Unit One Aggression

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


2/20

P a g e 2



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


3/20

P a g e @



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.

@


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


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


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-.


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


8/20

#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


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


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


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


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


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


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.


15/20

E0)lratins in Educatin #oy Design 3ubric

Evaluator:s Fame


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


17/20

enunciation eye

contact-

Ttal 4ints

Overall Ttal 4ints"JJJJJJJJJJJJ

Bomments


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.


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'


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

Documents

Unit One Aggression