aqa a level psychology aggression essay plans

Aggression Psychology Revision Notes

Bruce Johnson

A-level Psychology Teacher

B.A., Educational Psychology, University of Exeter

Bruce Johnson is an A-level psychology teacher, and head of the sixth form at Caterham High School.

Learn about our Editorial Process

Saul McLeod, PhD

Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester

Saul McLeod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.

On This Page:

Exam Advice

You MUST revise everything – because the exam board could choose any question. However, it does make sense to spend more time on those topics which have not appeared for a while.

With these particular questions, there is a sizeable risk that people don’t understand the difference between the questions and then write about the wrong thing.

Make sure you know which is which. For example, do you understand the difference between “Genetic explanations” and “Neural and hormonal explanations,” and do you have a model essay for each?

Neural and Hormonal causes of aggression.

The limbic system.

• The Limbic System (including the Hypothalamus and Amygdala) tends to act as an alarm system triggering an aggressive response to certain types of threats.

• Giving testosterone to newborn female mice made them act like males with increased aggression when given testosterone as adults. However, control females given testosterone as adults did not react in this way (Edwards,1968).

This suggests that testosterone masculinizes androgen-sensitive neural circuits underlying aggression in the brain.

When the amygdala is stimulated electrically, animals show aggressive behavior, and when it’s removed, they no longer show aggressive behavior.

Research in Greece found that removing the amygdala reduced aggressive incidents by between 33% and 100%, although the sample was small – 13 patients.

The Phineas Gage study provides evidence that brain damage may have an effect on personality, including aggression.

Serotonin Research

• The PET-1 Gene is linked to the production of the hormone serotonin , which inhibits (i.e., stops) aggression. Damage to the gene in mice raises aggression. [sometimes referred to as “Knockout Mice] (Deneris, 2003).

• Drugs increasing serotonin production lead to reduced levels of aggression, suggesting that low levels of serotonin are linked to increased aggression (Delville et al., 1997).

• Low levels of serotonin result in reduced self-control and increased aggression. The serotonin deficiency hypothesis states that decreased serotonin disturbs the OFC and, therefore, reduces the inhibitory effect (of normal serotonin levels) with the consequence that individuals are less able to control impulsive and aggressive behavior.

• Research shows a relationship between low levels of serotonin and violent behaviors, suggesting that a lack of serotonin is linked to aggression (Linnoila & Virkunen, 1992).

• Lidberg et al. (1985) compared the serotonin levels of violent criminals with non-violent controls, finding the lowest levels of serotonin among violent criminals.

Rats selected for reduced aggression levels had higher serotonin and greater levels of serotonin-related activity than wild, more aggressive counterparts (Popova et al., 1991).

Most evidence linking low levels of serotonin and aggression is only correlational and does not indicate causality. Research shows a correlation between serotonin and aggression risks oversimplifying the true mechanisms involved as other factors which influence or even cause aggression is overlooked – The neural and hormonal regulation of aggression is almost certainly more complex than our current understanding.

Research support for the role of serotonin – Berman et al. found that participants given a serotonin-enhancing drug gave fewer and less intense electric shocks to a confederate than people in a placebo group – This gives evidence of a link between serotonin function and aggression that goes beyond correlational findings.

If the role of biochemistry can be understood, it can then be treated and managed – But it is unethical to give drugs to humans to alleviate aggression as it could lead to social control – This could be treated more ethically through diet and exercise which acts on neural mechanisms.

Biological reductionism – We cannot consider that such a complex phenomenon can be explained by the levels of biochemical, we must consider genetic factors and the contribution of environmental factors such as the role of learning – Peoples’s actions can be blamed on the mechanisms which is immoral as they should be taking responsibility for their own actions.

Testosterone Research

•Giving the hormone testosterone to newborn female mice made them act like males with increased aggression when given testosterone as adults.

However, control females given testosterone as adults did not react in this way, suggesting that testosterone masculinizes androgen-sensitive neural circuits underlying aggression in the brain (Edwards,1968).

• Testosterone affects certain types of aggression in animals, such as intermale aggression as a defense response to intruders, while predatory aggression is not affected (Bermond et al., 1982).

• Van Goozen (1997) conducted a natural experiment on trans-gender sex-change patients. This is one of the few cases where research was actually carried out on humans.

Findings revealed testosterone levels governed aggression. Males receiving testosterone suppressants became less aggressive. Females receiving testosterone became more aggressive.

• Aggressive Boys, violent criminals, and military offenders all had high levels of testosterone (Dabbs, 1996).

Individuals with elevated testosterone levels exhibit signs of aggression but rarely commit aggressive acts, suggesting that social and cognitive factors play a mediating role (Higley et al., 1996).

Dabbs and Morris (1990) “Blocked pathways to success” study: When a rich boy with high testosterone came home from the army, he was less likely to get into trouble, but when a poor boy with high testosterone came home, he was more likely to get into trouble.

This suggests testosterone doesn’t simply cause aggression, but it makes aggression more likely as a response to frustration.

Cortisol Research

• The fearlessness Theory: Stress, caused by the hormone cortisol, may inhibit aggression through fear. So individuals with lower levels of cortisol are less inhibited, more inclined to take risks, and act impulsively (Raine, 2002).

•Low cortisol leads to Sensation seeking behavior, especially in males (Zuckerman, 2010).

•Low levels of Cortisol in delinquent teenagers with conduct disorder (Fairchild, 2008)

General Criticisms of Neural and Hormonal Research

Much of the evidence is only correlational and may not prove causation. It isn’t clear whether hormones promote aggression or aggressive behavior stimulates hormone production.

Comparative – much of the work on hormones and neurotransmitters have been done on animals and may not apply to humans so easily.

Reductionist: Sees only biological factors, overlooking social issues such as de-individuation

Heredity / Environment: Biological theories tend to overlook the effects of socialization and other environmental issues, such as environmental stressors.

Deterministic: Assumes humans have no choice and will follow primitive behavior patterns.

Genetical Origins of Aggression.

Genes alone do not control aggression. Rather, they affect the production of hormones and neurotransmitters, which in turn affects aggression. So you will also draw upon your knowledge of biological factors, but you MUST show a link to genetics for each one.

Basic Evidence of Genetic Influences on Aggression

• Animal studies show instinctive patterns of behavior, including aggressive behavior. If a whole species has a similar level of aggression, then it must have a genetic basis.

• Twin studies have shown that twins have similar levels of aggression.

Using old Danish police records, Christiansen (1977) demonstrated that levels of criminality showed a stronger correlation between identical twins – with the same genes than between dizygotic twins.

However, criminality is not always the same as aggression.

Genetical Research on Serotonin

• PET-1 Gene is linked to serotonin production, which inhibits aggression. Damage to the gene in so-called “knockout mice” raises aggression. Mutations in humans can have the same effect (Deneris, 2003).

• Acts of impulsive aggression, such as domestic violence, have a genetic link to the serotonergic system, suggesting that many genes may be involved in aggression (New et al., 2003).

Genetical Research on MAOa – The Warrior Gene

• The MAOA gene codes for the production of the enzyme MAOA, involved in breaking down neurotransmitters in the synapse, especially serotonin. Aggressive people with variants of this gene produce lower levels of the enzyme, causing certain neurotransmitters to remain longer in the synapse, causing brain dysfunction.

• When researchers found the MAOA gene present in 56% of New Zealand Maori men, it was nicknamed “The Warrior Gene.” Poa {2006] criticized this term as unethical – i.e., racist.

•It was later found that the gene is present in 58% of African American men and 36% of European men, so it is actually a mainstream genetic variation with adaptive advantages associated with risk-taking.

If we know that a person’s genes can predispose them to aggressive behavior, then genetic engineering can be used to remove the gene and reduce this risk; more extreme measures like chemical castration can be used but can pose serious ethical questions as individuals are labeled as dangerous based on their genes.

Brunner (1993) looked at a very large Dutch family with 28 males who had a history of rape, violence, and impulsive aggression associated with low levels of the MAOA gene.

Deterministic – Argues that our aggression is pre-programmed and ignores the human characteristic of free will – Can have serious implications on the justice system as people may not take responsibility for their actions and blame it on their biology.

Caspi et al. (2002): Interaction of MAOA problem AND abusive childhood led to aggression. If boys with the MAOa gene suffered abuse in childhood, they were 3 times more likely to be aggressive when they reached adulthood.

Genetic and environmental factors are impossible to isolate – McDermott et al. found that people with the low activity MAOA gene behaved aggressively in a lab-based game but only when provoked – We should study aggression using a more interactionist approach.

Genetical Research on Testosterone

• Bogaert et al. (2008) established that variations in male testosterone levels are inherited – and, therefore, genetic.

• Giving testosterone to newborn female mice made them act like males with increased aggression when later given testosterone as adults. Females given testosterone as adults did not react in this way, suggesting that testosterone masculinizes aggression systems in the brain at birth. It’s not just an environmental issue (Edwards, 1968).

• Rissman et al. (2006) investigated Sry, a gene leading to the development of testes and high androgen levels in males. Male and female mice with and without the gene were tested. The Sry gene was associated with high levels of aggression, suggesting that genes and hormones interact and that sex chromosome genes also have a role.

Gender and Aggression

• The Super-Male hypothesis (Sandberg, 1961) suggested the XYY Gene led to aggression. Later research by Alice Theilgard [1984] did show that 16 men out of 30,000 sampled had the XYY gene and that these were slightly more aggressive and slightly less intelligent, but this is such a rare mutation that it does not explain aggression in the general population.

General Criticisms of Genetic Research

Comparative – much of the work on genes has been done on animals and may not apply to humans so easily. However, the experiments which have been done on mice relate to chemicals and genes which are very similar.

Reductionist: Danger of seeing only biological and overlooking social psychology issues such as de-individuation. Tends to overlook the effects of socialization and other environmental issues, such as environmental stressors. Genetic factors do not work in isolation but interact with environmental factors as well.

