Social Psychological Explanation of Aggression

The Social Psychological Definition of Aggression

The social-psychological definition of aggression is that aggression is a physical or psychological behaviour that intends to harm others who don't wish to be harmed (Baron & Richardson, 1994). The social-psychological definition of aggression does not differ inherently from the definition of aggression. Instead, it explores where aggressive behaviours originate from.

Multiple explanations for aggression exist, and one primarily focuses on how we interact socially with our environment and how this ultimately affects our aggressive tendencies.

Each theory explores the social situations and contexts necessary for aggression to occur and uses the ideas to explain a possible root cause for aggression.

Social Psychological Types of Aggression

There are suggested to be three types of aggression: Reactive-expressive (verbal and physical aggression), reactive-inexpressive (hostility and antipathy) and finally, proactive-relational aggression (harming others so much it affects your relationships).

One explanation for these different types of aggression is the frustration-aggression hypothesis, which identifies different levels of anger people go through when being aggressive.

The Frustration-Aggression hypothesis

The frustration-aggression hypothesis argues that anger, violence, and hostility result from being prevented from reaching a goal, creating frustration.

Dolland et al. (1939) developed the frustration-aggression hypothesis and suggested that frustration always leads to aggression, and aggression is always a result of frustration. How aggressive you become because of this frustration depends on how close you were to reaching the goal and what set you back.

The hypothesis consists of the following steps:

1. Being blocked from completing a goal.
2. Starting to feel frustrated.
3. An aggressive drive is created.
4. Displaying aggressive behaviour.

This theory relies on catharsis Catharsis is when a repressed, pent-up, or strong emotion is released.

The aggressive behaviour displayed in step four is cathartic because, through aggression, the frustration is satisfied, which reduces the aggressive drive and makes further aggressive behaviour unnecessary.

However, while frustration comes from a source, it may not be possible to direct the aggressive behaviour to the source, which is known as displacement. In such cases, aggression may be deflected to other innocent sources.

Displacement could occur for several reasons:

1. The source of frustration may be abstract, e.g. the government, economic situation, institution, etc.

2. The source may be too powerful, and acting aggressively towards it could result in severe punishment, inducing fear of punishment.

3. The source may be unavailable or absent at the time.

Fig. 2 - How might the social-psychological explanations for aggression explain yelling?

Social Psychological Causes of Aggression

Bandura (1965) investigated the social learning theory. Bandura theorised human behaviour could be 'learned' through observation. He proposed that observed behaviour can inform people's ideas of what to do or how to react when put in a given situation through imitation.

Bandura studied groups of young boys and girls to determine whether he could demonstrate imitation. Bandura hypothesised that children, who see most adults as role models, would imitate their behaviour in a situation if they observed it first.

Bandura prepared a room with a Bobo doll to test this hypothesis, had two sets of adults who would be either aggressive or kind to the doll, and had the children observe this behaviour.

Bandura's finding suggested imitation was taking place due to the observation of role models. This was further supported by the observation of greater behavioural changes when the role models were of the same sex as the child observers, as young boys may see a man as more like them and thus more of an example of how they should act.

Bandura concluded that behaviour imitation is an explanation for aggressive behaviour.

Deindividuation Explanation of Aggression

Deindividuation is when someone's behaviour is heavily influenced by the behaviour and norms of a larger group that they are a part of. As a result, people's perceptions of responsibility change. They stop seeing themselves as individual moral agents but rather as part of a collective, with the norms of that group dictating their behaviour. Festinger et al. (1952) introduced the term deindividuation.

LeBon (1895) used deindividuation to explain crown behaviour, stating that when we are in a crowd, the restraint placed on us by social norms is lifted because we are no longer identifiable. Then, the responsibility we feel for our actions also decreases and gets shared among the crowd, so there is also less personal guilt when one acts aggressively towards others whilst being part of a crowd.

Zimbardo (1969) supported the theory of individuation and put forward two types of behaviour:

Several things encourage deindividuated behaviour, and Zimbardo stressed the main factor being anonymity, e.g., uniforms, masks, drugs, darkness, disguises, etc. Because of the consequences of anonymity, there is less self-awareness, which leads to a higher chance of aggressive acts being committed.

