UNIT ONE: SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGICAL THEORIES OF AGGRESSION
Social learning theory; Deindividuation; Cue Arousal; Relative Deprivation.
Explanations of institutional aggression
Albert Bandura
SOCIAL LEARNING THEORY AND AGGRESSION
LEARNING BY IMITATION OF A ROLE MODEL
Learning Objectives- You will be able to:



Apply the social learning theory to learning aggressive behaviour with reference to research
Evaluate the theory and methodology
Discuss issues and debates with reference to the social learning theory.
Social learning theory (SLT) evolved from operant conditioning. It considers the effect of observing other
people being rewarded – how this shapes our own behaviour. According to this theory, aggressive behaviour
can be learned by observing and imitating the aggressive behaviour of other people.
SLT was proposed by Albert Bandura, who used the term modelling to explain how humans can very quickly
learn specific acts of aggression and incorporate them into their behaviour. Modelling is sometimes referred to
as vicarious learning. The term vicarious means indirect; we can learn aggression without being directly
reinforced for aggressive behaviour of our own. This works when we observe aggression in other somehow
being rewarded. An example would be if a child observed two of his/peers arguing over a toy. If one child gains
control of the toy through force (e.g. by hitting the other child) they have been rewarded for behaving
aggressively. The aggressive behaviour has been vicariously reinforced for the observer and this may lead to
imitation of the aggressive behaviour.
4 basic processes of social learning
 Attention – on the model (someone similar in age or sex or in a position of power such as a parent,
teacher or celebrity) showing the behaviour
 Retention – remembering the behaviour of the model
 Motivation – having a good reason for copying the behaviour
 Reproduction – copying the behaviour (if the observer has the confidence that they can imitate the
behaviour – referred to by Bandura as self-efficacy).
1
Page
The person being observed (the model) is also an important factor in social learning. An individual is
more likely to be influenced by a person with status and power. The likelihood that particular model
will be imitated is also increased if the model is deemed to be similar to the individual in some way –
for example gender. Similarity helps to increase the sense of self-efficacy. Parents are powerful role
models (not in what they say so much as in how they behave). Research shows that children
subjected to physical punishment in childhood often use violence themselves in later life (Baron and
Richardson, 1994). Powerful models may also be presented through the media and much concern
has been expressed about the depiction of aggressive models on television in films and video games.
Models may have a particularly powerful influence if they are seen to have gained high status or
wealth through their aggression.
1
Self-efficacy is an important aspect of social learning. If a person believes that they are capable of
carrying out the behaviour which they have observed and that they are likely to achieve the desired
result, then the aggressive act is more likely to be imitated. This helps to explain individual
differences in behaviour. It also explains why an individual will behaviour aggressively in one
situation where they feel confident of success and not in another where the chances of success are
less likely. For example, a child who is challenged for a toy will not necessarily retaliate if the
aggressor is much bigger than they are, but may choose to use aggression against a smaller child.
UNIT ONE: SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGICAL THEORIES OF AGGRESSION
Social learning theory; Deindividuation; Cue Arousal; Relative Deprivation.
Explanations of institutional aggression
SOCIAL LEARNING THEORY AND AGGRESSION
Evaluation of social learning theory
In the early 1960s Bandura and his colleagues conducted a series of experiments designed to demonstrate the
imitation of aggression. They became known as ‘The Bobo Doll Studies’ due to the use of a large inflatable doll
in the shape of a skittle that sprang back when hit.
Bandura and his colleagues carried out many variations of a study using the Bobo doll. The
conclusion of these studies was that human behaviour is often shaped by the socio-cultural
processes of social learning.
heard by the child. In the non-aggressive
condition the role model simply ignored the
Bobo doll and continued to play with the
construction set.
Ten minutes later the experimenter returned.
The role model was asked to leave. The child
was then asked to follow the experimenter to
another playroom, which contained some
lovely toys. Frustration was created in the
child by only giving them a few minutes in this
room before they were told that these nice
toys were for other children. The child was
then taken to another room with other toys.
In this last room there was a Bobo doll and
some aggressive toys (e.g. a mallet and a dart
gun) and some non-aggressive toys (e.g. paper
and crayons, toy lorries and cars, dolls and a
tea set). Sitting behind a two-way mirror,
Bandura and his colleagues were able to
observe the children’s behaviour.
