Social-Psychological Theories of Aggression

Social Learning Theory – Bandura

The potential for aggression is biological, but the expression of aggression is learnt. The social learning theory states that behaviours such as aggression can be learnt through

observation. If a person observes aggressive behaviour in a model, they may imitate this behaviour.

Imitation is more likely if they identify with or admire the model, or if the model is rewarded or succeeds. This is vicarious reinforcement.

For social learning to take place, Bandura suggested that a child must form a mental representation of the event. This includes the possible rewards or punishments for a behaviour.

When a child imitates an aggressive behaviour, the outcome of this behaviour influences the value of aggression for the child. If they are rewarded, they are likely to repeat the behaviour. This is maintenance through direct experience.

Children develop self-efficacy, which is confidence in their ability to carry out aggressive actions. If aggressive behaviours are unsuccessful, they will have a low sense of self-efficacy, so will not continue the behaviour.

Commentary on Social Learning Theory

EMPIRICAL SUPPORT – Strong support provided by Bandura’s Bobo doll studies. These studies focus on children, so we are unable to generalise these results to adults. However, Philips found that the daily homicide rate in America increased the week after major boxing matches on TV, suggests social learning does apply to adults.

EXPLAINS OTHER BEHAVIOURS – The SLT can be used to explain eating disorders and personality.

EXPLAINS DIFFERENCES BETWEEN AND WITHIN INDIVIDUALS – SLT can explain differences between individuals, e.g. cultural differences. Some societies, e.g. the US, are highly violent, and others, e.g. pygmies in Central Africa, live in cooperative friendliness. Differences with individuals can be explained by selective reinforcement and context-dependent learning, which is when people have observed aggressive behaviour rewarded in one situation and not in another.

NOT A COMPLETE EXPLANATION OF AGGRESSION – SLT is not a complete explanation of aggression because it can’t explain the impulse to aggress. Even after watching an aggressive model, you will only behave aggressively if you are frustrated.

REDUCTIONIST – ignores biological factors, for example testosterone levels. However, such variation between cultures shows that social factors are more important. For example, Aronson found that when a certain area of the brain is stimulated in monkeys, a docile monkey will become aggressive, but this doesn’t occur if dominant monkeys are present.

Research Studies on SLT

Bobo Doll Studies

1. Bandura et al. Boys and girls aged 3-5 years 2 groups – 1 exposed to aggressive models interacting with a Bobo doll, 1 group

exposed to models who were non-aggressive to Bobo doll. Aggressive model showed physically aggressive acts, e.g. hitting the doll with a

mallet or kicking it, and verbal aggression. Children then frustrated by being shown toys but not being allowed to play with

them. Then taken to a room with a Bobo doll and other toys. Children who observed the aggressive model reproduced many of the physical and

verbal behaviours of the model. Those in non-aggression and control groups showed virtually no aggression.

2. Bandura & Walters Investigated why a child would reproduce these behaviours in the absence of the

model.

Children in three groups and each shown a film of an adult model behaving aggressively to a Bobo doll. In each film the behaviour had a different outcome – reward, punishment or no consequences.

Those who had seen the model rewarded imitated a high-level of aggressive acts. Those who saw the model punished showed a low-level of aggression, and those who saw no-consequences were in between these two levels.

Bandura concluded that children learn about the likely consequences of behaviours and adjust their behaviour accordingly. He called this vicarious learning.

3. Bandura To investigate if punishment prevented learning or if it prevented performance of

behaviour, Bandura repeated the study and offered all children rewards for imitating the model. All groups imitated a similar number of behaviours, showing punishment affects performance not learning.

COMMENTARY

CONCLUSIONS

Bandura et al. showed that children do learn and imitate specific aggressive behaviours from observing a model.

Bandura showed that subsequent behaviour is based on selective reinforcement. Aggressive behaviour is more likely if it is rewarded and less likely if it is punished.

Bandura showed that learning takes place regardless of reinforcements. However, production of these behaviours is influenced by selective reinforcement.

These studies demonstrate the importance of frustration in aggressive behaviour.

STRENGTHS & LIMITATIONS

WELL-CONTROLLED – Factors such as individual differences in aggression were controlled. Children were rated for aggression and the participants in each group were matched for aggressiveness.

DEMAND CHARACTERISTICS – High control leads to an un-lifelike situation, so these studies lack real-life validity. There may have been demand characteristics if the children knew what the experiment was about. Nobel reports that one child said “Look Mummy, there’s the doll we have to hit.”

SHORT-TERM BEHAVIOUR – These studies only investigated short-term behaviour, so the results may not apply to behaviour weeks or months later.

DOLL – The studies look at aggression towards a doll rather than a real-person, so results may not apply to real life behaviour.

