Structures in the brain that regulate emotional behaviour like aggression e.g. hypothalamus, hippocampus & amygdala

• Amygdala is how organisms respond to environmental threats, predicts aggressive behaviour
• Gospic did a lab study Ultimatum game where a proposer offered to split money with a responder, if the responder rejected this they both got nothing
• The responder (pp's) had their brain scanned by fMRI & when they rejected offers it caused an aggressive reaction & activity in the amygdala increased
• If benzodiazepine drug was taken before the game --> nbr of rejection lowered --> reducing aggression --> reducing activity in the amygdala
  CREATES AN ASSOCIATION WITH REACTIVE AGGRESSION & AMYGDALA

Neurotransmitter that causes inhibitory effects between neurons in the brain, aggressive behaviour

• Normal serotonin in orbitofrontal cortex --> reduces firing of neurons --> great self-control
• Low serotonin --> affects neurons fired --> lowering self-control --> increasing aggressive behaviour (Denson)
• Virkkunen found low serotonin in violent impulsive offenders with affected sleep than violent non-impulsive offenders, supports serotonin in causing reactive aggression

Hormone produced in the male testes, small amount in females that associates with aggressiveness

• Testosterone makes males more aggressive than females, for masculine features & regulates social behaviour
• Wagner found castrated animals stopped producing testosterone and didn't bite & when injected with it levels increased causing aggression
• Dolan found a +ve corrleation between testosterone & aggression in 60 male offenders, who suffered psychopathy and had a history of violent behaviour

• Amygdala functions along with Orbitofrontal cortex that's not in the limbic system
• OFC is for self-control & prevents aggressive behaviour
• Coccaro found in patients with psychiatric disorders there's low activity in OFC --> causing aggression & Gospic's finding that amygdala activity --> causes aggression too, so both structures are involved

• Berman found giving pp's a paroxetine drug increased serotonin (reduces aggression) than a placebo
• They then took part in a lab based game where electric shocks were given and taken at different intensities
• The drug group gave fewer shocks (only as they had a history of aggressive behaviour) than placebos, so supports link between serotonin & aggression further

• Mazur came up with BMoS to explain the link between testosterone & aggression, which changes in the day based on social interaction
• E.g. testosterone levels would change after a competition due to loss of status if they lost
• Mehta & Josephs measured male testosterone levels before & after a competitive game, where after they could then challenge who they lost against or do an unrelated task
• Of losers testosterone increased after losing where 73% rechallenged, but of losers whose testosterone dropped 22% rechallenged
• So loss of status --> increased aggression --> increased testosterone supporting mazur's idea giving a high validity

• Carre & Mehta's dual-hormone hypothesis suggests high testosterone --> high aggression only when cortisol is low
• Cortisol is a hormone for stress, when it's high the influence of testosterone on aggression is blocked
• So both hormones together may predict better for aggression rather than individually.

Genes that code for our physical & psychological features inherited from our parents

• Twin studies show inheriting genes show 50% of variety in aggressive behaviour
• Coccaro found in adult MZ twins a greater genetic similarity for aggression due to 100% genes shared, than DZ who share 50% (genetics>same environment)
• For physical aggression concordance results = MZ 50% DZ 19% & verbal aggression = MZ 28% DZ 7%

• Aggressive behaviour is shown between an adopted child & biological parents = so genetic influences
• Aggressive behaviour is between an adopted child & adopted parents = so environment influence too
• Rhee & Waldman did meta-analysis on adoption studies of aggressive & antisocial behaviour finding 41% due to genetics, similar to twin studies

BUT, genetics isn't the sole cause of aggression as the remainder percentage must be due to environment

Gene responsible for the enzyme MAOA (Monoamine oxidase A)

• This enzyme breaks down neurotransmitters (mainly serotonin) into chemicals that's recycled or excreted, determined MAOA gene
• Dysfunction of this gene = low MAOA activity levels = affects the enzyme activity in areas of brain = aggressive behaviour
• Brunner found in 28 males of a Dutch family they had aggressive behaviours of rape & murder --> due to low MAOA gene activity levels & enzymes
• Stuart studied 97 men with Intimate partner violence, those with low MAOA gene activity levels = caused the most harm to their partners

