View
216
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
8/17/2019 Unit One Aggression
1/20
P a g e 1
UNIT ONE: SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGICAL THEORIES OF AGGRESSION Social learning theory; ein!i"i!#ation; C#e Aro#$al; Relati"e e%ri"ation&
E'%lanation$ o( in$tit#tional aggre$$ion
Albert Bandura SOCIAL LEARNING THEORY AN
AGGRESSIONLEARNING BY IMITATION OF A ROLE MODEL
Learning Objectives- Yu !ill be able t"
• Apply the social learning theory to learning aggressive behaviour with reference
to research
• Evaluate the theory and methodology
• Discuss issues and debates with reference to the social learning theory.
#cial learning t$er% LT' evolved from operant conditioning. It considers the eect
of observing other people being rewarded – how this shapes our own behaviour.
According to this theory aggressive behaviour can be learned by observing and imitating
the aggressive behaviour of other people.
!"# was proposed by Albert $andura who used the term modelling to e%plain how
humans can very &uic'ly learn speci(c acts of aggression and incorporate them into their
behaviour. )odelling is sometimes referred to as vicarious learning. #he term vicarious
means indirect* we can learn aggression without being directly reinforced for aggressive
behaviour of our own. #his wor's when we observe aggression in other somehow being
rewarded. An e%ample would be if a child observed two of his+peers arguing over a toy. If
one child gains control of the toy through force ,e.g. by hitting the other child- they have
been rewarded for behaving aggressively. #he aggressive behaviour has been vicariously
reinforced for the observer and this may lead to imitation of the aggressive behaviour.
( basic )rcesses * scial learning• Attentin – on the model ,someone similar in age or se% or in a position of power
such as a parent teacher or celebrity- showing the behaviour
• Retentin – remembering the behaviour of the model
• Mtivatin – having a good reason for copying the behaviour
• Re)rductin – copying the behaviour ,if the observer has the con(dence that
they can imitate the behaviour – referred to by $andura as sel*-e+cac%-.
#el*-e+cac% is an important aspect of social learning. If a person believes that
they are capable of carrying out the behaviour which they have observed and
that they are li'ely to achieve the desired result then the aggressive act is more
li'ely to be imitated. #his helps to e%plain individual dierences in behaviour. Italso e%plains why an individual will behaviour aggressively in one situation where
they feel con(dent of success and not in another where the chances of success
are less li'ely. or e%ample a child who is challenged for a toy will not
necessarily retaliate if the aggressor is much bigger than they are but may
choose to use aggression against a smaller child.
#he person being observed ,the model- is also an important factor in social
learning. An individual is more li'ely to be in/uenced by a person with status and
power. #he li'elihood that particular model will be imitated is also increased if
the model is deemed to be similar to the individual in some way – for e%ample
gender. !imilarity helps to increase the sense of self0ecacy. Parents arepowerful role models ,not in what they say so much as in how they behave-.
1
8/17/2019 Unit One Aggression
2/20
P a g e 2
UNIT ONE: SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGICAL THEORIES OF AGGRESSION Social learning theory; ein!i"i!#ation; C#e Aro#$al; Relati"e e%ri"ation&
E'%lanation$ o( in$tit#tional aggre$$ion
3esearch shows that children sub4ected to physical punishment in childhood
often use violence themselves in later life ,$aron and 3ichardson 1556-.
Powerful models may also be presented through the media and much concern
has been e%pressed about the depiction of aggressive models on television in(lms and video games. )odels may have a particularly powerful in/uence if they
are seen to have gained high status or wealth through their aggression.
SOCIAL LEARNING THEORY AN AGGRESSION Evaluatin * scial learning t$er%In the early 1578s $andura and his colleagues conducted a series of e%periments
designed to demonstrate the imitation of aggression. #hey became 'nown as 9#he $obo
Doll !tudies: due to the use of a large in/atable doll in the shape of a s'ittle that sprang
bac' when hit.
$andura and his colleagues carried out many variations of a study using theBb dll. #he conclusion of these studies was that human behaviour is often
shaped by the socio0cultural processes of social learning.
BAND,RA# BOBO DOLL #T,DY . Yu !ill nt be re/uired t describe t$estud% in t$e e0a1
In the original study a total of ;2
child participants were used. #here
were an e&ual number of boys and
girls used. Each child went through
the process individually but too' part
in one of two conditions< they eithersaw an aggressive model or non0
aggressive model. =ithin the
aggressive e%perimental group half
saw a same0se% model interacting
aggressively with the bob doll while
the remainder watched an opposite0
se% model doing the same. #he same
balance was used in the non0
aggressive condition.
