AggressionSocial Learning Theory Deindividuation
Social Learning TheoryWhat do you Learning from othersalready know? Reinforcement Bandura - bobo doll Modelling Vicarious Role Model Imitation
SLT - BanduraAggression is learned4 basic processes-1) Attention – how much the individual concentrates on the model showing behaviour2) Retention – storing the behaviour witnessed3) Reproduction – imitating the behaviour witnessed4) Motivation – having good reason for showing the witnessed behaviour again (real or imaginary)
SLT & AggressionChild learns by observing others likely to pay attention to a role model child witnesses many examples of aggressive behaviour and observes the consequences children learn whether such behaviour is worth repeating (gives them a motivation to repeat the behaviour) motivation can occur as a result of different types of reinforcement
Types of reinforcement Direct Vicarious Self-EfficacyReinforcement Reinforcement Child directly Child sees others Success = reinforcement being rewarded confidence or punished If child is positively If another is The more reinforced it will rewarded the successful a child influence the child is much is in being likelihood of more likely to aggressive the them being imitate – reward more confident aggressive again expectation they‟ll be to act aggressively again
SLT - evaluationAlternative ApproachNature Vs. NurtureThe studies have shown a genetic factor in the learningTwin biological approach criticises aggression levels,McGue et al, +0.43 for monozygotic twins and +0.30 for theories:dyzygotic twinsSLT has been criticised by the biological approachAronson includes looking at hormone levels as a whichEvidence from non-violent societies e.g. Pygmies of Central Africa causeinof aggression.who live cooperative friendliness – any biological factors canHigher levels of the male hormone ‘testosterone’be overridden by learning have been cited as the main cause of aggressivePhillips behaviour. rates always increased in the week following aDaily homicideThis casts doubt – viewers were being a conclusivemajor boxing match on learning imitating the behaviour explanation of aggression.they‟d watched, SLT can still happen in adults!
SLT A02 - Bandura72 children divided into 2 groupsExperimental groupChild entered the playroom where an adult role model was playing aggressively with a mallet and Bobo doll (physical and verbal violence)Control groupChild saw the role model ignoring the Bobo doll
How doesthis support SLT? SLT A02 - Bandura When led into another play room with aggressive and non-aggressive toys Experimental group IDEA‟s Children were more likely to show aggressive behaviour themselves – children imitated the physical and verbal violence they‟d witnessed It was also more likely that the child would imitate the aggression if they’d witnessed a male role model (typically male sex appropriate behaviour). A03 Control group 70% of children had zero rating for aggression
Deindividuation„The loss of one‟s sense of individuality‟
Deindividuation Process whereby people lose their sense of individualidentity and engage Anonymityin unsociable, oftenantisocial behaviour Deindividuated people (e.g. wearing a uniform) are likely to behave aggressively because of the loss of a sense of individuality Not being seen as an individual can make a person lose their inhibitions as they are less identifiable – leading to aggressive acts.
DeindividuationZimbardo – distinguished between individuated behaviour (rational and conforms to social norms) and deindividuated behaviour (which does not). People usually avoid aggressive behaviour partly do to social norms, partly due to being held accountable for actions. Being anonymous (and unidentifiable) in a crowd reduces inner restraints and increases behaviour that is usually inhibited i.e. aggression Large crowd = person is faceless and adopts a group identity
IDEA‟s Deindividuation Malamuth & Check (1981) Questioned male students at an American University found that almost 1/3 of them admitted there was a chance they might commit rape if there we no chance of identificationMoral responsibility shifts from the individual person to the group, of which they are a member People behave with a “Collective Consciousness” or “Mob Mentality” LeBon “social contagion” may be seen
Deindividuation - evaluationZimbardo (1969) - Hooded electric shock studyFemale undergraduates involved in a „study of learning‟Similar to Milgram‟s study of obedienceHalf of the female participants were assigned to the experimental group and wore laboratory coats and hoods that covered their faces. They were also addressed in groups of 4; never being addressed individually and never by name (in order to deindividuate them).The control group wore normal clothes, were given large name tags to wear and were introduced to each other by name. Both sets of students could see the „learner‟ who pretended to be in extreme discomfort.
Deindividuation - evaluation The hooded participants gave In addition the strength twice as much of the shock given by the shock as the hooded participants control group (unlike the control group) didn‟t depend upon whether the learner was described as „honest and warm‟ or „conceited and critical‟.
A03 Deindividuation - evaluation IDEA‟sDeiner et al (1976) – Halloween nightObserved 1300 trick or treating American children at Halloween night.When the children wore masks and went from house to house in large groups they were more likely to steal money and sweets (i.e. engage in anti-social behaviour)Supporting the deindividuation theory as when the childrenwere not identifiable they engaged in antisocial behaviour as the masks and costumes gave them anonymity
Deindividuation - evaluationGergen et al (1973) the dark room arousal studyDeindividuation does not always produce anti-social behaviour, in fact they showed that in some circumstances when people cannot be identified, more welcoming behaviours can occur.They put groups of six men and six women (who did not know each other) in either normally lit rooms (control group) or in a completely dark room (experimental group) and told them that there was nothing special that the experimenters wanted them to do.The results of this study showed that in the final fifteen minutes, the participants in the dark room began to get physical, half of them hugged each other, some of them became quite intimate and 80% reported feeling sexually aroused - the norms of intimacy no longer prevailed.
Deindividuation - evaluation Gergen et al‟s research demonstrates that deindividuation doesn‟t always result in antisocial behaviour and that sometimes prosocial behaviour can occur
Identify whether the words below are linked with SLT or Deindividuation Mundane Learned Attention Retention Realism Deiner et alSelf Efficacy Vicarious Direct Reinforcement (1976) McGue et al Zimbardo Bandura Consequences (1992) Bobo Doll Deterministic Reward Uniform Demand Dark roomMalamuth & Role ModelCheck (1981) Characteristics arousal studyReductionist Hooded Electric Aronson (1999) Boxing Shock study