LECTURE 11: AGGRESSION o Prenatal testosterone exposure (lower 2D:4D ratio) associated with more

physical aggression in men

W HAT IS AGGR ES SION ?  Correlates to exposure with testosterone
o Successful aggression can increase testosterone
- An act performed with the intent to harm another, who wished to avoid such harm
o Stress elevates both testosterone and aggression
o Covers all types of harm (e.g., physical, emotional)
o Steroids increase both testosterone and aggression
o Perpetrator’s intention is important
 Accidental harm isn’t aggression
 Success of act doesn’t matter (still an aggression)
o Victim’s wishes are important
- Violence = extreme acts of aggression

TWO TYPES OF AG GR ES SION

Reactive/emotional

- Harm is inflicted for its own sake SEROTONIN

- Goal is to hurt others – social justice for you
- Can be impulsive or calculated (react back when people hurt you)
Proactive/instrumental
- Harm is inflicted to a desired end (get something out of it “stealing”)
- Stems from some other goal
AMYGDALA
B IOLOGICAL F ACTORS (1 )
There is a genetic link to aggression: e.g., twin study – more obvious when older
- Neurotransmitter that helps people to restrain impulses
- Negatively correlated with aggression (more serotonin  less aggressive)
- Serotonin levels tend to drop when someone hasn’t eaten or is stressed (associated with
impulsive anger)
- Drugs that increase serotonin (e.g., anti-depressants) can reduce aggression
- The amygdala helps register threat, and prepare for fight or flight response
- As such, amygdala is implicated in aggression

- A ‘violent temper’ is heritable

- ‘giving people a hard time’ is heritable
- Assault (verbal, indirect, direct) is heritable
- Propensity for adolescent misconduct heritable
- Some argue there’s genetic basis for criminality – being adopted and have genetic
imprinted of biological parents
o If biological parents have criminal history  more likely to have too

TESTOSTERONE:
- But no person is inevitably aggressive … social psychologists are most interested in how
- Male sex hormone, but present in men and women (men > women)
- Positively correlated with aggression social factors and patterns of thinking might lead to aggression
- Evidence:
o Testosterone changes due to sex reassignment treatment predict changes in NEG AT IVE FE ELINGS (2)
aggression  sudden testosterone change
DOLLARD ET AL (1939) THE FRUSTRATION-AGGRESSION HYPOTHESIS
 - According to the frustration-aggression hypothesis, frustration (interrupted progress
toward an expected goal) always elicits the motive to aggress … so all aggression is caused
by frustration
- Frustration can lead to displacement (aggression against a substitute target). So, a healthy
way to reduce this motive is catharsis (e.g., taking it out on an object)
Goal interference  Build up of psychic energy  Frustration  Aggression (which is often
displaced onto a “scapegoat”)
PAIN: participants were asked to put their hand in a bucket of water that was either ice cold (painful)
or room temperature (control). They were then put in a position where they could supervise (and
give feedback on) a partner’s work
- those we had to endure pain were more punitive to their partners when supervising their
work
HEAT: more riot, family disturbances, rapes and assaults occur in the summer

The frustration-aggression hypotheses: does the evidence support it? - number of players hit by pitchers in baseball goes up as the temperature increases
- violence rates tend to be higher for countries the closer they are to the equator; and even
- Yes, frustration is related to aggression – cannot be calm within those countries violence increases with temperature

Classic 1941 study:

- Children got to play with attractive toys either right away or the toys were locked up
behind a wire screen and they had to wait to play with them
- Those in the waiting condition were more likely to smash the toys, throw them around,
step on them (more aggressive)

Frustration is greater when:

- People are close to reaching their goal

- The obstacle is unexpected – too much expectation
Limits to frustration-aggression link
Frustration is less likely to lead to aggression:
- as the intensity of negative stimuli increases, so does negative affect and aggression … but
- if frustration is understandable, legitimate, and unintentional  build self-control only up to a point
- person who we would lash out at is bigger and stronger (or powerful) o when negativity is too intense, escape or fatigue become more dominant 
aggression decreases
Frustration-aggression hypothesis: revised
- positive emotions (i.e., laughing at funny cartoons) can help cancel out negative feelings
and reduce aggression
- the strong version of the hypothesis has been softened in light of the data
- now, frustration is seen as one of many unpleasant experiences that can lead to
aggression by creating negative, uncomfortable feelings AG GR ES SION -R ELATED CUES (3 )
- it is the negative feelings, not frustration itself, that can trigger aggression. And negative
feelings can be caused by a wide variety of things BERKOWITZ & LE PAGE (1067) WEAPONS