However, Bandura repeated the study using a film of a woman beating a live clown and found that children were aggressive to the live clown after watching the film.

Deindividuation Theory – Zimbardo

Fraser and Burchell define deindividuation as “a process whereby normal constraints on behaviour are weakened as persons lose their sense of individuality”.

Deindividuation occurs when an individual joins a large crowd or group. Anonymity, e.g. uniforms, and drugs or alcohol also contribute to deindividuation.

Individual behaviour is rational and conforms to social standards. Deindividuated behaviour is based on primitive urges and doesn’t conform to social norms. Anonymity leads to reduced inner restraints, and therefore an increase in behaviours that are

usually inhibited, such as aggression. Originally, deindividuation was thought to be due to the lack of accountability that

accompanies being in a large group of people. More recently, the theory has focused on the importance of reduced private self-awareness rather than public self-awareness. Prentice-Dunn and Rogers suggested that being in a crowd makes people less self-focused, so less able to regulate their behaviour according to their internalised attitudes and moral standards.

Commentary on deindividuation theory

EMPIRICAL SUPPORT – Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison study showed that when participants wore guard’s uniforms they behaved aggressively to prisoners, showing they had become deindividuated. Zimbardo’s study in which female students were asked to shock a confederate found that those who were deindividuated by wearing robes and large hoods gave more shocks than those who were identifiable by wearing name tags.

NORMATIVE RATHER THAN ANTI-NORMATIVE – Deindividuation doesn’t always lead to aggression, and can sometimes make people behave more peacefully, e.g. at a peace rally or when wearing a nurses uniform. It may be that deindividuation leads to conformity to group and situational norms. Postmes and Spears carried out a meta-analysis of deindivuation studies and found no evidence that deindividuation caused anti-normative or disinhibited behaviour.

USEFUL APPLICATION – This knowledge of the effect of reduced self-awareness can be used to reduce aggression in football crowds. It has been shown that using mirrors and video cameras forces people to think about themselves, and reduces aggression.

RESEARCH ON DEINDIVIDUATION

STANFORD PRISION EXPERIMENT

College students were randomly assigned the role of guards or prisoners in a mock prison. The guards dressed in uniform and wore mirrored sunglasses, causing anonymity. The prisoners wore smocks and caps and were known only by a number. The guards behaved cruelly and inhumanely towards the prisoners showing that deindividuation and anonymity leads to aggression.

THE BAITING CROWD

Mann used the concept of deindividuation to explain the baiting crowd. Mann analysed 21 incidents of suicides in American newspapers. He found that in 10 of the 21 cases where a crowd had gathered, baiting had occurred. This was more likely if it was dark, the crowd was large or they were a long distance from the jumper. Mann suggested these factors increased individuation.

PRENTICE-DUNN & ROGERS – REDUCED PRIVATE SELF_AWARENESS

Prentice-Dunn and Rogers induced a state of reduced private self-awareness by telling participants to focus attention outwards. In addition to external attention focus, participants were in a dimly lit room with loud rock music playing. Verbal interaction between participants was encouraged and participants played video games. These conditions were designed to induce deindividuation.

In another condition, internal attention focus was encouraged. Participants were told not to interact, performed individual tasks and were in a well-lit, quiet room.

Participants in the external-attention condition were more aggressive when asked to deliver electric shocks to other participants.

COMMENTARY

STANFORD PRISON EXPERIMENT The brutal behaviour of the guards can be explained by perceived social roles. When

asked to play a role, people act how they think they should. Deindividuation increases their ability to act differently to their person norms and carry out this expected behaviour.

This is a problem because the study tells us how people behave when acting like guards, but not about how real guards behave. They may act more on personal norms.

THE BAITING CROWD Baiting may be explained by social contagion. It may be that a few individuals began

baiting the victim and this then spreads thought the crowd and becomes the norm.

PRENTICE-DUNN AND ROGERS – REDUCED PRIVATE SELF-AWARENESS This study supports the view that it is reduced private self-awareness, rather than

anonymity that leads to deindividuated, aggressive behaviour. However, some of the tasks also increased arousal, which may also increase

aggressive behaviour.

Effect Of Environmental Stressors On Aggressive Behaviour

Effect Of Temperature On Aggressive Behaviour

INDIRECT LINKS – THE ROUTINE ACTIVITY THEORY

Temperature may be causally linked to other factors, which in turn are causally linked to aggression.

Cohen and Felson’s Routine Activity Theory states that opportunities for interpersonal aggression increase in summer as people change their routine activity pattern, e.g. they are more likely to be outside and so come into contact with more people, and there is an increase in alcohol consumption in summer.