• Low MAOA gene activity alongside early traumatic life effects in adults = Aggressive behaviour
• Frazzetto found an association with high aggression & low MAOA gene activity levels in men, only if they experienced trauma at a young age
• But those without trauma at a young age --> with low MAOA genes --> didn't mean aggressive behaviour (diathesis stress)

• To measure aggression studies, parent/teacher reports, self-reports & observation was used
• From Rhee & Waldman's study on twin/adoption studies genetics was found to influence aggression more from self-reports than p/t reports, so if the findings vary based on how behaviour is measured it lacks a valid conclusion on whether genetic factors influence aggression

• It's difficult to know how genes are in aggressive behaviour, as researchers struggle to separate environmental factors from this
• In G-E interactions, one may have the gene for aggression yet it's expressed only when the environment is favourable
• McDermott supports this as in a lab based game pp's with low MAOA gene activity were only aggressive if provoked, otherwise they behaved normally like other pp's

• Stuart's study of IPV was to do with low activity in the MAOA gene & serotonin gene, supporting more than one gene is involved in aggression
• Vassos in a meta-analysis couldn't find an association with 1 candidate gene & aggression, which is due to many genes working together to cause aggressive behaviour

Explanation that says aggressive behaviour is due to the interaction of ones characteristics & the situation

• Anger & violence is caused (aggression) when we are prevented from reaching our goals (frustration), Dollard
• Based on psychodynamic concept catharsis = outburst of emotions to provide relief, if our goal got blocked --> frustration --> forming aggressive drive (cathartic as aggression formed satisfies frustration & decreases more aggression from occurring)
• Aggression doesn't always form from frustration: frustration may be abstract e.g. due to government, cause can be too powerful risking punishment e.g. aggression to sibling may risk getting in trouble & cause may be unavailable e.g. who your angry at isn't there
• So our aggression displaces to something weak e.g. an object/young sibling

• Geen = study for effects of frustration on aggression
• Students had to complete a jigsaw, where frustration was changed in each group. G1 = puzzle was impossible, G2 = confederate interfered causing time to run out & G3 = confederate kept insulting pp.
• PP's had to shock confederate when they made a mistake on next task where insulted > interfered > impossible gave strongest shocks compared to control group (no frustration)

• Berkowitz found frustration creates readiness for aggression, but environmental cues are additional to F-A hypothesis that makes aggression more likely.
• Berkowitz & LePage got confederates to give shocks to pp's in lab setting to cause frustration & vice versa too.
• Shocks given depended on weapons present (cue- weapon effect increases aggression), where with gun = 6.07 shocked & without gun = 4.67 shocked.

• Marcus-Newhall did meta-analysis on 49 displaced aggression studies
• Researchers found displaced aggression is reliable --> those pp's who were prevented & unable to retaliate against their frustration --> more likely to aggress than those not prevented, supporting F-A hypothesis

• Bushman found those venting anger (catharsis) --> caused more anger & aggression than less.
• He found doing nothing was more effective to reduce aggression
• Yet therapists give advice to be cathartic, so questions validity on F-A hypothesis due to different results

• He said frustration is only one of many
  -ve feelings (jealousy or pain) causing aggression & frustration causes many responses other than aggression (anxiety or despair)
• So the F-A theory was limited only partially explaining how aggression occurs, that this -ve affect theory solves

Change in a species characteristic over generations allowing survival & reproduction, by natural selection

• Men have a paternity uncertainty of whether a child is theirs.
• This causes cuckoldry raising an offspring that's not their own --> reducing chance of their own genes survival
• Men in past could avoid cuckoldry --> reproduce & survival of their genes more , so more sexual jealousy today --> aggressive behaviour in men --> avoiding any adaptations (not having a child of their own)

• Wilson & Daly found aggression & violence involved:
  *direct guarding - male having control over partners behaviour (checking their phone/ where they go)
  *-ve inducement - giving threats as a consequence for infedility (I'll kill myself if you leave)
• Women reporting these --> suffered physical violence --> where 73% needed medical support & 53% scared

• Shackelford got men & women in couples to do different questionnaires (men = to do with retention behaviours * & women = violence from their partner)
• Strong +ve correlation of men's retention behaviours --> causing physical violence to partners that was predicted
• As well as women receiving partner violence

• Bullying --> power imbalance --> one that's powerful is aggressive --> to a weaker one
• Researchers found bullying due to poor social skills/ childhood abuse, yet ancestors may have used bullying as a chance of survival & reproduction
• Volk found bullying characteristics attract opposite sex: Males --> show more dominance & strength --> attracting more females --> so less competition from other males (natural selection)--> reproductive success
• Females --> controlling over partners --> so they'll receive resources for future offspring (NS) --> reproductive success