Deterministic: Assumes that humans have no choice and will follow quite primitive behavior patterns.

Ethological Explanations of Aggression.

What is etholgy.

Ethology is where we learn about human psychology from studying other animals.

• Konrad Lorenz believed that aggression was an innate adaptive response – something which had evolved in humans and animals to help them survive.
• To see off predators: For example, a group of hissing geese can drive off a fox, even though the fox would probably win a straight fight. If the geese survive, then the gene which led to that aggressive response will be passed on.
• To get resources: Lorenz also suggested that much aggression was aimed at members of the same species when competing for territory or sexual partners, but some animals are so fierce they could easily damage each other when fighting for dominance, Eg. Wolves, Stags, and Lions.

This would be maladaptive – bad for the species. Therefore they fight until one backs down, not to the death, just to establish who is stronger and who is weaker. Lorenz observed that most intra-species aggression consisted mainly of ritualistic signaling (e.g., displaying teeth) and rarely became physical.

This creates a society in which each individual knows their place. They have evolved ways of warning others to back off: Dogs bark and snarl, cats hiss, apes beat their chest, or wave sticks about.

Niko Tinbergen called these Fixed Action Patterns [FAP]

Fixed Action Patterns [FAP]

Lea [1984] analyzed FAPs and identified five features:

• Stereotyped: behavior follows a certain pattern each time.
• Universal: all the animals in that species use the same type of threat.
• Innate: all the animals in that species seem to be born with it and don’t have to learn it.
• Ballistic: Once it starts, it cannot simply be stopped.
• Specific triggers seem to set it off.

Tinbergen presented male sticklebacks with a series of wooden models of different shapes. The red on the competing males’ underbelly is the stimulus that triggers the IRM that, in turn, leads to the aggressive FAP.

He found that if the model had a red underside, the stickleback would aggressively display and attack it, but no red meant no aggression. Once triggered, the FAP always ran its course to completion without any further stimulus.

Breland and Breland found that animals tend to revert to instinctive behavior regardless of training. This would support the FAP theory.

It could be argued that some behaviors are learned in the environment – but maybe not all. Dogs can be trained by hunters, the army, and the police to act in particular ways.

Fixed action patterns are not that fixed – Hunt points out that sequences of behaviors that appear to be fixed and unchanging are greatly influenced by environmental factors and learning experiences – Lowers the validity of the theory as it suggests aggressive behaviors are affected by environmental influences.

Eibesfeldt (1972) tried to identify human FAPS, such as smiling, to show non-aggression. However, he found that our culture changes so quickly that cultural differences in signs can change more quickly than evolutionary patterns. Rude words and hand signs can change, so not evolutionary. Humans are certainly capable of developing new ways of expressing aggression – such as cyber bullying!

Innate Releasing Mechanisms [IRM]

• Creatures have evolved an instinctive response to certain signs. [Like a red rag to a bull!]

E.g. Male sticklebacks will respond aggressively to the red underbelly of a rival male – but not to a female who does not have the red underbelly.

Cannot generalize to humans – We should be cautious about making such generalizations, especially to complex behavior like aggression, because humans can act upon free will, unlike animals – Human aggression is extremely destructive, but we seem to have an element of control (our processing might not be automatic/innate) – Aggression cannot truly be measured in animals because the intent is not known and cannot be communicated (may be an act of survival, not aggression).

The Hydraulic Model of instinctive behavior [Lorenz 1950]

It may be easier to understand and remember the hydraulic model if you compare it to a toilet! The water level gradually fills up till you flush it – then it has to be filled up again.

• Lorenz said that all creatures build up a reservoir of Action Specific Energy – you could call it “pent-up aggression.” When the Innate releasing mechanisms [IRM] trigger the Fixed Action Pattern [FAP] all the aggression is fired off.

Once it is out of the system, the animal is less aggressive again till the level of Action Specific Energy has built up again.

This explanation was probably an example of Lorenz trying to adapt Freudian ideas to animals! Freud wrote about the build-up of sexual energy [Libido], and Lorenz applied a similar idea here.

This theory fails to explain premeditated aggression and bearing grudges.

Holst [1954] found that instead of getting it out of the system, aggressive action could feed back to make the person angrier and increasingly more aggressive.

Arms et al. [1979] found that watching violent sports did not flush aggression out of the system but tended to increase it.

Bushman does not agree with the idea of Catharsis – that aggression may lead to more aggression.

Evolutionary Explanations of Human Aggression.

Explains aggression through natural selection (survival of the fittest, aggressive genes are passed on to subsequent generations as aggressive individuals more able to compete for resources)

The central idea of this topic is that for aggression to be an adaptive feature, it has to serve a purpose.

Aggression is Adaptive

David Buss has identified 7 adaptations of aggression in humans:

• Self Defence

• Reputation to ward off future aggression

• To achieve status – more allies, fewer enemies

• Get and keep a better share of resources. Pinker (1997) states aggression evolved in men to compete for women. This may have been the MAIN reason for aggression, as there was no other property worth fighting over as we evolved.

• Deny own resources to children of rivals

• To prevent other males from sharing the prime females

• Prevent a partner from being unfaithful. For example, sexual jealousy may have evolved to ensure that men pass on their own genes rather than allowing other males access to their mate.

Inter-Group Aggression

This is aggression between different groups, such as warfare and gangs.

• Buss states human males have evolved cognitive bias towards organized aggression: E.g.

• Cognitive bias to expect an attack

• Cultivating a tough reputation

• Use of vengeance as a deterrent

• Strategies for planning and timing an attack

• Deception and the ability to detect deception

• Cosmides and Tooby, the Military Contract: Men will only fight if those who share the rewards also share the danger. Other animals are not bright enough to work this out.

Intra-Group Aggression

This is aggression within a single group, mainly linked to male rivalry and sexual jealousy.

• Daly and Wilson: Male – Male aggression among young men is common in all human cultures – suggesting it is evolutionary.

• Pinker (1997) suggests aggression evolved in men to compete for women. This may have been the MAIN reason for aggression, as there was no other property worth fighting over as we evolved. Throughout most of evolution, there was no money, and no real property, so women were the only target of aggression.

• Potts and Hayden (2008): War and aggression aimed to control women’s mating habits since the development of farming made the inheritance of land important. Jealousy has evolved as a male response to the threat of infidelity. Jealous males are determined to pass on their OWN genes.

• Daley and Wilson (1988): Men may use jealousy and violence to control partners’ sexual behavior Violence is not intended to kill but may have that result. E.g., Fertile young women 10 times at risk of domestic violence.

General Criticisms of Evolutionary Research

Ethics: Waller says: Violence, Xenophobia , and even genocide are adaptive, but this is very deterministic and unethical.

Ethics and Gender : Critics feel this theory could be used to justify violence against women. Buss himself always points out that we are not controlled by our genes; we have inherited the ability to learn and to choose.

Reductionist : Is this an over-simplification? Are there other issues that promote aggression, such as cultural or individual differences in testosterone and cortisol?

Heredity & Environment : Are environmental factors a greater cause of aggression?

• Environmental stressors, heat, noise, etc

• Cortisol levels in pregnant mother

• Childhood abuse and neglect

Deterministic : Evolutionary explanations may seem to suggest that aggression is natural, but Figuerdo [1995] suggests jealousy and domestic violence are context-specific, not inherent. Women are less likely to be victims of domestic violence if they have several brothers in town, so aggression can be controlled.

Socially sensitive – It suggests that aggression is somewhat excusable and out of the control of the individual committing the behavior – This has important consequences within the legal system – Brings into question the credibility of the theory and makes it imperative that such socially sensitive research is not released into the public domain.

Social-Psychological Explanations of Aggression.

Social learning theory.

In the 1960s, social learning theory, seen as a challenge to behaviorists, suggested children learn things even without doing them through observational learning and modeling.

Exam Tip : If the question asks about Social Learning Theory, it is not enough only to write about the Bobo Doll experiment . That was only one experiment – not the whole theory.

Children learn aggressive behaviors through observing aggressive models. These may be live models, such as parents, or symbolic models, such as characters in the media.

• Behaviorists believe learning occurs through experience followed by either punishment or reward. “Social Learning Theory” challenges that approach.

• The central idea of social learning theory is that people do not need rewards to learn aggression, they may copy the behavior of others, but this is less likely if they see the other people being punished.

Bandura states children learn by imitation and are more likely to copy depending on the following:

• The actual behavior of the role model
• The status of the person copied
• The closeness/immediacy of the person
• How well we understand what is happening

Bobo Doll experiments : Children copied adults

Contributory factors:

• Similarity: boys will copy boys, family links and groups, etc.
• Presentation: How close, live, and immediate the violence was
• Warmth: If the model was more friendly toward the subject
• Prestige: If the model had high status
• Appropriateness: If the behavior was “appropriate.

• Vicarious reinforcement : (i) Adult was rewarded, children were slightly more likely to copy; (ii) adult was punished, children were much less likely to copy.

• Disinhibition : People are more willing to do things if they see that others are already doing them.

• Bandura’s conclusions : Aggression is not inevitable. Children observe aggressive behavior in others, but how they act may depend on what the consequences of aggression are, particularly for those they use as role models.

Positive Criticisms of Bandura

Huge implications for society -provides the key to understanding the causes of good and bad behavior.

Based on clear research in the lab and followed up by many studies into TV violence, video games, etc.

Negative Criticisms of Bandura

The experiment was in a lab – which may lack ecological validity.

Children may have known that the Bobo Doll was designed for punching and, therefore, more open to suggestion. Also, they may have been aware of the experiment from other children in the group.

These are both examples of demand characteristics.

Media Implications

Viewing violence may cause children to develop cognitive scripts which involve violence in dealing with situations.

