8. SOCIAL LEARNING THEORY OF AGGRESSION
However… Bandura repeated this experiment but
with a Live Clown as opposed to a Bobo doll and
still found the same pattern of results!
It lacks Ecological Validity…
(unrealistic doll; can’t be applied)
9. SOCIAL LEARNING THEORY OF AGGRESSION
• ‘A possible limitation with the Bandura studies is that they use a doll
rather than a real person, which is a problem because results may vary if
applied to a real person thus SLT can not be used to explain situations
where aggression is displayed toward people in real life. However,
Bandura repeated the experiment using a film of a women beating a live
clown, and when children were placed in a room with the live clown they
imitated the aggressive behaviour. This implies that SLT is true for
situations regarding props and real life people and thus supports SLT.’
10. SOCIAL LEARNING THEORY
• Can SLT be seen in real life
situations?
• (Lab study…)
• Philips, (1983) homicide rates in
the USA increase following major
televised boxing matches
11.
12. SOCIAL LEARNING THEORY OF AGGRESSION
• SLT's relevance can be demonstrated by its ability to
explain aggression outside the context of the
laboratory. Philips (1983) found that homicide rates
in the US increased in the week following a major
televised boxing match, suggesting that viewers
were imitating the aggressive behaviour they
observed in the fight therefore supporting SLT.
13. 24 MARKER: DISCUSS SLT AS AN EXPLANATION FOR
AGGRESSION…
• P1: A01 – SLT
Key words
Explain direct / vicarious reinforcement – use example
4 components (ARRR)
Factors effecting likelihood of imitation (GAS)
8 marks
LINK TO
AGGRESSION!!
14. 24 MARKER: DISCUSS SLT AS AN EXPLANATION FOR
AGGRESSION…
• P2: A02 – Evidence
Bobo Doll experiments –Gender & Reinf.
Real world application? – Philips/Eron
Internal Validity? – Bandura live clown
LINK TO
AGGRESSION!!
LINK TO SLT!!
15. 24 MARKER: DISCUSS SLT AS AN EXPLANATION FOR
AGGRESSION…
P3 – A03 (IDA)
Cultural Variation?
Ethical Issues?
Reductionist?
Nature<Nurture?
A02 & A03 = 16 marks… Min. 2x GRENADE
LINK TO
AGGRESSION!!
LINK TO SLT!!
17. DEINDIVIDUATION THEORY OF AGGRESSION
• In 2005, men on a College Campus in North Dakota filled in a
questionnaire which asked:
“If nobody would ever know and there wouldn’t be any consequences,
would you force a female to engage in sexual intercourse with you?”
What % do you think said yes?
31.7%
18. DEINDIVIDUATION THEORY OF AGGRESSION
• In 2005, men on a College Campus in North Dakota filled in a
questionnaire which asked:
“If nobody would ever know and there wouldn’t be any consequences,
would you rape a female?”
What % do you think said yes?
13.6%
20. DEINDIVIDUATION
• People normally refrain from displaying aggressive anti-social
behaviour b/c it is unacceptable in social norms.
• However, in situations where identification of an individual is
difficult, people are more likely to behave anti-socially.
22. LE BON (1895)
• First to recognise how behaviour
changed in a group
• Coined the term ‘Group Mind’
• Believed when we are in crowds
we automatically lose our
individual mind and adopt a more
primitive, anti-social, ‘group mind’
which unleashes our instinctive
behaviour
23. FESTINGER, 1952…
• 1st coined the term ‘Deindividuation’
• Disagreed with Le Bon – “Group Mind is not automatic as some
members of a group won’t adhere to the collective”
• He believed that Anonymity from a crowd reduces peoples inhibitions
(conscious restraints) which then can lead to aggression.
24. WHAT OTHER SITUATIONS ARE THERE WHERE AN
INDIVIDUAL MAY FEEL DEINDIVIDUATED?
• 1. Crowds
• 2. Masked (identity covered)
• 3. In a Uniform
• 4. Drunk
• 5. Acting on behalf of
somebody else
• 6. Status
25. ZIMBARDO, (1971)
• Distinguished between individuated and deindividuated behaviour outside
crowds
Individuated = rational; conforms to acceptable social standards
Deindividuated = Based on Primitive Urges; not restrained to societal norms
• When in situations where we are anonymous, we experience diminished
awareness of individuality and reduced ‘Public Self Awareness’
28. ZIMBARDO’S VARIATION OF MILGRAM
2 Conditions:
1. Lab coats, hoods
addressed in a group
2. Large name tags,
introduced by name
Deindividuated ppt’s delivered
twice as many shocks as the
individuate ppts.
29. ZIMBARDO, (1971)
• Loss of ‘self-consciousness’ as a result of reduced public
self awareness.
• Added ‘situational factors’ to Festinger’s theory and didn’t
restrict application to groups but also in murder, suicide
and interpersonal hostility.
30. DEINER (1980)
• “Deindivuation leads to 4 changes…”
• 1. Reduced ability to monitor one’s own behaviour
• 2. Reduced ability to inhibit impulsive behaviour
• 3. Reduced ability to respond/think clearly
• 4. Reduced concern about social judgment
31. EVALUATION OF DEINDIVIDUATION THEORY…
• Supported by Research
• Watson (1974) evaluated 23 cultures to
determine whether warriors who used war
paint or masks in battle treated their victims
differently
32. EVALUATION OF DEINDIVIDUATION THEORY…
• Supported by Research
• Mann et al (1981) analysed 21 incidents of
suicide in the 60s and 70s.
10 of these cases had people baiting the
person to jump.
These all occurred when the crowd was large,
it was at night and there was a large distance
from the ‘jumper’
33. EVALUATION OF DEINDIVIDUATION THEORY…
• Supported by Research
• Deiner (1976)
• Field study
• 1,300 Trick or Treaters
• When in large groups, with identities covered
(masks) children were more likely to steal sweets
34. DEINER (1976)
• Incidents of anti-
social behaviour
(stealing) went
from 8% to 80%
when the child is
deindividuated!
35.
36. EVALUATION OF DEINDIVIDUATION THEORY
• Postmes & Spears (1998)
• 1. Deindividuation increases conformity of aggressive
behaviour in aggressive crowds
• 2. Reduced focus on individual self, but not total
disappearance
39. EVALUATION OF DEINDIVIDUATION THEORY
• Deindividuation does not always lead to aggression…
• Gergen et al (1973)
12 Ppts taken to a dark room (were unable to identify each other)
First 15 minutes – polite/small talk
By 60 minutes, inhibitions had lowered and ppt’s got physical…
40. GERGEN’S DARK ROOM EXPERIMENT…
• More than half the participants had cuddled
• 80% of participants claimed to have felt ‘sexually aroused’
Editor's Notes
80 percent of warriors in these cultures were found to be more destructive--for example, killing, torturing or mutilating their victims-- than unpainted or unmasked warriors.
Free will & determinism – we have no control over our behaviours