• Retention strategies link to sexual jealousy & aggression (cuckoldry & infidelity)
• Shakelfords study supports this, so evolutionary predictions about this aggression is correct

• Males are more aggressive than females, Campbell found a female with a child --> less aggressive --> don't want to risk their own & childs life --> verbal aggression would be used instead (even to solve partner disputes)
• As they want to avoid serious physical aggression (Buss & Shakelford), +ve as EE explain gender differences

• Bullying is understood due to EE, so anti-bullying programmes could be set to reduce this
• Rigby found a bullies behaviour can be changed, they bully to have a greater power yet they wouldn't give this up.
• Volk suggested they could aggressively take part in a sport by fairly playing still showing strength in a way avoiding bullying

Studying the innate behaviours of animals in their natural environments.

• Aggression is adaptive, allowing survival of animals outcompeting others, so other species are forced into other territories spreading them out to reduce competition
• Aggression forms dominant hierarchies e.g. male chimpanzees use it for special status like mating rights with a female (in humans too)
• Pettit found in play groups aggression allowed dominance over others, giving +ve like power & access to resources (by natural selection)

= Series of behaviours in a set order.

• Lorenz found in competition between animals little physical damage occurred, instead ritualistic signalling (showing teeth/ facial expressions)
• Competition ends with these signals to accept defeat & prevent further aggressive behaviour (prevents death --> could affect species abundance)

• IRM is a process/structure triggered by an environmental stimulus (facial expression) releasing sequence of behaviours
• Sequence is FAP (Lea): Stereotype = Behaviours occur in same way, Universal = Same behaviours in all species, Ballistic = One behaviour that's triggered cant be prevented, Single purpose = Behaviour occurs in specific situation, Specific triggers = In response to releaser & Unaffected by learning = Behaviours are same experience has no effect

• Male stickleback fish (red belly) are territorial in mating season, Tinbergen put wooden sticklebacks near them & when exposed to another male --> caused aggression (FAP of stereotype) --> acts as stimulus --> Innate realising mechanism
• No matter the shape, if it had a red belly it would be attacked & couldn't prevent behaviour once triggered (Ballistic)

• Genetic explanations found low MAOA gene levels --> aggression & neural explanations found high activity in the amygdala in limbic system --> aggression, which are both innate (natural)
• High validity supports ethological explanation that its genetic & physiological causing aggression innately

• Nisbett found aggression is more in some cultures than others, as north of the US had high homicide rates due to arguments triggering aggression as it was a learnt social norm than the south
• Nisbett did a lab study supporting, if south males were insulted they became more aggressive than north, yet ethological struggles to explain it as culture overrules innate behaviours

• Goodall made observations of chimpanzees where one community killed another, even when the victims attacked made signals to accept defeat --> didn't prevent the aggressive behaviour of the chimps
• Doesn't support ethological explanations of ritualistic aggression within species

Explains behaviour through direct & indirect reinforcement (combines learning theory & cognitive factors)

• Bandura found aggression is directly leant through operant conditioning +ve/-ve reinforcement (e.g. an aggressive child snatches & repeats as they want similar things)
• Yet most aggressive behaviour occurs indirectly by observing
• Children pick up aggressive behaviours observing models (parents,siblings...), if they find the aggressive behaviour is rewarded then the child learns to do so imitating it = vicarious reinforcement, vice versa for punishment

• Attention = Focusing on models aggressive behaviour
• Retention = Remembering the models aggressive behaviour
• Reproduction = Performing the models aggressive behaviour
• Motivation = Reason/encouragement to carry out a behaviour

= Extent to which we believe our actions will reach our desired goal

• Childs aggression grows --> knowing it brings rewards --> causes self efficacy to grow --> as successful outcomes occur (e.g The more child hits the more they know they'll receive the toys as they have the motor skills to do so)

• Children observed adult models hitting (doing aggressive behaviours) a Bobo doll, for short period they couldn't play causing frustration & were then taken to a room with Bobo
• Children imitated these behaviours verbally & physically, yet a control group imitated no aggressive behaviours