Weapon effect = sceptical about data – unconscious prime effect

PROVOCATION: (e.g., insult, shove) can increase aggression … unless mitigrating factors are known in
advance – say horrible things when written essay  be aggressive by giving electric shock etc
- image of money in display & people become more selfish
- picture of gun  people more aggressive
 - participants – in pairs – were each asked to generate solutions to a problem
- they were told they could give each other shocks (up to 10) to indicate the quality of their
solution to the problem. In fact, one “participant” was a confederate, who gave either 7
shocks or 1 shock
- these shocks were given in a room containing either:
o no object, guns or badminton racquets (told to ignore)
- how many shocks would participants give the confederate in return?
- the kids were then exposed to a frustrating experience: told that the toys they were
playing were reserved for other children, but they could go to another room and play with
those toys
- kids exposed to the aggressive model played more aggressively … particularly after
watching same-sex model
SOCIAL LEARNING

- by watching aggressive models, people:

o learn specific aggressive behaviours: “learn techniques”
o develop more positive attitudes and beliefs about aggression in general
o construct aggressive “scripts”
- models who use aggression to obtain desired goals and are not punished for their
behaviour are most influential

EXP OS UR E TO VIOLENT MEDIA (4)

Positive correlation between …

- amount of violent TV watched as a child and aggressiveness as a teenager (as rated by

- not provoke  low level of aggression teachers and classmates)
- being provoke  revenge act by giving more shock especially when gun in the room - time spent watching TV during adolescence/ early adulthood and subsequent violent acts
against others (i.e., assault, armed robbery)
L EARN IN G (4) o not due to differences in parental education, family income, neighbourhood
violence or earlier aggression
- learning from direct experience
o direct experience with rewards and punishments can affect the likelihood of
LIEBERT & BARON (1972): EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE
future aggressive responses
- positive reinforcement - children randomly assigned to watch:
o aggression produces desired outcomes o violent TV show (police drama)
- negative reinforcement o exciting but nonviolent TV show (sporting event) – competitive sport
o aggression prevents or stops undesirable outcomes - participants were told there was a child in the next room playing a game that involved
- punishment turning a handle
o aggression results in negative outcomes for you o “help” button would help the child turn the handle and make it easier to win
the game
BANDURA, ROSS & ROSS (2961): BOBO DOLL STUDY: SOCIAL LEARNING THEORY o “hurt” button made the handle feel hot – will hurt the child
o Had to press one or the other, but could choose how long they held it down for
- indirect experience (observing others) affects the likelihood of future aggressive responses
– helping/hurting for longer
- Bobo Doll Study: children were exposed to same or opposite sex who modelled non-
aggressive or aggressive behaviour (by bashing a Bobo doll)
 - Participants were white males from North or South
- Participants were told to walk down narrow corridor, drop off form and return
o Insult condition: Confederate bumps into participants with shoulder and call
him “asshole”
o No-insult condition

After the insult:

- Hormone levels:
o Cortisol (stress)
o Testosterone (prepared for aggression

- More in violent TV show – especially in boys, maybe due to modelling effect = actors are
men
- The link between media violence and aggression is stronger when violence is:
o Described as real vs. fictitious
o Morally justified by the situation
o Described as revenge
o Is carried out by someone participants identify with – hero in episode
o Is approved by an adult

CUL TURE FACT OR : CUL TURE OF HONOUR (5) - Northern subjects < Southern subject
- In some cultures, emphasis is placed on honour and status, particularly for males
- Behaviour: do they act like tough guy?
- Aggression is used to protect honour
o Firmness of handshake
- Sense of honour = social reputation
o Chicken game
- Even minor conflicts or disputes are often seen as challenges to social status and
reputation and can trigger aggressive response – to restore honour

Cultural differences: North vs South US

North South
Settle by farmers Settled by herders
Livelihood not easily stolen Livelihood easily stolen
Cooperation & community are adaptive Independence & toughness are adaptive
Honour is not paramount value Honour is paramount value
Insult says something about insulter Insult say something about self