A danger is that media violence makes children more desensitized and more hardened to acts of violence in real life.

Social Theory: De-Individuation

• The central idea of this theory is that humans have a natural tendency to be aggressive if they think they can get away with it. Being disguised or part of a crowd will therefore lead to increased aggression.

• Festinger (1952) invented the term “ Deindividuation ,” defined by Fraser and Burchell (2001) as “A process whereby normal constraints on behavior are weakened as persons lose their sense of individuality.”

• LeBon suggested that when in a crowd, the combination of anonymity, suggestibility, and contagion (likelihood of a behavior being copied) mean that a ‘collective mind’ take control of the individual.

• Contagion Theory : Starting point for deindividuation

• Le Bon 1896: People in groups become infected with a kind of group hysteria and act in ways they would not do on their own.
• Blumer 1939: Circular reaction where the people add to the crowd, and the crowd fires up the people.

Gergen 1973: Deindividuated persons in dark areas became more affectionate. Therefore de-individuation need not always lead to aggression

Postmes & Spears (1988): Deindividuated people are not necessarily aggressive – Crowds may be happy and good-natured – as at pop festivals

Research support for anonymity – Zimbardo found that when asking females to elicit electric shocks to each other, more severe shocks were given in the deindividuated condition (participants wore hoods that hid their faces) than in the controlled condition (participants were introduced to each other and wore nametags) – There is support for anonymity as a factor of de-individuation, causing aggression.

Deiner et al. (1976) Studied 1300 American children “trick or treating” on Halloween. Children in disguise or in a large group behaved worse. Supports deindividuation theory.

Mullen (1986) studied lynch mobs. The greater the number of people tended to correlate with the level of violence.

Emergent Norm Theory & convergence theory

These ideas can be used as criticisms of de-individuation. They suggest that groups or sub-cultures come together because they have some sort of similarity (convergence) and then establish their own norms (emergent norms).

Often one person or a few people will behave in a certain way that others like – so they copy. This argues against de-individuation and the faceless crowd. It does not imply aggression will result. A very good example would be the hippy culture of the 1960s.

The Frustration-Aggression Hypothesis

• Aggression is a result of frustration. Frustration is any event or stimulus that prevents an individual from attaining a goal and its accompanying reinforcement quality (Dollard & Miller, 1939).

• When people are frustrated, they experience a drive (links to the psychodynamic approach) to be aggressive towards the object of their frustration, but this is often impossible or inappropriate, so the source of their aggression is displaced on something or someone else. (The cause may be abstract, too powerful, or unavailable.)

• Displaced Aggression [Dollard 1939] ‘You can’t kick the boss, so you kick the cat.’ Like Lornez, Dollard thought that getting aggressive cleared the mind of frustrations [a Catharsis], and life could then go on as normal.

• Berkowitz (1989 ) updated version is known as “Negative – affect theory.” Frustration is just one factor. Others may include feeling uncomfortable [eg. Heat, Reifmann [1991]] – but could also be noise or loud music. Certain cues may increase the tendency towards aggression, such as seeing a weapon on the table – Berkowitz used a baseball bat in experiments. Also, if the problem is unexpected, the individual is less likely to control their aggression.

• So, the level of aggression will depend on the following:

• How much you really want to achieve the goal
• Whether you understand that there is a good reason for the problem
• How expected / unexpected the frustration was

Real-world application to explain mass killings – Staub suggests that mass killings are often rooted in the frustration caused by social and economic difficulties within a society, leading to aggression against this group – Can be applied to the Germans blaming the Jews for the loss of the war and the severe economic problems following it which suggests that widespread frustration, when manipulated by a propaganda machine, can have violent consequences for a scapegoat group .

Bandura (1973) Frustration may lead to aggression if that has worked for someone in the past and they have internalized that way of dealing with problems.

Harris (1974) Found that people at the front of a cue were less aggressive if someone pushed in, whereas people at the back of a long cue felt a greater sense of frustration and, therefore, made a bigger fuss.

Wright and Klee (1999): Societies will be more stable and peaceful if they have systems that allow clever or hardworking people to rise to the top. Otherwise, a strong but angry working class will develop, filled with people who resent being “kept down.”

Brown (2001) – holidaymakers became more aggressive when frustrated by delays.

Priks (2010) has tried to explain football violence this way. Supporters seem much more likely to misbehave when their team is losing.

Mallick and McCandles found that people were much less aggressive when given a reason for their frustration. Doob and Sears [1939]: people felt angry when a bus went by without stopping. But people were less angry if the bus had a sign saying out of service [Pastore 1952]

The danger is that it justifies deviant behavior: Plenty of people suffer injustice or unfairness and do not turn to violence. Therefore there must be some additional factor, such as a biological dimension, to explain why some people turn to violence or aggression when faced with problems and others don’t.

Contradictory evidence – Bushman found that participants who vented their anger using a punch bag actually became more angry and aggressive, and doing nothing was actually more effective in reducing aggression – The study casts doubt on the validity of the hypothesis: that aggression reduces arousal and one is then less likely to continue to be angry and aggressive and suggests that aggression may not be cathartic.

Cause and effect – Berkowitz argued that frustration is just one of many stimuli that cause negative feelings. Others may be jealousy, pain, and loneliness. Furthermore, the outcome of frustration can be a range of responses, e.g., anxiety, and may not always be aggression – The theory is inadequate. However, Berkowitz addressed these inadequacies by developing his negative affect theory.

Institutional Theories of Aggression.

The situational approach: prisons make people aggressive – it’s the situation to blame.

The dispositional approach: prisoners are aggressive people who make the prison violent.

The Situational Approach: Sykes’ (1958) Deprivation Model

• Some institutions have harsh living conditions, such as prisons, army camps, and refugee camps This is less of a problem if the deprivation is for a good reason; if you were on a “round the world yacht race” or a mountaineering trip you have positive attitudes to keep you going.

• Some institutions deprive people of things they want, which reinforces the feelings of rejection from society, causing them to become more aggressive. E.g.

• goods and services,
• sexual relationships,
• communication with loved ones

• This deprivation causes stress and frustration, which leads to an aggressive sub-culture. But this only applies to places with harsh conditions: E.g., in prisons, the army, refugee camps, etc. Less likely to be a problem if the deprivation is for a good reason, Eg. fitness & diet camp.

• The general environment becomes dangerous and aggressive.
• Some people retreat, back down, and hide in their cells.
• Others compete in order to get what they want.
• Getting a tough reputation is very important in order to get respect and not be a victim.

Support for Situational Model

McCorkle (1995) In a study of 317 United States prisons, poor facilities, and overcrowding were found to influence levels of violence.

Franklin (2006): Age and overcrowding led to aggression, with younger inmates (18-30) being most aggressive in conditions of overcrowding. Her Majesty’s Prison Woodhill: Major improvements at this prison included less noise, better ventilation, attractive views, and especially less crowding. This led to a massive improvement in behavior in the 1990s.

Harer and Steffensmeir (1996) found that age, race, and criminal background were the only variables that affected levels of aggression. This strongly argues for the importation model, not the deprivation model.

The Situational Approach: Dysfunctional Institutions

Another situational argument is that the prisons themselves are dysfunctional.

Milgram believed that people are loyal to the hierarchy of the organization, but sometimes the hierarchy encourages cruel behavior.

Much of Milgram’s thinking was influenced by events of the holocaust in Germany. Here the institutional aggression was on the part of the guards rather than the prisoners.

The Stanford Prison Experiment

Zimbardo found that ordinary students became aggressive and cruel when they took on the role of prison guard. At the time of the Zimbardo experiment , there were many prisons in the united states where conditions were extremely poor, violent, and overcrowded. Some even used the prisoners as slave labor on prison farms. Zimbardo’s experiment strongly supports the situational approach.

Historical Context

At the time of the Zimbardo experiment , there were many prisons in the united states where conditions were extremely poor, violent, and overcrowded. Some even used the prisoners as slave labor on prison farms. Zimbardo’s experiment strongly supports the situational approach.

Features of dysfunctional Power Systems (Zimbardo)

• Isolated from the outside world
• Own set of values
• Cohesive group; guards don’t question orders
• Under pressure to act quickly
• A difficult situation to manage
• Out-group seen as troublemakers

Dispositional Explanation: The Importation Model

The Importation Model focuses on the characteristics of the individual.

Irwin and Cressey argue that the prisoners import their aggressive tendencies into prison with them, and this is why the rate of violence is high.

A prison is a violent place because aggressive people are in there. Their aggressive attitudes become part of their nature. It’s a dispositional approach because everything depends on the attitudes of the prisoners. This may also apply to other groups and institutions; The army / Extreme political groups, / Street gangs.

Irwin and Cressy 1962: People who are sent to prison already have well-established criminal behavior patterns. Prisoners were often gang members before going to prison, and their loyalties and relationships are continued in the prison environment.

They also have certain learned patterns of behavior – “The code of the Streets.”

They may also have problems that cause problems with relationships. E.g., Lack of self-control – Delisi (2011); Impulsive, anti-social – Wang & Diamond (2003).

Support for Irwin and Cressy/importation model

Men who were members of gangs before they went to prison are more likely to be involved in violent offenses whilst in prison. Drury and Delisi (2011)

Mears (2013) believed that the code of the street is imported into prison and is the fundamental cause of aggression.

Poole and Regoli 1983: Violence before the prison was the best indicator of violence inside prison. This supports the importation model.

Fischer (2001) Segregating gang members inside prison so that they did not come into conflicts with other gangs led to a 50% reduction in assaults.

Criticism of the Importation Model

Delisi (2004) found that gang members were NOT more violent than other prisoners. However, this is a rather weak piece of research as it does not allow for the fact that those gang members had already been segregated away from other gang members.