There are two types of self-awareness:

• Private self-awareness: Focus on the self and how we think and behave. The way we focus on our own behaviour reduces when part of a crowd since we start to focus on the events around us instead. We become less thoughtful, evaluative and self-critical.
• Public self-awareness: Focus on how we present ourselves to others. The way we focus on others' opinions and judgements of our actions also reduce when we're part of a crowd since anonymity is present. If we can't be identified, we can't be judged for our actions.

Fig. 3 - People behave differently in crowds where there is a sense of anonymity.

Evaluation of Social Psychological Theories of Aggression

Although the social psychological theories of aggression have merit, we need to evaluate them to understand their claims' reliability and validity fully. Each theory has its own strengths and weaknesses.

Evaluation of the Frustration-Aggression Hypothesis

Let's consider some of the strengths and weaknesses of the frustration-aggression hypothesis.

Strengths

Research supports the frustration-aggression hypothesis. Green (1986) conducted a study with male university students and gave them a jigsaw to complete, but three different types of conditions created frustration:

1. Solving the jigsaw was impossible.

2. A confederate made them run out of time.

3. A confederate insulted them whilst they did the jigsaw.

In the second part of the study, they were taken to another room where they had to give electric shocks to a confederate when they made mistakes on a task. The participants who gave the most shocks were the ones who confederates insulted, the ones who ran out of time, and the ones with the impossible jigsaw.

All three frustrated groups overall gave greater shocks than the control group.

Weaknesses

There are methodological issues with some of the research that the frustration-aggression hypothesis relies on, e.g., Green (1968) used all male participants. Hence, it is hard to generalise findings to females or older people, which reduces the study's validity. There is also research that provides evidence against the Frustration-Aggression Hypothesis.

Bushman's (2002) research suggested that aggression isn't always cathartic:

Regarding aggressive behaviour, individual differences exist between people in how they act when they get angry or frustrated. Some people may cry, while others might leave the scene/situation, and some may try to meditate rather than lash out with aggressive behaviour. This shows that the frustration-aggression hypothesis isn't a full explanation of aggression and that its proposition that frustration always causes aggression is incorrect.

Evaluation of the Social Learning Theory Explanation of Aggression

Let's consider some of the strengths and weaknesses of the social learning theory explanation of aggression.

Strengths

Bandura's study was repeated multiple times, which makes its results reliable. Bandura's study used a large sample size, which makes results easier to generalise to the population.

Phillips (1986)'s study supported Bandura's study. Rates of homicide increased up to a week after a boxing match was shown on TV. This finding shows us the violence people witnessed influenced their behaviour.

Weaknesses

Most of Bandura's research was done on especially suggestible children. As a result, we might be unable to extrapolate his results to the adult population. It may be unethical to put children in a situation that deliberately primes them to act aggressively. Their imitation of the adult participants is still genuine, along with any reinforcement they receive, which could suggest to them that aggression is desirable.

Some children (and people in general) may be more aggressive than others by nature or careless about following role models, which could mean that Bandura's findings lack validity. Social learning theory relies on the person learning and observing the behaviours in question. Still, some aggressive behaviours are instantaneous reactions to a trigger, suggesting there is some inherent trait of aggression that is not learned, contradicting the social learning theory.

Evaluation of Deindividuation Explanation of Aggression

Let's consider some of the strengths and weaknesses of deindividuation.

Strengths

Research support provides evidence for deindividuation as an explanation of aggression. Deiner et al. (1976) observed American children trick or treating on Halloween.

When children wore masks to people's houses in large groups, they were likelier to engage in anti-social behaviour (stealing sweets and money). This study has high ecological validity since it was an observation that looked at natural behaviour in a natural environment, proving deindividuation can lead to aggressive behaviour in the real world.

Weaknesses

Gergen, Gergen and Barton's (1973) research questions deindividuation as an explanation of aggression. They put six men and six women who were strangers to each other in dark or lit rooms. They found that in the last 15 minutes, people in the darkroom started to get physical, in terms of half of them hugging, some becoming intimate, and 80% admitting feeling arousal since the usual norms of intimacy didn't apply in the darkroom.

Also, the deindividuation theory doesn't account for biological factors that have been proven to play a role in aggression, e.g., the hormone testosterone, the MAOA gene variant, neurotransmitters, etc. So this theory isn't inclusive of all types of aggressive behaviour.