Module 3: Applying social psychology to the media and aggression

MEDIA VIOLENCE AND AGGRESSIVE THOUGHTS

Imagine that you are sitting at a stoplight, and it turns green. The driver of the pickup in front of you is not
paying attention and continues to sit there instead of going. Would you be more likely to honk your horn if
there were a gun in a gun rack in the back of the pickup than if the gun rack were empty? Regardless of
whether you actually honk the horn, according to Berkowitz’s (1984) neoassociationistic model of media
priming, the presence of the gun would increase the likelihood that you would have aggressive thoughts.
Of course, the increase in aggressive thoughts heightens the likelihood that you will behave in an
aggressive manner and honk your horn—and that might be dangerous given that the person in the pickup
has a [Link] neoassociationistic model of priming is based on research in cognitive psychology and social
psychology. Priming refers to the effect of a preceding stimulus or event on how we react to a subsequent
stimulus. Priming procedures were first used in cognitive psychology to explore the structure and
representation of information within network models of [Link] of aggressive thoughts is a
short-term effect of TV [Link] by both cognitive psychologists and social psychologists has
demonstrated that a prime’s effect on a target behavior or thought is related to the intensity of the prime.
The intensity of a prime refers to either the frequency of the prime (e.g., a single exposure [Link]
exposures in quick succession) or the duration of the prime. A TV show with multiple acts of violence—
unfortunately, the norm—will prime violent thoughts more strongly than will a show with a single act of
violence. Likewise,a show with a particularly graphic act of violence will act as a stronger prime of violence.

PRIMING AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOUR

Many studies have demonstrated that people who are exposed to a violent TV clip are more likely to think
aggressive thought. Numerous studies have supported Berkowitz’s neoassociationistic model. As noted
earlier, the model leads to the prediction that the mere presence of weapons will prime violent thoughts
and behavior. This weapons effect has been demonstrated in numerous [Link] example, Berkowitz
and LePage conducted an experiment involving research participants evaluating each other’s performance
on a task by giving mild electric shocks for poor performance. For some of the research participants, a
shotgun and a pistol were visible when they entered the room. Other research participants saw a pair of
badminton racquets when they entered the room. Control group participants saw no such stimuli when
they entered the room. The participants were told that a previous experimenter had left the guns or
badminton racquets. Consistent with the weapons effect, participants shocked their partners more when
the guns were present than when the badminton racquets were present or when nothing was
[Link] about the number of weapons you see during an average night of V viewing. What effect do
all of hese weapon you see on TV or at the movies have on your thoughts, on your interpretations of
others’ behavior, and on your own behavior?

MEDIA VIOLENCE AND FEAR

In a questionnaire study, Harrison and cantor found that more than a quarter of the college students they
studied had watched a movie or TV show prior to turning 11 years of age that was still affecting them 8 or
more years [Link] reported still having nightmares related to their frightening viewing
experiences or still refusing to go to certain places, such as a beach, because of their experiences. Imagine
still having fright reactions from a TV program you watched 8 years ago. But think about it this way: If one
program can have such a profound effect, what is the effect of watching thousands of hours of TV
programs and movies that contain violence and other frightening events, such as tornadoes, on people’s
level of fear?

Most research on fright reactions to the media has focused on children. More than 90% of all
children are seriously frightened by the media at some point in their young lives. Furthermore, the fright
reactions can be very powerful. Children who are frightened by the media may experience nightmares and
sleeplessness, high degrees of stress, and even depression .The things that frighten children change as
they grow older. Up to 6 years of age, scary-looking things frighten children even if these things are not
dangerous . For example, children at this age are scared of the incredible Hulk because he looks scary even
though he helps good people. However, after 9 or 10 years of age, things that could realistically happen
are scarier than things that just look scary. More abstract threats are scarier to adolescents. The movie The
Day After depicted the effects of a nuclear war in the United States. A survey study found that younger
children were not as scared by the movie as were children over 12 years of age. Cultivation theory focuses
on the effects of heavy exposure to TV (i.e., more than 4 hours a day).

_Cultivation theory_ maintains that TV operates as the primary socializing agent in today’s world; that
is, TV is where people learn about their world and their culture. In particular, TV cultivates heavy viewers’
social reality. Research has consistently found that TV influences heavy viewers’ perceptions of the world.
For example, men are characters on TV shows at roughly a 2:1 ratio to women. In addition, women on TV
are portrayed in a more stereotypical manner. As a result, questionnaire studies have found that people
who are heavy viewers of TV tend to have more sexist views of [Link], commercials for different
products promote materialism. Surveys have found that people who watch more TV and more
commercials in both the United States and Korea are more materialistic. According to cultivation theory,
one of the consequences of media violence is that people begin to see the world as more dangerous and
“mean”.Cultivation theory suggests that heavy viewers of TV should see the world as a more violent and
hostile place than do light viewers. In fact, heavy viewers of TV do perceive the world as a more dangerous
and hostile place than do light [Link] of the research on cultivation theory has relied on
correlations between how much TV a person watches and how hostile he or she perceives the [Link]
experimental research has demonstrated that watching shows that contain a lot of violence, and where
the perpetrators are not brought to justice, causes increases in people’s [Link] this research,
participants watched 5 hours of prere-corded TV shows once a week for 6 weeks. After the 6-week period
was complete, the participants’ anxiety levels were measured. For some of the research participants, the
TV shows were violent, and the perpetrators of the violence were not caught. For the other participants,
the shows were violent, but the perpetrators of the violence were brought to justice. In this way, Bryant
and his colleagues were able to show that watching violent TV programs in which the perpetrators are not
brought to justice increases anxiety. Just as TV shows can scare children, viewing a lot of TV can scare
adults.