The importation model does not really explain why some organizations act aggressively when they are made up of good people who are supposed to act sensibly. Police officers, school teachers, traffic wardens, psychiatric nurses, and salesmen are all members of organizations that have sometimes been accused of acting in an aggressive way, and yet these are very law-abiding people who joined those organizations willingly and for good reasons.

In January 2012, there was a short question (4 marks) that just said;

Describe one experiment which investigated Institutional Aggression.

A short summary of Zimbardo was all that was needed.

Media influences on aggression.

Exam Tip: Many criticisms can be made of the methodologies used in studying the link between Media and Aggression. Click here for AO3 suggestions on this unit.

Computer Games

In recent years computer games have replaced film as the target of claims that children are taking on immoral attitudes and copying violence. Especially those involving violence, especially first-person “shoot-em-ups,” “Grand Theft Auto” is a very good example.

Five psychological theories could be mentioned to support the view that repeated exposure to video game violence may lead to real-life aggression:

1. Learning theory [Skinner]

Everything you have ever learned about Operant Conditioning can be beautifully applied to this argument. The computer game is the world’s most effective “ Skinner Box .”

The human is conditioned to think in patterns that have been pre-programmed into the machine. Basic ideas are taught at the basic levels, and behavior is constantly shaped to conform to the rules of the game. Every act, every single click on the mouse, is instantly rewarded by the computer’s response. Mistakes are instantly punished.

2. Learning theory [Bandura]

Attention  retention  production  motivation

Individuals model aggressive acts in the game. Some characters, and some types of behavior, are more likely to be copied because they are seen as attractive and appropriate, etc. There is no sense of real punishment for making mistakes – just game over and start again. This creates disinhibition, and individuals unconsciously feel that if they commit aggression, they will not be punished.

3. Social Cognitive Observational Learning Theory [an updated version of Bandura]

Psychologists have identified certain mechanisms which explain why we learn and copy behavior:

• Schemas: Models which help us understand the world [Grebner 1994]
• Normative beliefs: social rules and explanations [Guerra Et. Al.]
• Cognitive Priming: What connects to what in the brain [Berkowitz, Huesmann]
• Cognitive Scripts: A pattern of behavior we have ready to deal with certain situations

So the films don’t suddenly turn a person violent, but they might slowly cause the development of anti-social attitudes. This could be more effective in certain types of people [not very intelligent, have no positive role model, feel hard done by in life].

4. The General Aggression Model [Anderson and Dill]

This model brings together elements of Social learning and Cognitive Priming Theory and suggests that if we live in a violent environment – such as a war zone, we will adapt to it; our thoughts, feelings, and actions will be based around violence, and that is how we will survive. But could over-exposure to gaming have the same effects?

Evidence for General Aggression Model: Meta-Analysis Findings: Anderson et al. [2004] 35 studies examined Found that video game violence exposure is related to increases in aggressive affect, cognition, and behavior increases in physiological arousal; decreases in helping behavior.

5. Neurological Effects

Ritterfield and Mathiak [2006] –

Participants were subjected to a functional magnetic resonance imaging scan whilst playing a violent video game. It appeared to suggest that emotional areas of the cortex are to some extent “switched off” during the game, perhaps an adaptive mechanism that permits an animal to focus on survival. This is the same as happens when engaged in real acts of violence.

Strength – RWA – We can show more non-aggressive models and promote more prosocial behavior that is rewarded in the media. Aggressive behavior should always be shown to be punished – Research can be used to reduce the effect of computer games on aggression.

Weakness – Measures of aggression are artificial – Experimental studies compare participants who play a violent computer game with those who play a non-violent computer game, but it is difficult to be certain that the two are equivalent in terms of game dimensions and the complexity of keys used – Casts doubt on the validity of experimental studies and the link between media violence and aggression.

Weakness – Confounding variables in longitudinal studies – Over lengthy periods of time, many sources of aggression interact with media influences such as role models; therefore, it is difficult to separate them and assess contributions to aggressive behavior – It is impossible to conclude that violent media rather than confounding variables have affected aggression.

Weakness – Publication bias – There is a tendency for only statistically significant findings to be published, which is a particular problem for meta-analyses because they generally only include published studies – This creates a false impression that the effects of violent media on aggression are greater than they actually are.

Cognitive Priming

• Cognitive priming is based on the idea that memory works through association.

It, therefore, contends that events and media images can stimulate related thoughts in the minds of audience members. For example, if we have often seen clowns throwing custard pies at one another, then when we encounter a custard pie in real life, we may think about throwing it at someone.

• A schema is a model of what we think normally happens. We assume that our parents will feed us and our friends will be pleased to see us because that is what normally happens.

• A cognitive script is a way of dealing with a situation. We have learned that in a hotel restaurant, we sit down and wait to be served, but in a burger bar, we line up at the counter.

• Berkowitz thinks watching violent movies could lead to storing schemas and cognitive scripts which involve aggression, e.g., the students in the Stanford Prison experiment had never been in a real prison but they may have had a schema based on movies they had seen.

E.g., Students who play “Grand Theft Auto” might develop a cognitive script for what to do when traffic lights turn amber. This may be different from the way their Grandma drives!

• Priming means that a particular event, image, or even word may be associated with these thoughts. We call that a trigger. When we encounter the trigger, we may respond in the way we have been primed.

E.g., if a football comes bouncing towards me – without thinking, I put out my foot to stop it or kick it back, but if it’s a cricket ball, I would pick it up and throw it back. I am primed to respond differently to the cricket ball. So Berkowitz argues that we learn anti-social attitudes from the media, and these are associated with certain triggers.

Steve Berkowitz [1984] did an experiment involving an argument in an office. In condition A, there was a baseball bat on the side of the desk. In condition B, there was a badminton racquet. Berkowitz found the presence of the baseball bat led to more aggressive responses.

Bushman [1998] Participants who had watched a violent film responded more quickly to aggressive words than those who had watched a non-violent film.

Anderson and Dill [2000] Found that playing a violent computer game led to more aggressive thoughts. They claimed that even playing the game just once could have this effect, although the effect might only be short-term.

Zelli [1995] found that cognitive priming could be used to make people suspicious of the intentions of others. This, in turn, led the people who had been primed to act in a more aggressive manner.

Murray [2007] – used fMRI scans to study children’s brains when watching violent and non-violent TV programs. Violent films led to increased activity in those areas which deal with emotion, arousal, and attention – not surprisingly – but also in the areas used to store episodic memory . This supports the suggestion that children can store scripts.

Atkin [2003] found that priming was more pronounced when the media was more realistic.

However, this may not simply mean it “looked better”. It might relate to how much the participant believed it was realistic.

Desensitization

• Media violence leads to aggressive behavior by removing the anxiety about violence. Someone who becomes desensitized to violence may therefore perceive it as more ‘normal’ and be more likely to engage in violence themselves.
• Effects may involve a reduction in physiological arousal (e.g., heart rate) when exposed to real violence or a psychological response (e.g., having less sympathy for a victim).
• In the natural world, a certain level of natural fear should make people hold back from violent situations. The desensitization argument suggests that if children watch too much violence on TV, they will be less scared and, therefore, more open to aggressive activity.
• People become less likely to notice violence in real life. They have less sympathy for victims of violence. They have less negative attitudes towards violence. [Mullin and Linz 1995]

Measuring desensitization

• Desensitisation can be monitored by physical indicators of stress, such as heartbeat and galvanic skin response. [Linz 1989]

• Carnagey [2007] found that experienced computer gamers show less of a reaction to a film of real-life violence.

Effects of Desensitisation

• Bushman and Anderson [2009] found that desensitization made people less likely to help others in unpleasant situations.

• Dolf Zillman suggested that if we survive the real-life danger, we feel good afterward [winners]

During an action movie, we feel excited and stimulated. Later we want that excitement again, but we become de-sensitized, so we need more scary films to get us excited. This could transfer to seeking violence in real life.

Disinhibition

• Disinhibition explains that watching or playing violent media may change the standards of what is considered acceptable behavior. The media gives aggressive behavior social approval, especially where effects on victims are minimized and appear justified.

• Normally, we act in certain ways because we have been socialized to know what is right and wrong. We get aroused and excited by a film or a game, and this causes us to lose our inhibitions, acting in a more extreme manner till the excitement dies down.

• Long-term Disinhibition: Too much violent TV can change our actual moral values so that we see more violent standards of behavior as acceptable. One aspect of this is that we often see acts of violence going unpunished in movies or games, and this could lead to disinhibition.

Individual factors [Collins 1989] make disinhibition more or less likely:

• Violent home background
• Physical punishment of children
• Younger viewers
• Children with low intelligence
• Children who believe their heroes are realistic
• Children who believe the media reflects real life

• Disinhibition is less likely if Strong family norms against violence or when adults discuss issues from the film with their children.

• Research support for disinhibition – Berkowitz found that participants who saw a film depicting aggression as vengeance gave more fake electric shocks to a confederate – The media disinhibited aggression by presenting it as justified and removing social constraints.

• Disinhibition can explain the effect of cartoon violence – Children learn social norms through cartoon characters as the aggression they carry out is socially normative, especially when it goes unpunished – Children learn that aggression is rewarding and achieves goals in a socially acceptable way, therefore, are more prone to copy it.

The main criterion is that benefits must outweigh costs.

Animal research also raises the issue of extrapolation. Can we generalize from studies on animals to humans as their anatomy & physiology is different from humans?

General criticisms and/or strengths of theories and studies.E.g., ‘Bandura’s Bobo Doll studies are laboratory experiments and therefore criticizable on the grounds of lacking ecological validity.’

To gain marks for criticizing the study’s methodologies, the criticism must be contextualized: i.e., say why this is a problem in this particular study.

‘Therefore, the violence the children witnessed was on television and was against a doll, not a human.

The Ethological Explanation of Aggression ( AQA A Level Psychology )

Revision note.