COHEN ET AL: CULTURE OF HONOUR STUDIES

 - Firm: southern > Northern ZEICHNER & PHIL (1979)
- Chicken: Northern > Southern
- Participants consumed alcohol or a placebo drink. They then received a loud burst of
noise from “another participant” via headphones (salient cue)
INDIVIDUAL DIF FE RE NCES (6 )
- To stop the noise, participants could press a button that gave the partner an electric shock
(from mild to intense), but then the partner could indicate how much pain they were in by
SELF-CONTROL
giving another burst of noise
- Being able to resist impulses and act in line with personal/societal standards for o They hurt you  you hurt back  they hurt you back
appropriate behaviour - Conflicting cues:
- Poor self-control predicts greater aggression o Desire to retaliate (Salient cue)
o Towards strangers & romantic partners o Don’t want painful tones in return (inhibiting cue)
o Crime - Results:
o Cyberbullying o Intoxicated participants were more aggressive (gave more shock)  not
- Aggressive people try to control their anger but less successful than non-aggressive people thinking about consequences of action “that they will get hurt back”
o For those who were alcohol-affected, behaviour driven by salient cue (desire to
ALCOHOL retaliate) … the inhibiting cue was less influential

- Alcohol linked to:

o 60-70% of homicides
o 75% of stabbings
o 70% of beatings
o 50% of fights and domestic assaults
alcohol myopia
- State of short-sightedness in which superficially understood, immediate aspects of
experience have a disproportionate influence on behaviour and emotion, a state in which
we can see the tree, albeit more dimly, but miss the forest altogether”
- Perception shrink & hyperattentive to salient (important) things
o More interested in sex & more sensitive to threats
- Alcohol:
o Narrows attention to the most salient aspects of the situation = aggression cue
is more salient
o Limits ability to think through the implication of the cues
- Alcohol myopia leads to more extreme behaviour when there is inhibition conflict (what
should do OR what should restraint)
o Salient cues encourage one response, but inhibiting cues encourage restraint
o With alcohol myopia, people process the salient cue, but not the inhibiting cue
 People process what threatens them than what avoid them from
“protect” themselves
HOW CAN WE RE DUCE AGGRESS ION?
- Punish aggressive behaviour? – whacking: to reduce aggression
- Physical punishment can backfire because it models aggressive behaviour
- Correlational evidence:
o Measured times spanked and antisocial behaviour (2 years later)
o More spanking was associated with increased antisocial behaviour
o Not due to earlier antisocial behaviour or SES
WHEN CAN (NON -VIOL EN T) P UNISHMENT B E EFF ECTIVE? – IGN ORE OR TIME OUT?
- When it is prompt (immediately follows the aggressive behaviour)
- When it’s certain (consistently applied, unavoidable)
- When it’s seen as fair/legitimate
- When it’s strong enough to deter the aggressor, but not too harsh (harsh punishments
unlikely lead people to internalise the desire behaviour)
Get it out of our systems?
CATHARSIS
- A popular belief is that people have to let out their aggression in safe ways or it will build
up and lead a lot of aggression.
 - Cathartic acts include performing an aggressive act, watching other be aggressive or o “honestly, I wasn’t impressed. Your speech was boring …”
imagining aggressive things - They were then given the opportunity to aggress the person who provoked them (by
- Nice idea, but it doesn’t work … giving noise blasts as a “reward” for winning a game)
o Imagined aggression or watching aggression in others is more likely to increase
arousal and aggression than reduce it

Catharsis backfires

GEEN ET AL (1975)

- Participants angered by a confederate

- When got chance to shock right way = meaner (shock more)
- Half of the participants were given an opportunity to shock him (catharsis)
- All participants were given the opportunity to shock him on a subsequent task
- Those who gave shocks first time gave more shocks the second time

Reasons for the increase

- Control condition: participants high in trait physical aggression were more aggressive than
- Even low levels of aggression may loosen restraints against more violent behaviour
those low in trait physical aggression
o Once you start hit = reduce inhibition towards physical aggression, but once
- Self-control training condition: no association between trait physical aggression and
you lose it  start hit
aggressive behaviour
- Feelings of hostility and anger may persist and possibly increase
- More pronounce with people that have high traits of aggression
Increase empathy

- 30-hour elementary school program to teach empathy:

o Taught kids to put themselves in another’s situation
 “what would the world look like to you if you were as small as a
cat?”
 “what birthday present would make each member of your family
happiest?”
 Retold stories from perspective of different characters
o Children who participated in this program were more empathic, higher in self-
esteem, more generous, and less aggressive than those who didn’t participated
 have to be taught

Increased self-control

- Participants first engaged in self-control training (or didn’t)

o For 2 weeks, use non-dominant hand from 8am to 6pm everyday
- They were then provoked after performing a speech