• Poulin & Boivin applied SLT to aggressive behaviour in young boys
• Aggressive boys formed friendships with other aggressive boys, +ve reinforce on each other as they were models for one another
• Supports SLT of what it predicts for aggressive behaviour (self efficacy)

• People are active when shaping their aggressive behaviours & surroundings which rewards their behaviour --> more aggression (reciprocal determinism)
• Practical +ve to SLT as aggression cycle can be broken to reduce aggressive behaviour e.g. aggressive people could be made friends with non-aggressive people reducing their behaviours

• Proactive aggression people (control situation themselves) --> high self efficacy to reach their goals --> as aggressive behaviour gives rewards explained well by SLT
• Yet, Reactive aggressive people --> are aggressive to retaliate in the moment --> who don't use aggression for anything else, so SLT doesn't explain this well

A change in psychological state where one loses their identity, taking on a group identity instead

• De-individuation —> crowd behaviour (to be free from social norms) —> lacking self-identity & responsibility of our behaviours —> as the crowd doesn’t care much of these behaviours —> so more free to aggressively behave

• Zimbardo found, Individuated behaviour = rational & normative (conform to social norms)
• De-individuated behaviour = emotional & anti normative —> lack of self awareness of our own behaviour
• So, de-individuation causes aggressive behaviour (alcohol, disguises & darkness). Anonymity (Dixon & Mahendran) is more in a bigger crowd —> reduces judgment from others = Aggression

• De-individuation —> aggression —> due to consequences of anonymity —> explained by self-awareness ( Prentice-Dunn & Rogers)
• Private self-awareness = In a crowd we pay less attention to our feelings & behaviour , focusing more on events becoming less thoughtful —> becoming de-individuated
• Public self-awareness = We usually care of what others think, yet in a crowd we don’t as be become anonymous & less judged , taking less responsibility for aggressive behaviours
  

• Dodd asked 229 psych students “If you could anything humanly possible..not held responsible, what would you do?”, knowing their answers were anonymous
• Raters unaware of the hypothesis split behaviour into categories: antisocial 36% , criminal acts 26% & pro social behaviours 9% (helping people) supporting link of anonymity,de-individuation & aggression

• Douglas & McGarty looked at online aggressive behaviour, strong correlation between anonymity & threatening messages was found (aggressive messages were from those hiding identities)
• Supports link of anonymity, aggressive behaviour & de-individuation, social media has caused this to develop

• De-individuation doesn’t always cause aggression, Gergen found participants who didn’t know each other in the dark became intimate with one another & when they were told in a repeat that they’d be revealed to strangers reduced intimate behaviours
• So de-individuation could’ve raised to aggressive yet it didn’t not supporting causing aggression

• Johnson & Downing got females to give fake electric shocks to confederates
• In G1 pp’s dressed as KKK, G2 as nurses & G3 (control) in normal clothes
• Those as KKK gave most intense shocks & as nurses gave least/were compassionate (pro social) , so de-individuation = aggression & prosocial behaviours & normative cues determine this

Aggressive behaviour in a prison or other setting.

= Aggressive behaviour is due to the environment of the prison with others present

• Deprivation model, Clemmer - stressful conditions in the prison (deprivation) --> coping by aggression/violent behaviour

  
  

  1) D of liberty = lack of freedom, small spaces or overcrowding

  
  

  2) D of autonomy = lack independence, needing permission to sleep/eat

  
  

  3) D of goods & services = lack of possession e.g. hair brush --> more competition with others --> aggression

  
  

  4) D of heterosexual relationships = lack of company from opposite gender --> lack of self-identity

  
  

  5) D of security = lack of safety in prison

  
  

• Being locked up --> frustration --> more aggression & no access to resources

  
  

= Aggressive behaviour due to an individuals personality

• Importation model, Irwin & Cressy - everyday
  life is brought into prison by inmates subculture of criminality (beliefs, gender & race)
• So inmates import these behaviours reflecting their lives before either being non-aggressive to make their way through prison life (straight subculture) or being aggressive to gain power/status (convict subculture 'gangs')
• This model shows inmates personality causes aggression regardless of the setting
  

• Camp & Gaes studied inmates with similar criminal histories & aggression (similar DF), randomly allocating half to low-security prison & others to a slightly higher one
• 33% of low security & 36% of other were involved in aggressive fights (similar values), showing environment is less important than characteristics for aggression (+ve field experiment)

• Dilulio dislikes importation model as role of prison staff & running of prisons is ignored, so new model ACM (administrative control model) states poor managed prisons will experience more violence
• By lack of staff leadership & poor rules, that he said determines aggression more than characteristics/settings

• Cunningham found in 35 inmate homicides were due to deprivations of arguments over drugs & possessions, supports deprivation model --> more aggression --> high validity

  
  

• Hensely studied male & female inmates allowing conjugal visits (for partners to have sex), finding these visits didn't reduce aggression. So situational factors don't affect violence.