DIRECT LINKS – NEGATIVE AFFECT ESCAPE THEORY

Baron and Bell’s Negative Affect Escape Theory states that negative affect increases as the temperature increases, causing aggressive behaviours and escape motives to increase.

As temperature increases, negative affect increases, causing aggressive behaviour. When the temperature becomes extremely hot, people attempt escape rather than

behaving aggressively. This results in a curvilinear relationship between temperature and aggression.

If escape is not possible, aggressive behaviours are displayed.

RESEARCH STUDIES

Kenrick and MacFarlane conducted an experiment in which they arranged for a driver to pull up at traffic lights and not move when the lights turned green. As a measure of aggression, they recorded the number and duration of horn blasts from other cars and found it to be positively related to temperature.

Anderson examined archives of crime rates including murder, rape, assault, burglary, theft and car theft. It was found that violent crimes (murder, rape and assault) were more common in periods of hot weather. The relationship between temperature and violent crime was stronger than the relationship between temperature and non-violent crime.

COMMENTARY ON EXPLANATIONS

DIRECT OR INDIRECT LINK – The routine activity theory states that the link between temperature and aggression is indirect, and is caused by variables such as spending more time outdoors in summer. This can explain results of naturalistic studies, for example Anderson’s, but it doesn’t explain research that shows that temperature alone causes aggression. Baron and Bell put participants in rooms of different temperatures. Participants were asked to give electric shocks to a confederate and it was found that as the temperature rose, participants gave more electric shocks. At extreme temperatures, the number of shocks decreased. This shows that aggression can be a direct result of temperature.

NEGATIVE AFFECT ESCAPE THEORY – In support of the negative affect escape Baron and Bell’s study found a curvilinear relationship between temperature and aggression. At low temperature, negative affect leads to aggression, but at high temperature, people seek to escape. Field studies have supported this. For example, Baron and Ransenberger examined US archival records and found that the number of riots increased as temperature increased up until 85F, and the decreased. However, Anderson and Anderson found a linear relationship between temperature and aggressive crime with no decline even at very high temperatures.

BIOLOGICAL EXPLANATIONS – In contrast to these explanations, there are biological explanations. For example, high temperatures cause an increase in testosterone production, due to increased activity of the autonomic nervous system, and testosterone has been linked to aggression.

COMMENTARY ON RESEARCH STUDIES

Naturalistic studies have a high ecological validity as they are lifelike.

However, they are correlational so we cannot establish a causal relationship. Real life studies cannot measure temperature or aggression accurately. There are many variables that cannot be controlled, e.g. additional factors such as

noise and crowding may also contribute to the aggression. Laboratory studies cause false responses. Participants know that they will escape the

hot temperature at the end of the study, so may behave differently than they would in real life. Lack of ecological validity.

There may be demand characteristics as when it gets very hot, participants may realise what is being studied and resist aggressive behaviour. This may explain the curvilinear relationship in many experimental studies.

Lab studies don’t measure real-life aggression.

Effect Of Crowding On Aggressive Behaviour

Crowding, the psychological feeling if not having enough space is a potential source of aggression.

Crowding may create arousal and therefore aggression because it people feel they have insufficient personal space and a reduced sense of control.

For example, aggression often occurs on the most heavily congested roads. There are more prison riots when the population density of the prison is higher. This

is linked to deindividuation. Loo found that there is more aggression in a day nursery, as it got more crowded.

RESEARCH STUDIES

CROWDING AND VIOLENT CRIME – Calhoun put an increasing rat population in a small area. It was observed that the rats soon began killing, sexually assaulting and cannibalising each other. There are also studies that have shown a positive correlation between high population density and violent crimes in humans. Schmitt found that when the population density in Honolulu increased, the rates of crime, death and mental disorder also increased.

CROWDING ON THE DANCE FLOOR – Macintyre and Homel measured crowding by recording the number of unintentional physical contacts between club-goers in Australian nightclubs. They found that the level of crowding was related to the number of aggressive incidents. These results occurred despite the fact that controls were introduced for male drunkenness.

COMMENTARY

The pattern of a higher density of people leading to higher levels of aggression doesn’t occur in families because people expect others to be in a close proximity to them.

This would suggest that it is not only high density that is a problem but overcrowding.

A further limitation is that there are individual differences, as some people do not find intrusion of their personal space to be a problem.

This explanation is culturally biased, because there are cultural differences. In some cultures people tend to stand very close together.

The relationship between crowding and aggression is complex because the effects of crowding varies depending on the social context. For example, the effects of crowding at a party may be different to in a shopping centre. This is related to deindividuation. Being in a crowd may lead to a loss of a sense of personal identity and intensify aggression but in contrast, it may intensify a positive mood.

Kelly found no relationship between aggressive assault and population density, which challenges Schmitt. It was actually found that non-violent crimes such as theft were more common in areas with a lower urban density.

