A critical evaluation on two theories of aggression

A critical evaluation on devil theories of truculentnessAggression is as a form of anti sociable deportment, showing a lack of emotional concern for the welfare of differents, as described by Baron and Richardson (1994). It is a cultural, cognitive work reveal as closely as a biological response, affecting either human existence. Furtherto a greater extent, it appears in m either forms, verbal, physical, symbolic or injurious with the environment, personal beliefs and man-to-mans society mediating its nature. In society, you leave find some flock more rapacious compared to others, with the levels varying when in different genial situations. Some environments provoke encroachment in throng much more regularly, than others do. Yet much(prenominal) situations do not give rise to the same degree of in-your-face demeanor in every person.There are two of import social psychological theories that proposed to explain the nature and application of encroachment, the S ocial learning Theory and the Deindividuation Theory. The social learning surmise of Bandura emphasizes the importance of observing and mould the behaviors, attitudes, and emotional re be activeions of others. The theory suggests that for an individual to learn spic-and-span demeanours this washbowl plainly occur through direct experience. In the book, Social learn Theory, Bandura (1977) states Learning would be exceedingly laborious, not to mention hazardous, if people had to rely totally on the effects of their own actions to inform them what to do. Fortunately, most human behaviour is learned observationally through good exampleling from observing others, one forms an idea of how new behaviours are performed, and on later occasions this coded information serves as a guide for action.Bandura argued that individuals, most belike infantren, learn self-assertive responses from observing others in different social influences, i.e. social function moulds in satisfyi ng life situations, their milieu and the media. He also mentioned, individuals believing aggression produces wagess. Siegel (1992) who suggested that these reinforcements could be gaining financial rewards, a rise in self-esteem or receiving praise from other people supports this. Skinner (1953) proposed that learning occurs through reinforcement. Vicarious reinforcement occurs when an individual lionises the consequences of militant behaviour as being rewarding, for example a person achieving what they essential through aggressive behaviour. If a child is to see this happening in a school playground, whereby a bully gets their focusing for instance, the child whitethorn become to think of such behaviour as appropriate and indeed worth repeating.Bandura (1986) went on to suggest that for social learning to take place, the child had to form mental representations of certain events from their social environment to see hard-nosed rewards or punishments for the aggressive beha viour, alongside observational learning. The Bobo chick studies by Bandura, demo how children learn and imitate aggressive behaviours they pee witnessed in other people. The juvenile participants stick tod an adult acting violently towards a Bobo doll and when the children veritable permission to play in a room with the Bobo doll, they began to imitate the aggression they had previously observed. Bandura identified three basic models of observational learning. The first model involves an actual individual demonstrating a particular behaviour. The second model includes descriptions and explanations of any certain behaviour. The third model involves real or fake role models acting out behaviours in books, films, TV programs or web media. observational learning, also known as modelling consists of four phases, influenced by the observers behaviour (Bandura, 1977). The first is where the individual pays care and perceives the most important aspects of the models behaviour by obser vation. Therefore, a child would need to attend to the role models actions or sayings (Allen Santrock, 1993). For example, children open(a) to aggressive behaviour inwardly the home and by watching the consequences, late associate such behaviour as effective conduct. Hence, children learn aggressive responses largely through observation. The second stage of observational learning is the cryptanalytics of this behaviour into memory, also known as retention, for the information to be retrievable when an appropriate situation arises. This is where mental representations form, including events from the individuals social environment. The child must be able to distinguish possible rewards or punishments expected in future(a) numbers, which is vital in observational learning. In the Bobo doll try out, the children precipitously become the doll beca drill this information was stored in their memory.The third process is rehearsing this acquired modelled behaviour, in accompanimen t with possessing the physical capabi light upies of the behaviour observed. If a child gains rewards i.e. appraisal, for their aggressive behaviour, they are more likely to repeat that same behaviour regularly. This is direct reinforcement and allows for the melioration of the behaviour. Moreover, individuals are more likely to repeat a modelled behaviour if the model is a role model or similar to them. Examples include parents or people of the same age free radical or race. Bandura (1976) proposed that members of the family were most powerful in reinforcing aggressive behaviour in children, as they are likely to imitate them when they are older. The final stage involves the individual being make to successfully repeat and reinforce this modelled behaviour with the expectation of receiving rewards. Additionally, the individual will gradually gain confidence in their will to carry out aggressive behaviours, thus self -efficacy expectancies are developed.The second theory of dein dividuation, originates from Gustave Le Bons crowd theory (1895). In the book The Crowd, he describes how an individual in spite of appearance the crowd is psychologically altered. He state, Within the crowd, the collective mind of the concourse takes possession of the individual. As a effect, a member of the crowd and then becomes irrational. The individual submerged in the crowd loses self-control and becomes a pointless puppet, sometimes controlled by the crowds leader. Hence, they are capable of performing any free and emotionally charged act, however undesirable or regressive to society. Festinger, Pepitone and Newcomb (1952) delimitate deindividuation as a state of affairs in a congregation where members do not pay attention to other individuals qua individuals and, correspondingly, the members do not feel they are being singled out by others. Festinger believed that when one becomes deindividuated, he or she merges their identity operator element with that of the gr oup and and so becomes anonymous. As a result of being unidentifiable in a large group, this has the psychological outcome of reducing individuals inner restraints, and increasing deviant behaviour that is blueprintly avoided. The dresss of deindividuation were all-embracing from anonymity in groups to other factors, such as reduction in responsibility, arousal and altered consciousness influenced by drugs or alcohol (Zimbardo, 1969). In todays society especially, this is evident, as aggression seems to be the result of reduced inhibitions amongst individuals out-of-pocket to binge drinking, with excessive alcohol intake arousing aggressive acts such as fighting in a nightclub.Later versions of the theory centralize on the psychological process of reduced private self-awareness as the key member of deindividuation, i.e. the individuals attitudes and norms (Prentice-Dunn and Rogers, 1982). In their reckon, they induced a sense of reduced self-awareness by ceaselessly instruc ting participants to focus their attention outwards. Conditions for external attention cues included sitting in a dimly lit room with loud music playing, verbal interaction and stimulating video games to play, to increase deindividuation amongst the participants. In the controlled condition, participants were required to focus on internal attention, through no interaction and sitting in silence. The findings showed that when required to administer electric shocks to confederates, deindividuated participants that foc utilize on external attention cues, produced postgraduateer aggressive behaviour by de jazzring shocks that were more painful, than the control group. This is because the data-based group was made to dismiss their own beliefs and self-identity, when their attention focussed on other aspects such as loud music and video games. In turn, this supports the idea that becoming less self aware, rather than just anonymity in a group, leads to deindividuation having the effect of producing aggression.Empirical support for the deindividuation theory is token(prenominal). Zimbardo (1969) conducted a study to demonstrate the effects of deindividuation on aggression. Some of the female participants use wore oversized lab coats and hoods, and sat in a dimly lit room increasing anonymity. In contrast, those in the control group wore normal clothes, nametags and were placed in a bright room, making them easily identifiable. The participants labor was to shock a confederate and findings suggested that anonymous participants shocked longer and therefore more painfully than identifiable participants did. This gives support to the theory, as the study suggests that deindividuation or anonymity played a huge role, because when one is appearing as anonymous, they are likely to act in an aggressive get on than they would if their identity was easily available. Other interrogation to support the deindividuation theory (Deiner et al., 1976) showed that American child ren who wore halloween costumes that hid their identities take more sweets and money than those who wore costumes where they remained identifiable.The Stanford Prison Experiment by Haney et al. (1973) illustrated how college students assigned to act out the role of guards in a mock prison, behaved very aggressively in the cruelty they showed towards those assigned to the role of prisoners. This is largely due to the guards wearable mirrored glasses, thus rendering them anonymous, as their eyes were not panoptic to the prisoners. The brutality posed by the guards can be explained in call of social norms. The guards only did what they thought was expected of them, although the state of deindividuation did cause them to ignore personal beliefs and perform the expected aggressive behaviour. This is one criticism of the study, as it did not show how real guards actually behave. Hence, the findings may have no real-life validity with the adventure of regard characteristics coming in to play.In contrast, Bandura et al., (1961) were successful in showing that children learn aggressive behaviour through observation, which is reinforced by rewards and avoided by punishment (1962). A study strength of the Bobo doll studies is high control achieved by the use of laboratories, which produced sufficient applicable results. However, a trouble with this is that the studies hold no ecological validity because of where and the manner in which they were carried out. In addition, it is possible to argue that the children also reacted aggressively to the Bobo doll as they were responding to demand characteristics. The children may have known what they had to do for the experiment. Another limitation is that the Bobo doll is fictional as was unable to fight back which a real person would have done hence, this could also have influenced the childrens behaviour. Although the Bobo doll experiment shows that for an individual to communicate aggressive behaviours, observational learning has to take place, individuals may not always display such behaviour due to social constraints, or fear of receiving punishment. This means that even if an individual has learnt of an aggressive behaviour, he or she will not necessarily act it out, especially if perceived to be socially undesirable. Nonetheless, if the opportunity arises where they can demonstrate the behaviour without being punished for it, such as when they are deindividuated, then it is possible that they will behave aggressively.The social learning theory places great emphasis on individuals, especially children, imitating observed behaviour from watching others individually, the environment, and the mass media. However, the biological approach would argue that a persons state of biology is not taken into news report within the Social Learning Theory. Moreover, it ignores individual genetic differences (Jeffery, 1985). For example, if an individual were to observe a brutal killing, they will respond di fferently when compared to someone else. biological theorists would suggest that, heart rate and blood pressure would possibly rise, as a response made by the autonomic nervous system of rules when in this particular circumstance. Hence, the response or behaviour acquired is genetically genetical to some extent. In addition, other research has shown change magnitude aggressive behaviour to be associated with testosterone (Kalat, 1998). This hormone is high in males, which may explain higher aggression in males than in females.There is still some query in establishing the effects of violent telecasting on childrens aggression. Although, some studies have reported that there is no link between the two, and that aggression viewed on television is not always related to aggressive behaviour. For instance, one study had findings to suggest that juvenile boys, who regularly watched non-violent television shows, were more likely to express aggressive behaviour than those who witnessed the violent programs. This is because watching violent shows enabled the viewer to use the media as a way of relieving their own inner inhibitions or aggressive thoughts and ideas (Feshback Singer, 1971). As a result, the individual is less likely to be aggressive than if they had watched non-violent television. In addition to this, there is a theory that suggests a way to reduce aggressive behaviour is by viewing violent television programs, known as the Catharsis effect (Gerbner.G, Gross.L, and Melody.W.H). As television is highly influential, then positive and non-aggressive programs can aid in reducing aggression among viewers. Cooke (1993) believed that positive and kind-hearted television shows should encourage viewers to be more polite to one another(prenominal), if aggression in people is triggered by violent television. Therefore, the media can serve as a prevention method if individuals focus only on the positive aspects, or use violent media to channel their own perso nal aggressive inhibitions.In comparison, one likely reason for the minimal support for the deindividuation concept is that the theory, which is based on Le Bons analysis of the crowd, is withal simplified. According to Le Bon, collective behaviour is always irrational i.e. the individual in the crowd loses cognitive control. Researchers argue that deindividuation settings do not notice for a loss of self-identity. Instead, they alter a person from an individual identity to a collective identity as a member of the group. Therefore, deindividuation leads to individuals conforming to the group norms. A meta-analysis of sixty studies on deindividuation conducted gave no results suggesting that deindividuation is the cause for increased anti-normative and disinhibited behaviour. Instead, individuals under anonymity complied more rather than less strongly with situational norms (Postmes and Spears, 1998).Overall, aggression is extremely difficult to define as well as check as not one theory can be used to explain it fully, even though it affects our every day-to-day life, either in person or through observation. The difficulty is when trying to measure and control this behaviour because it is quite impossible to reproduce aggression in a testing ground to bring about results and findings that fully apply to real life situations.However, these two theories by Bandura and Zimbardo have tried in their attempt to explain aggression. iodin advantage with the Social learning theory is that not only can it be applied to explaining childrens behaviour, adults too. Philips (1896) found that the daily rate of homicide in the US usually rose a week after a major boxing match. This suggests that the culprits may have been viewers imitating the aggressive behaviour they watched. Hence, social learning is evident in adults. In contrast, the deindividuation theory does not intelligibly state whether deindividuation occurs amongst young children as well. Instead, it focuse s on mainly adults, which maybe another reason for the minimal empirical research to support the theory. Although the social learning theory was initially an explanation for aggression, it has recently been extended to explain other behaviours such as anorexia. Furthermore, the theory can explain differences between and within individuals, in terms of cultural variation, with one study showing the US to be highly violent compared to societies in Central Africa, which manage to live in harmony (Aronson, 1999). Differences within individuals are due to selective reinforcement with people reacting differently as each individual will observe that aggression is rewarded in some cases and not others. Hence, people learn about behaviours differently along with the circumstances in which they are applicable, and so these differences should be a result of social learning. However, Banduras theory has its limitations because it does not suggest what leads people to aggress once they have witn essed aggressive behaviour. Thus, it does not explain the possibility of acting out a modelled behaviour for example, if an individual has been angered. Nevertheless, Dollard et al. (1939) who proposed the frustration -aggression theory, explored this. The theory suggests that frustration always leads to aggression and aggression is only a cause of frustration.When looking at the deindividuation theory, one study that both supports as well as criticises the theory, suggests that anonymity increases the possibility of an individual conforming to the social group norms. Participants were made anonymous by either wearing overalls and hoods similar to those of the racist Ku Klux Klan, or wearing nurses uniforms. Results showed that participants to deliver more shocks when dressed as the racist group, and fewer, as nurses (Johnson and Downing, 1979). Hence, this also showed that anonymity does not always lead to aggressive behaviour, instead individuals may simply be responding to the norms of the group and doing what is expected.One realistic approach to aggression is one that covers a number of explanations, from neuro-physiological and evolutionary ones to social-psychological theories. In conclusion, the social learning theory supported by extensive research compared to the deindividuation theory, has shown to conclusively illustrate that the acquisition and behavioural expression of aggression is socially influenced, and is therefore more successful in explaining this behaviour.