Psychology Content Creator

The adaptive & ritualistic functions of aggression

• Ethology is the study of animal behaviour and, by extension, human behaviour in terms of traits, characteristics and rituals which have adapted to become useful for survival
• Aggression is an evolutionary process in that it is designed to minimise conflict and spread resources around the group (whether that be lions, monkeys, sticklebacks or humans)
• In the animal kingdom there are specific territorial behaviours which help to establish who is ‘top dog’ (quite literally!) and who must take their place further down the pecking order
• Territoriality-linked aggressive behaviour may take the form of stags rutting ; male sticklebacks displaying a red underbelly as a warning to other males; a cat arching its back and hissing at other cats to ‘back off’
• Aggressive territoriality is a useful survival strategy as it results in one animal claiming rights over a specific territory which means that the rest of the group have to find alternative feeding and breeding areas which spreads the resources around and prevents overpopulation of one area (and possible starvation)
• Ritualistic behaviours are designed to show competitors who is ‘boss’ and to deter them from encroaching on the chosen territory
• Little harm is actually done to each animal, the threat is implied rather than carried out to its natural conclusion i.e. death, which is ultimately damaging to the species’ survival
• Signs of threat may include a lowered head; baring of teeth /fangs; growling/snarling; the display of red in feathers/coat/skin
• Signs of surrender include birds turning their head towards a competitor (this is the most vulnerable part of the bird and signals the end to the fight); dogs and wolves assuming a submissive position e.g. lowering themselves down or (according to Lorenz) exposing their throat (again, the most vulnerable part of the animal)
• Human behaviour has some similarities with animal aggression e.g. wars are fought for territories; males may ‘ posture ’ in front of other males to warn them away from a desired female e.g. via lots of shouting, pushing, arms spread wide etc.

Who would have thought that this cute little chap is showing how dangerous he is!

You should definitely cover examples of animal threat and display in a question on ethological explanations of aggression but don’t forget to make the link to human behaviour (unless the question does not require this).

Innate releasing mechanisms & fixed action patterns

• An innate releasing mechanism (IRM) is a response to a specific stimulus : the process is instinctive i.e. it does not have to be learned
• IRMs are thought to comprise a neural network in the brain i.e. they are inbuilt biological structures
• IRMs may be conspecific (signalled to members of the same species) or allospecific (signalled to animals of different species)
• Male sticklebacks signal aggression via their red underbellies: this triggers an IRM in another male stickleback who may respond by also showing aggression or by moving away from the threat (Tinbergen, 1951)
• A dog sees a cat running away, so the dog’s IRM produces an innate response: ‘ chase the cat! ’
• A consequence of an IRM is a fixed action pattern (FAP) e.g. the male stickleback notices a threat so he begins a series of predetermined actions and behaviours that are designed to deter any intruders or competitors; moths fold their wings to limit ultrasonic sounds as predators use these sounds to hunt them
• FAPs tend to be: unchanging; universal across the species; stable across the species; inevitable; situation-specific; not affected by learning

Moths fold in their wings to prevent predators from detecting them: an example of a fixed action pattern.

Research which investigates the ethological explanation of aggression

• Lorenz (1970) -  the ‘founding father’ of ethological research; he first proposed IRMs and conducted various studies on animal behaviour as a guide to human behaviour
• Eibl-Eibesfeldt (1967) - neural mechanisms and social patterns of aggression in animals and humans
• Cohen et al. (1996) - threats (real or implied) were met with more aggressive responses from males from the southern states of the USA than males from the northern states i.e. there may cultural differences in aggression based on learned social norms

Evaluation of the ethological explanation of aggression

• There is some validity to this theory from both animal and human studies (e.g. Raine et al. 1997 who found that impulsive murderers respond without thinking/instinctively to stimuli)
• Some human aggression may be as a result of genes (and hence, innate and instinctive) as seen in Brunner et al.’s (1993) study on aggression and a defective MAOA gene

Weaknesses  

• As with any research based on animal behaviour it is extremely difficult to generalise to human beings who are more cognitively and socially sophisticated and nuanced than animals
• Human researchers are not best-placed to fully understand animal behaviour; interpretations and inferences only can be drawn from the behaviour of other species

Link to Issues & Debates:

This topic fits into the nature/nurture debate as it claims that some human behaviours may be instinctive i.e. purely the result of evolution and adaptation across generations (the nature side of the debate).

Worked example

Describe and evaluate the ethological explanation of aggression. Refer to relevant research in your answer.                                                                                         [16]

AO1 = 6 marks, AO3 = 10 marks.

For 13-16 marks knowledge is accurate, well detailed and evaluation is effective. The response is clear, coherent and focused with effective use of terminology.

For 9 – 12 marks knowledge is present but with occasional inaccuracies/omissions and mostly effective evaluation. It is mostly clear and organised with an occasional lack of focus and some use of terminology.

For 5 - 8 marks there is limited knowledge and the main focus of the answer is description. Evaluation is fairly limited with a lack of terminology. Clarity, accuracy and organisation are at times lacking.

For 1 - 4 marks knowledge is very limited with weak discussion (evaluation may be entirely absent). The answer lacks clarity, has many inaccuracies and is poorly organised with sparse or absent terminology.

Possible answer content could include:

• AO1 : The ethological explanation is based on evolutionary mechanisms for dominance over territory/resources/mates and is essentially adaptive as it establishes hierarchies within the animal world as researched by Pettit (1988) 
• Specific rituals are a feature of animal aggression as Lorenz observed in his work on conspecific aggression in wolves. Innate releasing mechanisms (IRMs)  may trigger fixed action patterns (FAPs) for example the red markings on male sticklebacks (Tinbergen, 1951) or moths folding in their wings when in the presence of a predator
• AO3 : There is some validity to the idea that aggression is an innate reflex/response both in animals and in humans (Brunner’s 1993 study on the MAOA gene linked to aggression in affected males of one family) 
• Some aggression may not be innate/biological but may be the result of learning and culture, for example, Cohen’s ‘culture of honour’ (1996) research on differences in aggression depending on where in the USA participants were from 
• FAPs may, however not be entirely innate but could also be influenced by environment as well i.e. they consist of several different behaviours in a series, varying from one organism to another (Hunt, 1973)
• Using animal models to draw conclusions about human behaviour lacks generalisability and may be overly deterministic as it assumes an inevitability about human responses devoid of cognitive mediation i.e. humans are more complex and less instinctive than animals

You've read 0 of your 10 free revision notes

Get unlimited access.

to absolutely everything:

• Downloadable PDFs
• Unlimited Revision Notes
• Topic Questions
• Past Papers
• Model Answers
• Videos (Maths and Science)

Join the 100,000 + Students that ❤️ Save My Exams

the (exam) results speak for themselves:

Did this page help you?

Author: Claire Neeson

Claire has been teaching for 34 years, in the UK and overseas. She has taught GCSE, A-level and IB Psychology which has been a lot of fun and extremely exhausting! Claire is now a freelance Psychology teacher and content creator, producing textbooks, revision notes and (hopefully) exciting and interactive teaching materials for use in the classroom and for exam prep. Her passion (apart from Psychology of course) is roller skating and when she is not working (or watching 'Coronation Street') she can be found busting some impressive moves on her local roller rink.

Overview – Aggression

Aggression is hostile behaviour that is intended to cause physical or psychological harm. This A level psychology topic looks at the psychology underlying aggression, including:

• Biological mechanisms involved in aggression (including genetic , neural , and hormonal factors)
• Ethological explanations of aggression (including innate releasing mechanisms and fixed action patterns )

Evolutionary explanations of human aggression

• Social and psychological explanations of aggression (including the frustration-aggression hypothesis , social learning theory , and de-individuation )
• Institutional aggression in prisons (including dispositional and situational explanations)
• Media influences on aggression (effects of which include desensitisation , disinhibition , and cognitive priming )

Biological mechanisms of aggression

Biological mechanisms of aggression include neural mechanisms , hormones , and genetics .

Neural mechanisms

Neural mechanisms (i.e. mechanisms of the nervous system ) play a role in aggression. These include the limbic system of the brain and the neurotransmitter serotonin .

Limbic system

In particular, the amygdala (an area of the limbic system) is associated with aggression.

• Gospic et al (2011) used fMRI brain scans to measure brain activity during a game designed to provoke aggression. Aggressive responses were correlated with increased activity in the amygdala. Further, participants who were given drugs that reduced amygdala activity were less aggressive.
• Brain scans of convicted murderers by Raine et al (1997) found abnormalities in the amygdala (and other areas of the limbic system) compared to controls, which suggests their aggressive crimes may be partly explained by these abnormalities.
• Sumer et al (2007) describe a case study of a girl who suffered from epileptic fits and displayed aggressive behaviour. Brain scans revealed she had a tumour in her limbic system. Doctors treated the tumour with drugs, which stopped both the seizures and aggressive behaviours.
• Supporting evidence: There is a lot of evidence supporting the neural explanations of aggression (see studies above) but the exact role of the limbic system is still somewhat unclear.
• Correlation vs. causation: Although there are correlations between aggressive behaviour and limbic system abnormalities, this does not necessarily prove that limbic system abnormalities cause aggressive behaviour. For example, there are people with limbic system abnormalities who are not overly aggressive, and there are aggressive people with normal limbic systems.
• Deterministic: Neural explanations of aggression are deterministic . If aggressive behaviour is explained solely in terms of neural processes, then it leaves no room for the free will of the individual and means people are not in control of their behaviour. This implies people are not morally responsible for aggressive behaviour (as it is not freely chosen).