Freedman argued that if social factors, e.g. economic level, educational level and ethnicity are considered, the relationship between crowding and crime doesn’t exist.

OVERALL COMMENTARY It is hard to conclude the effects of environmental stressors on aggression because the

relationship is hard to study. Lab studies are unlifelike ad lack ecological validity, but real-life studies have many

uncontrolled variables that can contribute to aggression. There does however, appear to be evidence of an increase in environmental stressors

being associated with increased aggression up to a certain point. However, it is unclear if aggression continues to rise as stress increases or if it levels off.

Both crowding and heat lead to physiological arousal, which can cause aggression, but this depends on your perception of the arousal. Crowds can be uplifting, fun and exciting, for example at a concert or party.

HUMAN ALTRUISM

ALTRUISM – Voluntary helping without thought of cost or reward to yourself.

THE EMPATHY-ALTRUISM HYPOTHESIS: BATSON

The empathy-altruism hypothesis states that altruistic behaviour is a consequence of feeling empathy with someone in need.

Empathy is feeling an emotional response consistent with another person’s emotional state.

Seeing a person in need creates an empathetic concern for them, motivate people to help alleviate the other person’s distress.

Empathetic concern only occurs if a person TAKES THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE OTHER PERSON.

If this doesn’t happen, we experience personal distress instead. If a person acts because of personal distress rather than empathetic concern, the

motives are egotistic and not altruistic.

Batson believed that three conditions encourage perspective-taking: If the observer has had a similar experience in the past they will have developed a

deeper understanding of what the person in distress is feeling. If the observer has an emotional attachment to the victim, e.g. are related or in a

romantic relationship, or even if they are just similar. If the observer is told by others to imagine what it must be like to be in the other

person’s situation.

RESEARCH Batson et al. used a placebo drug that led participants to interpret their reactions as

either high or low empathy. The participants saw a female confederate (Elaine) receive electric shocks, and the confederate appeared to become distressed. Participants had to decide if they would take her place (empathetic concern) or leave (personal distress). Those in the high-empathy condition usually stayed and those in the low-empathy condition usually left. This supports the prediction that people high in empathetic concern are likely to help others and those in low-empathy will choose to escape if possible.

AO2 – The situation was contrived. The participants may not have believed the experimental set-up. They may have guessed what was being investigated and therefore behaved in a more socially desirable manner. Participants may have offered help because they feared social disapproval or feelings of guilt. Therefore they are acting due to egotistic motives, not altruistic ones. However, Futz found that participants in high-empathy conditions were not influenced by the possibility of social evaluation. Oliner and Oliner found that 37% of those who had helped Jews in the war acted for altruistic reasons.

COMMENTARY There are studies to support this theory. However, it is possible that the results can be explained in other ways. Participants

may have helped to avoid public shame because they feel it is the right thing to do. However, Fultz found that in a person feels low-empathy they seek social approval,

but not if they feel high-empathy. This means seeking social approval cannot completely explain altruistic behaviour.

The empathetic motivation to help may be biological. Altruism towards relatives may be an innate natural response to increase the survival of our genes. Research has shown that genetic closeness and altruistic help are positively correlated, especially in a life and death situation.

Altruistic motivation due to empathetic concern may be overridden by self-concern. A study by Batson supports this. The cost of helping was high because participants were told that the shocks they would receive if they helped would be painful. This led to egoistic helping even in the participants that said they felt high empathy. This shows that the high cost of helping stops people focussing on the other person and made them focus on themselves. Empathy doesn’t always lead to altruism.

THE NEGATIVE STATE RELIEF HYPOTHESIS: CIALDINI ET AL

When someone does something wrong, they feel guilty.

Guilt is a negative state, so we are motivated to reduce it. Negative states can occur when we see someone in need, which can cause feelings of

guilt or other negative emotions, such as sadness.

Relieving the negative state: As children, we learn that helping people is desirable. Helping behaviours therefore acquire a rewarding quality. In this hypothesis, the motivation to help others is egotistic, because we are seeking

to avoid the anticipated emotional consequences, e.g. guilt. The objective of behaviour that appears to be altruistic is enhancement of our own

mood. Pro-social behaviour is one way to reduce our negative state, but others, such as

escape, may be less costly. If someone has a less costly alternative to the same results, they will take it.

RESEARCH:

Cialdini et al. tested the assumption that a negative mood is improved by pro-social behaviour or rewards. They found that after a transgression, which produced feelings of guilt, the participants were more likely to behave pro-socially. However, if their mood was first improved due to praise or a reward of money, the level of pro-social behaviour was reduced. This supports the belief that people behave pro-socially because they are attempting to overcome the negative mood that arises due to hurting another person.