Cultivation theory focuses on overall viewing of TV rather than on watching particular types of
shows. However, given the various types of shows on TV, The evening news probably has the heaviest
concentration of realistict violence of any TV programming. In particular, the local news should be
particularly frightening because the violence is occurring where viewers live. In questionnaire
studies,parents reported that their children are scared by the local news. Likewise, roughly 25% of children
who were in the fourth to sixth grades spontaneously reported during interviews that the local news were
scary, and more than half of the children who were interviewed in one study could identify news stories
that had scared [Link], younger children (first to third grades) reported being scared by news
stories covering natural disasters, whereas older children were more likely to be scared by stories dealing
with violence and crimes. In fact, children who watch more evening news gave higher estimates of the
number of murders that occur in a nearby [Link] local news creates a scary world for these children.
Survey research with adults also finds that heavier viewers of the local news are more likely to experience
fear and be concerned about crime rates in their community than are lighter viewers.

In sum, violence is a staple of contemporary TV and movies. Unfortunately, this violence may be
literally helping to kill off its audience. As this section of the chapter has demonstrated, the influences of
TV violence are subtler than People often realize. TV violence can lead children to model the
violence,particularly if the violence is perceived as real and rewarded and if the children identify with the
person carrying out the violence. TV violence can also increase people’s aggressive thoughts and
temporarily increase the likelihood that people will react violently. Finally, TV violence increases viewers’
levels of fear.

EFFECTS OF EXPOSURE TO VIOLENT

PORNOGRAPHY
Pornography is any sexually explicit material that you can find
offline (magazines, DVDs, peep shows) or online on the Internet (text,
audio, or visual). Sexually explicit material (pornography) “depicts sexual
activities in unconcealed ways, often with close-ups of (aroused)
genitals and of oral, anal, and vaginal penetration” (Peter & Valkenburg,
2008, p. 580), and its primary purpose is to arouse the user sexually. You
can see immediately the difference between pornography and the
simulated sex on TV or in movies such as Sex and the City. Real though
the simulated sex may seem, we know that it is only simulated. These
simulated sexual activities are called embedded sexual material
(Kingston, Malamuth, Fedoroff, & Marshall, 2009). Embedded sexual
material involves content that is intensely sexual in nature but is
embedded within a story and is not the emphasis of the story. Embedded
sexual material is often found in movies rated R or NC-17 (Classification
and Rating Administration) and in TV programs rated TV-14 or TV-MA (TV
Parental Guidelines). Sometimes the embedded material is nonviolent
(embedded nonviolent sexual material), and sometimes it involves
violence (embedded violent sexual material). Scholars of pornography
generally study three kinds of pornography: erotica, nonviolent
pornography, and violent pornography (Kingston et al., 2009). Erotica
shows nonaggressive sexual activity between willing, sensitive, and
caring partners. In erotica, the partners share in the initiation and choice
of activities. In contrast, nonviolent pornography is nonaggressive
explicit sexual activity typically among casual acquaintances. Neither
men nor women are portrayed as having feelings of compassion and
empathy, as seen in erotica, let alone self-respect. Instead, participants
are portrayed as having one primary interest—satisfying their sexual
desires and fantasies, especially those of the men involved. Violent
pornography, as the phrase suggests, portrays violence or coercion that
is juxtaposed with, or an integral part of, explicit sexual activities with an
underlying theme of dominance. Violent pornography is usually centered
on an extreme stereotype of male dominance and female subservience
where the more powerful coerce the less powerful. Women in particular
are degraded and demeaned. They are sexual playthings for men to use
and discard. Violent pornography includes sadomasochism and the
infamous snuff films in which the female victims are tortured sexually
and then killed. Embedded violent sexual material, on the other hand, is
found in any R-rated film that includes a sensual scene followed
immediately by, or juxtaposed with, graphic violence. These films are
sometimes called slasher films or women-in-danger films. You can
probably recall a few films where scantily clad young women are shown
terrified and running from crazed murderers. The distinction between
violent pornography and embedded violent sexual material is important
because if you or your friends have brothers or sisters who are young
teenagers, they can probably view embedded violent sexual material
fairly easily. Because of the ease of viewing embedded violent sexual
material even by young teenagers, many experiments in this area have
used embedded violent sexual material in addition to pornography. It is
hoped that these same teenagers will have a much more difficult time
viewing violent pornography, although that is changing as access to
pornography on the Internet increases. Research in this area has focused
on whether watching these kinds of pornography (or embedded violent
sexual material) has any harmful effects.