Serotonin is a neurotransmitter ( see the biopsychology page for more details ) associated with aggression. Some studies suggest low serotonin levels increase aggression and that higher serotonin levels decrease aggression. For example:

• Virkkunen et al (1994) found that impulsive violent offenders in Finnish prisons had lower serotonin levels (as measured by 5-HIAA levels, a serotonin metabolite) compared to controls.
• Berman et al (2009) randomly assigned 80 subjects (40 with a history of aggression, 40 without) to receive either a drug that increases serotonin activity (paroxetine) or placebo. Among participants with a history of aggression, those who had been given paroxetine behaved less aggressively than those given placebo (as measured by the severity and frequency of electric shocks when playing a game).
• Cherek and Lane (1999) also found that giving subjects a drug that increases serotonin activity (d, l-fenfluramine) reduced their aggressive behaviour.
• Supporting evidence: The studies above support the hypothesis that low serotonin increases aggression.
• Questions of external validity : The findings of the studies above may not apply to the general population in everyday life. For example, Berman et al (2009) and Cherek and Lane (1999) based their conclusions on games played in laboratory conditions, which may not reflect behaviours in real life. Similarly, many studies (e.g. Virkkunen et al (1994) ) use criminal convictions as a measure of aggression, but this may not be an accurate measure of aggressive behaviour in the general population.
• Conflicting evidence: The exact role of serotonin in aggression is somewhat unclear, as research can be conflicting. For example, Huber et al (1997) demonstrated that injecting crayfish with serotonin made them behave more aggressively rather than less (although as an animal study these findings may not be valid when applied to humans).
• Correlation vs. causation: Even if low serotonin and aggressive behaviour are correlated , it does not automatically prove that low serotonin causes aggressive behaviour. For example, serotonin could decrease in response to angry feelings, in which case it could be an effect of aggression rather than a cause.

Hormonal mechanisms

Hormones are chemicals produced in the body by glands ( see the biopsychology page for more details ). The main hormone the syllabus focuses on for aggression is testosterone .

Testosterone

Testosterone is the primary sex hormone in males and is linked with aggression. Several studies have found that high testosterone is correlated with increased aggression and that low testosterone is correlated with decreased aggression. For example:

• Albert et al (1989) found that injecting female rats with testosterone made them behave more aggressively.
• Van Goozen et al (1995) found that administering testosterone to female-to-male transgender people resulted in more aggressive behaviour. Conversely, male-to-female transgender people given drugs to lower their testosterone levels behaved less aggressively.
• Dabbs et al (1995) studied testosterone levels of prisoners. Offenders who had committed violent crimes had higher testosterone levels and were more likely to be involved in fights than those who were convicted of non-violent crimes.
• Supporting evidence: The studies above suggest a positive correlation between testosterone and aggression.
• Conflicting evidence: Although there is a lot of evidence supporting a link between testosterone and aggression, not all studies agree. For example, Tricker et al (1996) randomly assigned 43 men to receive either 600mg of testosterone per week or placebo but observed no differences in aggression between the two groups.
• Correlation vs. causation: Dabbs et al (1995) only shows that high testosterone levels are correlated with aggression, not that high testosterone causes aggression. However, Van Goozen et al (1995) and Albert et al (1989) suggest the link is causal and not simply correlational because increasing testosterone levels resulted in a direct increase in aggressive behaviour.

Genetics are an important biological mechanism of aggression that may tie in with other biological factors. For example, a person may have genetics that predispose them to low serotonin activity, or genetics that encode for limbic system abnormalities .

Twin studies

As always, twin studies are a useful way to determine the extent to which a behaviour or psychological condition is genetic. If concordance rates of aggression are higher among identical twins (who share 100% of their genes) than non-identical twins (who only share 50% of their genes), this shows that genetics play a role.

• Coccaro et al (1997) analysed data from 182 pairs of identical twins and 118 pairs of non-identical twins. The concordance rate for physical violence was 50% among identical twins and 19% among non-identical twins.
• Christiansen (1977) analysed the concordance rates for criminal convictions (a proxy for aggression) among 3,586 pairs of twins. Among males, concordance rates were 35% for identical twins and 12% for non-identical twins. Among females, the concordance rates were 21% for identical twins and 8% for non-identical twins.

The higher concordance rates for aggression and criminality among identical twins than non-identical twins suggests there is a genetic component to aggression.

The MAOA gene

The MAOA gene is responsible for producing monoamine oxidase A (MAOA), which is an enzyme that processes neurotransmitters such as serotonin . The low-activity form of the gene (MAOA-L or the “warrior gene”) results in lower levels of MAOA and is associated with aggression.

The link between the MAOA gene and aggression was discovered by Brunner et al (1993) in a study of a family in the Netherlands. 5 members of this family had a history of impulsive aggression and crime and the researchers discovered that all 5 had dysfunctional MAOA genes, which resulted in an MAOA deficiency.

• Supporting evidence: Several studies in addition to Brunner et al (1993) have confirmed a correlation between the MAOA-L gene and aggression. For example, McDermott et al (2009) conducted an experiment where male subjects played a game where they were able to punish players who stole money from them. Subjects with the MAOA-L gene punished those who stole from them more aggressively than subjects without the MAOA-L gene (although only in situations where the other player stole a large amount from them).
• Exceptions: Many people with the MAOA-L gene are not overly aggressive, and many people are aggressive despite not having the MAOA-L gene.
• Other factors: If aggression was 100% genetic, concordance rates for aggression among identical twins would be 100%. However, the twin studies outlined above found concordance rates to be lower than 50% among identical twins, which suggests other factors besides genetics are important for aggression. Further, several studies (e.g. Caspi et al (2002) and Gallardo-Pujol et al (2012) ) demonstrate that environmental factors interact with the MAOA gene to increase the likelihood of aggression.
• Deterministic: Genetic explanations of aggression are deterministic . If aggressive behaviour is explained solely in terms of genetics, then it leaves little room for free will and means people are not in control of their behaviour. This raises ethical issues as it implies people are not morally responsible for aggressive behaviour (as it is not freely chosen). This genetic argument was used in the 2009 US trial of Bradley Waldroup, who had the MAOA-L gene and was abused as a child. Waldroup avoided a first-degree murder conviction but was convicted of manslaughter and attempted second-degree murder.

Ethological explanations of aggression

Ethology is the study of natural animal behaviour. Studying aggression in animals provides insights into aggression in humans and helps inform evolutionary explanations of human aggression .

Lorenz (1966) argued that aggressive behaviour is an innate (i.e. biologically pre-programmed) response that has evolved to help species survive and pass on their genes. He argued that aggression is a biological need like eating or drinking. In the same way that hunger continuously builds up until an animal eats food, innate releasing mechanisms mean aggression continuously builds up until the animal behaves aggressively and satisfies that need.

Patterns of aggressive behaviour within a species are often ritualistic . From an evolutionary perspective, it wouldn’t make sense for members of a species to try and actually kill each other every time they fight because then the species would go extinct. Instead, rituals enable members of a species to compete and establish dominance without actually harming each other. For example, a wolf who loses a fight exposes its neck to signal that it has lost. This position makes it easy for the winner to kill the loser but instead the fight ends there.

The typical pattern of aggressive behaviour for an animal is as follows:

• Aggression continuously builds up over time
• An environmental stimulus (e.g. another animal of the same species ) triggers the innate releasing mechanism
• The innate releasing mechanism releases a fixed action pattern of behaviour
• Aggression is released and the cycle repeats

Innate releasing mechanisms

Innate releasing mechanisms are biologically hard-wired mechanisms for aggression (e.g. brain structures or neural pathways for aggression). Environmental cues (e.g. the red belly of a rival stickleback ) trigger the innate releasing mechanism. This releases a fixed action pattern of behaviour.

Fixed action patterns

Aggressive behaviours within a species often follow set patterns known as fixed action patterns . These patterns are universal (i.e. the same) across the species and once they are initiated the animal will keep going until the behaviour is complete.

An example of a fixed action pattern can be seen in stickleback fish:

• During the mating season, male sticklebacks build nests where females lay eggs
• (Male sticklebacks also develop red bellies during this time)
• If another male enters their territory, the stickleback will attack it

Tinbergen (1952) demonstrates how fixed action patterns in sticklebacks are universal. When Tinbergen presented male sticklebacks with models of fish with red bellies (even when the model was not realistic looking), they all responded with the same fixed action pattern of fighting behaviour. The universal nature of this behaviour suggests the fixed action pattern is innate.

Strengths of ethological explanations:

• Evidence supporting ethological explanations: There are many examples of fixed action patterns in animals beyond Tinbergen (1952) . For example, if an egg (or similar looking object) is placed near a Grelag goose, it will instinctively try to roll the egg into its nest in a fixed action pattern.

Weaknesses of ethological explanations:

• Questions of validity in humans: Animals like sticklebacks (or even higher primates like chimpanzees) are very different to humans and so explanations of aggression in these animals may not apply to humans. Further, human aggression is very different to animal aggression. For example, humans wage wars and have weapons like guns and nuclear bombs, which animals don’t.
• Conflicting evidence: Schleidt (1974) argues that ‘fixed’ action patterns are often quite varied. For this reason, some ethologists (e.g. Barlow (1968) ) prefer the term modal action pattern .
• Exceptions: There are many examples of aggression in humans that don’t fit the pattern described by ethological explanations. For example, premeditated murder is the result of cognitive processes and timely consideration rather than a fixed action pattern as an immediate response to an environmental cue.

Evolution is the process by which species adapt to their environment. Over many years, random mutations in genes that are advantageous (either in terms of survival or reproduction ) become more widespread among the species. As well as physical characteristics, these genes may encode for certain behaviours such as aggression (e.g. fixed action patterns ).

Survival advantages

Genes for aggression may humans help humans survive in the following ways:

• Gain access to resources: Aggression (physical or otherwise) may be an effective way to gain resources such as food or territory. Having resources like food, for example, mean you are less likely to starve to death.
• Defence: In addition to being a way to defend your resources, aggression also protects against injury and death. For example, if you don’t fight back when someone is aggressive with you, then they might keep going until they kill you.

If a human is more likely to survive, then they are more likely to live long enough to reproduce and pass on their genes .