#he control group of 26 children wentthrough the same process but did not
see an adult role model interact with
the $obo doll. #he children were
previously rated for their level of
aggressiveness in order to compare
their behaviour before and after the
process. #his enabled them to
establish cause and eect.
Initially the child entered a playroom
with an adult role model and ane%perimenter. #he child played in
one corner while the
adult role model went to
another corner of the
room. #he adult had a
construction set a mallet
and a $obo doll that was > feet tall. #he e%perimenter left and after a
few minutes of playing with the
construction set the aggressive role
model started to hit the $obo doll.
#he role model used both physical
and verbal violence. Physical actions
included hitting the $obo doll
repeatedly with the mallet. ?erbal
comments li'e 9ta'e that $obo: or
9soc'eroo: were also heard by thechild. In the non0aggressive condition
the role model simply ignored the
$obo doll and continued to play with
the construction set.
#en minutes later the e%perimenter
returned. #he role model was as'ed
to leave. #he child was then as'ed to
follow the e%perimenter to another
playroom which contained some
lovely toys. rustration was createdin the child by only giving them a few
2
8/17/2019 Unit One Aggression
3/20
P a g e @
UNIT ONE: SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGICAL THEORIES OF AGGRESSION Social learning theory; ein!i"i!#ation; C#e Aro#$al; Relati"e e%ri"ation&
E'%lanation$ o( in$tit#tional aggre$$ion
minutes in this room before they
were told that these nice toys were
for other children. #he child was then
ta'en to another room with other
toys. In this last room there was a
$obo doll and some aggressive toys
,e.g. a mallet and a dart gun- and
some non0aggressive toys ,e.g.
paper and crayons toy lorries and
cars dolls and a tea set-. !itting
behind a two0way mirror $andura
and his colleagues were able to
observe the children:s behaviour.
#he children who witnessed the
aggressive role model:s behaviour
were far more li'ely to show
aggressive behaviour themselves
and the gender of the role model had
a signi(cant in/uence on whether
the behaviour was imitated. $oysshowed more aggressive behaviour
when the role model was male. or
girls while the same trend was seen
it was less signi(cant. #his might be
partly e%plained by the
generalisation that boys on the
whole are more aggressive than girls.
@
8/17/2019 Unit One Aggression
4/20
SOCIAL LEARNING THEORY AN AGGRESSIONIn variations to his original study $andura showed that rewarding the behaviour
of the model encouraged the imitation of it. #his process is 'nown as vicarious
reinforcement.
$andura:s theory helps us to e%plain why children might copy aggressive
behaviour. #he theory has face validity ,i.e. it is true at on the face of it- through
its e%planation of how the behaviour of role models such as #? personalities and
pop stars can be imitated. is theory has been used to e%plain other types of
behaviour such as deviance and eating disorders as it is li'ely that behaviour
observed in the media is copied by some individuals who are motivated by
certain role models and their behaviour.
owever $andura:s theory li'e most behavioural theories can be accused of
being deterministic as it suggests that a child passively absorbs observed
behaviour and imitates it without logical thought about the implications of it. It
should be considered that in a real life situation the children:s behaviour may
not be &uite as predictable as in the arti(cial situation that $andura created. #he
children may have been responding to demand characteristics as they were
brought to the location of the e%periment everyday 'nowing that they were
ta'ing part in something a bit special. In fact one little boy was heard to tell his
mother in the car par' that this is where you are 9supposed to hit the doll:.
Bhildren generally li'e to please adults and to this e%tent $andura may have
overestimated the importance of the intended role model as the main in/uencing
force in the e%periment. $obo dolls are also made for punching and pushing
around and this could also have in/uenced the children. $andura:s e%perimental
methodology was well controlled* the children all had the same e%perience and
their responses were coded reliably. #he validity of a theory is often assessed by
the amount and &uality of research evidence that supports it and in the case of
"earning #heory other researchers have similarly identi(ed imitation to be a
causal factor in aggression. owever overall his e%periment may have lac'ed
ecological validity due to the arti(ciality of the setting and the demand cues
outlined above.
urthermore $andura was a =estern researcher wor'ing in a (rst0world country
and could be accused of imposed etic because he assumes that the processes of
learning are the same for all people in all countries and cultures ,i.e. universal-.