EFFECTS OF EXPOSURE.
The combination of sex and violence has particularly disturbing effects
on our thoughts, intentions, and behaviors. A review of research on
embedded violent sexual material suggests that, in contrast to the
effects of nonviolent pornography, even a few minutes’ exposure to
embedded violent sexual material has many adverse effects (Intons-
Peterson & Roskos-Ewoldsen, 1989). Because most of the participants in
this body of research are men, the conclusions are mainly about men.
The effects on men include (a) increases in sexual arousal, (b) increases
in rape fantasies, (c) decreases in sensitivity to the embedded violent
sexual acts, (d) increases in acceptance of rape myths and of violence
toward women, and (e) increases in tolerance toward rapists. In other
words, normal males (i.e., showing no propensity for rape) who view
embedded portrayals of sexual violence have lowered opinions of
women and increased tolerance of violence toward women.
Furthermore, after watching embedded violent sexual acts, men who
report a high likelihood of raping if they could get away with it show
more aggression against women in a laboratory setting, are more likely
to hold callous attitudes about rape and to believe in rape myths, and
show higher levels of sexual arousal to rape depictions than do men who
report a lower likelihood of raping (Malamuth, 1981)
 However no evidence indicates that viewing embedded violent
sexual material (or violent sexual pornography) actually leads to rape or
other assaults against women (Intons-Peterson & Roskos-Ewoldsen,
1989). Clearly, there are strong ethical constraints against experimentally
studying the causes of rape because this research would require that
experimenters show men (perhaps men who are prone to violence
against women) violent pornography and then wait to see whether they
actually rape or otherwise harm women. This is not what researchers
want to do; in fact, they want to do just the opposite. Researchers want
to prevent such occurrences as much as possible, and this is why they
have devoted a great deal of effort to figuring out how to lessen the
effects of portrayals of violent sexuality, both embedded and explicit.

EFFECT OF MEDIA INFLUENCE

ON OUR THOUGHT

The view that the media could have such powerful effects on
what people think began to change as more research was
conducted using newspapers, radio,and TV. During the 1950s
and 1960s, social scientists began to argue that the media have
little or no influence on how people perceive the world (Rogers,
1994). Recall Senator Know-land’s telethon, where the telethon
had minimal impact on whether people voted for him. Studies
such as this one led to the conclusion that the media do not
determine what we think. But does that mean that the media
have no influence?

Influencing people’s thoughts.

During the late 1980s, the U.S. public’s concern about the problem
of illegal drug use steadily increased. In November 1985, no
respondents to a national political survey listed drugs as the
number-one problem facing the United States. However, by
November 1989—just four years later—more than 50% of the
respondents listed drugs as the number-one problem in the country
(Dearing& Rogers, 1996). This occurred even though objective
measures of the drug problem suggested that, if anything, it was
decreasing. For example, drug-related deaths decreased during this
time period. What was going on? Why were people becoming more
concerned about the “drug problem” when the drug problem
appeared to be under control? Obviously, no single factor can
explain why the U.S. public became more concerned about the
problem. One factor that certainly played a role was the media’s
focus on drugs. Several studies have documented that the news
media’s extensive coverage of drugs during the mid-to late 1980s
certainly raised public concerns about the drug issue (Dearing&
Rogers, 1996; Gozenbach, 1996). Figure shows how media coverage
of the drug issue—in this case The Washington Post—predated the
country’s concern about the drug issue. As you can see, shortly after
the number of articles on the drug problem increased, the number
of people rating drugs as the most important problem facing the
United States increased. Also of interest, the figure shows that later,
as people began to judge the problem as less important, the press
decreased the number of articles devoted to the drug problem.
The idea that the media can shape what issues we think about or
what issues we think are important is referred to asagenda setting
(Iyengar & Kinder, 1987; McCombs & Reynolds, 2009). When the
media set the agenda, the media are not influencing what people
think; rather, the media coverage is influencing what people think
about. The media did not influence whether people thought that the
use of drugs was wrong or whether the real problem was unfair
sentencing of drug offenders. Media coverage of the drug issue
resulted in people thinking that the drug issue was an important
one. Several hundred studies in the United States and in Europe
have demonstrated that the media do set the public’s agenda
(Dearing& Rogers, 1996; McCombs & Reynolds, 2009; Shehata,
2010). Furthermore, media coverage of an issue can result in the
public becoming more concerned about the issue even when real-
world indicators of the problem may suggest that the problem is
declining (Gozenbach, 1996).