Manucia et al. caused some participants to be in a neutral mood and some to be in a negative mood by asking them to recall certain memories. Participants were given a placebo ‘memory drug’. Some were told the drug would have no effect on mood, while others were told it would fix their mood so it wouldn’t change throughout the experiment. Results showed that participants in a negative mood would help only if they thought helping could improve their mood. Those who were in a neutral state and thought their mood wouldn’t change were least likely to help.

AO2 – Lacks external validity – lab setting, artificial measures, demand characteristics, social desirability, student volunteers. Difficult to generalise results to helping in real-life situations.

COMMENTARY

Cialidini et al.’s research supported this theory. However, research by Batson et al. found that oneness did not affect helping. Research has found that people in a good mood are more likely to help, probably

because they are thinking more positively. This is the reverse of what is predicted by the negative state relief model. Baron found that pleasant odours led to better moods and more helping behaviours.

Cultural Differences in Pro-Social Behaviour

CULTURAL VARIATIONS

Individualist & Collectivist Societies

CULTURAL NORMS – Cultural differences can be explained by different socialization practices that determine an individuals motive for pro-social behaviour.

Miller suggested that collectivist cultures, e.g. Hindu’s, have a duty-based view of interpersonal responsibilities, and individualist cultures like the US have an option-orientated view. Hindu’s assume a general obligation to help others, while Americans perceive helping behaviours being dependent on the nature of the relationship or the level of need.

ASSIGNING RESPONSIBILITY – In Western societies, transgression is attributed to individual, and the social-context is not taken into account. This means the individual is blamed so people are less willing to help people whose problem is self-inflicted. In non-Western cultures, individual responsibility for a wrongdoing is considered with the social context so help is more likely. The tendency to blame the person who made the mistake without considering the situational factors is known as the FUNDAMENTAL ATTRIBUTION ERROR.

Research on Cultural Differences

Israeli kibbutz – A community of interdependent living who encourage pro-social behaviour. Research found that children in the Israeli kibbutz community are more cooperative and helpful than American and European children. Collectivist indigenous societies, such as Polynesian societies have also been found to be more pro-social than western societies.

MEANING OF PRO-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR IN DIFFERENT CULTURES – FELDMAN – A stranger asked a target person at a train station to post a stamped letter. Feldman found that Greeks were more likely to help foreigners than locals, but French and Americans were more likely to help locals. Triandis suggested that this is because Greeks define their ingroup very tightly, so act in an unfriendly was to fellow countrymen who were not in their group. Collet and O’Shea suggest that foreigners are treated differently than locals in some cultures because they are seem as more important and worthy of help.

A02 on research The meaning of pro-social behaviour is a crucial concept. Helpful behaviour may

have meanings other than providing assistant, i.e. it has instrumental benefits. For example, it can be a way to establish power. The meaning of helpful acts varies across cultures.

Lab studies usually show that people are driven by individualist goals and are less helpful than as found in field studies. It could be that in labs studies, participants behave as they have been socialized to because they know they are being watched and evaluated. There is also an absence of the social function of helping that there is in real life, to create new relationships.

Cultural variation research has difficulties because we cannot be sure that the sample is representative because subcultures in cultural groups behave differently, so one sample may not represent the whole culture.

Studies that are conducted in a particular culture mat used methods that were developed in another culture. This is an imposed etic and causes unjustifiable conclusions to be made about the participants.

SUBCULTURAL VARIATIONS

GENDER DIFFERENCES

Empathy and Guilt Eisenberg and Lennon conducted a meta-analysis of 16 studies. The study found strong, consistent gender differences, with females showing greater

empathy. Bybee found that females also typically feel greater guilt feelings than males, and

they spend longer thinking about the incident that caused these feelings of guilt. A meta-analysis of 99 investigations found that men are more likely to intervene in

an emergency. 62% of the studies of a stimulated emergency, males were more helpful.

Urban-Rural Differences RESEARCH - Korte and Ayvalioglu investigated differences between people in two

cities and four small towns in Turkey. A variety of methods were used to assess helpfulness, such as willingness to change money or participate in a short interview. It was found that helpfulness was higher for people in small towns than for people in large cities.

INFORMATION OVERLOAD THEORY, MILGRAM – People in urban environments, e.g. large cities, are exposed to excessive environmental stimulation and are so familiar with emergencies that they treat them as everyday events. To cope with this high level of stimulation, people screen out events that are not personally relevant to them. This results in people in urban areas having a more indifferent attitude to others needs, causing lower levels of pro-social behaviour.

COMMENTARY

Gender Differences

Research has suggested that women display more empathy and guilt, and men are more likely to intervene in an emergency.