$andura was also aware of potential biological factors in/uencing aggressive
behaviour such as genetic bio0chemical or neuro0anatomical causes but he
neglected to pay attention to these.
)ore recent discoveries concerning the role of biology in imitating behaviour
were made in the 1558s when 3iCColatti and his colleagues discovered a group of
cells in the brain that they named mirror neurons. )irror neurons become active
when we see another person perform an action in the same way as if we were
performing the action ourselves. #hey allow us to e%perience what others are
doing and feeling and their discovery has ma4or implications for our
understanding of the social learning of aggression because it suggests that
imitating behaviour may be biologically based rather than psychological ,nature0
8/17/2019 Unit One Aggression
5/20
nurture debate-. Potentially the discovery of mirror neurons is a ma4or
brea'through in understanding of human aggression although research is still in
its early stages.
EINI)IUATION T2E LO## OF ONE# #EN#E OF
INDI3ID,ALITYLearning Objectives- Yu !ill be able t"
E%plain how deindividuation contributes to
aggressive behaviour with reference to
research.
=hen people are in a large group or crowd they tend to lose a sense of their individual
identity and ta'e on the identity of the group. #his can ma'e them commit acts of
aggression and violence that they wouldnt normally commit. #hey do not ta'e
responsibility for these acts. A good e%ample is that of
football hooliganism. #here are two factors involved with
this<
• 4ublic sel*-a!areness 0 #his is anindividuals sense that others are aware of them and that they are identi(able to others.
• 4rivate sel*-a!areness 0 #his is the individuals own sense of awareness
of himself his thoughts actions beliefs etc.
$oth of these factors decrease in deindividuation.
Deindividuation refers to the process of decreased self0assessment and awareness in
situations where identi(cation of an individual is dicult if not impossible. or e%ample a
child with a Power 3anger:s mas' on is deindividuated. An individual football supporter
amidst a much larger crowd of supporters is deindividuated as is a person in a crowded
music arena. !o any situation where individual identi(cation is restricted ensures that
changes in the normal standards of behaviour occur.
#inger5 Brus$ and Lublin &6789' show very clearly that when inhibitions are loweredin a group situation the topic of conversation can change &uite dramatically. or e%ample
they showed that in a 9discussion of pornography: members li'ed the group more and
made increased contributions on the topic when they felt that their individuality had
been reduced.
:i1bard suggested that sensory overload altered states of consciousness level of
arousal and reduction of responsibility could e&ually increase the li'elihood of antisocial
behaviour. In each case inhibitions surrounding normal behaviour are reduced;
:i1bard &6787' showed dramatically the eect of reduced inhibitions. e used female
undergraduates in a 9study of learning:. A stooge is used to play the role of a student.
#he female participants played the teacher. #he 9student: had to complete a set of tas's
,very similar to those given by )ilgram in his studies of obedience- and electric shoc'swere delivered to the 9stooge student: if they completed the tas's wrongly.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A138368http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A138368
8/17/2019 Unit One Aggression
6/20
alf of the female participants were wearing large lab coats and hoods to cover their
faces. #hey were tal'ed to in groups of four* they were never referred to by name and
were the deindividuated group. #he other group wore their normal clothes were given
name tags and introduced to each other formally. #hey were not deindividuated. All
participants could see the 9student:. #hey were also told that she was either 9honest: or
9conceited and critical:. Irrespective of the description of the student learner thedeindividuated participants delivered twice as many shoc's as the
individuated ones. #hose participants that had large name tags
tended to give dierent amounts of shoc's depending on the
description they had been given.
Diener &6788 violent attac's occurring in Forthern
Ireland. Gf those >88 a total of 287 were carried out by people who wore some
form of disguise so that their identity was un'nown. !il'e further noted that the
severity of the violent incidents sustained was lin'ed to whether the perpetrator
was mas'ed or not. It seems from evidence such as this that aggressive acts can
be e%plained by the deindividuation theory.
Gne of the fundamental problems of this theory is the fact that it cannot provide
an e%planation for the simple fact that not all crowds or groups performaggressive actions. #his was seen in the wor' of Gergen et al &67 minutes there was polite small tal'. $y 78 minutes normal barriers to
intimate contact had been overcome and most participants 9got physical:. At least half
cuddled and about 8J felt se%ually aroused.