When discussing agenda setting, it is important to keep in mind that

there are really three kinds of agenda that are important. The public
agenda involves the issues that the public thinks are important. The
policy agenda involves the issues that government officials and
policy makers think are important. The media agenda involves the
issues that the media are covering extensively. Research suggests
that the media often set the public’s agenda and that the public sets
the policy agenda (Dearing& Rogers, 1996). But the policy agenda
can influence the media agenda as well. Research on the 2005
Virginia gubernatorial campaign demonstrated that what the two
candidates—Tim Kaineand Jerry Kilgore—discussed during the
election was influenced by the media’s agenda, but the candidates
were also able to shape what the media covered (Dunn, 2009).
Specifically, each of the candidate’s press releases influenced what
issues the four major newspapers in Virginia covered.
The reason why the media can influence the public’s agenda is that
extensive media coverage of an issue makes that issue salient
(Iyengar &Ottati, 1994). The availability heuristic suggests that
people make judgments based on how easy it is to recall instances of
something from memory (Tversky&Kahneman, 1974). For example,
if someone calls you as part of a survey and asks what is the major
problem facing the country, the availability heuristic predicts that
you will answer with the issue that comes to mind first.
Consequently, anything that makes an issue more salient to you
increases the likelihood that you will recall it and report it as an
important issue. When you read the newspaper and the front- page
headlines report a drought in a distant country, they will make the
issue more salient. If the media include graphic pictures of starving
children, they will also increase the salience of the issue. Likewise, if
all of the media are covering the issue, that will increase the
likelihood that you will see multiple stories about the issue and will
increase its salience. Also, if the media continue to cover the issue
over weeks or even months, that will further increase the salience of
the issue. So, there are a lot of different ways in which the media can
increase the salience of an issue. All of these different elements of
how the media cover the issue work to make you think that the issue
is important.

Although there are many impressive examples of how the media set
the public’s agenda, it is important to understand that the media do
not always set the agenda. For example, survey research has
demonstrated that the media are not likely to set the agenda for
local issues (Behr & Iyengar, 1985). Of course, if you think about it,
this makes sense. If the issue is a local issue or it affects your life
directly, do you need the media to tell you that this is an important
issue? For example, think about a person who has been laid off
during a recession. Do you think that media coverage of the
economy is necessary for that person to think that the economy is a
major issue? What information do we use to judge the president?
One area that has been studied extensively is political priming.
Political primingis the idea that the issues that the media are
covering influence the information that people use to judge the
president and other politicians (Carpentier, Roskos-Ewoldsen,
&Roskos-Ewoldsen, 2008; Iyengar & Kinder, 1987; Roskos-Ewoldsen
et al., 2007; Roskos-Ewoldsen, Roskos-Ewoldsen, & Carpentier,
2009). In 1991, President George H. W. Bush enjoyed very high
approval ratings. Indeed, many political pundits did not think the
Democratic party would be able to field a candidate that could beat
Bush in the 1992presidential election given how popular he was in
early 1991. However, if you are familiar with recent U.S. history, you
know that Bush did not win reelection in 1992. Instead, he was
defeated by a young Democrat from Arkansas named Bill Clinton.
How did Bush go from such a high level of public approval to losing
the election to Clinton?

There are a number of factors that influenced the outcome of the

1992 election. Research on media coverage of events suggests that
the media’s preoccupation with domestic issues during late 1991
and 1992 certainly played a role in the declining popularity of
President Bush. When you judge how well the president is doing his
or her job, you have a lot of different pieces of information that you
could use to make the judgment. You could use the president’s
performance on the economy, civil rights, or international affairs, or
you could use how well the president dresses. Political priming is
concerned with the role that the media play in what information you
use to judge the president. Thus, the idea behind political priming is
that the media do not influence what you think specifically; rather,
they influence what information you use to make your judgment of
the president. Calling this political priming is unfortunate because it
is easy to think that political priming is like Berkowitz’s (1984) model
of media priming of violence that was discussed earlier. However,
the two are very different. For example, when the media prime
violence, the effect goes away relatively quickly, but political priming
effects from the media can last for weeks (Carpentier et al., 2008;
Roskos-Ewoldsen et al., 2007).

Arguments about calling this phenomenon priming aside, according

to the research on political priming, if the media are focusing
primarily on international affairs, then people will use their
impressions of how well the president is doing in international affairs
to judge how well the president is doing overall. However, if the
media are focusing primarily on domestic affairs, then people will
use their impressions of how well the president is doing on domestic
issues to judge how well the president is doing overall. People
tended to have very positive impressions of how well President Bush
handled international affairs but tended to have negative
impressions of how well he handled domestic affairs. A combination
of survey research and content analysis of the major stories on the
evening news and in major newspapers demonstrated that when the
media were covering the first war in Iraq, people who had positive
evaluations of Bush’s handling of international affairs formed a
positive impression of his overall performance despite the fact that
people generally did not think he was doing a good job of handling
the U.S. economy. In late 1991 and 1992, when the media turned
their attention away from the Middle East and focused on domestic
issues, people used their negative evaluations of Bush’shandling of
domestic affairs to judge his overall performance. Consequently, the
ratings of Bush’s job performance plummeted despite the fact that
the people thought that he did a good job of handling international
affairs (Iyengar & Simon, 1993; Krosnick& Brannon, 1993). In other
words, the media agenda seemed to be implicated in the outcome of
the 1992 election because the media primed the criteria that people
used to judge Bush’s job performance.

Aggression
Aggression is a word that we use every day to characterize the behavior of others
and perhaps even of ourselves. We say that people are aggressive if they yell at
or hit each other, if they cut off other cars in traffic, or even when they smash
their fists on the table in frustration. But other harmful acts, such as the injuries
that sports players receive during a rough game or the killing of enemy soldiers
in a war might not be viewed by everyone as aggression. Because aggression is
so difficult to define, social psychologists, judges, and politicians (as well as many
other people, including lawyers), have spent a great deal of time trying to
determine what should and should not be considered aggression. Doing so forces
us to make use of the processes of causal attribution to help us determine the
reasons for the behavior of others.
Social psychologists define aggression as behavior that is intended to harm
another individual who does not wish to be harmed(Baron & Richardson,
1994).
Because it involves the perception of intent, what looks like aggression from one
point of view may not look that way from another, and the same harmful
behavior may or may not be considered aggressive depending on its intent.

Violence
Social psychologists use the term violence to refer to aggression that has extreme
physical harm, such as injury or death, as its goal. Thus violence is a subset of
aggression. All violent acts are aggressive, but only acts that are intended to cause
extreme physical damage, such as murder, assault, rape, and robbery, are violent.

Types of aggression
• Emotional or impulsive aggression : refers to aggression that occurs
with only a small amount of forethought or intent and that is determined
primarily by impulsive emotions. Emotional aggression is the result of the
extreme negative emotions we’re experiencing at the time that we aggress
and is not really intended to create any positive outcomes.
• Instrumental or cognitive aggression : on other hand, is aggression that
is intentional and planned. Instrumental aggression is more cognitive than
affective and may be completely cold and calculating. Instrumental
aggression
 is aimed at hurting someone to gain something—attention, monetary
reward, or political power, for instance.

Theoretical perspective on aggression

frued's death wish : The oldest and probably most famous explanation for
human aggression attributed it to biological factors, our basic nature as a
species. The most famous supporter of this theory was Sigmund Freud, who
held that aggression stems mainly from a powerful death wish (thanatos) we
all possess.
According to Freud, this instinct is initially aimed at self-destruction, but is
soon redirected outward, toward others. The drive for aggression is an
external representation of the death drive.

Konrad Lorenz ‘s fighting instinct : Nobel Prize–winning ethologist, He suggested

that aggression springs mainly from an inherited fighting instinct, which ensures that
only the strongest males will obtain mates and pass their genes on to the next
generation (Lorenz, 1966, 1974).He relates it to Darwin's notion of the "struggle for
existence": "the struggle Darwin was thinking of and which drives evolution forward is
the competition between near relations.

Lorenz attributes to aggression a role in developing the social structure due to its
critical role in clarifying the rank ordering of the members of a group. Lorenz sees this
as a necessity for developing an advanced social life. Lorenz also attributes to the
aggressive drive a range of other functions under the general rubric of "motivation.

AGGRESSION – ROLE OF BIOLOGICAL FACTORS

AGGRESSION :
Aggression is defined as any behavior which involves attacking another person, animal or object
with the intention of harming the [Link] actions maybe verbal or physical and they can
result from a frustrating situation or may even occur suddenly with no apparent reason .

BIOLOGICAL FACTORS OF
AGGRESSION
1. Biological factors influencing aggression are :-
1. [Link]
2. [Link] Imbalance
3. [Link]
4. [Link] chemistry
[Link] illness &Temperament

[Link]
Instinctive is based on the instinct theory of Sigmund Freud.

According to Sigmund Freud , Aggression is an innate biological drive that are instinctual and
[Link] instinctively direct anger towards others to avoid aggression against
themselves. Freud explained that the death instinct ‘than Atos’ is the reservoir for aggressive
behaviors of people and must be released periodically to stay mentally healthy.

The theory suggests that aggression will build up whether or not there is an external source to
provoke it , until in the end , it results to aggressive behavior. Sometimes people are able to
suppress their aggression because they have other survival instincts that helps them put their
aggressive instinct under control.

[Link] IMBALANCE
Hormonal imbalance in the body can cause aggressive behavior.

* High levels of testosterone are associated with aggression. Males have high level of
testosterone than females that is why males are generally more aggressive than female.

Reduction of testosterone even through castration reduced aggressive behavior.

*Another hormone associated with aggression is serotonin, that stabilizes our mood. Low levels
of serotonin can cause aggression .Individuals augmented with artificial serotonin showed
reduced aggressive behavior.

*Individuals with imbalance in the thyroid hormone can also show aggressive behavior.

[Link]
Aggressive behaviors are believed to be inherited and passed through the DNA of individuals.

Genetic components of individuals influence personality and

trait disorders thus determining the behaviors of an individual.

If there is a biological background for aggressive behavior , then the risk of aggressive behavior in
children will be high ( Jones, 2005)This has been witnessed where , both the father and son
display aggressive behaviors.

[Link] CHEMISTRY
Blood chemistry can contribute to aggressive behavior.
Alcohol in the blood decreases self awareness of individuals that reduces the ability to accurately
perceive the outcomes of aggressive behavior.

The prefrontal cortex is the control centre for aggression: When it is more highly activated, we
are more able to control our aggressive [Link] brain mechanism that hold
back impulsive behaviors .

In addition , low blood sugar can also result in aggressive behavior.

[Link] ILLNESS AND TEMPERAMENT

Serious illness like cancer may affect the behavior or moods of individuals. Due to stress brought
about by such illness , the individual may be aggressive.

Such conditions play an indirect role in the aggressive behavior of some individuals.

Temperament is also associated with aggression. People who lose their temper quickly are tend
to be more aggressive than people who have deliberate temperaments.

RoleofBiologicalfactors,Drive theories,Modern theories of aggression

Biologicalfactors

• The oldest and probably most famous explanation for human aggression attributed it
to biological factors, our basic nature as aspecies

• The most famous supporter of this theory was Sigmund Freud, who held that aggression
stems mainly from a powerfuldeath wish (thanatos) we all possess.

• According to Freud, this instinct is initially aimed at self-destruction, but is soon

redirected outward, towardothers.

• A related view was proposed by Konrad Lorenz, a Nobel Prize–winning ethologist, who
suggested that aggression springs mainly from an inherited fighting instinct, which ensures
that only the strongest males will obtain mates and pass their genes on to the next
generation (Lorenz, 1966, 1974).
Biologicalfactors

• Until recently, most social psychologists rejected such ideas. Among the many rea-sons
they did were these: (1) human beings aggress against others in many different ways—
everything from excluding them from social groups to performing overt acts of violence
against them. How can such a huge range of behaviors all be determined by genetic
factors? (2) The frequency of aggressive actions varies tremendously across human
societies, so that is much more likely to occur in some than in others (e.g., Fry,

• 1998). If that’s so, social psychologists wonder, “How can aggressive

behavior be deter-mined by genetic factors?”
Moderntheoriesofaggression

• Modern Theories of Aggression: The Social Learning Perspective and the general
aggression model

• Unlike earlier views, modern theories of aggression (e.g., Anderson & Bushman, 2002;

• Berkowitz, 1993; Zillmann, 1994) do not focus on a single factor (Instincts,

drives, frustration) as the primary cause of aggression

• Rather, they draw on advances in many areas of psychology in order to gain added
insight into the factors that play a role in the occur- rence of such behavior.

Genter differences in agression

● males are more aggressive than females.

●males are more likely than females to agress against others when they have not been
provoked in any [Link] situations where provocation is present and especially when it is
intense ,such differences tend to disappear.

●Research finding indicate that men are more likely than women to engage in various forms
of direct address - actions aimed directly at the target that clearly stem from the aggressor.

● eg: physical assaults,pushing ,shoving,throwing something at another person

,shouting,making insulting remarks.

●The woman more likely to engage in various forms of indirect - actions that spreading
vicious rumors about the target person,gossiping behind this person's back ,telling others not
to associate with the intended victim , making up stories to get them in trouble.

●Research findings indicate that while gender differences with respect to indirect aggression
are present among children they may not persist in to adulthood.
●The research findings indicate that for woman as well as ,being aggressive can be a social"
plus "conferring high status and appeal on the people who demonstrated it .

●This is true for individuals who combine agression with high levels of relationship
enhancing actions. (Eg : high social skills, high levels of extraversion.

●As a result they are often very successful in gaining access to valued rewards (eg : high
status,approval from others ),and become very popular with their peers.

●The woman more likely to engage relational aggression (Family members, aggress against
their romantic partner as men).

●A very small minority of woman are also sexually violent or aggressive.

Both genders (male and female) equally shows direct verbal aggression.

[Link] seeking and aggression

● Anyone who gets bored easily, seeks lot of new experiences especially exiting ones with
an element of risk, this person may be high in sensation seeking ,or in closely related trait of
impulsivity .

●The person high in sensation seeking or impulsiveness experience anger and hostile
feelings more often than do others .

●Their emotions are easily aroused , so they may have lower thresholds for becoming angry.
●Moreover,their tendency to get bored and to seek exciting new experiences may lead them
to have more hostile thoughts ;after all, aggressive exchanges with others are exciting and
dangerous.

● Evidence for these predictions has been reported by joireman ,anderson & srathman
(2003),who found that persons high in sensation seeking show several tendencies related to
aggression,

* They are attracted to aggression eliciting situations,which they find exciting $appealing.

* They are indeed more likely to experience anger and hostility.

* They are more likely to focus on the immediate rather than the delayed consequences of
their behaviour.

SITUATIONAL FACTORS OF AGGRESSION

The different situations that influence on agression.

Such factors are;

●Heightened physiological arousal due to sress .

● The feeling of tension,worried thoughts (anxiety )that can cause agression.

● The competition programes.

● vigorous exercise or exposure to films that produce arousal.

● sexual arousal : minimal levels of aggression occur in presence of mild sexual stimulation
and stronger levels with higher degree of stimulation.

●pain : physical pain may arouse aggressive drive but up to [Link] pain may hinder
agression.

● The intentional provocation cause agression.

●Time pressure

● Media interventions ( crime ,video etc..).

●Frustrating situations

●Heat : As temperature increases feeling of anger increases or there is misattribition of the

arousal that occurs with increased temperature.

The situational factors are more powerful than social and personal factors that determining
aggression.
Moderntheoriesofaggression

• One such theory, known as the social learning perspective (e.g., Bandura, 1997), begins
with a very reasonable idea: Human beings are not born with a large array of aggressive
responses at their disposal.

• Rather, they must acquire these in the much the same way that they acquire other
complex forms of social behavior: through direct experience or by observing the behavior
of others

• Thus, depending on their past experience and the cultures in which they live, individuals
learn (1) various ways of seeking to harm others, (2) which people or groups are
appropriate targets for aggression, (3) what actions by others justify retaliation or
vengeance on their part, and (4) what situations or contexts are ones in which aggression
is permitted or even approved
GeneralAggressionModel(GAM)

• The GAM: A Modern Theory of Human AggressionAs

arousal, and these internal states plus other factors such as appraisal and decision
mechanism determine whether, and in what form, aggression occurs. (Source: Based on
suggestions by Bushman & Anderson, 2002).
General AggressionModel

• Building on the social learning perspective, a newer framework known as the general
aggression model (GAM) (Anderson & Bushman, 2002), provides an even more complete
account of the foundations of human aggression.

• According to this theory, a chain of events that may ultimately lead to overt aggression
can be initiated by two major types of input variables: (1) factors relating to the
current situation (2) factors relating to the people involved (person factors)

• According to the general aggression model (GAM), these situational and indi-
vidual (personal) variables lead to overt aggression through their impact on
three basic processes:

arousal—they may increase physiological arousal or excitemen

aaffectivestates—they can arouse hostile feelings and outward signs of these
cognitions—they can induce individuals to think hostile thoughts or can

bring beliefs and attitudes about aggression to mind.

DriveTheory

• Drive theories (of aggression)Theories suggesting

• Drive Theories of Aggression: Motivation to Harm Others Drive theories of

aggression suggest that aggressive behavior is pushed from within by drives to
harm or injure others. These drives, in turn, stem from external events such as
frustration. Such theories are no longer accepted as valid by most social
psychologists, but one such view—the famous frustration-aggression hypothesis–
continues to influence modern research, and many people’s beliefs about the
causes of aggression.

DETERMINANTS OF AGGRESSION

* SOCIAL-:
• Aggression is intentional behaviour aimed at doing harm or causing
physical or psychological pain to another person.

[Link] :

• Frustration is a major causes of aggression.

• frustration occur when a person is thwarted on the way to an expected

goal or gratification.

• Research has shown that frustration can increase the probability of an

aggressive response.

• this tendency is referred to as FRUSTRATION AGGRESSION THEORY.

• which holds that peoples perception that they are being prevented from
attaining a goal will increase the probability of an aggressive
response(Dolars1939).

• this does not mean that frustration always leads to aggressionbut it

frequently does,especially when the frustration is decidedly
unpleasant,unwelcome,anduncontrollable.
 • frustrated individuals to not always respond with aggression on the
contrary,they show different reactionsranging from sadness ,despair&?
depression on one hand to direct attempt to over come the source of their
frustration on the other hand.

• in short aggression is definitely not an automatic response to frustration.

• Second,it is equally clear that not all aggression stand from frustration.

• people aggress for many different reasons and in response to many

different factors.

• frustration can serve as a powerful determinant of aggression under

certain conditions ,especially when frustration is viewed as illegitimate or
unjustified.

[Link] PROVOCATION:WHEN AGGRESSION BREEDS AGGRESSION.

• provocation:Actions by others that tend to trigger aggression in the

recipient ,often because they are perceived as stemming from malicious
intent.

• physical or verbal provocation from others is one of the strongest causes

of human aggression.

• when we are on the receiving end of some form of aggression from others-
criticism we consider unfair, sarcastic remarks or physical assaults .we
tend to reciprocate ,returning as much aggression as we have received or
perhaps even slightly more, especially if we are certain that the person
meant to harm.

•. CONDESCENSION :-is the kind of provocation produce the strongest push

toward aggression.

• Evidence suggest that condescension-expressions of arrogance or

disclaim on the part of others is very powerful
.
• Harsh and unjustified criticism ,especially criticism that attacks us rather
than our behaviours is another powerful form of provocation.

• when exposed to it most people find it very difficult to avoid getting angry
and relating in some manner.
 • Another form of provocation to which many people respond with
annoyance is TEASING.

• it provoking statements that al attention to an individual's flaws and

imperfections but can be, at the same time,some what play full in nature.

• Teasing can range from mild humorous remarks through nicknames or

comments that truly seen designed to hurt.

• Research findings indicate that actions by others that some how threaten
our status or public image are important triggers of aggression.

[Link] AROUSAL :EMOTION, COGNITION & AGGRESSION

• Heightened arousal can increase aggression of it persists beyond the
situation in which it was induced and is unknowingly interpreted as anger
generated in the new context.
• Heightened arousal can enhance aggression in response to provocation,
frustration or other factors.
• In factin various experimentsarousal stemming from such varied sources
as participation in competitive games, exercise,and even some types of
music have been found.
• a compelling explanation is offered by EXCITATION TRANSFER THEORY

• EXCITATION TRANSFER THEORY:

• This theory suggests that because physiological arousal tends to dissipate

slowly overtime,a portion of such arousal may persist as a person moves
from one situation to another.

• e.g :some portion of the arousal experienced because of the near miss in
traffic may still be present as you approach the security gate in the airport
when you encounter a minor annoyancethat arousal intensifies your
emotional reactions to the annoyance.

• Excitation THEORY suggest further that such effects are most likely to
occur when the person's involved are relatively unaware of the presence
of RESIDUAL AROUSAL.

• it is a common occurrence ,because small elevations in arousal are difficult

to notice.

• this theory also suggest that such,effect are likely to occur when the
person's involved recognise their residual arousal but attribute it to events
occurring in the present situation.
*PERSONAL:-

• Type A Behaviour pattern. •

• Narcissism.
• Sensation seeking.
• Gender difference.

[Link] A Behaviour Pattern :-

The person who are extremely competitive , always in a hurry, and especially
irritable and aggressive.

• TYPE B BEHAVIOUR PATTERN:.At the opposite end of the continuum are

people who do not show these characteristics—individuals who are not
highly competitive ,who are more relaxed and not always fighting the clock
and who do remain calm even in the face of strong provocation.

• In many situations ,type A would tend to be more aggressive than typeB.

• Type A are truly hostile people ;they don’t merely aggress against others
because this is a useful means for reaching other goalssuch as winning
athletic contests or furthering their own careers.

• Rather, they are more likely than Type Bs to engage in what is known as
hostile aggression [aggression in which the prime objective is inflicting
some kind of harm on the victim].

• In view of this fact, it is not surprising to learn thatType As are more

likely than Type Bs to engage in such actions as child abuse or spousal
abuse.
 • In contrast ,Type As are not more likely than Type Bs to engage in
instrumental aggression [aggression performed primarily to attain other
goals aside from harming the victim ,goals such as control of valued
resources or praise from others for behaving in a “tough” manner.

• PERCEIVING EVIL INTENT IN OTHERS :HOSTILE ATTRIBUTIONAL BIAS-

Attribution play an important role in our reactions to other’s
behaviour&especially apparent provocation from them -is the starting
point for another important personal characteristics that influences
aggression :the hostile attributional bias

• Hostile attributional bias is the tendency to perceive hostile intentions or

motives in-other’s actions when these actions are ambiguous.

• Person high in hostile attributional bias rarely give other’s the benefit of
the doubt: They simply assume that any provocative actions by others are
intentional ,&react accordingly.

type A behaviourpattern: A pattern consisting primarily of high levels of

competitiveness ,time ,urgency ,and hostility.

• hostile aggression : Aggression in which the prime objective is inflicting

some kind of harm on the victim.

type B behaviour pattern: A pattern consisting of the absence of characteristics

associated with the Type A behaviour pattern.

• instrumental aggression : Aggression in which the primary goal is not to

harm the victim but rather attainment of some other goal— for example ,
access to valued resources

2-NARCISSISM ,EGO-THREAT ,AND AGGRESSION :

• Narcissism means excessive self-love - for holding an over inflated view of

one’s own virtues or accomplishments.
• people high in narcissism (ones who agree with items such as“If I ruled
theworld it would be a much better place ” & “I am more capable than
other people”) react with exceptional high levels of aggression when their
egos are threatened —when other people say or do something that puts
their inflated self- image in danger.

• Now used in many schools, of attempting to boost students ’egos in various

ways. In fact it seems possible that raising students ’self-esteem to
unrealistic levels might increase their sensitivity to events that threaten
their excessive egos!

• For instance, narcissistic people may react strongly to even mild

provocations because they believe that they are so much better than other
people, & as a result, perceive even very mild critical comments from
others as strong slurs on their inflated self-image.

• Narcissistic people ,because of their inflated self-image perceive

themselves as the victims of transgressions more often than non-
narcissistic people.