This can be explained by a combination of cultural and biological factors. The evolutionary approach is that women who ‘tend and befriend’ in times of need

are more likely to reproduce, leading them to take a nurturing role in a relationship. Men have evolved a ‘fight or flight’ response to threatening situations, so they take a

protective role. This is called nurturant versus heroic altruism. In contrast, men may behave heroically to fit in with male stereotypes that have been

acquired through socialization. It has been found that men may help because the cost of helping is low and the cost of not helping is high. They are expected to help in an emergency situation and may be negatively evaluated if they don’t. It has also been found that infant boys are more emotionally responsive than girls, and as this changes as they get older, this suggests that there are strong cultural influences.

Urban-rural Differences

The Korte and Ayvalioglu study is limited to Turkey, so we may question how valid the results would be if generalise to other countries. However, a meta-analysis of 65 comparisons between rural and urban populations from all over the world, found similar results. Whatever the help required, more help was offered in rural areas than urban areas. The Korte and Ayvalioglu study therefore has ecological validity.

There are other explanations for urban-rural differences, besides Milgram’s information overload theory. For example, it may be due to the fact that urban societies are industrialised and more competitive, so assertiveness and aggression are important, and pro-social norms become less important.

MEDIA INFLUENCES ON PRO-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR

EXPLANATIONS

Social Learning

The SLT predicts that role models showing pro-social behaviour in the media will have a pro-social influence on children. It states that pro-social behaviour can be learned and imitated from observing positive role models.

1. EXPOSURE TO PRO-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR – The high number of violent acts on television is commonly reported. A content

analysis found that two-thirds of children’s programmes sampled had at least one violent act in them.

However, despite the moral concern over the violent content of popular TV, there is evidence that there is a comparable level of pro-social content.

Greenberg carried out an analysis of popular children’s programmes in the US, and found that, in any hour, there were an equivalent number of pro- and anti-social acts.

2. ACQUISITION OF PRO-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR AND NORMS

Social learning applies to pro-social behaviours in the same way it applies to learning anti-social behaviours.

People learn by observation how to do something and when it is acceptable. They may then imitate these behaviours, and the consequences will determine the likelihood of repeating that behaviour.

Pro-social acts on TV are more likely to represent social norms such as generosity and helping, than anti-social acts.

Therefore, these pro-social acts are likely to reinforce social norms rather than contrast with them. We are also more likely to be rewarded for imitating pro-social behaviours than anti-social behaviours.

Therefore, we would expect that exposure to pro-social behaviour on TV will be equally or more influential than exposure to anti-social content.

Developmental Factors

We may expect developmental differences in the extent to which children of different ages are influenced by the content of the media they are exposed to.

Research by Eisenberg has suggested that many skills that are associated with pro-social behaviour, e.g. empathy, develop during childhood and adolescence.

Therefore, younger children may be less affected by pro-social content in the media than older children.

COMMENTARY

EXPOSURE TO PRO-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR – In a recent survey, it was found that US children’s TV programmes had a high level of pro-social content. 77% of the programmes in the study had at least one pro-social lesson. However, only 4 of the top 20 most watched programmes contained pro-social lessons. This suggests that, although many programmes are pro-social, these are not as popular, so children may not actually be exposed to many pro-social messages from the media.

ACQUISITION OF PRO-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR – Research has shown that children are influenced greatest when they are shown the exact steps of a positive behaviour, possibly because it is easiest to remember concrete acts than abstract ones. Learning pro-social norms rather than specific behaviours from the media may be uncommon, unless a discussion follows the viewing. Johnston and Ettema found that the largest effects occurred when the programme was shown in a classroom and was followed by a teacher-led discussion. However, this can have the opposite effect, as Rubenstein and Sprafkin found when studying adolescents hospitalised due to psychiatric problems. Post-viewing discussions decreased altruism. This may be because the adolescents wanted to have a view that was opposite to the adults.

PRO-SOCIAL VERSUS ANTI-SOCIAL EFFECTS – Children seem to be better at generalising from watching aggressive acts than pro-social acts. According to both theories, both pro- and anti-social programmes would have the same effect, but there are other differences also. It may be because pro-social models are often not as attractive to viewers as they may be portrayed as weaker than anti-social models. Lovelace and Huston suggested that pro-social effects could be achieved by setting pro-social goals against anti-social ones. However, it seems that mixing of pro- and

anti-social behaviours has a damaging effect on the acquisition of pro-social behaviour. It was found that children who had watched a conflict resolution were less cooperative when playing a game than a control group.

DEVELOPMENTAL FACTORS – This explanation would suggest that pro-social programmes would least affect younger children, but the meta-analysis by Mares found that the weakest effect was with adolescents, and was strongest for primary school children. It may be unrealistic to expect that the media has any effect on the development of pro-social behaviours, both because children are not ready to absorb this information and also because they will probably be more influenced by experiences at home.