Studying media (TV, films) of computer games psychologists use different studies to do so.

• Involves lab studies to see short-term effects
• Bartholow & Anderson got students to play either a violent/non-violent game for 10mins.Then they did a reaction time task (lab measure) to see aggression, where students could blast music as loud as they want to a non-existent person
• Those playing the violent game gave sound much louder than non-violent game students

• Investigates real life variables
• DeLisi studied offenders with a history of aggressive behaviours, structured interviews were used to gather data on aggression & violent computer game playing
• Offenders aggression (seen as serious) correlated with violent game playing/how much (risk) they enjoyed it creating a strong link

• Robertson looked at a link between excessive childhood tv watching & aggression as adult, in people of New Zealand up to 26yrs old
• Found that those who watched more tv had antisocial personality disorder, with aggressive traits (due to the amount of tv watched not violence in it)

• Combining all 3 of these studies to give an overall view of aggressive behaviour due to media
• Anderson did a meta-analysis of 136 studies finding an association between violent computer games & aggression, in all genders of both collectivist/individualist cultures
• Researchers found this association is quite extreme in being true & no publication bias affected results

• Correlations realistically show aggression, but -ve cant draw cause & effect conclusions, variables aren't controlled & no random allocation of pp's to violent/non-violent games
• As the cause is difficult to understand, either a socialisation hypothesis is chosen where media makes people more aggressive or selection hypothesis where aggressive people select aggressive media

• +ve allows link between media aggression & aggressive behaviour
• -ve lab studies are artificial e.g. reaction time task as researcher had to create a measurement or aggression rather than doing something unethical like hitting
• unrealistic too as pp's have no fear knowing they can behave how they wish rather than naturally

• Looks at change in aggressive behaviour over time, to see over time how people react to media
• Over time confounding variables can affect the study, other sources interact with aggression (friends or family) making it difficult to know what's causing the aggression

= Repetitive exposure to violence that reduces physiological & psychological anxiety arousal, causing aggression

• Physiologically violence --> arousal in sympathetic nervous system (high BP) --> repetitive viewing of violence (in games/TV) --> reduces this anxiety arousal effect
• Psychologically --> repetitive viewing of violence in media --> creates belief that aggression is socially acceptable --> less empathy (Funk)
• Weisz & Earl did a lab study, where pp's show rape scene in film / trial & other saw a non-violent film. Males who watched the violent film agreed that rape/sexual aggression occur with less sympathy than females.

= Social norms (violence is wrong) can be triggered against, making behaviour temporarily socially acceptable, causing aggression

• Learnt by SLT directly & indirectly due to violent media as the standards of acceptable behaviour changes to new social norms
• E.g. video games reward violent behaviour --> yet consequences are ignored

= Violent images in our memory that creates aggression once triggered by aggressive cues

• The violent scripts direct our behaviour without realising e.g. computer game having to kill is the cue --> makes them likely to be socially aggressive too
• Fischer & Greitmeyer looked at aggressive scripts in memory, male pp's listened to aggressive song lyrics of women compared to normal lyrics --> aggressive ones was cue --> triggered aggression to female confederate (replicated with women for similar results)

• Krahe showed pp's violent/non-violent film clips, while their physiological arousal was measured by skin conductance
• Pp's who normally watched violent films had low anxious, yet high pleasant arousal correlated with no cause aggression from a noise blast task, supporting desensitisation

• Berkowitz & Alioto found pp's watching a movie where vengeance caused aggression, made them give more shocks to a confederate
• Media violence shows aggressive behaviour to be socially acceptable --> removal of social norms, supporting disinhibition & high validity

• Bushman & Anderson found that one who consistently watches violent media accesses aggressive scripts easily in memory --> by cues --> causing aggression
• As they'd interpret cues as aggression than alternatives, so interventions can be put in place to reduce aggression to consider alternatives like humour, beneficial in real life