The children who witnessed the aggressive
role model’s behaviour were far more likely to
show aggressive behaviour
themselves, and the gender of the
role model had a significant
influence on whether the
behaviour was imitated. Boys
showed more aggressive behaviour when the
role model was male. For girls, while the same
trend was seen, it was less significant. This
might be partly explained by the
generalisation that boys on the whole are
more aggressive than girls.
Page
In the original study a total of 72 child
participants were used. There were an equal
number of boys and girls used. Each child
went through the process individually but
took part in one of two conditions: they either
saw an aggressive model or non-aggressive
model. Within the aggressive experimental
group half saw a same-sex model interacting
aggressively with the bob doll while the
remainder watched an opposite-sex model
doing the same. The same balance was used
in the non-aggressive condition.
The control group of 24 children went through
the same process but did not see an adult role
model interact with the Bobo doll. The
children were previously rated for their level
of aggressiveness in order to compare their
behaviour before and after the process. This
enabled them to establish cause and effect.
Initially, the child entered a playroom with an
adult role model and an experimenter. The
child played in one corner, while the adult
role model went to another
corner of the room. The adult
had a construction set, a mallet
and a Bobo doll that was 5 feet
tall. The experimenter left, and
after a few minutes of playing with the
construction set the aggressive role model
started to hit the Bobo doll. The role model
used both physical and verbal violence.
Physical actions included hitting the Bobo doll
repeatedly with the mallet. Verbal comments
like ‘take that Bobo’ or ‘sockeroo’ were also
2
BANDURA’S BOBO DOLL STUDY – You will not be required to describe the study in the exam
2
UNIT ONE: SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGICAL THEORIES OF AGGRESSION
Social learning theory; Deindividuation; Cue Arousal; Relative Deprivation.
Explanations of institutional aggression
SOCIAL LEARNING THEORY AND AGGRESSION
In variations to his original study, Bandura showed that rewarding the behaviour of the model
encouraged the imitation of it. This process is known as vicarious reinforcement.
Bandura’s theory helps us to explain why children might copy aggressive behaviour. The theory has
face validity (i.e. it is true at on the face of it) through its explanation of how the behaviour of role
models such as TV personalities and pop stars can be imitated. His theory has been used to explain
other types of behaviour such as deviance and eating disorders as it is likely that behaviour observed
in the media is copied by some individuals who are motivated by certain role models and their
behaviour.
However, Bandura’s theory, like most behavioural theories, can be accused of being deterministic as
it suggests that a child passively absorbs observed behaviour and imitates it without logical thought
about the implications of it. It should be considered that in a real life situation, the children’s
behaviour may not be quite as predictable as in the artificial situation that Bandura created. The
children may have been responding to demand characteristics as they were brought to the location
of the experiment everyday knowing that they were taking part in something a bit special. In fact,
one little boy was heard to tell his mother in the car park that this is where you are ‘supposed to hit
the doll’. Children generally like to please adults and, to this extent, Bandura may have
overestimated the importance of the intended role model as the main influencing force in the
experiment. Bobo dolls are also made for punching and pushing around and this could also have
influenced the children. Bandura’s experimental methodology was well controlled; the children all
had the same experience and their responses were coded reliably. The validity of a theory is often
assessed by the amount and quality of research evidence that supports it and, in the case of
Learning Theory other researchers have similarly identified imitation to be a causal factor in
aggression. However, overall his experiment may have lacked ecological validity due to the
artificiality of the setting and the demand cues outlined above.
Furthermore, Bandura was a Western researcher working in a first-world country and could be
accused of imposed etic because he assumes that the processes of learning are the same for all
people in all countries and cultures (i.e. universal).
Page
3
Bandura was also aware of potential biological factors influencing aggressive behaviour such as
genetic, bio-chemical or neuro-anatomical causes but he neglected to pay attention to these.
More recent discoveries concerning the role of biology in imitating behaviour were made in the
1990s when Rizzolatti and his colleagues discovered a group of cells in the brain that they named
mirror neurons. Mirror neurons become active when we see another person perform an action in
the same way as if we were performing the action ourselves.
They allow us to experience what others are doing and feeling
and their discovery has major implications for our
understanding of the social learning of aggression because it
suggests that imitating behaviour may be biologically based
rather than psychological (nature-nurture debate). Potentially,
the discovery of mirror neurons is a major breakthrough in
understanding of human aggression although research is still in
its early stages.
3
UNIT ONE: SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGICAL THEORIES OF AGGRESSION
Social learning theory; Deindividuation; Cue Arousal; Relative Deprivation.
Explanations of institutional aggression
DEINDIVIDUATION
THE LOSS OF ONE’S SENSE OF INDIVIDUALITY
Learning Objectives- You will be able to:

Explain how deindividuation contributes to aggressive behaviour with reference to research.
When people are in a large group or crowd, they tend to lose a sense of their individual identity and take on
the identity of the group. This can make them commit acts of aggression and violence that they wouldn't
normally commit. They do not take responsibility for these acts. A good example is that of football
hooliganism. There are two factors involved with this:
 Public self-awareness - This is an individual's sense that

others are aware of them and that they are identifiable
to others.
Private self-awareness - This is the individual's own
sense of awareness of himself, his thoughts, actions,
beliefs, etc.
Both of these factors decrease in deindividuation.
Deindividuation refers to the process of decreased self-assessment and awareness in situations where
identification of an individual is difficult if not impossible. For example, a child with a Power Ranger’s mask on
is deindividuated. An individual football supporter amidst a much larger crowd of supporters is deindividuated,
as is a person in a crowded music arena. So, any situation where individual identification is restricted ensures
that changes in the normal standards of behaviour occur.
Singer, Brush and Lublin (1965) show very clearly that when inhibitions are lowered in a group situation the
topic of conversation can change quite dramatically. For example, they showed that in a ‘discussion of
pornography’ members liked the group more and made increased contributions on the topic when they felt
that their individuality had been reduced.
Zimbardo suggested that sensory overload, altered states of consciousness, level of arousal and reduction of
responsibility could equally increase the likelihood of antisocial behaviour. In each case inhibitions surrounding
normal behaviour are reduced. Zimbardo (1969) showed dramatically the effect of reduced inhibitions. He
used female undergraduates in a ‘study of learning’. A stooge is used to play the role of a student. The female
participants played the teacher. The ‘student’ had to complete a set of tasks (very similar to those given by
Milgram in his studies of obedience) and electric shocks were delivered to the ‘stooge student’ if they
completed the tasks wrongly.
Half of the female participants were wearing large lab coats and hoods to cover their faces. They were talked
to in groups of four; they were never referred to by name and were the deindividuated group. The other group
wore their normal clothes, were given name tags and introduced to each other formally. They were not
deindividuated. All participants could see the ‘student’. They were also told that she was either ‘honest’ or
‘conceited and critical’. Irrespective of the description of the student learner, the deindividuated participants
delivered twice as many shocks as the individuated ones. Those participants that had large name tags tended
to give different amounts of shocks depending on the description they had been given.
Page
4
Diener (1976) conducted a naturalistic observation of 1,300 trick-or-treating children
in the US. Diener noted that when the children were in large groups and wearing
costumes hiding their identity, they were more likely to perform antisocial actions such
as stealing money or sweets. The group ‘reduces the possibility of personal
identification’, which means that behaviour may deviate from normal standards.
4
UNIT ONE: SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGICAL THEORIES OF AGGRESSION
Social learning theory; Deindividuation; Cue Arousal; Relative Deprivation.
Explanations of institutional aggression
DEINDIVIDUATION
Similarly, Silke (2003) analysed 500 violent attacks occurring in Northern Ireland. Of those 500 a
total of 206 were carried out by people who wore some form of disguise so that their identity was
unknown. Silke further noted that the severity of the violent incidents sustained was linked to
whether the perpetrator was masked or not. It seems from evidence such as this that aggressive acts
can be explained by the deindividuation theory.
One of the fundamental problems of this theory is the fact that it cannot provide an explanation for
the simple fact that not all crowds or groups perform aggressive actions. This was seen in the work
of Gergen et al (1973), in which deindividuation did not result in aggressive actions. In Gergen et al’s
study, 12 subjects (6 men and 6 women) were taken into a dark room. There was no light at all in this room.
Another group of 12 subjects were taken into a lit room. This was the control group. The groups were given no
specific requests or instructions from the experimenter and could use the time as they wished.
In the first 15 minutes there was polite small talk. By 60 minutes normal barriers to intimate contact had been
overcome and most participants ‘got physical’. At least half cuddled and about 80% felt sexually aroused.
5
Page
In a correlational study, Watson (1973) noted that from a total of 24
cultures studied, those warriors that disguised their individual identity
through the use of face paint/garments tended to use more aggression such as torture, death or
mutilation of captives.
However, to simply suggest that the cause of aggression was due to the lowering of inhibitions is
somewhat narrow. It is rather deterministic to suggest that deindividuation in a group brings about
aggressive behaviour as it doesn’t allow for free will and the fact that some individuals choose not to
behave aggressively even when they are part of a large crowd and are deindividuated. Furthermore,
in a meta-analysis of deindividuation research conducted by Postmes and Spears (1998), much of
the previous research examining deindividuation held the view that the group influenced the
psychology (the thinking and action) of the individual. Postmes and Spears’ analysis of over 60
studies investigating deindividuation did not discover a consistent finding of deindividuation acting
as a psychological influence on the individual’s state and behaviour.
Their meta-analysis reveals that there are no consistent research findings to support the argument
that reduced inhibitions and antisocial behaviour are more likely to be seen in large groups or
crowded situations where anonymity can be maintained with ease. Interestingly they suggest that
behaviour change of individuals in group situations has more to do with group norms than anything
else.
5
Computer-mediated communication (email, text etc.) facilitates deindividuation. Topics of
conversation may be more perverse or varied without embarrassment.
Bloodstein (2003) noted that individuals who had speech problems such as stuttering showed fewer
of these problems when wearing a mask. It might be that not being able to be identified increased
their self-efficacy and decreased opportunities for evaluation apprehension (fear of being assessed
by others).
Mullen (1986) has also shown that in violent situations where people
are being attacked, individuals who went to provide help to the victim
often would do so if they could mask their true identity, for example by
wearing a hat and dark glasses.
UNIT ONE: SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGICAL THEORIES OF AGGRESSION
Social learning theory; Deindividuation; Cue Arousal; Relative Deprivation.
Explanations of institutional aggression
CUE AROUSAL
Learning Objectives- You will be able to:

Explain how cue arousal contributes to aggressive behaviour with reference to research.
Frustration leads to anger (Dollard’s frustration/aggression hypothesis (1939), but Berkowitz and LePage (1967) argue
that if cues such as a knife or a gun are present in the situation, they will influence the individual’s behaviour and anger
may be expressed as aggression.
RESEARCH EVIDENCE Berkowitz and LePage (1967)
Method
Experiment
Design
Independent groups
Sample
100 undergraduate psychology students from the University of Wisconsin.
Procedure
Each of the participants was paired with a stooge.
They were told they were taking part in a ‘study of the physiological reactions to stress during problem-solving tasks’.
Ethical issue – deception and lack of informed consent
Part one of the experiment
Participant in one room with stooge in adjoining room.
Mild electric shocks were given by the stooge using a shock key which could be held down or not so that shocks were
either quick or more prolonged.
The participants received the shocks from the stooge and were told that the number of shocks they received was indicative
of their performance on a problem-solving task. The poorer the performance the more shocks they received.
Condition one –Participants received multiple shocks
Condition two – Participants received only one shock.
The participants that received the most shocks were in the angry group.
The participants who received only one shock were in the non-angry group.
Part two of the experiment
The subject and stooge changed rooms. The participants now had to judge their partner’s performance on the task and
issue the shocks.
Condition one
Condition two
a 12-guage shotgun and a .38 calibre revolver were in view in the room.
a badminton racket and shuttlecocks were in view in view in the room.
Berkowitz measured the amount of shocks given to the partner as measurement of anger.
Findings
The angry group gave more shocks and held the shock key down for longer when the shotgun and revolver were in view
compared to the participants who could see the badminton racket and shuttlecocks.
The research was conducted in an artificial environment and was not an everyday situation as the present of firearms is
unusual. Therefore it is possible that the participants fulfilled the experimenters’ expectations because that was what they
thought they should do. Their behaviour may have been the result of demand characteristics rather than a reflection of
what they would do in a genuine situation.
It is possible that the results of the study were affected by the participants’ knowledge that they were taking part in an
experiment and that there would be no consequences to pay for their actions. Kleck and McElrath (1991) looked at 21
‘weapons effect’ studies and stated that the effect only worked on those individuals who had no prior experience of guns.
Furthermore, the more closely the experimental situation reflected real life, the less likely there was to be an effect. Kleck
and McElrath argued that it should not be too surprising since the consequences of the actions were neither serious nor
permanent. When the result of the reaction is lethal, this is quite a different matter.
6
Page
The theory extends the frustration-aggression hypothesis, but ignores important individual differences that exist between
people. Furthermore, other studies have not supported the findings of Berkowitz and LePage. Ellis et al (1971) carried out
a very similar experiment and got opposite results. It is more likely that aggressive behaviour is caused by other factors. It
is a weakness of the cue arousal theory that important cognitive and biological causes of behaviour are not mentioned in
the explanation. Multidimensional explanations could be more accurate.
6
Kellerman (2001) notes that the ‘strongest proof of validity of any study is the independent replication by others’. The
greatest problem with the study is that no consistent trends have been found in subsequent replications of this study.
Findings have been unreliable.
UNIT ONE: SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGICAL THEORIES OF AGGRESSION
Social learning theory; Deindividuation; Cue Arousal; Relative Deprivation.
Explanations of institutional aggression
RELATIVE DEPRIVATION
Learning objectives: You will be able to:

Explain how relative deprivation can contribute to aggressive behaviour with reference to research.
The theory was created by Stouffer in 1950, but based on the work of Hovland and Sears in 1940 who noticed that
during the 1930s recession in the US, there was an increase in anti-black violence and lynching.
A conscious comparison generates feelings of difference which is the basis for antisocial behaviour. Inequalities between
groups seem to bring about hostility between them and there have been many riots between such groups, for example:
*The race riots in Chicago 1919
*Notting Hill, London, 1958
*Los Angeles 1992
*Brixton, London 1981
*Handsworth, Birmingham, 1981
*Bradford and Oldham, 2001
*The riots in London 2011
One group sees what other groups have and feel that they should be able to have access to those things too e.g. wages,
housing, job opportunities, security etc.
Runcimann (1966) identified two types of relative deprivation:

fraternalistic relative deprivation as it involves group-to group comparison.

Egoistic relative deprivation involves comparison between individuals.
Wright and Klee (1999) suggest that social mobility (transition up and down a class system) would reduce the effects of
relative deprivation.
7
Page
The following article can be found at
www.malcolmread.co.uk/JockYoung/relative.htm
Relative deprivation was a term first coined by Sam Stouffer and his associates in their wartime study The American
Soldier (1949), relative deprivation was rigorously formulated by W G Runciman in 1966. Its use in criminology was not until
the 1980s by theorists such as S Stack, John Braithwaite and particularly the left realists for whom it is a key concept. Its
attraction as an explanatory variable in the post-war period is because of the rise of crime in the majority of industrial societies
despite the increase in living standards. That is, where material deprivation in an absolute sense declined and the old equation
of the more poverty the more crime was clearly falsified.
Relative Deprivation occurs where individuals or groups subjectively perceive themselves as unfairly disadvantaged over others
perceived as having similar attributes and deserving similar rewards (theirerence groups). It is in contrast with absolute
deprivation, where biological health is impaired or where relative levels of wealth are compared based on objective differences
- although it is often confused with the latter. Subjective experiences of deprivation are essential and, indeed, relative
deprivation is more likely when the differences between two groups narrows so that comparisons can be easily made than
where there are caste-like differences. The discontent arising from relative deprivation has been used to explain radical politics
(whether of the left or the right), messianic religions, the rise of social movements, industrial disputes and the whole plethora
of crime and deviance.
The usual distinction made is that religious fervour or demand for political change are a collective response to relative
deprivation whereas crime is an individualistic response. But this is certainly not true of many crimes - for example, smuggling,
poaching or terrorism - which have a collective nature and a communal base and does not even allow for gang delinquency
which is clearly a collective response. The connection is, therefore, largely under-theorised - a reflection of the separate
development of the concept within the seemingly discrete disciplines of sociology of religion, political sociology and
criminology.
The use of relative deprivation in criminology is often conflated with Merton's anomie theory of crime and deviance and its
development by Cloward and Ohlin, and there are discernible, although largely unexplored, parallels. Anomie theory involves a
disparity between culturally induced aspirations (eg success in terms of the American Dream) and the opportunities to realise
them. The parallel is clear: this is a subjective process wherein discontent is transmuted into crime. Furthermore, Merton in his
classic 1938 article, 'Social Structure and Anomie' (where norms have broken down), clearly understands the relative nature of
discontent explicitly criticising theories which link absolute deprivation to crime by pointing to poor countries with low crime
rates in contrast to the wealthy United States with a comparatively high rate. But there are clear differences, in particular
Mertonian anomie involves an inability to realise culturally induced notions of success. It does not involve comparisons between
groups but individuals measuring themselves against a general goal. The fact that Merton, the major theorist of reference
groups, did not fuse this with his theory of anomie is, as Runciman notes, very strange but probably reflects the particular
American concern with 'winners' and 'losers' and the individualism of that culture. The empirical implications of this difference
in emphasis are, however, significant: anomie theory would naturally predict the vast majority of crime to occur at the bottom
of society amongst the 'losers' but relative deprivation theory does not necessarily have this overwhelming class focus. For
discontent can be felt anywhere in the class structure where people perceive their rewards as unfair compared to those with
similar attributes. Thus crime would be more widespread although it would be conceded that discontent would be greatest
amongst the socially excluded.
The future integration of anomie and relative deprivation theory offers great promise in that relative deprivation offers a much
more widespread notion of discontent and its emphasis on subjectivity insures against the tendency within anomie theory of
merely measuring objective differences in equality (so called 'strain' theory) whereas anomie theory, on its part, offers a wider
structural perspective in terms of the crucial role of differential opportunity structures and firmly locates the dynamic of
deprivation within capitalist society as a whole.
JOCK YOUNG
7
A potential problem with the theory is that it says very little about how we decide what group to compare ourselves with.
There are cognitive processes at work in terms of self-perception and comparison.
UNIT ONE: SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGICAL THEORIES OF AGGRESSION
Social learning theory; Deindividuation; Cue Arousal; Relative Deprivation.
Explanations of institutional aggression
2. INSTITUTIONAL AGGRESSION
Learning objectives: You will be able to:



Understand what is meant by institutional aggression
Explain potential causes of institutional aggression
Evaluate theoretically the explanations for institutional aggression
When aggression and violence occur within an institutionalised setting it often attracts the attention
of the media. This is due to the fact that rules and expectations of behaviour have been
transgressed. Institutions are often created to maintain order and combat anti-social behaviour so
when this goes wrong questions are raised about the effectiveness of these institutions. This form of
aggression involves the behaviour of people who serve in institutions such as schools, healthcare
settings, police, security services and military as well as criminal and terrorist groups (i.e. those who
are bound together by a common purpose to be aggressive).
Institutional aggression can be explained by deindividuation.
The loss of personal identity that results from wearing a uniform – either as a police officer or prison
guard – may go some way to explaining the likelihood that people will display aggression. Removing
an individual’s own clothes and replacing them with a uniform plays a major part in depersonalising
them within an institutional setting. Deindividuation may also occur amongst prisoners whose heads
are shaved and who are given matching clothing to wear.
However, the removal of individuality in this instance is more
likely to dehumanise the prisoners and make them targets of
aggression. Police in riot gear are difficult to identify because
partial masks and visors cover their faces. Officers in the 2009
G20 protests were criticised for covering up their individual
identity numbers in order to make themselves even more
anonymous. Anonymity may encourage aggression by lessening the likelihood of being caught or
through the loss of personal values and morals. The anonymity of police officers, particularly when
in large groups, may also make them seem less human, and this fact in turn may be more likely to
incite violence from a rioting crowd so that they become victims of assault.
Uniforms can also help to define roles. A person’s behaviour may change in accordance with the
expectations afforded to the role they have adopted, and the wearing of a uniform can help them to
get into role. Uniforms are synonymous with institutions whether hospitals, the police force, prisons
or schools. Even colleges and universities adopt the use of scarves or sweatshirts to denote
membership of a particular house or fraternity.
Rules and norms are also a characteristic of institutions. There is often a hierarchy which has an ‘us
and them’ aspect to it where one group has power over the other group leading to social inequality.
Each person’s role is instantly identifiable by what they are wearing, with people in positions of
power often denoted by a uniform that bears the symbols of their status and authority.
8
Page
The question to consider here is whether some people are just aggressive and do violent
things to other people because of the type of person they are (disposition) or whether good
people do bad things when they are put into a situation that encourages aggressive behaviour
(situational). Zimbardo created such a situation in his Stanford Prison Study.
8
Aggression in institutions can be considered in terms of two forces:
 Situational forces
 Dispositional forces
UNIT ONE: SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGICAL THEORIES OF AGGRESSION
Social learning theory; Deindividuation; Cue Arousal; Relative Deprivation.
Explanations of institutional aggression
INSTITUTIONAL AGGRESSION
Zimbardo’s Stanford prison simulation (1973)
Zimbardo set up a ‘prison situation’ (in the basement of Stanford university). Participants were randomly
assigned to prison guards or prisoners. The aim was to see if they would conform to the role.
The guards behaved in a cruel fashion, the experiment got out of hand and had to be ended early.
Some prisoners showed signs of ‘Pathological prisoner syndrome’ in which disbelief was followed by an
attempt at rebellion and then by very negative emotions and behaviours such as apathy and excessive
obedience.
Many showed signs of depression such as crying and some had fits of rage.
Zimbardo put these effects down to depersonalisation or deindividuation due
to loss of personal identity and lack of control.
The guards showed the ‘Pathology of power.’ They clearly enjoyed their role;
some even worked unpaid overtime and were disappointed when the
experiment was stopped. Many abused their power refusing prisoner’s food
and toilet visits, removing their
bedding etc. Punishment was
handed out with little
justification.
Most notable was the way in which the ‘good guards’ never
questioned the actions of the ‘bad guards.’
However, the experiment was a role play so it could be argued
that it lacked realism and that participants behaved as they
thought they were expected behave. In other words, the
participants could have been ‘just playing along’. However, there
is evidence for the guards not just simply role playing, for example their brutal behaviour wasn’t there at the
start but developed over the first few days and they did not play up to the cameras as might be expected. In
fact their behaviour was worse when they knew they weren’t being observed. So, was it more to do with the
individual than the situation?
Each participant was subjected to physical and psychological testing before the study to ensure that they
would be suitable participants. All of them were considered ‘normal’ with no participant being assessed as any
more aggressive than the others. The testing allowed a basis for comparison. Participants were then randomly
allocated to the role of prison guard or prisoner. Dave Eshleman was one of the participants who was assigned
to the role of prison guard. Eshleman became known as ‘John Wayne’
and seemed to revel in the role. He was creative in his cruelty devising
new ways to torment and punish the prisoners in the study. He was the
most degrading of all guards.
9
Was it Eshleman’s disposition to be so aggressive? He came from a
middle class family, academic family. Eshleman loved music, food and
other people and described himself as a person that clearly held great
love for his fellow human beings.
Page
Was it then, just the situation Eshleman was in that corrupted his normal way of thinking so that he subjected
the prisoners to a relentless series of ‘little experiments’ (as he described it)?
9
UNIT ONE: SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGICAL THEORIES OF AGGRESSION
Social learning theory; Deindividuation; Cue Arousal; Relative Deprivation.
Explanations of institutional aggression
INSTITUTIONAL AGGRESSION
Abu Ghraib
In a real life prison situation in Abu Ghraib, Iraqi prisoners were subjected to dehumanising
and degrading treatment. This time, Zimbardo was called upon to be an expert witness in the
defence of one of the prison guards who had been involved in the cruel treatment of the
prisoners. He argued that the behaviour of the guard was the product of the situational forces
of being a guard in that particular prison environment, and not due to dispositional
characteristics. Zimbardo’s thoughts about Abu Ghraib automatically focused on the
circumstances in the prison cell block that could have led ‘good soldiers to do bad things’. Zimbardo argues
that it is ‘bad systems’ that are the problem rather than ‘bad individuals’. Rather than one bad apple turning
other apples bad, Zimbardo insists that ‘bad barrels’ are the problem, i.e. bad institutions.
Human behaviour has more than one simple influence, and the behaviours witnessed at Abu Ghraib were the
result of interplay between several key factors:



Status and power: those involved were the ‘bottom of the barrel’. They were army reservists on a night shift and
were not supervised by a superior officer. With little of their own power, these soldiers were trying to
demonstrate some control over anything that was inferior to them (i.e. the prisoners).
Revenge and retaliation: the prisoners had killed fellow US soldiers and some of them had been guilty of abusing
children. The guards therefore felt justified in humiliating them in order to ‘teach them a lesson’. They
considered the prisoners to be less than human and having dehumanised them the guards felt able to unleash
their anger on them.
Deindividuation and helplessness: Zimbardo felt that the guards responded to violent and selfish impulses
without any planned conspiracy or inhibition partly because they could in the absence of the superior authority.
They were unseen and, in a sense, at the mercy of their own feelings towards the prisoners who were ‘the
enemy’. It was a fellow guard who was brave enough to follow his convictions and report the behaviour of the
guards. It was their own photos taken with their own cameras which provided the evidence against them. It is
interesting to note that the instigator of the atrocities was..........a woman!
10
Page
Bernard’s angry aggression theory can be used to examine the causes of institutionalised aggression in the
police force. It could be argued that factors such as the chronic stress of police work, along with the inability to
respond to the actual sources of that stress, increase the aggressive nature of responses that police make.
Bernard’s view of there being a police subculture is not new and can be traced back to the earlier work of
Westley (1970). Bernard (and Westley) suggest that aggression is seen as ‘just’ and ‘acceptable’ and even
‘expected’ in some situations partly because the working environment of most police officers is mainly
structured by what Bernard calls codes of deviance, secrecy, silence and cynicism. So it is the working
environment of the police officers that in some sense leads them to show aggressive behaviours.
Rober Agnew (1992) suggests in his work on the general strain theory that negative experiences and stress
generate negative affective states that may, in the absence of effective coping strategies, lead to violent
behaviour.
Strain emerges from negative relationships with others. The strain occurs when individuals feel they are not
being treated in a manner that they think is appropriate. Of this happens, a subsequent disbelief in the role of
others will occur and it is possible that anger and frustration can result from these negative relationships.
10
Issues with studying institutional aggression
Researching this field of aggression is difficult. Detail is often just biographical and is hard to make a scientific
study of the individualistic or situational causes that lie behind the behaviour. Furthermore, information in this
area is socially sensitive in that it could have repercussions for a select group of people. Thought has to be
given as to how the material gained by the research will be collected, used and published. From a practical
point of view it would be very hard for a researcher to control all variables in naturally occurring situations in a
controlled way. From this point of view it would be very difficult to establish cause and effect.
UNIT ONE: SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGICAL THEORIES OF AGGRESSION
Social learning theory; Deindividuation; Cue Arousal; Relative Deprivation.
Explanations of institutional aggression
INSTITUTIONAL AGGRESSION
Educational settings – fraternities (males) and sororities (females)
In stark contrast to prison institutions are the fraternities and sororities established as support networks for
undergraduate students within the United States college system. Despite the contrast surprising similarities
exist between these two forms of institution. Fraternities in particular
have been criticised for the use of force in their initiations and in
condoning the sexual assault of women. The tradition known as ‘hazing’ is
the ritualistic harassment of abuse of an individual or a group. Acts can
include burning and branding, kidnapping, drugging and sexual abuse.
Probationary members may experience mental and physical stress over
periods of weeks or months as a way of proving that they are worthy of
membership to a particular fraternity or sorority.
According to research by Nuwer (1990) hazing has contributed to more than 50 deaths in college fraternities
and many physical injuries including paralysis. In most states across America, hazing is now illegal and
campaigns are under way to try to curb these brutal practices. The extreme behaviour that occurs in these
groups can be explained using the theory of identification. Young men and women are prepared to to take part
in potentially life-threatening activities in order to belong to a group. Many of the groups have high status, and
acceptance can have implications that reach far beyond the students’ life at university. Fraternities and
sororities are often shrouded in secrecy: this makes them difficult to control, but also makes their victims more
vulnerable, as members are unwilling to speak out for fear of breaking the code.
Terrorism
Black (2004) says ‘pure terrorism is unilateral self-help by organised civilians who covertly inflict mass violence
on other civilians’. Black believes that the root cause of current terrorism is a culture clash.
Deflem (2004) extends this view by suggesting that the division between situational and dispositional causes
may not be so clear as we think. He talks of ‘predatory characteristics’ of terrorism which help us to see the
terrorist action, but these should be seen within a wider understanding of ‘anti-modernist’ impulses’, e.g. an
opposition to free markets, liberal democracy and associated Western norms. Deflem says that ‘contemporary
terrorism represents contrasting institutional balance of power dominated by family, ethnicity and religion’.
This is a situational explanation whereas Barak (2004) suggests more of dispositional nature to this aggressive
motive in his study of suicide terrorism. According to Barak, a key motivational component of violent
behaviour is issues of shame, esteem and repressed anger.
Aggressive behaviour is more dynamic than simply having social or
institutional motives. Observation of aggression in individuals suggests the need to examine possible
biological explanations.
11
Page
Methodological flaws in research into terrorist action
 Terrorist action is often unique and so it is difficult to draw up a profile
of a terrorist or of a terrorist group.
 Terrorist groups are increasingly fluid and mobile (using the internet to
communicate) and so there is not really a ‘typical terrorist’.
 There is a real lack of empirical data for each terrorist event, so it is
difficult to draw conclusions.
11
On a lesser scale, this could be compared to the situation of disaffected young males who participate in street
violence in gang or gun culture in the UK or the USA. Often these individuals experience both economic and
political marginalisation. However, the main thread of Barak’s argument is somewhat lost when we examine
the background of many of the 9/11 terrorists and 7/7 bombers as many of these Islamic terrorists were
university educated and came from very supportive and often materially affluent families.