RESEARCH

MARES META-ANALYSIS – Mares analysed all available published research on the relationship between television and pro-social behaviour. The study considered the four main behavioural effects of pro-social television.

ALTRUISM – Studies of the effect of television on pro-social behaviour usually use explicit modelling of specific behaviours. For example, in one study, children were rewarded for imitating specific acts they saw on a video. One study found that children who had watched an episode of Lassie in which a child rescued the dog were more likely to help puppies in distress than those who saw a neutral programme. Mares conclude that children who viewed pro-social content would behave more altruistically than children who had viewed neutral or anti-social content. The effect size on altruistic behaviours was moderate to large.

SELF-CONTROL – In all the studies, the children who were exposed to a model showing self-control then showed greater self-control in their own behaviour. In a naturalistic study, 4 year old children watched either a pro-social programme, an aggressive cartoon or a neutral programme over 4 weeks and it was found that those who saw the pro-social programme were more persistent and obedient to rules, which are aspects of self-control. The effect size for self-control was moderate.

POSITIVE INTERACTION – In a study by Freidrich and Stein, the children’s play was observed, and the number of aggressive acts, friendly behaviours, affection etc, was recorded. Children who had seen a pro-social programme showed more positive behaviour to each other than those who had seen a neutral programme. The effect size for self-control was moderate.

ANTI-STEREOTYPING – Johnston and Ettema conducted a study in which children watched a television series that was designed to reduce sex-role stereotypes over a number of weeks. There was a large reduction in stereotypical attitudes about gender roles. There were moderate positive effects in studies using counter-stereotypical themes. Children became less stereotypical and prejudiced in their attitudes or beliefs.

PRO-SOCIAL EFFECTS OF OTHER MEDIA – Mares and Woodard found that children’s books traditionally carry pro-social messages, and as young children enjoy reading these books more than once, this reinforces the message. Recently, computer games and the internet has become a popular entertainment form for children, but it doesn’t usually focus on pro-social content. A survey found that only 10 of the top 500 sites were suitable for children, and only two of them contained pro-social messages.

COMMENTARY ON RESEARCH

Mares’ overall conclusion was that the effects of pro-social programmes is moderate. An earlier analysis of 230 studies by Hearold had found a much stronger positive effect. However, Comstock has suggested that this could be because most of the studies used programmes that were specifically designed to be pro-social. Mares’ meta-analysis tended to use real-life television shows, not pro-social programmes made especially for the study.

ALTRUISM AND POSITIVE INTERACTION – A limitation of studies of altruistic modelling is that they only measure behaviour immediately after viewing the

programmes, so we can’t be sure if there are any long-term effects. Also, when generalized pro-social behaviours are measured, the effects are much less.

SELF-CONTROL – The study by Friedrich and Stein showed individual differences. Children who came from lower socio-economic backgrounds were more cooperative and friendly after exposure to pro-social programmes than children from higher socio-economic backgrounds. However, all effects tapered off after 2 weeks, demonstrating the short-term nature of these effects.

ANTI-STEREOTYPING – The concept of anti- or counter-stereotyping is flawed because it assumes that some stereotypes are better than others. People don’t always agree about which stereotypes are desirable. But using anti-stereotyping presumes that one person can and should decide which is best. It has also been argued that anti-stereotyping doesn’t work. It was found that stereotyping decreased after children viewed a commercial featuring women in non-traditional roles, but in contrast, pre-adolescent boys showed a counter-reaction, showing stronger stereotypes.

MEDIA INFLUENCES IN ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR

EXPLANATIONS

OBSERVATIONAL LEARNING Children observe the behaviour of models in the media and may imitate these

behaviours, especially if they admire or identify with the model.

Television can also teach viewers about possible consequences of violent behaviour. Children are more likely to imitate violent behaviour that is successful in gaining the model’s objectives.

The more real the children perceive the violent situation to be and the more they feel the character is like them, the more likely they will be to try the behaviour they have learned.

AO2 – Bandura’s Bobo doll studies support the idea that children learn and imitate specific aggressive acts through observing a model, even when the model is not real. Bandura also found moderate levels of aggression was learnt when the model was a cartoon character. However, this imitation is rare outside studies that use a specially prepared video. Although there have been claims of copycat violent acts, there is no real evidence for this. For example the film Child’s Play was said to inspire two boys to murder James Bulger, but Cumberbatch has reported that no link has been found.

COGNITIVE PRIMING Aggressive images may trigger a network of aggressive memories, therefore causing

the viewer to think, feel and act in an aggressive way. This means that immediately after viewing a violent programme, people are predisposed to respond aggressively to cues.