Reproductive advantages

Genes for aggressive behaviour may also increase the likelihood that a human reproduces and passes on their genes. This is particularly true for men rather than women, for the following reasons:

• Competition for mates: Anisogamy ( see the relationships page for more details ) means women must be selective over who they have children with. As such, men compete with other men for status and resources so that women will choose them as a mate. Pinker (1997) argues that competing for women is the main reason aggression evolved in men.
• Deter infidelity: Anisogamy also means women can be certain of paternity (i.e. that their children are theirs) but men can’t. Raising another man’s child is evolutionarily disadvantageous and so men may have evolved aggression as a way to prevent women from cheating on them. Wilson and Daly (1996) identify two main strategies for this: Direct guarding (e.g. watching over their partner’s behaviour) and negative inducements (e.g. threats).

Strengths of evolutionary explanations:

• Competition for mates: Wilson and Daly (1985) looked at data from 690 murders in Detroit in 1972 and found the vast majority were committed by and perpetrated against young men – the most common reason being “status competition”. This fits with the evolutionary explanation that men evolved to be more aggressive in order to gain status and compete for females.
• Deter infidelity: From interviews with spouse-killers, Wilson and Daly (1988) found that “the husband’s proprietary concern with his wife’s fidelity or her intention to quit the marriage led him to initiate the violence in an overwhelming majority of cases”. This fits with the evolutionary explanation that men evolved to behave aggressively in order to prevent their partners cheating on them.
• Why males are more aggressive: Aggression means males are more likely to win competitions for female mates and/or deter partner infidelity, which makes them more likely to pass on their genes.
• Why females are less aggressive: Children are highly dependent on their mothers for survival. Because of this, Campbell (1999) argues that aggression in women makes them less likely to pass on their genes because engaging in aggressive conflicts increases the likelihood that a mother will die before she can raise her child to independence.

Weaknesses of evolutionary explanations:

• Other factors: If aggression was 100% explained by evolution, you would expect aggressive behaviour to be uniform across the human species. However, there are significant differences in aggression between different cultures. For example, aggression among the !Kung people of the Kalahari desert results in loss of status, whereas aggression among the Yanomami people of South America is correlated with high status. These differences suggest that other factors – such as cultural influences – are needed for a complete explanation of human aggression.
• Methodological concerns: Evolutionary hypotheses are basically impossible to test because evolution takes so long to occur. We can’t run a controlled experiment over millions of years that compares genes for aggression vs. less aggressive genes to see which ones become more widespread. Instead, the evidence for evolutionary hypotheses is usually correlational – e.g. the correlation between strategies to deter infidelity and aggression suggests aggression would be evolutionarily advantageous. However, this correlation does not prove these evolutionary factors cause aggression.
• Deterministic: Evolutionary explanations of aggression are deterministic . If aggressive behaviour is explained solely in terms of evolution and genetics , then it leaves little room for free will and means people are not in control of their behaviour. This raises ethical issues as it means people are not morally responsible for aggressive behaviour because it is not freely chosen.

Social psychological explanations of aggression

Social psychological explanations of aggression explain aggression as a result of social interactions with the environment. These explanations include the frustration-aggression hypothesis , social learning theory , and de-individuation .

Frustration-aggression hypothesis

Dollard et al (1939) proposed the frustration-aggression hypothesis . According to this hypothesis, aggression is a response to frustration .

The likelihood of aggressive behaviour is proportional to the level of frustration; the more frustrated someone is, the more likely they are to act aggressively. For example, if a goal is really important to someone and something prevents them from achieving it, that person is more likely to get frustrated and behave aggressively than if it was a goal they didn’t care about.

Further, the possible consequences of aggressive behaviour increase or decrease the likelihood of aggression in response to frustration. For example:

• Punishment: If someone fears being punished for acting aggressively, they may displace their aggression onto something (or someone) else. If there is no punishment, the person is more likely to behave aggressively.
• Usefulness: Aggressive behaviour is less likely if it won’t help you achieve your goal. For example, smashing a tennis racket in anger is unlikely to help you win. However, if aggression may help achieve your goal, aggressive behaviour is more likely. For example, if you’re waiting for a pizza delivery, you may reason that phoning up the delivery driver and getting aggressive might make your pizza arrive more quickly.

Strengths of frustration-aggression hypothesis:

• Evidence supporting the frustration-aggression hypothesis: For example, Geen (1968) conducted an experiment where male subjects were frustrated while trying to complete a jigsaw puzzle. After the jigsaw, subjects were able to deliver an electric shock to a confederate . Participants in groups that had been frustrated delivered more intense electric shocks than those in the control (non-frustrated) group. In another study, Buss (1963) found that participants who were frustrated in 3 different ways all displayed more aggression than a control group, although the effect was slight.

Weaknesses of frustration-aggression hypothesis:

• Conflicting evidence: In a later study, Buss (1966) found no correlation between level of frustration and aggression, contradicting his earlier study (Buss (1963) above).
• Other factors: There are many instances where people behave aggressively without being frustrated. For example, a person who is threatened may attack (i.e. act aggressively) towards the threat because they feel afraid rather than frustrated. This suggests that other explanations besides frustration – e.g. biological mechanisms or alternative social psychological theories – are needed for a complete explanation of aggression.
• Methodological concerns: Much of the evidence supporting the frustration-aggression hypothesis comes from games conducted in laboratory conditions. As such, the frustration-aggression hypothesis may lack ecological validity when applied to real-life situations outside the lab.

Social learning theory

Social learning theory ( see the approaches page for more details ) explains behaviour, such as aggression, as the result of observation and imitation of role models .

Bandura’s (1961) Bobo the doll experiment supports this explanation. A brief reminder of the experiment:

• Children aged 3-6 years old were observed interacting with an inflatable doll (Bobo)
• Group 1: The role model behaved aggressively towards the doll (hitting it with a hammer and shouting abuse at it)
• Group 2: The role model did not behave aggressively towards the doll
• Group 3: No role model (control group)
• The children in group 1 (who had previously observed the aggressive role model) behaved more aggressively towards Bobo the doll

A complete social learning explanation of aggression will also reference mediating processes : The cognitive factors in between observation and imitation that determine whether someone decides to imitate a behaviour or not. For example, if someone observes the role model being rewarded for aggressive behaviour, this provides motivation to imitate that behaviour and makes aggression more likely. However, if the role model is punished for aggression, this provides motivation not to behave aggressively and makes it less likely. The other mediating processes are attention, retention, and reproduction.

Another key element of social learning theory that is relevant here is vicarious reinforcement . If a person sees the role model rewarded for behaving aggressively, they are more likely to imitate the aggressive behaviour.

Strengths of social learning explanations:

• Evidence supporting social learning explanations: The Bobo the doll experiment supports the social learning explanation of aggression. Children who observed an aggressive role model behaved more aggressively, which supports the social learning explanation that aggression is learned from observation and imitation of role models.
• Practical applications: If aggression is learned through observation and imitation of role models, then aggressive behaviour can be reduced by altering the role models and their behaviour. For example, aggressive role models in the media could be replaced with non-aggressive role models, or aggressive behaviour could be punished rather than rewarded to avoid vicarious reinforcement of aggression. This shows how social learning could be used to reduce aggressive behaviour.

Weaknesses of social learning explanations:

• Other factors: Although social learning theory is able to explain aggression in some situations, there are other situations where aggression is better explained in other ways. For example, a person who is threatened may act aggressively towards the threat in order to protect themself, not because they are imitating the behaviours of a role model. Similarly, a person who is extremely frustrated at losing a game may act aggressively because of their emotional state rather than because they are imitating a role model.
• Methodological concerns: Bandura’s Bobo the doll experiments were conducted in laboratory conditions and used a toy doll. However, it may be that in a real-life environment, the subjects would not imitate the aggressive behaviour – especially if it was against an actual human being rather than a doll. As such, social learning theory may lack ecological validity when applied to aggression in real-life situations.

De-individuation

De-individuation is when a person loses a sense of personal identity and personal responsibility. According to the de-individuation explanation, anonymity (e.g. by being part of a large crowd or wearing a disguise) makes a person more likely to behave aggressively.

In addition to anonymity in a crowd, anonymity in other ways may cause de-individuation. For example, Dodd (1985) got 203 students to anonymously describe what they would do if nobody could identify them or hold them responsible for their actions. 36% of the responses involved some form of antisocial behaviour, with the most common answer being to rob a bank.

Strengths of de-individuation explanations:

• Evidence supporting de-individuation explanations: In addition to Dodd (1985) above, Zimbardo (1969) also shows how people behave more aggressively when de-individuated. Participants were randomly allocated to either an individuated group (where they wore name badges and were introduced to the other participants) or a de-individuated group (where they wore hoods over their heads and were not referred to by name) and completed a task where they could deliver electric shocks to a confederate . Participants in the de-individuated group delivered shocks for twice as long as participants in the individuated group.
• Explanatory power: De-individuation might explain why online abuse is so common; people feel more anonymous and de-individuated when they’re behind a screen.
• Practical applications: If the de-individuation explanation is correct, then aggressive behaviour can be reduced by implementing measures that increase individuation and reduce anonymity. For example, requiring people to use their real names on social media could reduce aggression online.

Weaknesses of de-individuation explanations:

• Conflicting evidence: Gergen et al (1973) found that de-individuation caused the opposite effect to aggression. Participants were put together in a dark room so they couldn’t see each other and told to do whatever they wanted. Rather than behaving aggressively, the participants would kiss and touch each other. This shows that de-individuation does not always cause increased aggression. Further, a meta-analysis of 60 studies by Postmes and Spears (1998) found the evidence for de-individuation explanations of aggression is weak.
• Other factors: Although de-individuation may explain aggression in specific contexts like crowds and social media, people often behave aggressively in situations where they are not de-individuated. This shows that other explanations (e.g. frustration , social learning , or biological factors ) are needed for a complete explanation of aggression.