1)uter-1ediated c11unicatin &e1ail5 te0t etc;' *acilitates
deindividuatin; #opics of conversation may be more perverse or varied
without embarrassment.
Bldstein &>??@' noted that individuals who had speech problems such as
stuttering showed fewer of these problems when wearing a mas'. It might be
that not being able to be identi(ed increased their self0ecacy and decreased
opportunities for evaluation apprehension ,fear of being assessed by others-.
8/17/2019 Unit One Aggression
7/20
Mullen &678' has also shown that in violent situations where people
are being attac'ed individuals who went to provide help to the
victim often would do so if they could mas' their true identity for
e%ample by wearing a hat and dar' glasses.
In a crrelatinal stud%5 Catsn &67
8/17/2019 Unit One Aggression
8/20
#he participants who received only one shoc' were in the non0angry group.
4art t! * t$e e0)eri1ent
#he sub4ect and stooge changed rooms. #he participants now had to 4udge their partner:s
performance on the tas' and issue the shoc's.
nditin ne a 120guage shotgun and a .@ calibre revolver were in view in
the room.
nditin t! a badminton rac'et and shuttlecoc's were in view in view in theroom.
$er'owitC measured the amount of shoc's given to the partner as measurement of anger.
Findings
#he angry group gave more shoc's and held the shoc' 'ey down for longer when the shotgun and
revolver were in view compared to the participants who could see the badminton rac'et and
shuttlecoc's.
#he research was conducted in an arti(cial environment and was not an everyday situation as the
present of (rearms is unusual. #herefore it is possible that the participants ful(lled the
e%perimenters: e%pectations because that was what they thought they should do. #heir behaviour
may have been the result of demand characteristics rather than a re/ection of what they would do
in a genuine situation.
It is possible that the results of the study were aected by the participants: 'nowledge that they
were ta'ing part in an e%periment and that there would be no conse&uences to pay for their
actions. lec= and McElrat$ &6776' loo'ed at 21 9weapons eect: studies and stated that the
eect only wor'ed on those individuals who had no prior e%perience of guns. urthermore the
more closely the e%perimental situation re/ected real life the less li'ely there was to be an eect.
Klec' and )cElrath argued that it should not be too surprising since the conse&uences of the
actions were neither serious nor permanent. =hen the result of the reaction is lethal this is &uite a
dierent matter.
eller1an &>??6' notes that the 9strongest proof of validity of any study is the independent
replication by others:. #he greatest problem with the study is that no consistent trends have been
found in subse&uent replications of this study. indings have been unreliable.
#he theory e%tends the frustration0aggression hypothesis but ignores important individual
dierences that e%ist between people. urthermore other studies have not supported the (ndings
of $er'owitC and "ePage. Ellis et al &67
8/17/2019 Unit One Aggression
9/20
A potential problem with the theory is that it says very little about how we decide what group to compare
ourselves with. #here are cognitive processes at wor' in terms of self0perception and comparison.
T$e *ll!ing article can be *und at
www.malcolmread.co.u'+Moc'Noung+relative.htm
Relative de)rivatin !as a ter1 (rst coined by #a1 #tuer and his associates in their wartime study The
American Soldier ,1565- relative deprivation was rigorously formulated by C G Runci1an in 6788. Its use in
criminology was not until the 158s by theorists such as ! !tac' Mohn $raithwaite and particularly the left
realists for whom it is a 'ey concept. Its attraction as an e%planatory variable in the post0war period is because
of the rise of crime in the ma4ority of industrial societies despite the increase in living standards. #hat is where
material deprivation in an absolute sense declined and the old e&uation of the more poverty the more crime
was clearly falsi(ed.
3elative Deprivation occurs where individuals or groups sub4ectively perceive themselves as unfairlydisadvantaged over others perceived as having similar attributes and deserving similar rewards ,theirerencegroups-. It is in contrast with absolute deprivation where biological health is impaired or where relative levelsof wealth are compared based on ob4ective dierences 0 although it is often confused with the latter. !ub4ectivee%periences of deprivation are essential and indeed relative deprivation is more li'ely when the dierencesbetween two groups narrows so that comparisons can be easily made than where there are caste0li'edierences. #he discontent arising from relative deprivation has been used to e%plain radical politics ,whetherof the left or the right- messianic religions the rise of social movements industrial disputes and the wholeplethora of crime and deviance. #he usual distinction made is that religious fervour or demand for political change are a collective response torelative deprivation whereas crime is an individualistic response. $ut this is certainly not true of many crimes 0for e%ample smuggling poaching or terrorism 0 which have a collective nature and a communal base and doesnot even allow for gang delin&uency which is clearly a collective response. #he connection is therefore largelyunder0theorised 0 a re/ection of the separate development of the concept within the seemingly discretedisciplines of sociology of religion political sociology and criminology. #he use of relative deprivation in criminology is often con/ated with )ertons anomie theory of crime anddeviance and its development by Bloward and Ghlin and there are discernible although largely une%ploredparallels. Anomie theory involves a disparity between culturally induced aspirations ,eg success in terms of theAmerican Dream- and the opportunities to realise them. #he parallel is clear< this is a sub4ective processwherein discontent is transmuted into crime. urthermore )erton in his classic 15@ article !ocial !tructureand Anomie ,where norms have bro'en down- clearly understands the relative nature of discontent e%plicitlycriticising theories which lin' absolute deprivation to crime by pointing to poor countries with low crime rates incontrast to the wealthy nited !tates with a comparatively high rate. $ut there are clear dierences inparticular )ertonian anomie involves an inability to realise culturally induced notions of success. It does notinvolve comparisons between groups but individuals measuring themselves against a general goal. #he factthat )erton the ma4or theorist of reference groups did not fuse this with his theory of anomie is as 3uncimannotes very strange but probably re/ects the particular American concern with winners and losers and theindividualism of that culture. #he empirical implications of this dierence in emphasis are however signi(cant<anomie theory would naturally predict the vast ma4ority of crime to occur at the bottom of society amongst thelosers but relative deprivation theory does not necessarily have this overwhelming class focus. or discontentcan be felt anywhere in the class structure where people perceive their rewards as unfair compared to thosewith similar attributes. #hus crime would be more widespread although it would be conceded that discontentwould be greatest amongst the socially e%cluded. #he future integration of anomie and relative deprivation theory oers great promise in that relative deprivationoers a much more widespread notion of discontent and its emphasis on sub4ectivity insures against thetendency within anomie theory of merely measuring ob4ective dierences in e&uality ,so called strain theory-whereas anomie theory on its part oers a wider structural perspective in terms of the crucial role ofdierential opportunity structures and (rmly locates the dynamic of deprivation within capitalist society as awhole. HO YO,NG
*& INSTITUTIONAL AGGRESSION
Learning bjectives" Yu !ill be able t"
nderstand what is meant by institutional aggression
E%plain potential causes of institutional aggression
Evaluate theoretically the e%planations for institutional aggression
=hen aggression and violence occur within an institutionalised setting it oftenattracts the attention of the media. #his is due to the fact that rules ande%pectations of behaviour have been transgressed. Institutions are often createdto maintain order and combat anti0social behaviour so when this goes wrong&uestions are raised about the eectiveness of these institutions. #his form of
aggression involves the behaviour of people who serve in institutions such asschools healthcare settings police security services and military as well as
http://www.malcolmread.co.uk/JockYoung/relative.htmhttp://www.malcolmread.co.uk/JockYoung/relative.htmhttp://www.malcolmread.co.uk/JockYoung/relative.htmhttp://www.malcolmread.co.uk/JockYoung/relative.htm
8/17/2019 Unit One Aggression
10/20
criminal and terrorist groups ,i.e. those who are bound together by a commonpurpose to be aggressive-.
Institutinal aggressin can be e%plained by deindividuation. #he loss of personal identity that results from wearing a uniform – either as apolice ocer or prison guard – may go some way to e%plaining the li'elihood that
people will display aggression. 3emoving an individual:s own clothes andreplacing them with a uniform plays a ma4or part in depersonalising them within
an institutional setting. Deindividuation may alsooccur amongst prisoners whose heads are shavedand who are given matching clothing to wear.owever the removal of individuality in thisinstance is more li'ely to dehumanise the prisonersand ma'e them targets of aggression. Police in riotgear are dicult to identify because partial mas'sand visors cover their faces. Gcers in the 2885
H28 protests were criticised for covering up their individual identity numbers inorder to ma'e themselves even more anonymous. Anonymity may encourageaggression by lessening the li'elihood of being caught or through the loss ofpersonal values and morals. #he anonymity of police ocers particularly whenin large groups may also ma'e them seem less human and this fact in turn maybe more li'ely to incite violence from a rioting crowd so that they become victimsof assault.niforms can also help to de(ne roles. A person:s behaviour may change inaccordance with the e%pectations aorded to the role they have adopted andthe wearing of a uniform can help them to get into role. niforms aresynonymous with institutions whether hospitals the police force prisons orschools. Even colleges and universities adopt the use of scarves or sweatshirts todenote membership of a particular house or fraternity.
3ules and norms are also a characteristic of institutions. #here is often ahierarchy which has an 9us and them: aspect to it where one group has powerover the other group leading to social ine&uality. Each person:s role is instantlyidenti(able by what they are wearing with people in positions of power oftendenoted by a uniform that bears the symbols of their status and authority.
Aggressin in institutins can be cnsidered in ter1s * t! *rces"• !ituational forces
• Dispositional forces
T$e /uestin t cnsider $ere is !$et$er s1e )e)le are just
aggressive and d vilent t$ings t t$er )e)le because * t$e t%)e* )ersn t$e% are &dis)sitin' r !$et$er gd )e)le d badt$ings !$en t$e% are )ut int a situatin t$at encurages aggressivebe$aviur &situatinal'; :i1bard created suc$ a situatin in $is#tan*rd 4risn #tud%;
INSTITUTIONAL AGGRESSION:i1bards #tan*rd )risn si1ulatin &67
8/17/2019 Unit One Aggression
11/20
!ome prisoners showed signs of 94at$lgical )risner s%ndr1e in which disbelief
was followed by an attempt at rebellion and then by very negative emotions and
behaviours such as apathy and e%cessive obedience.
)any showed signs of depression such as crying and some had
(ts of rage. Oimbardo put these eects down to
depersonalisation or deindividuation due to loss of personalidentity and lac' of control.
#he guards showed the 94at$lg% * )!er.: #hey clearly
en4oyed their role* some even wor'ed unpaid overtime and were
disappointed when the e%periment was stopped. )any abused
their power refusing
prisoner:s food and toilet
visits removing their
bedding etc. Punishment
was handed out with little 4usti(cation.
)ost notable was the way in which the 9good guards:
never &uestioned the actions of the 9bad guards.:
owever the e%periment was a role play so it could
be argued that it lac'ed realism and that
participants behaved as they thought they were
e%pected behave. In other words the participants
could have been 94ust playing along:. owever there is evidence for the guards not 4ust
simply role playing for e%ample their brutal behaviour wasn:t there at the start but
developed over the (rst few days and they did not play up to the cameras as might be
e%pected. In fact their behaviour was worse when they 'new they weren:t being
observed. !o was it more to do with the individual than the situation
Each participant was sub4ected to physical and psychological testing before the study to
ensure that they would be suitable participants. All of them were considered 9normal:
with no participant being assessed as any more aggressive than the others. #he testing
allowed a basis for comparison. Participants were then
randomly allocated to the role of prison guard or prisoner.
Dave Eshleman was one of the participants who was
assigned to the role of prison guard. Eshleman became
'nown as 9Mohn =ayne: and seemed to revel in the role. e
was creative in his cruelty devising new ways to torment
and punish the prisoners in the study. e was the most
degrading of all guards.
=as it Eshleman:s disposition to be so aggressive e
came from a middle class family academic family.
Eshleman loved music food and other people and described himself as a person that
clearly held great love for his fellow human beings.
=as it then 4ust the situation Eshleman was in that corrupted his normal way of thin'ing
so that he sub4ected the prisoners to a relentless series of 9little e%periments: ,as he
described it-
INSTITUTIONAL AGGRESSIONAbu G$raib
8/17/2019 Unit One Aggression
12/20
In a real life prison situation in Abu Hhraib Ira&i prisoners were sub4ected to
dehumanising and degrading treatment. #his time Oimbardo was called
upon to be an e%pert witness in the defence of one of the prison guards who
had been involved in the cruel treatment of the prisoners. e argued that
the behaviour of the guard was the product of the situational forces of being
a guard in that particular prison environment and not due to dispositionalcharacteristics. Oimbardo:s thoughts about Abu Hhraib automatically focused on the
circumstances in the prison cell bloc' that could have led 9good soldiers to do bad
things:. Oimbardo argues that it is 9bad systems: that are the problem rather than 9bad
individuals:. 3ather than one bad apple turning other apples bad Oimbardo insists that
9bad barrels: are the problem i.e. bad institutions.
uman behaviour has more than one simple in/uence and the behaviours witnessed at
Abu Hhraib were the result of interplay between several 'ey factors<
• !tatus and power< those involved were the 9bottom of the barrel:. #hey were army
reservists on a night shift and were not supervised by a superior ocer. =ith little of their
own power these soldiers were trying to demonstrate some control over anything that was
inferior to them ,i.e. the prisoners-.• 3evenge and retaliation< the prisoners had 'illed fellow ! soldiers and some of them had
been guilty of abusing children. #he guards therefore felt 4usti(ed in humiliating them in
order to 9teach them a lesson:. #hey considered the prisoners to be less than human and
having dehumanised them the guards felt able to unleash their anger on them.
• Deindividuation and helplessness< Oimbardo felt that the guards responded to violent and
sel(sh impulses without any planned conspiracy or inhibition partly because they could in
the absence of the superior authority. #hey were unseen and in a sense at the mercy of
their own feelings towards the prisoners who were 9the enemy:. It was a fellow guard who
was brave enough to follow his convictions and report the behaviour of the guards. It was
their own photos ta'en with their own cameras which provided the evidence against them.
It is interesting to note that the instigator of the atrocities was..........a womanQ
Issues !it$ stud%ing institutinal aggressin3esearching this (eld of aggression is dicult. Detail is often 4ust biographical and is hard
to ma'e a scienti(c study of the individualistic or situational causes that lie behind the
behaviour. urthermore information in this area is socially sensitive in that it could have
repercussions for a select group of people. #hought has to be given as to how the
material gained by the research will be collected used and published. rom a practical
point of view it would be very hard for a researcher to control all variables in naturally
occurring situations in a controlled way. rom this point of view it would be very dicult
to establish cause and eect.
Bernards angr% aggressin t$er% can be used to e%amine the causes of
institutionalised aggression in the )lice *rce. It could be argued that factors such as
the chronic stress of police wor' along with the inability to respond to the actual sourcesof that stress increase the aggressive nature of responses that police ma'e. $ernard:s
view of there being a police subculture is not new and can be traced bac' to the earlier
wor' of Cestle% &67
8/17/2019 Unit One Aggression
13/20
this happens a subse&uent disbelief in the role of others will occur and it is possible that
anger and frustration can result from these negative relationships.
INSTITUTIONAL AGGRESSIONEducatinal settings . *raternities &1ales' and srrities &*e1ales'
In star' contrast to prison institutions are the fraternities and sororities established assupport networ's for undergraduate students within the nited !tates college system.
Despite the contrast surprising similarities e%ist between these two forms of
institution. raternities in particular have been criticised for
the use of force in their initiations and in condoning the
se%ual assault of women. #he tradition 'nown as 9haCing: is
the ritualistic harassment of abuse of an individual or a
group. Acts can include burning and branding 'idnapping
drugging and se%ual abuse. Probationary members may
e%perience mental and physical stress over periods of
wee's or months as a way of proving that they are worthy of membership to a particular
fraternity or sorority.
According to research by Fuwer ,1558- haCing has contributed to more than >8 deaths in
college fraternities and many physical in4uries including paralysis. In most states across
America haCing is now illegal and campaigns are under way to try to curb these brutal
practices. #he e%treme behaviour that occurs in these groups can be e%plained using the
theory of identi(cation. Noung men and women are prepared to to ta'e part in potentially
life0threatening activities in order to belong to a group. )any of the groups have high
status and acceptance can have implications that reach far beyond the students: life at
university. raternities and sororities are often shrouded in secrecy< this ma'es them
dicult to control but also ma'es their victims more vulnerable as members are
unwilling to spea' out for fear of brea'ing the code.
Terrris1Blac= &>??(' says 9pure terrorism is unilateral self0help by organised civilians who
covertly in/ict mass violence on other civilians:. $lac' believes that the root cause of
current terrorism is a culture clash.