This can explain why children may see one kind of aggressive act on TV, and then carry out a different aggressive act afterwards.

If children frequently view violent scenes, they may store scripts for this behaviour in memories, which may be recalled if a later situation has aspects similar to the original situation.

AO2 – A study by Josephson demonstrated the effects of cognitive priming. Junior ice hockey players were frustrated before being shown either a violent or non-violent film, both of which showed an actor holding a walkie-talkie. Afterwards, in a hockey game where the referee held a walkie-talkie, the boys who had seen the violent film behaved more aggressively. This suggests the walkie-talkie acted as a cue, triggering the memory of the violent film, which supports the cognitive priming theory.

DESENSITIZATION In normal circumstances, anxiety about aggression and violence inhibits this

behaviour. However, frequent viewing of media violence can desensitise the viewer to the

effects of violence. This causes this behaviour to become more acceptable to them and they become less

anxious about it. They may begin to perceive violence as normal, so they are more likely to engage in

this behaviour themselves. AO2 – Cumberbach challenges this theory by claiming that although people may get

used to violence on screen, they don’t necessarily get used to real-life violence.

LOWERED PHYSIOLOGICAL AROUSAL Boys who watch a lot of television show lower than average physiological arousal

when shown scenes of violence. Usually, the arousal from viewing violence is unpleasant, but children who

constantly watch violent programmes become used to it, so their emotional and physical responses decline.

They are therefore less inhibited in using violent behaviour. AO2 – In contrast, violence may lead to increased arousal and more aggression. The

excitation-transfer model suggests that arousal creates a readiness to aggress. Some people argue that watching violence can have a beneficial effect, by releasing pent-up aggression.

THE ANTI-EFFECTS LOBBY Some people believe that it is unreasonable that the media is often the first source of

blame for violence. Evidence dos not universally support the hypothesis that media violence leads to

violent behaviour.

For example, when Benson interviewed adolescent boys, it was found that boys who watched the most television when they were young were less aggressive than those who had watched moderate amounts, although the boys who were least aggressive of all were those who had watched the least TV.

This suggests that the link between television viewing and aggression is unpredictable.

Gauntlett argues that the expectation that we will find direct, predictable effects of the media on aggression is flawed. He argues that rather than looking at the media and then trying to make links to violence, we should start by looking at violent people and study what media interaction they have had. A study that did this interviewed violent teenage offenders and found that they watched less TV than non-offending peers.

RESEARCH The National Television Violence Study - Almost 10 000 hours if broadcast

programmes were evaluated. Researchers found that 61% of programmes contained interpersonal violence, much of which was entertaining or glamorised. The highest proportion of violence was in children’s programmes, but this was the genre that showed the least long-term negative effects. The high-risk portrayals of violence, that are most likely to teach children aggressive attitudes and behaviours were – an aggressive model who is attractive, violence that seems justified, unpunished violence, violence with minimal consequences to victim and violence that seems realistic.

Meta-analysis Of Research – Paik and Comstock conducted a meta-analysis of media violence studies that used participants between 3 and 70 years old. There was a highly significant relationship between television violence and aggression. The greatest effect was found in preschool children, and the effect was slightly higher for males than it was for females.

AO2 – These were lab studies, so the situation was artificial. Fowles contrasted the laboratory condition with watching TV at home, stating that at home, watching TV is voluntary, but in a laboratory, the child is told to watch material that they have not chosen and which they probably would not like to watch at home.

NATURAL EXPERIMENT – St Helena Study – When television was first introduced in St Helena, a British colony in the South Atlantic Ocean, a naturalistic study was carried out. It was expected that television would increase the level of anti-social behaviour, but researchers found very little change in either pro-social or anti-social behaviour. The measures which did show a difference were fairly equal for both pro- and anti-social changes. The two significant changes that were found were actually decreases in anti-social behaviour scores.

AO2 – Another naturalistic study, by Williams, challenges this study. This found that aggression did increase after the introduction of television. It may be that the difference in St Helena is that it was a community with a strong sense of identity and no reason to be aggressive.

Video Games and Aggression – A study of 15-16 year olds found a positive correlation between video game playing and aggressive delinquency. A recent conclusion stated that exposure to video game violence increases aggressive behaviour and other aggression related phenomenon. Anderson and Dill surveyed psychology students and found that those who reported playing more violent video games engaged in more aggressive behaviour.

AO2 – The link between video games and aggression is inconclusive. Most studies that have shown a link are correlational. Even if there is a definite correlation between the amount of time spent playing violent video games and aggressive behaviour, this does not mean video games are the cause of aggressive behaviour. Studies rarely distinguish between aggressive play and aggressive behaviour. Observers may confuse mock aggression with real aggression, which can lead to faulty conclusions, as suggested by Goldstein.