adaptive goals  Evolutionary perspective  Humans are not “programmed” to be blindly aggressive  Aggression useful in dire survival situations   E.g., defending self/territory/resources, protecting young Blind aggression is maladaptive  Aggression always involves risk (e.g., retaliation)  Likely not a goal in itself  Rather, serves other goals… GOALS OF AGGRESSION 1) Coping with frustration and negative feelings (annoyance) 2) Gaining material and social rewards 3) Gaining and maintaining status 4) Protecting oneself or others GOALS OF AGGRESSION 1) Coping with frustration/negative feelings 2) Gaining material and social rewards 3) Gaining/maintaining status 4) Protecting oneself or others COPING WITH FRUSTRATION/NEGATIVE FEELINGS  Aggression resulting from unpleasant experiences or personal tendencies:  Annoyances (e.g., heat, pain)  Frustration (e.g., economic hardship, unfavorable circumstance)  Personality (e.g., chronic irritability, Type A personality) THE FRUSTRATION-AGGRESSION HYPOTHESIS  Dollard et al. (1939)  The Frustration-Aggression Hypothesis – Aggression is an automatic response to frustration (i.e., blocking of goal-directed behavior)  Two tenets of this theory 1) Aggression always stems from some frustrating experience 2) Frustration will always lead to some aggressive behavior  Limitations of F-A Hypothesis:  Not all aggressive acts follow from frustration   e.g., instrumental aggression Frustration doesn’t always lead to aggression  self-control, justified behavior THE (REFORMULATED) FRUSTRATION-AGGRESSION HYPOTHESIS  Berkowitz (1989)  The Reformulated Frustration-Aggression Hypothesis   Any unpleasant experiences can lead to aggression  As long as it results in negative feelings  Frustration just one initiator of negative feelings  Frustration is only linked to emotional aggression Implications  Could depend on internal (individual) or external (situational) factors AGGRESSION INDUCING EXPERIENCES 1) General arousal  Person factors including chronic irritability and the Type A personality 2) Unpleasant situations/experiences  Pain  Heat  Poverty UNPLEASANT SITUATIONS  Pain  Strong negative emotion  Impulsive reaction—to avoid/eliminate source  Berkowitz and colleagues—main findings  Reluctance to harm weakens when people experience pain  Cold-pressor paradigm – hand immersed in ice-cold water  Work-solution evaluation study   Participants who were “supervisors” and had their hand in cold water gave more shocks and fewer rewards to the student Stimuli associated with pain can elicit aggression (classical conditioning) UNPLEASANT SITUATIONS  Heat   Aggressive/violent behavior more likely during hot weather  Assaults, domestic violence, rapes, murders, riots  Even aggressive pitching ———————————>  Manson Family murders were committed during a heat wave Alternative explanations:   More people are out during pleasant weather  Ok, decreases at extreme temps  Within-city increase in aggressive crimes (vs. non-aggr.)  Crime doesn’t increase at more pleasant temps Hot weather decreases accuracy  Effect stands when controlling for inaccuracy  Mis-targeting would be random  Heat → increased retaliatory pitches UNPLEASANT SITUATIONS  Poverty   Downturns in economy/personal finances associated with more aggressive behavior  Unemployment → relationship strain (fighting, insulting one another)  Odds of using violence 6x higher among people who recently lost their job  Income inequality associated with increased homicide rates Very difficult to study aggression  Small baseline population  People don’t want to admit to using aggression—  social desirability AGGRESSION-INDUCING EXPERIENCES  What other experiences might induce aggression?  The science behind being “hangry”  https://www.nbcnews.com/better/popculture/science-behind-being-hangryncna887806 PERSON FACTORS OF AGGRESSION  General arousal  Excitation-transfer theory (Zillman, 1983)   Physiological responses associated with an emotional event can transfer from one emotional state to another The emotional reaction of anger produces the same symptoms that one fees during any arousing emotional state (e.g., increased heart rate, sweaty palms, increased blood pressure, etc.)  Cantor, Zillmann, & Einseidel, 1978  Women were first annoyed by a confederate  Either watched a nonviolent control film or nonviolent erotica   Watch an erotic film  Increased heart rate, elevated blood pressure, sweating When given the chance to retaliate against the confederate, the erotica watchers did so more  Step on a lego   More likely to yell at little Billy Transfer of arousal PERSON FACTORS OF AGGRESSION  Personality  Type B behavior pattern – laid back  Type A behavior pattern – pattern of behavior associated with higher risk of coronary disease  Characterized by…  Competitive/self-critical  Time urgency  Anger/hostility – strongest link with heart disease  More conflicts with coworkers  More likely to drive aggressively/carelessly INTERACTION MODELS OF AGGRESSION  Cognitive-neoassociation theory – Unpleasant situation triggers internal events 1) Unpleasant experience creates negative feelings 2) Activates other negative experiences  Assumes that negative memories are stored in an interconnected web of ideas, images, and feelings and that when one is activated so are others  Activation of angry or fearful associations depends on person-situation interaction   Same situation but different person can lead to different activations  Different situations but same person can lead to different activations  Interaction matters Situation: Presence of aggression-flavored objects enhances hostility TRADITIONAL WEAPONS EFFECT  Weapons Effect – Tendency for weapons (e.g., guns, knives, to enhance aggressive thoughts and feelings  Students listed ideas to improve a celebrity’s public image  Received feedback from another student  1 shock – good feedback (rewarding)  7 shocks – bad feedback (annoying)  Chance to return shocks  Items in the room for “another experiment”  No weapon—2 badminton racquets  Weapon—12-gauge shotgun and .38 caliber revolver  Aggression increased when participants were annoyed by the shocks and in the presence of weapons Berkowitz & LePage, 1967 PERSON-SITUATION INTERACTION: WEAPONS EFFECT  Does a weapon (specifically a gun) activate aggression for everyone?  Research seems to suggest no  Previous experience with guns moderates the weapons priming effect  Participants who either had experience in sport shooting (i.e., hunting or target shooting) or not  Exposed to hunting guns (i.e., guns intended for sport) and assault guns (i.e., guns intended for human violence).  Hunters showed less activation of aggressive thoughts and were less aggressive behaviorally when primed with images of hunting guns compared with assault guns; nonhunters largely did not differentiate between hunting and assault guns  If interested, see Engelhardt & Bartholow (2013) for a review GOALS OF AGGRESSION 1) Coping with frustration/negative feelings 2) Gaining material and social rewards 3) Gaining/maintaining status 4) Protecting oneself or others REWARDING VIOLENCE  Social learning perspective –  Aggression can be learned via  Direct rewards for violent/aggressive behavior  Observing others being rewarded for violent/aggressive behavior  E.G., In Bandura’s Bo Bo Doll Study – children were more likely to mimic the aggressive behavior when the model was rewarded and less likely when the model was punished Where do people see violence rewarded? EFFECTS OF VIOLENT MEDIA  Glamorized violence in the media  Ultra-violent acts often rewarded with sex, money, status, vengeance, etc.  But does watching violent media lead to violent behavior?   Correlational studies suggest a relationship  But causality can’t be interpreted  Alternative explanation: More aggressive people consume more violent media Experimental studies offer causal explanation  But findings are mixed EFFECTS OF VIOLENT MEDIA Results if No Chance Factors More Typical Results Operated  Meta-analysis paints a clearer picture   Meta-analysis is a statistical technique for combining data across multiple studies  Single study can be unreliable  Random error cancels out across multiple studies Average correlation between watching violent TV and aggression: r = .30 Violent Media Nonviolent Media Violent Media Nonviolent Media 10 7 5 10 10 7 7 9 10 7 10 7 10 7 8 8 10 7 12 13 10 7 9 6 10 7 15 7  Same as r between smoking and cancer 10 7 11 1  Not everyone who watching violent media will become aggressive 10 7 10 5 10 7 13 4 (Average) 10 7 10 7 EFFECTS OF VIOLENT MEDIA  Violent video games  Similar effect as violent TV   Violent video games positively correlated with record of aggressive behavior Experimental studies:  Violent (vs. non-violent) video games → aggressive thoughts/feeling  Degree of violence in video games → arousal and aggression  Meta-analysis shows reliable effect  Same as r between condom use and HIV  Chronic exposure → desensitization to violence  When video game characters are sex-stereotyped, men report more tolerance of sexual harassment (Dill et al., 2008), Bartholow, Sestir, &Davis (2005) EFFECTS OF VIOLENT MEDIA  Violent pornography  Does viewing pornography increase men’s aggression toward women?    Might depend on the type of pornography  Violent pornography → more hostility towards women  Non-violent pornography → less hostility towards women  Some studies suggest that violent pornography may lead to less sympathy for a rape victim (Mullin & Linz, 1995) and delivering more electric shocks to a woman (Donnerstein & Berkowitz, 1981) Also depends on the person  Those who view high volumes of violent pornography  Those who exhibit risk factors of violence towards women Combination of correlational and experimental data suggest a relationship between viewing violent pornography and later aggression towards women PERSON FACTORS THAT MAY IMPACT AGGRESSION  Psychopathology  Characterized by a lack of empathy, grandiose self-worth, and insensitivity to punishment  Empathy  Intoxication  Alcohol can remove behavior restraints GOALS OF AGGRESSION 1) Coping with frustration/negative feelings 2) Gaining material and social rewards 3) Gaining/maintaining status 4) Protecting oneself or others AGGRESSION AND SEXUAL SELECTION  Why would men behave aggressively even if they know they’ll be punished?  Because they think it will increase their chances of mating  Sexual selection – characteristics that improve chances of reproduction are more likely to be passed on  Women are highly selective about their sexual partners   They have more to lose (i.e., becoming pregnant and raising a child) – differential parental investment If they’re more choosy, men have more competition  Aggression is a way to beat out competition (demonstrate dominance/strength to females)  Less likely that this manifests in actual violence (aggression may only by an incidental byproduct)  More likely to manifest in competitive behavior and shows of dominance Percentage of same sex homicides across various cultures and time periods SEX AND TESTOSTERONE  Correlational research suggest a link between testosterone and aggression  In boys aged 9 to 11, higher testosterone levels were associated with more aggressive behaviors (Chance et al., 2000)  Prison inmates with high testosterone levels have more confrontations with prison authorities. Additionally, the crimes committed by these high-testosterone prisoners were, on average, more violent (Dabbs et al., 1987, 1991, 1995)  Among 4,462 military veterans, those with high testosterone levels were more likely to have had trouble with the law, to have been violent, and to have an unusually large number of sexual partners (Dabbs & Morris, 1990) CULTURE OF HONOR  Many aggressive acts stem from insults and other petty issues (e.g., bumping into someone)  Manson murders were retaliatory (given the house they picked) but also furthered by the rude interaction he had with the new inhabitant  Damaged status – most common motive for murder  Status invoked homicides depend heavily on broader culture  Southern states and western states in U.S.  Culture of honor – appropriate to use violence to defend honor  Old South – being insulted was justifiable defense for murder  Southern states have higher argument-related homicide rates CULTURE OF HONOR  The “asshole” study (Cohen, Bowdle, Schwarz, & Nisbett, 1996)  Participants filled out a demographic survey  Told to take it to a table down a long narrow hall  Confederate walks out of a door in hall and opens a file cabinet drawer  Participant walks to table and confederate has to push in drawer  Upon returning confederate has to push drawer in again  This time slams it shut, bumps into participant and calls them an “asshole”  Observers (also confederates) rated participant behaviors following incident CULTURE OF HONOR  The “asshole” study (Cohen, Bowdle, Schwarz, & Nisbett, 1996)  Northerners vs. southerners  Ns more likely to find the incident amusing  Ss more likely to be angered by the incident  Ss experienced more arousal/upset (higher cortisol levels)  Ss more likely to think masculine reputation was threatened  Ss more physiologically primed for aggression (increased testosterone)  Ss rated as more dominant STANFORD PRISON STUDY (ZIMBARDO) PRISON STUDY TAKEAWAYS  Similar to the Milgram Obedience Studies  Powerful situations can take normal everyday people and lead them to engage in extreme, inhumane acts  But contrary to Milgram, this was not about obedience to authority, rather about what happens when given authority/status/power  Study was supposed to go for 1-2 weeks but ended on the 6th day  No guard ever came late for his shift, called in sick, left early, or demanded extra pay for overtime work.  People engage in acts to maintain status  People conform to the roles they’ve been assigned  Situations and roles have power GOALS OF AGGRESSION 1) Coping with frustration/negative feelings 2) Gaining material and social rewards 3) Gaining/maintaining status 4) Protecting oneself or others PROTECTING ONESELF OR OTHERS  Individual differences in self-defensive aggression  Defensive attributional style—tendency to notice threats and interpret others’ behaviors as threatening  Characterized by two features 1) A tendency to be overly emotional 2) A tendency to believe that others are threatening  Based on Dodge and colleagues (1990) social-information processing model of aggressive behavior in children  Goal of aggressive children is to strike first  Step 1: Search for threats Kid bumped into me Aggressive children fear being hurt → aggression against perceived threat Step 2: Interpret cues Kid meant to harm me Step 3: Consider response Peaceful/ aggressive response Step 4: Decide response Decide aggression Step 5: Carry out response Engage in aggressive act PROTECTING ONESELF OR OTHERS  Individual differences in self-defensive aggression  Effect/danger ratio—assessment of cost/benefit ratio of aggression  Does the benefit of self-defensive violence outweigh the costs of retaliation?  Helps explain differences in domestic aggression   Abusive men:  Generally bigger, stronger than female partner  Motivated by control  Relatively little risk from retaliation Female victims of abuse:  Motivated by stopping the abuser  Cost of retaliation large compared to benefit of violence  Less risk associated with eliminating the perpetrator all together PROTECTING ONESELF OR OTHERS  Situational influences on aggression   Perceived threats  Provocation from another person  Hostile environments Reduced identifiability  Gender difference in aggression disappears when retaliator is anonymous  Person-situation interaction  Self-defensive aggression can perpetuate violence—self-fulfilling prophecy  1/10 inner-city students reported carrying a gun to school within last 30 days   Increases the chance a gun will be used Home gun-ownership for protection  Gun more likely to be used against friend or family members  Increased likelihood of suicide REDUCING VIOLENCE  Strategies for reducing aggression  Remove rewards for aggression/reward alternatives   Point system for children  Child receives points for appropriate behavior/lost points for inappropriate behavior  Rewarded for earning specified amount of points in a given day Using cognitions to manage anger  Four stages of provocation 1) Prepare for provocation 2) Confront the provocation 3) Cope with arousal and agitation 4) Reflect on the provocation REDUCING VIOLENCE  Strategies for reducing aggression  Remove threats  Identify potential threats (i.e., situations, persons with high likelihood of behaving aggressively)  Curfews for adolescents (teenagers 2.5x’s more likely to be victims of violent crime than adults over 20)  Identify at-risk children (early-age symptoms – find productive outlets and prosocial friends)  Gun control (64% of murders done with a gun)  Owning a gun increases risk of being killed substantially POP QUIZ 1) What are the three criteria for defining aggression  Behavior, purpose, and harm 2) The theory that emphasizes situational cues, negative feelings, and memories as stored in interconnected networks as inputs toward either fight or flight responses is known as the  Cognitive-neoassociation theory 3) The findings that males commit the vast majority of same-sex homicides across cultures and across different time periods support predictions made by the  Sexual selection explanation of aggression 4) Men commit more acts of ____ aggression than women, but women commit more acts of ____ aggression than men.  Direct; indirect 5) Name examples of unpleasant experiences/situations that can cause aggression  Pain, heat, poverty, general arousal etc. 6) The Stanford Prison Study shows how _____ and roles have power to which people will conform  Situations
Purchase answer to see full attachment