Dee1 &>??(' e%tends this view by suggesting that the division between situational
and dispositional causes may not be so clear as we thin'. e tal's of 9predatory
characteristics: of terrorism which help us to see the terrorist action but these should be
seen within a wider understanding of 9anti0modernist: impulses: e.g. an opposition to
free mar'ets liberal democracy and associated =estern norms. De/em says that
9contemporary terrorism represents contrasting institutional balance of power dominated
by family ethnicity and religion:. #his is a situational e%planation whereas Bara= &>??('
suggests more of dispositional nature to this aggressive motive in his study of suicideterrorism. According to $ara' a 'ey motivational component of violent behaviour is
issues of shame esteem and repressed anger.
Gn a lesser scale this could be compared to the situation of disaected young males who
participate in street violence in gang or gun culture in the K or the !A. Gften these
individuals e%perience both economic and political marginalisation. owever the main
thread of $ara':s argument is somewhat lost when we e%amine the bac'ground of many
of the 5+11 terrorists and ;+; bombers as many of these Islamic terrorists were university
educated and came from very supportive and often materially aRuent families.
Met$dlgical a!s in researc$ int terrrist actin
8/17/2019 Unit One Aggression
14/20
• #errorist action is often uni&ue and so it is dicult to draw
up a pro(le of a terrorist or of a terrorist group.
• #errorist groups are increasingly /uid and mobile ,using the
internet to communicate- and so there is not really a 9typical
terrorist:.
•
#here is a real lac' of empirical data for each terroristevent so it is dicult to draw conclusions.
Aggressive behaviour is more dynamic than simply havingsocial or institutional motives. Gbservation of aggression in individuals suggeststhe need to e%amine possible biological e%planations.
8/17/2019 Unit One Aggression
15/20
E0)lratins in Educatin #oy Design 3ubric
Evaluator:s Fame
8/17/2019 Unit One Aggression
16/20
Addresses
learning within
Developmental
area
Professionalism
of Drawing and
Design
Griginality of
Design
Designed for
durability
Is safe
un for child to
play with
Ttal 4ints
4resentatin * T%
Criteria 5 4 3 2 1
Bommunicated
toy designeciently
Blear
Instructions for
the toy:s use
present
!peech
#echni&ues
,e%. ?olumerate
8/17/2019 Unit One Aggression
17/20
enunciation eye
contact-
Ttal 4ints
Overall Ttal 4ints"JJJJJJJJJJJJ
Bomments
8/17/2019 Unit One Aggression
18/20
E0)lratins in EducatinToy Design Project
As a way to help you apply your understanding of a child:s growth anddevelopment I would li'e for you to get into partner groups and create avisual representation of a toy game or manipulative for your chosenaged child according to the following speci(cations<
Age A))r)riate< Nour toy+game must be age appropriateVdo someresearch and (nd out what this means.
Devel)1ental Area< Nou must choose a developmental area youwould li'e to stimulate using your creative toy+manipulative+game.
Originalit%< Nour toy must be original and uni&ue although it mayincorporate one other aspect of dierent toys that have already beencreated.
Fun" Nour toy should be fun so that children will want to play with itand won:t want to put it down.
#a*e and Durable< Nour toy+game should be designed for durabilityand must meet basic safety re&uirements.
3isual< Nou will be e%pected to present a visual representation of yourtoy+game that is professional and neat in nature. A digital copy ofwhatever type of visual you create will be collected. Nour visual couldta'e the form of a video a drawing from side front and top view a
brochure a website etc. 4resentatin< Nou will be e%pected to e%plain the following about
your toy+game<o =hat is ito =ho is your target audienceo =hat area,s- of development are you trying to stimulateo ow does it wor'o =hich theorist or perspective did you use as your foundation
to design your toy+game ow did that perspective+theoryresonate through the (nal version of your toy+game
o =hat ma'es your toy so uni&ue compared to all of the other
toys+games out thereo =hat is the downside of your toy+game
#o up the ante this will be a competition to see which toy a
speci(c group of people would li'e to buy.
Nou will be presenting on )onday Gctober 1; 2811 in your
partner groups.
8/17/2019 Unit One Aggression
19/20
#oy Design Planning !heet
Partner 1< SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS Partner 2< SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
=hat is it
=ho is your target audienceVage group gender
=hat area,s- of development are you trying to stimulate
=hat perspective understanding or theory have you used to design your
toy+game
ow does it wor'
8/17/2019 Unit One Aggression
20/20
=hat ma'es your toy so uni&ue compared to all of the other toys+games out
there
=hat would you charge if you were to pac'age it and sell it
=hat is the downside of your toy+game
Recommended