Specification: Social psychological explanations of human aggression, including the frustration-aggression hypothesis, social learning theory as applied to human aggression, and de-individuation.

Frustration- Aggression Hypothesis

The frustration-aggression hypothesis put forward by Dollard et al. (1939) is based on the psychodynamic explanation of catharsis. Freud believed the drive for aggression was innate, like the drive for food. He believed that the only way to reduce aggression is to engage in an activity which released it. We feel better because we have ‘got it off of our chest’. 

Dollard et al. (1939) proposed that if we experience frustration, this leads to aggression. The aggression is a cathartic release of the build-up of frustration. Dollard explains that if the individual is prevented from achieving a goal by some external factor, then this will lead to frustration which will always lead to aggression. The aggression cannot always be directed at the source of aggression, which may be abstract such as lack of money, or too powerful, as the risk of punishment is too high. Psychodynamic theory proposes we have ego defence mechanisms to protect ourselves. Two defence mechanisms that are used in the catharsis of aggression are:  

• Sublimation – Using aggression in acceptable activities such as sport.  

• Displacement – Directing our aggression outwards onto something or someone else. 

Berkowitz (1969) proposed a revised frustration-aggression hypothesis, where he argued that frustration doesn’t always lead to aggression. He stated that aggression would only occur in the presence of certain cues. For example, cues such as the presence of weapons will be more likely to trigger aggression 

Evaluation  

Russell Green (1968) conducted a laboratory experiment where he asked male undergraduate students to undertake a jigsaw puzzle. While they were completing the jigsaw puzzle he organised three different conditions that were designed to raise levels of frustration in the participants. One condition imposed an unattainable time limit to complete the jigsaw; in another condition the jigsaw was impossible to complete; and in a third condition a confederate issued derogatory remarks to the students as they failed to complete the study. In the second part of the study which was reminiscent of the Milgram experiment, participants had the opportunity to give shocks to the confederate if he answered incorrectly on another task. The group of participants who had experienced insults from the confederate gave the highest levels of shocks. All three groups gave more shocks than a control group who had not experienced any frustration conditions. This experiment supports the theory that frustration leads to aggression.  

Berkowitz (1967) carried out a laboratory experiment where participants where again given the opportunity to shock a confederate who had previously angered them. However, Berkowitz set up three different conditions: one with an aggressive cue, a gun; one with a non-aggressive cue, a badminton racket; and one with no cue at all. Berkowitz found those participants who were in the presence of the aggressive cue gave higher levels of shocks than the other two groups. The practical applications of this research shed new light on the gun control debate in America. If the presence of guns is more likely to result in aggression, then this 'weapons effect' could have far reaching implications for gun laws.  

Research support has mainly come from laboratory experiments, and therefore there are issues of ecological validity that can be questioned. Ecological validity is the extent to which any research can be applied outside of the research setting, in this case a laboratory. Whether the participants in laboratory experiments would carry out actual aggression when faced with an external stimulus that incited aggression is not certain. 

Social Learning Theory

Aggression can be directly learned through operant conditioning, involving positive and negative reinforcement and punishment. Bandura proposed that aggression can also be learnt by the indirect mechanism of observational learning. Social learning theory maintains that children learn through a process of imitation. Aggressive acts carried out by a role model will be internalised by an individual and reproduced in the future. If the role model's behaviour is seen to be rewarded, then a child can learn that this is an effective way of getting what they want. Through this process of vicarious reinforcement, rewards that are witnessed as a result of aggression result in the behaviour being seen as acceptable and then reproduced. 

Bandura proposes that there are five main cognitive factors that mediate control of the aggressive behaviour:  

• Attention – A person/child must attend to the aggressor. So a child must pay attention to an act of aggression carried out by a role model; for instance, when a child engages in a computer game or watches a violent film they are attending to the aggression.  

• Retention – To model the behaviour, it needs to be placed into LTM, which enables the behaviour to be retrieved. A child needs to remember the aggression that they have witnessed.  

• Production – The individual needs to be able to reproduce the behaviour, i.e. have the physical capabilities. So for instance aggression displayed by superheroes is less likely to be imitated if the child does not possess the physical capabilities to actually carry out the behaviour.  

• Motivation – An individual must be expecting to receive positive reinforcement for the modelled behaviour. A child must expect they will get some kind of reward from carrying out aggression This doesn’t have to be materialistic but could be linked to gaining higher status in the eyes of their peers.  

• Self-efficacy – Individuals must believe that their behaviour will attain a goal; they must have confidence in their own ability to carry out the action and that they will be rewarded for that action. Self-efficacy relates to the factor of self-belief in one’s actions. If a child decides aggression will be an appropriate action, they must be confident that they can carry out the behaviour and that it will end up in a positive outcome. 

Bandura believed aggressive reinforcement in the form of imitation of family members was the most prominent source of behaviour modelling. Parents are the primary role models for children; through a process of observation and identification their behaviour is modelled. The boy who watches his father attack his mother is more likely to become an abusive parent and husband. 

In addition to the role models within the family, Bandura proposed that role models in the media can provide a source of vicarious reinforcement which can lead to aggressive behaviour being replicated. Bandura proposed that these role models can provide a child with a 'script' to guide their behaviour. 

Evaluation  

Albert Bandura undertook a number of studies in America that support the role of social learning in aggressive behaviour. One study (Bandura 1963) was conducted with three experimental conditions: in one condition there was a filmed aggressive role model, in another there was an aggressive role model that was a cartoon character, in the third condition there was a real aggressive role model. In addition, Bandura presented a control condition with no aggressive role model. Bandura undertook a matched pairs design where 96 children aged 3-5 were matched for baseline aggression levels. The children were then allowed to play with a toy called a Bobo doll, and then their aggressive actions were counted. The results demonstrated that the cartoon model produced the highest mean number of aggressive acts. Bandura concluded that the viewing of aggression was not cathartic, but led to the modelling of the aggressive behaviour, thus supporting the social psychological explanation of the social learning of aggression 

Christianson (2006) studied the Kung San people of the Kalahari Desert and found aggressive behaviour was very rare in this society. Kung San parents do not use physical punishment and there is no value placed on aggressive behaviour. So there are no cultural norms for aggression and children do not display aggressive behaviour. This study shows the case for social learning being complex, and questions whether social learning theory in relation to aggression may only be applied to western cultures. This demonstrates that an issue of cultural bias may be present in the explanation of social learning theory.  

Social learning theory can explain some forms of aggression; however, reactive aggression is harder to explain with social learning theory. When aggression is carried out as a reaction to an external stimulus such as jealousy, pain or loneliness, this may be better explained by the frustration-aggression hypothesis rather than as a result of observational learning as proposed by social learning theory. 

Possible Exam Questions 

1. Briefly explain one limitation of the social learning theory of aggression. (2 marks) 

2. Briefly outline and evaluate the findings of one research study into the social learning theory of aggression. (4 marks) 

3. Outline and evaluate one social psychological theory of aggression. (16 marks) 

4. Describe and evaluate the social learning theory of human aggression. (16 marks)