Institutional aggression (prisons)

Dispositional explanations

Dispositional explanations say that aggression is higher in prisons because people who get sent to prison are naturally more aggressive – that they have a disposition towards aggression.

The importation model is a dispositional explanation proposed by Irwin and Cressey (1962) . According to the importation model, inmates import the social norms and behaviours of their criminal (and aggressive) lives outside of prison. These norms and behaviours make up 3 distinct subcultures within prisons:

• Thief subculture: Repeat offenders who are in and out of prison regularly. They follow a criminal code of honour that emphasises not snitching on other criminals/inmates, reliability, trustworthiness, and loyalty. Thieves follow the code and aim to do their time in prison and get out in the easiest way possible. The thief culture is more aggressive than the legitimate subculture but less aggressive than the convict subculture.
• Convict subculture: Typically offenders who are serving long sentences. People within the convict subculture aim to achieve status within the hierarchy of the prison and access to resources. The convict culture is the most aggressive as this is often an effective way to gain status and resources.
• Legitimate subculture: First-time offenders and people who don’t come from the criminal cultures of either the thieves or convicts. These people behave less aggressively than the other two groups and follow the legitimate prison rules (i.e. those set by the guards).

For whatever reason ( biological factors , social factors , etc.), people from these subcultures have a disposition towards these behaviours – they act this way even when they aren’t in prison. And because these behaviours are more aggressive (at least within the thief and convict subcultures), these people are more likely to commit crimes and get arrested.

The importation model says aggressive behaviours are imported into the prison from the outside. In contrast, situational explanations say that aggression is a response to the internal conditions of the prison itself.

In reality, both situational and dispositional explanations of institutional aggression are important. For example, Jiang and Fisher-Giorlando (2002) found that aggression towards prison staff was best explained by situational factors whereas aggression towards other inmates was best explained by the importation model. Rather than arguing that just one explanation being correct, you could take an interactionist approach.

Strengths of dispositional explanations:

• Evidence supporting dispositional explanations: DeLisi et al (2005) looked at the prison records of 831 US male inmates and found a strong correlation between gang membership and prison violence. This correlation supports the dispositional explanation that the increased aggression of gang members is imported into prisons.

Weaknesses of dispositional explanations:

• Other factors: The studies supporting situational explanations (see below) suggest that the deprived environment of prisons is at least partly responsible for the increased aggression in prisons.

Situational explanations

Situational explanations say that something about the environment of prisons makes people behave more aggressively – that the situation causes aggression.

The deprivation model is a situational explanation described by Sykes (1958) . According to this model, inmates being deprived of the following 5 things causes aggression:

• Liberty: Prisoners are deprived of the freedom to go where they want. Sykes argues this reinforces feelings of being rejected by society, which makes prisoners more likely to feel and behave aggressively.
• Goods and services: Prisoners can’t access the goods and services they want. For example, you can’t just order takeaway or go on your phone like you might on the outside. This causes frustration and anger, which increases aggressive behaviour.
• Heterosexual relationships: Heterosexual prisoners do not have access to opposite-sex partners and so are deprived of sex and the emotional intimacy of romantic relationships. This again causes feelings of frustration, which may increase aggressive behaviour.
• Autonomy: The lives of prisoners are highly controlled – when they can go outside, when and what they eat, etc. is decided for them. This lack of control is frustrating and may lead to aggressive behaviour.
• Security: Prisons are violent environments and so prisoners do not feel safe. As such, prisoners are constantly on edge, which makes aggression and violence more likely.

Sykes calls these 5 deprivations the pains of imprisonment.

So, whereas dispositional explanations say prisoners are naturally more aggressive and import this aggression into the prison from the outside, the deprivation model blames the internal conditions of the prison for causing aggression.

In reality, both situational and dispositional explanations of institutional aggression are important. For example, Jiang and Fisher-Giorlando (2002) found that aggression towards prison staff was best explained by situational factors whereas aggression towards other inmates was best explained by the importation model . Rather than arguing that just one explanation being correct, you could take an interactionist approach.

Strengths of situational explanations:

• Evidence supporting situational explanations: Some studies suggest situational factors increase aggression in prisons. For example, Megargee (1977) found that disruptive behaviour was highly correlated with crowding within prisons.

Weaknesses of situational explanations:

• Conflicting evidence: Camp and Gaes (2005) analysed data from 561 US male prisoners, who were randomly allocated to either a low-security California prison or a high-security California prison. Despite the differing prison environments, there was no significant difference in aggression between the two groups, which weakens support for situational explanations.
• Other factors: The studies supporting dispositional explanations (see above) suggest that aggressive behaviour is – to some extent – imported into prisons rather than a reaction to deprivation in the prison environment.

Media influences on aggression (video games)

Desensitisation

The natural reaction to aggression and violence is anxiety. But repeated exposure to such stimuli may reduce this emotional response – a person becomes desensitised to violence and aggression.

For example, a young child may be disturbed when they see somebody killed in a movie for the first time. But as an adult, the same sort of film does not provoke the same reaction because they’ve seen such depictions of violence many times and are now desensitised to it.

In theory, desensitisation increases aggression. Natural emotional reactions (e.g. anxiety, stress, revulsion, etc.) that would normally prevent a person from being violent are no longer as strong as they once were and so the person is more likely to behave aggressively.

Disinhibition

Inhibitions restrain us from behaving aggressively or inappropriately in real life. But within a video game, a person’s behaviour is disinhibited: They are free to act without consequence in ways they wouldn’t act in real life.

For example, you wouldn’t randomly attack a person on the street. But when playing a video game there are no real consequences for doing so – the character can’t actually fight back, you can’t actually get arrested, and there is no social penalty. Things that inhibit aggressive behaviour are not present in video games.

In theory, disinhibition when playing video games can transfer to real life. Inhibitions that would normally prevent someone from behaving aggressively are worn down so that behaviours that were once considered morally unacceptable now seem more acceptable. This may make a person more likely to behave aggressively in real life.

Cognitive priming

Cognitive priming is the idea that aggressive behaviours seen in the media are remembered and thus ‘prime’ a person to behave similarly when in similar situations. We absorb certain scripts for behaviour from media influences, and play out these scripts in similar situations.

For example, a man who watches a drama where a husband and wife argue over a comment made during dinner may remember and on some level learn this behaviour. If the man’s wife makes a negative comment during dinner one day, this memory primes him to argue with her like he saw in the drama.

In theory, exposure to violence and aggression in video games and the media can prime people to behave more aggressively in real life.

• However, as always, correlation does not necessarily prove causation . It could be, for example, that when people are feeling aggressive they seek out video games as a source of catharsis, in which case the direction of causation would go in the opposite direction.
• However, even though supports a link between exposure to violent media and desensitisation , it does not necessarily prove the further claim that desensitisation increases aggressive behaviour .

<<<Schizophrenia

<<<eating behaviour, <<<stress.

PMT Education is looking for a Content Intern over the summer

AQA A-level Psychology Revision

A-level paper 1, a-level paper 2, a-level paper 3.

• Revision Courses
• Past Papers
• Solution Banks
• University Admissions
• Numerical Reasoning
• Legal Notices

A-Level AQA Psychology Questions by Topic

Finish sign up, filter by paper, core content, 1. social influence.

3. Attachment

4 . Psychopathology

5 . Approaches in Psychology

6. Biopsychology

7 . research methods, 8. issues and debates in psychology, 9. relationships.

11. Cognition and Development

12. Schizophrenia

13. eating behaviour, 15. aggression, 16. forensic psychology, 17. addiction.

Skip to content

Get Revising

Join get revising, already a member.

Agression Essay Plans for A2 Psychology AQA A

These are some essay plans i put together to help myself revise from. There not perfect but some people have said that they are really helpful. Hope they come into use for any of you!

• Created by: Nida Dyer
• Created on: 29-12-11 14:00

No comments have yet been made

Similar Psychology resources:

AQA A PSYA3 RELATIONSHIPS 0.0 / 5

AQA PSYCHOLOGY PSYA3: Neural Mechanisms in Eating Behaviour (Hunger and Satiety) 0.0 / 5

AQA-A Addiction specification 3.0 / 5 based on 4 ratings

Addiciton AQA a 0.0 / 5

AQA A Addiction 0.0 / 5

Gender Revision Notes AQA A2 Unit 3 0.0 / 5

AQA Psychology- Unit 3 0.0 / 5

AQA A Details of Specification Changes 0.0 / 5

A2 AQA Psychology Unit 3 (PSYA3) OCD Essay Plans 0.0 / 5

• International
• Education Jobs
• Schools directory
• Resources Education Jobs Schools directory News Search

Aggression Essays - AQA A-Level Psychology

Subject: Psychology

Age range: 16+

Resource type: Assessment and revision

Last updated

4 August 2023

• Share through email
• Share through twitter
• Share through linkedin
• Share through facebook
• Share through pinterest

• AQA A-level Psychology Essays - Instant Download
• Comprises of 16-mark essays at A* standard (Level 4) for the AQA A-level Psychology specification

Includes the following essays:

• Discuss the role of genetic factors in aggression. [16]
• Outline and evaluate the role of neural and/or hormonal mechanisms in aggression. [16]
• Outline and evaluate research into the effects of computer games on aggression. [16]
• Discuss media influences on aggression. [16]

Your files will be available to download once payment has been confirmed. Returns will not be accepted as the files are digital downloads.

Tes paid licence How can I reuse this?

Your rating is required to reflect your happiness.

It's good to leave some feedback.

Something went wrong, please try again later.

This resource hasn't been reviewed yet

To ensure quality for our reviews, only customers who have purchased this resource can review it

Report this resource to let us know if it violates our terms and conditions. Our customer service team will review your report and will be in touch.

Not quite what you were looking for? Search by keyword to find the right resource: