Aggression Psychology Revision Notes

Neural and Hormonal causes of aggression

Limbic System

The limbic system is a network of neural structures located deep within the brain that is primarily responsible for regulating emotions and emotional behaviour.

While it comprises several components—including the fornix, cingulate gyrus, thalamus, hippocampus, hypothalamus, and amygdala—psychologists are most interested in the amygdala and the hypothalamus when explaining aggression.

• The Amygdala: The amygdala is considered the origin of aggressive feelings and behaviours, acting as an alarm system that evaluates sensory information and responds to environmental threats.
• The Hypothalamus: The hypothalamus brings together a range of emotions and is responsible for triggering the physiological fight-or-flight response when a threat is perceived.
• The Orbitofrontal Cortex (OFC): Though not part of the limbic system, the OFC (located in the frontal lobe) is vital in regulating aggression. It acts as the brain’s rational decision-maker and usually suppresses or overrules impulsive, aggressive urges originating from the amygdala.

Empirical Validation: Neural Structures

Gospic et al. (2011)

• Aim: To investigate amygdala activity during social provocation and the effect of sedative medication.

• Procedure: Participants played the “Ultimatum Game” while undergoing fMRI brain scans. Some participants received a placebo, while others received benzodiazepines.

• Findings: Proposing unfair money splits triggered immediate amygdala spikes in those who rejected the offers. Benzodiazepines reduced both the rejection rate and the amygdala activity by half.

• Conclusions: The amygdala plays a direct role in generating immediate aggressive responses to social provocation.

Biochemistry: The Role of Serotonin

Serotonin is an inhibitory neurotransmitter.

It functions as a chemical messenger that slows down neuronal activity. In the brain, it provides a stabilizing effect on mood and behavior.

It specifically helps the OFC maintain control over impulsive drives.

The Serotonin Deficiency Hypothesis

Low levels of serotonin disrupt the brain’s internal braking system.

When serotonin is depleted, the OFC cannot effectively inhibit the amygdala.

This lack of regulation leads to increased irritability and explosive anger. Individuals with low serotonin often react more violently to minor frustrations.

Empirical Validation: Serotonin

Passamonti et al. (2012)

• Aim: To examine how low serotonin levels affect communication between brain regions.

• Procedure: Participants consumed a drink lacking tryptophan to temporarily lower their brain serotonin. They then viewed images of angry faces during fMRI scanning.

• Findings: Low serotonin levels weakened the neural connection between the OFC and the amygdala.

• Conclusions: Serotonin is essential for the OFC to regulate amygdala-driven emotional responses.

Hormonal Mechanisms in Aggression: Testosterone

Testosterone is an androgen (male sex hormone) produced primarily in the testes.

Because males typically have testosterone levels approximately eight times higher than females, psychologists have linked this hormone to the significantly higher levels of physical aggression and violent crime statistically observed in men.

Excessive amounts of testosterone are thought to interfere with the OFC’s ability to regulate the limbic system, diminishing executive function and predisposing the individual to emotional and aggressive outbursts.

High testosterone levels may also directly increase the activity of the amygdala itself.

Evidence for Testosterone:

Animal studies provide strong causal evidence for the role of testosterone. Wagner (1980) castrated male mice, causing a significant drop in their testosterone production, which resulted in a massive decrease in aggressive biting behaviour.

When these same mice were later injected with testosterone, their aggressive behaviour returned to its previous high levels.

In human research, Dolan et al. (2001) found a positive correlation showing that violent prisoners in maximum-security settings displayed higher levels of testosterone than their non-violent counterparts.

Evaluation of Neural and Hormonal Explanations

Scientific Rigor and Objectivity

Biological research benefits from high internal validity.

Researchers use objective tools like fMRI, PET scans, and blood assays. These methods provide “hard” data that is difficult to manipulate.

Such precision allows for the identification of specific biological markers for violent behavior.

Biological Determinism

The approach promotes a deterministic view of human nature.

This suggests that individuals have little choice over their violent actions. If biology dictates behavior, the legal concept of “free will” is undermined.

This has severe ethical and legal implications, as it directly contradicts the justice system’s premise of free will and personal responsibility.

This creates significant ethical dilemmas regarding criminal responsibility and sentencing.

Furthermore, such research is highly socially sensitive; it raises dystopian concerns that individuals could be genetically or hormonally screened and unfairly persecuted or institutionalised before they have even committed a crime.

Reductionism and Interaction

Focusing only on chemicals and brain structures is reductionist.

It ignores the power of environmental triggers and social learning. Most modern researchers now favor the “dual-hormone hypothesis.”

This suggests testosterone only drives aggression when cortisol levels are low. Such complexity indicates that biology is rarely a solo factor in human behavior.

A more holistic approach would acknowledge the influence of observational learning (Social Learning Theory), cognitive priming, and de-individuation in crowd settings.

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.

Genetic explanations for aggression posit that violent behavior is not merely learned but is significantly influenced by inherited DNA.

Genes do not directly cause aggression; rather, they provide the instructions for building internal biological systems, such as neurotransmitter pathways and hormonal levels, which regulate behavior.

---

Evidence from Quantitative Genetics: Twin and Adoption Studies

Psychologists distinguish between genetic and environmental influences by comparing individuals with varying degrees of genetic relatedness.

Concordance rates—the percentage of pairs where both individuals exhibit a specific trait—serve as the primary metric for this research.

Twin Studies

Monozygotic (MZ) twins share 100% of their genes, while dizygotic (DZ) twins share approximately 50%.

If aggression is genetic, MZ twins should show higher concordance for aggressive behavior than DZ twins.

• Coccaro et al. (1997): Found concordance rates of 50% for MZ twins and 19% for DZ twins regarding physical aggression.

• Christiansen (1977): Analyzed 3,586 twin pairs in Denmark. He found a 52% concordance for criminality in MZ twins compared to 22% in DZ twins.

Adoption Studies

Adoption studies isolate the “nature” variable by examining children raised away from their biological parents.

If an adoptee’s behavior correlates more closely with their biological parents than their adoptive ones, a genetic basis is inferred.

Mednick and Hutchings (1978)

• Aim: To investigate the heritability of criminal behavior in adoptees.

• Procedure: Researchers compared the criminal records of adopted children to those of both their biological and adoptive fathers.

• Findings: They found that 21.4% of sons with a criminal biological father had a criminal record, while only 10.5% of those with a non-criminal biological father did.

• Conclusions: Criminal predisposition has a significant genetic component that persists regardless of the rearing environment.

---

The MAOA Gene: “The Warrior Gene”

The most prominent candidate gene in aggression research is the MAOA gene.

This gene provides instructions for producing monoamine oxidase A, an enzyme that breaks down neurotransmitters like serotonin and dopamine in the synapse (the gap between neurons).

The MAOA-L Variant

A specific polymorphism known as MAOA-L (low activity) results in lower enzyme production.

This causes neurotransmitters to remain in the synapse longer, leading to brain dysfunction and heightened impulsive aggression.

Empirical Validation: MAOA

Brunner et al. (1993)

• Aim: To identify the genetic cause of extreme aggression in a specific family.

• Procedure: Researchers conducted a genetic analysis of a large Dutch family where 28 males had histories of arson, attempted murder, and rape.

• Findings: Every violent male in the family possessed a defect on the X chromosome that led to a complete lack of MAOA enzyme production.

• Conclusions: A deficiency in the MAOA gene can lead to a severe inability to regulate aggressive impulses.

---

Gene-Environment Interaction: The Diathesis-Stress Model

Modern genetics rejects the idea of a “violence gene” that acts in isolation.

Instead, the Diathesis-Stress Model suggests that a genetic vulnerability (diathesis) only manifests as aggression when triggered by environmental stressors.

Caspi et al. (2002)

• Aim: To determine why some individuals with the MAOA-L gene become violent while others do not.

• Procedure: A 20-year longitudinal study followed 1,037 male children from birth to adulthood.

• Findings: Boys with the MAOA-L gene who suffered childhood maltreatment were 3 times more likely to be aggressive as adults. Those with the gene who were not abused showed no increased aggression.

• Conclusions: Aggression is the result of a specific interaction between a genetic predisposition and environmental trauma.

---

Other Genetic Factors

Testosterone and the Sry Gene

The Sry gene is located on the Y chromosome and triggers the development of testes in males.

This leads to the surge of testosterone that “masculinizes” the brain at birth. Bogaert et al. (2008) established that variations in testosterone levels are inherited, providing a genetic link to hormonal aggression.

The XYY “Super-Male” Hypothesis

In the 1960s, researchers proposed that an extra Y chromosome (XYY) made men hyper-aggressive.

However, Theilgard (1984) found that while XYY males are statistically taller and may have lower intelligence, they are not inherently more violent than XY males.

General Criticisms of Genetic Research

Biological Determinism and Ethics

Attributing aggression to DNA poses a threat to the legal principle of mens rea (guilty mind). If behavior is pre-programmed, the concept of free will is diminished.

This raises the ethical risk of “genetic screening,” where individuals might be labeled dangerous based on their genotype.

Scientific Reductionism

Attributing complex human behaviours like aggression entirely to DNA and enzymes is highly reductionist.

It attempts to explain complex human interactions through simple chemical reactions.

It may overlook social psychological factors, such as Social Learning Theory or the impact of poverty on violent behavior.

Methodological Extrapolation

Much of the foundational work relies on “knockout mice” where genes are intentionally deactivated.

While mice share similar neurochemistry, humans possess a much more complex prefrontal cortex and moral framework. This makes animal-to-human comparisons difficult.

Ethological Explanations of Aggression

Students needs to know:

• The ethological explanation of aggression, including reference to innate releasing mechanisms and fixed action patterns.
• Evolutionary explanations of human aggression

What is Etholgy?

The ethological approach explains aggression as a series of innate, adaptive behaviors that have evolved through natural selection to ensure the survival of a species.

Ethologists study non-human animals in their natural environments to identify the biological mechanisms that trigger physical conflict.

This perspective asserts that aggression serves vital evolutionary functions rather than being a purely destructive force.

Innate Releasing Mechanisms [IRM]

An Innate Releasing Mechanism is a specialized neural circuit in the brain that monitors environmental stimuli.

According to the “Hydraulic Model,” animals accumulate “Action Specific Energy” (repressed aggressive drive) over time.

When the IRM detects a sign stimulus (a specific trigger), it releases this energy, initiating an aggressive response.

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

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.

Fixed Action Patterns [FAP]

Once the IRM is triggered, it activates a Fixed Action Pattern. This is an unchanging sequence of behaviors that must be completed.

Lea (1984) identified five defining characteristics of a FAP:

1. Stereotyped: The sequence of movements is always the same.

2. Universal: Every member of the species performs the behavior.

3. Innate: The behavior is inherited and requires no learning.

4. Ballistic: Once started, the sequence cannot be stopped.

5. Specific: It only occurs in response to one specific sign stimulus.

Empirical Validation: The Stickleback Study

Tinbergen (1951)

• Aim: To investigate the sign stimuli that trigger aggressive Fixed Action Patterns in male stickleback fish.

• Procedure: Male sticklebacks were presented with various wooden models. Some were realistic but lacked a red underside, while others were abstract shapes with a red underbelly.

• Findings: The fish ignored realistic models without red markings. However, they aggressively attacked abstract shapes as long as a red underside (the sign stimulus) was present.

• Conclusions: The red belly acts as a specific releaser that activates a ballistic FAP through an Innate Releasing Mechanism.

Flexibility of Action Patterns

Critics like Hunt (1973) argue that FAPs are not as “fixed” as Lorenz claimed.

Environmental factors and past experiences can modify how an animal carries out an aggressive sequence.

Researchers now prefer the term “modal action patterns” to reflect that these behaviors can vary between individuals.

This suggests that learning plays a larger role in aggression than ethologists originally admitted.

Issues with Generalization

Extrapolating animal instincts to human behavior is fundamentally problematic.

Human aggression is often premeditated, complex, and influenced by morality.

While a stickleback reacts to a red spot, human violence is driven by intricate social and political ideologies.

This makes the ethological model too simplistic to explain phenomena like organized warfare.

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.

Evolutionary psychology posits that human aggression is not a maladaptive flaw but a functional trait shaped by natural selection.

This perspective suggests that aggressive behaviors increased in frequency because they solved specific survival and reproductive problems for our ancestors.

Individuals who utilized aggression effectively were more likely to secure resources, deter rivals, and ensure the survival of their offspring.

Adaptive Functions of Aggression

David Buss argues that aggression evolved as a multi-purpose tool for navigating social and physical environments. Rather than being random, violence often serves a strategic purpose.

• Resource Acquisition: Aggression allows individuals to seize land, food, and mates from others while protecting their own assets.

• Defense and Deterrence: Establishing a “tough” reputation prevents future attacks from rivals who fear retaliation.

• Status and Power: Successful aggression can increase an individual’s standing within a group, attracting allies and intimidating enemies.

---

Intra-group Aggression: Sexual Jealousy and Cuckoldry

A primary driver of male aggression is paternity uncertainty.

Unlike females, who are 100% certain of their genetic relationship to their offspring, males face the risk of cuckoldry.

In evolutionary terms, cuckoldry is a disaster; the male wastes his resources raising another man’s children, effectively ending his own genetic line.

Mate Retention Strategies

To prevent infidelity and ensure paternity, males evolved aggressive “mate retention” strategies. Wilson and Daly (1996) categorized these into two distinct types:

1. Direct Guarding: Monitoring a partner’s movements and restricting their social interactions with other males.

2. Negative Inducements: Using threats of violence or emotional manipulation to deter a partner from leaving or being unfaithful.

Empirical Validation: Mate Retention

Shackleford et al. (2005)

• Aim: To investigate the correlation between mate retention strategies and physical violence.

• Procedure: 461 men and 560 women in committed relationships completed questionnaires regarding retention behaviors and domestic violence.

• Findings: There was a strong positive correlation between a man’s use of guarding or threats and his use of physical aggression against his partner.

• Conclusions: Male violence often functions as an adaptive, albeit destructive, mechanism to maintain exclusive sexual access to a mate.

---

Inter-group Aggression and the Military Contract

Evolutionary theory also explains large-scale conflict, such as gang violence and warfare.

Men have evolved cognitive biases that facilitate organized group aggression.

The “Military Contract”

Cosmides and Tooby suggest that men are biologically inclined to join group conflicts only if the “contract” is fair.

This means the rewards of victory (status, resources, mates) must be shared among those who took the physical risks of the fight.

This cooperative aggression allowed ancestral groups to conquer neighboring territories and expand their genetic reach.

---

Gender Differences and Bullying

Female Aggression

Anne Campbell (1999) argues that females favor verbal aggression over physical violence.

Because a mother’s physical survival is critical for the survival of her dependent offspring, engaging in risky combat is evolutionarily “expensive.”

Non-physical conflict allows females to compete for resources without risking their lives.

The Adaptive Value of Bullying

Volk et al. (2012) propose that bullying is a strategy to gain dominance.

For males, bullying demonstrates strength and secures access to more mates.

For females, bullying often occurs within a relationship to manipulate a partner into remaining faithful.

---

Infanticide and Step-parents: The “Cinderella Effect”

The most stark evidence for evolutionary theory lies in the “Cinderella Effect.”

This refers to the high rates of abuse and murder committed by step-parents compared to biological parents.

Daly and Wilson (1988)

• Aim: To examine whether genetic relatedness affects the risk of lethal domestic violence.

• Procedure: Researchers analyzed Canadian and US crime statistics regarding child homicides within families.

• Findings: Infants in the US were 100 times more likely to be killed by a step-parent than a biological parent.

• Conclusions: Humans lack the innate biological drive to protect and invest in offspring that do not carry their own genes.

---

Critical Evaluation

Dominance vs. Aggression

Critics like Sadalla (1987) argue that the theory confuses aggression with dominance.

His research showed that while women are attracted to dominant men (those with status and control), they are actually repelled by aggressive men (those who are unstable and violent).

This suggests that overt violence may actually be a poor reproductive strategy for long-term mating.

Cultural and Temporal Blindness

If aggression were purely biological, we would expect it to be uniform across the globe.

However, different cultures display vastly different levels of violence.

Furthermore, the rapid decline of violent crime in many Western nations over the last 30 years cannot be explained by evolution, which takes thousands of years to change the gene pool.

Ethical and Legal Determinism

The evolutionary perspective is often criticized for being socially sensitive.

By labeling domestic violence or xenophobia as “adaptive,” the theory risks providing a “biological excuse” for criminal behavior.

By suggesting that human aggression, domestic violence, xenophobia, and even genocide are “adaptive” or natural, critics warn that the theory could be used to justify or excuse violence against women and minority groups.

This undermines the legal principle of personal responsibility and could be used to justify the mistreatment of women or minority groups as a “natural” instinct.

Social-Psychological Explanations of Aggression

Students need to know:

• Social psychological explanations of human aggression, including the frustration-aggression hypothesis, social learning theory as applied to human aggression, and de-individuation.

Frustration-Aggression Hypothesis

The Frustration-Aggression Hypothesis proposes that aggression is a drive that results from the interruption of goal-directed behavior.

Originally formulated by Dollard and Miller (1939), this theory asserts that frustration always leads to some form of aggression. Aggression is viewed as a psychological “pressure valve” used to release the mental tension created by thwarted desires.

Displacement and Catharsis

Direct aggression against the source of frustration is often impossible because the source may be abstract, such as the economy, or too powerful, such as a police officer.

In these instances, the individual utilizes displaced aggression, redirecting their hostility toward a “scapegoat” or a weaker, more accessible target.

The theory relies on the concept of catharsis, which suggests that acting aggressively provides emotional relief and reduces the drive for further violence.

Negative-Affect Theory

Leonard Berkowitz (1989) revised the original hypothesis, noting that frustration does not always lead to aggression.

His Negative-affect theory argues that frustration is merely one of many unpleasant experiences—including pain, extreme heat, or loud noise—that create a “readiness” for aggression.

He also introduced the “weapons effect,” demonstrating that environmental cues, such as the sight of a gun, significantly increase the likelihood of a violent response.

Empirical Validation: Frustration

Harris (1974)

• Aim: To test if the proximity to a goal influences the level of aggression resulting from frustration.

• Procedure: Field confederates cut in front of people waiting in various queues, such as those at cinemas or grocery stores.

• Findings: Individuals who were near the front of the line (closer to their goal) reacted with significantly more verbal aggression than those further back.

• Conclusions: The closer an individual is to achieving their objective, the greater the frustration and subsequent aggression when that goal is blocked.

---

Social Learning Theory (SLT)

Social Learning Theory, championed by Albert Bandura, argues that aggression is a social behavior acquired through observation rather than just an innate drive.

This approach suggests that individuals learn the “how, when, and whom” of aggression by watching role models, such as parents, peers, or media characters.

Vicarious Reinforcement and Mediational Processes

SLT moves beyond simple behaviorism by stating that learning can occur without direct experience.

Through vicarious reinforcement, an individual observes a model being rewarded for aggression and internalizes that behavior as a successful strategy.

Bandura identified four mediational processes required for this learning:

1. Attention: The observer must notice the aggressive act.

2. Retention: The behavior must be remembered.

3. Reproduction: The observer must have the physical capability to perform the act.

4. Motivation: The observer must expect a reward or positive outcome.

Empirical Validation: Social Learning

Bandura et al. (1961) – The Bobo Doll Study

• Aim: To investigate whether children would imitate aggressive behavior modeled by an adult.

• Procedure: Children observed an adult role model behaving aggressively toward an inflatable “Bobo doll” (hitting it with a mallet and shouting). A control group saw a non-aggressive model.

• Findings: Children in the aggressive condition imitated the specific physical and verbal acts. Boys showed higher levels of physical aggression, especially when following a same-sex model.

• Conclusions: Aggression can be learned through observation alone, independent of direct reinforcement.

---

De-individuation Theory

De-individuation is a psychological state characterized by a loss of self-awareness and individual identity, typically occurring in large crowds or under the cover of a disguise.

Rooted in crowd psychology (LeBon, 1896), the theory suggests that anonymity lowers the inhibitions that usually prevent aggressive behavior.

Public and Private Self-Awareness

De-individuation reduces two types of awareness.

A reduction in public self-awareness means individuals worry less about being judged or punished by society.

A reduction in private self-awareness means the individual stops monitoring their own internal moral standards.

In this state, people are more likely to follow the “collective mind” of a group, which often leads to anti-normative and violent behavior.

Empirical Validation: Anonymity

Zimbardo (1969)

• Aim: To test the effect of de-individuation on the willingness to inflict pain.

• Procedure: Groups of female participants were asked to deliver electric shocks to a confederate. One group was de-individuated (wearing oversized lab coats and hoods to hide their faces), while the control group wore normal clothes and large name tags.

• Findings: The de-individuated participants delivered shocks that were twice as long as those given by the identifiable participants.

• Conclusions: Anonymity weakens social constraints and significantly increases the likelihood of aggressive acts.

---

Evaluation of Social Explanations

The Catharsis Myth

A major weakness of the Frustration-Aggression Hypothesis is the rejection of catharsis.

Research by Bushman demonstrated that participants who hit a punchbag to “vent” actually became more aggressive in subsequent tasks.

This suggests that aggression is self-reinforcing rather than self-limiting.

Context and Prosocial De-individuation

De-individuation does not always result in violence. Gergen (1973) placed strangers in a dark room and found they became affectionate rather than aggressive.

This indicates that anonymity simply encourages conformity to the prevailing environmental cues, whether they are prosocial or antisocial.

Methodological and Social Implications

While SLT has been criticized for lacking ecological validity due to its reliance on lab settings like the Bobo doll study, it has profound implications for media regulation.

The theory provides a framework for understanding how “cognitive scripts” from video games or television might harden children toward real-life violence through desensitization.

Institutional Theories of Aggression

Institutional aggression refers to violent or aggressive behavior that occurs within organized settings, such as prisons or psychiatric units.

Psychologists debate whether this violence is a product of the environment (situational) or a result of the individuals entering the system (dispositional). Most contemporary research suggests an interaction between these two forces.

Students need to know:

• Institutional aggression in the context of prisons: dispositionaland situational explanations.
• Situational approach: prisons make people aggressive – it’s the situation to blame.
• Dispositional approach: prisoners are aggressive people who make the prison violent.

Situational Approach: Sykes’ (1958) Deprivation Model

The situational explanation argues that the prison environment is the primary cause of aggression.

Sykes (1958) proposed the Deprivation Model, suggesting that the “pains of imprisonment” create a stressful atmosphere that triggers violent reactions.

Gresham Sykes (1958) argued that the experience of incarceration inevitably deprives inmates of fundamental human needs.

This persistent deprivation creates a high-pressure environment where aggression becomes an adaptive, though destructive, response.

• Environmental Stressors: Inmates suffer from the loss of liberty, autonomy, security, and access to heterosexual relationships.

• Expressive Violence: Aggression in this context is often “expressive,” meaning it is a spontaneous release of built-up frustration and stress caused by overcrowding and poor facilities.

• Competition for Resources: In an environment of scarcity, inmates may use violence to secure goods or services that are otherwise unavailable.

The Pains of Imprisonment

According to Sykes, inmates are deprived of five fundamental needs:

• Liberty: Loss of freedom and rejection from society.

• Autonomy: Lack of control over daily decisions (e.g., when to eat or sleep).

• Goods and Services: Absence of the luxuries and comforts available in the outside world.

• Heterosexual Relationships: Loss of intimacy, which can lead to a damaged sense of self-worth.

• Security: Constant fear for personal safety from other inmates.

Dysfunctional Institutions and Administrative Control

Dilulio (1991) expanded on the situational view with the Administrative Control Model (ACM).

He argued that aggression thrives in dysfunctional institutions where management is poor.

If rules are enforced inconsistently or if guards are poorly trained, inmates lose respect for authority.

This lack of structure creates a “power vacuum” where inmates use violence to establish their own order.

Empirical Validation: Situational Factors

Bierie (2011)

• Aim: To examine whether the physical conditions of a prison correlate with inmate violence.

• Procedure: Data were analyzed from 117 US federal prisons, comparing facility conditions to recorded acts of aggression.

• Findings: Violence was significantly higher in prisons with poor hygiene, high noise levels, and overcrowding.

• Conclusions: Environmental stressors directly contribute to the escalation of institutional aggression.

The Administrative Control Model and Power Systems

While the Deprivation Model focuses on what is missing, the Administrative Control Model (ACM) focuses on how the institution is run. Dilulio (1991) argues that “prison riots are not inevitable; they are the result of poor management.”

Features of Dysfunctional Management

When prison officials fail to provide strong, consistent leadership, a power vacuum is created. This occurs when:

• Rules are enforced irregularly or unfairly.

• Staff maintain a psychological distance from inmates.

• Inmates are given too much unofficial control over the cell blocks.

The Stanford Prison Experiment

Zimbardo’s (1971) research provides a bridge between situational and administrative explanations.

By placing psychologically healthy participants into a mock prison, he demonstrated how roles and power structures dictate behavior.

Zimbardo et al. (1971)

• Aim: To observe the psychological effects of becoming a prisoner or a guard.

• Procedure: 24 emotionally stable male students were randomly assigned the roles of “guard” or “prisoner” in a basement laboratory at Stanford University.

• Findings: Guards became increasingly sadistic and aggressive, while prisoners became passive and depressed. The experiment was terminated after only six days due to the extreme levels of institutional aggression.

• Conclusions: The situational roles and the dysfunctional power system were sufficient to turn “good people” into aggressive perpetrators.

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

Limitations and Criticisms

Contradictory Demographic Evidence

The strongest critique of the situational approach comes from the Importation Model. 

Researchers like Harer and Steffensmeir (1996) argue that the environment is secondary to the person.

In their study of US inmates, they found that race, age, and criminal background were the only reliable predictors of violence.

For example, they noted that younger inmates (18–30) were consistently more aggressive, regardless of the level of deprivation in the facility.

Replicability and Individual Agency

The reliability of Zimbardo’s findings has been questioned. In the BBC Prison Study (Reicher and Haslam, 2006), participants did not automatically conform to their roles.

Many guards were uncomfortable with their power, and the prisoners eventually overthrew the system.

This suggests that humans possess the free will to resist situational pressures, a factor the situational model often overlooks.

Practical Applications and Real-World Success

A major strength of the situational approach is its potential for institutional reform. If the environment causes the aggression, then altering the environment can stop it.

• HMP Woodhill (1990s): Prison governors implemented situational changes, including improved ventilation, less noise, and “attractive views.” These changes led to a massive reduction in violence against staff and other inmates.

• Abu Ghraib Analysis: The situational approach helped experts understand how ordinary military personnel committed atrocities. The lack of clear management and the high-stress, isolated environment were identified as the primary catalysts for the abuse

Imported Traits and Gang Culture

Inmates are not “blank slates” when they enter prison. Many have long histories of:

• Gang Loyalties: Pre-existing rivalries continue inside, leading to premeditated (instrumental) violence.

• Childhood Trauma: Histories of abuse or poverty predispose individuals to impulsive reactions.

• Criminal Identity: Violence is often seen as a necessary tool for survival and status in the offender’s subculture.

Empirical Validation: Dispositional Factors

DeLisi et al. (2011)

• Aim: To investigate the relationship between pre-prison disposition and institutional violence.

• Procedure: Researchers reviewed the social histories and prison records of 813 juvenile offenders.

• Findings: Inmates with childhood trauma, family violence, and prior gang involvement were the most likely to assault staff and peers.

• Conclusions: Pre-existing individual characteristics are the strongest predictors of aggressive behaviour in prison.

Critical Evaluation and Limitations

The Problem of “Good” People

The Importation Model fails to explain why individuals without aggressive backgrounds sometimes become perpetrators.

• The Stanford Prison Experiment: Zimbardo demonstrated that mentally healthy students became sadistic guards simply by entering a dysfunctional system. Since these students had no “imported” criminal history, their aggression must have been situational.

• Institutional Brutalization: First-time, non-violent offenders often become aggressive as a survival mechanism. This “brutalization” suggests the prison environment can force an individual to adopt a violent identity they did not originally possess.

Social Sensitivity and Ethical Implications

The Importation Model is highly controversial because it can lead to biological and social determinism.

If violence is seen as an unchangeable trait of the prisoner, there is little incentive for prison reform.

Political and Ethical Risks

• Justification of Poor Conditions: If administrators believe inmates are “inherently” violent, they may justify budget cuts for rehabilitation, education, and mental health programs.

• Lack of Therapeutic Solutions: Because a person cannot change their past trauma or race, the model offers no solutions other than segregation and increased security.

• Stigmatization: Labeling certain groups as “high-risk” based on demographics can lead to unfair treatment and the reinforcement of social prejudices.

Conclusion: The Interactionist Approach

A comprehensive understanding of aggression requires an Interactionist Approach (Dobbs and Waid).

This model suggests that while an inmate may import a biological or psychological “diathesis” (vulnerability), the prison environment provides the “stress” (trigger).

Aggression is most likely to occur when a high-risk individual is placed in a high-stress, poorly managed environment.

Media influences on aggression.

Students need to know:

• Media influences on aggression, including the effects of computer games.
• The role of desensitisation, disinhibition and cognitive priming.

Computer Games

Video games possess unique features that may influence aggression differently than passive media like television. Players have agency and actively control an avatar, meaning aggressive behaviour is often the only way to progress in the game.

Through the principles of operant conditioning, players receive direct reinforcement for aggression, being rewarded with praise, high scores, or access to in-game “loot” for committing extreme virtual violence.

Empirical Validation: Video Game Effects

Anderson et al. (2010)

• Aim: To determine the universal impact of violent video games on aggressive behavior, empathy, and physiological arousal.

• Procedure: A large-scale meta-analysis was conducted on 136 research papers involving over 130,000 participants.

• Findings: Significant positive correlations were found between violent game exposure and increased aggressive behavior in both Western and Eastern cultures.

• Conclusions: The influence of violent media is a global phenomenon that consistently increases aggressive tendencies while decreasing prosocial behavior.

Conversely, some psychologists argue that computer games can actually reduce aggression through the psychodynamic process of catharsis.

This theory suggests that violent games provide a safe, virtual outlet to release pent-up aggressive emotions without anyone getting hurt.

Supporting this, Kestenbaum and Weinstein (1985) found that young males reported playing violent games when they felt “wound up,” and ultimately felt more relaxed afterwards.

Desensitisation

In a natural state, witnessing violence triggers the sympathetic nervous system, causing increased heart rate and anxiety.

Desensitisation argues that constant exposure blunts this response. Over time, the revulsion once felt toward violence diminishes, leading to a lack of empathy for victims.

Disinhibition

Socialisation typically teaches us that violence is “wrong.” Disinhibition occurs when media portrays violence as justified, heroic, or unpunished.

This lowers the viewer’s internal social restraints. When a “hero” uses violence to solve a problem, the viewer’s moral resistance to aggression is weakened, making them more likely to use similar tactics in their own lives.

---

Cognitive Mechanisms: Priming and Scripts

Media does not just change how we feel; it changes how we think. This is explained through the concepts of cognitive priming and scripts.

Cognitive Priming and Aggressive Scripts

When we watch violent media, we store “scripts” in our long-term memory. These scripts are mental blueprints for how to act in specific situations.

Cognitive priming occurs when a real-world cue (like a heated argument) triggers these stored scripts, making an aggressive response more likely.

Empirical Validation: Neurological Priming

Murray (2007)

• Aim: To observe the brain’s reaction to violent media using neuroimaging.

• Procedure: fMRI scans were performed on children while they viewed violent and non-violent videos.

• Findings: Violent content activated the amygdala (emotional center) and the posterior cingulate, which is associated with long-term episodic memory.

• Conclusions: The brain actively stores media violence as a memory “script,” providing a physical basis for cognitive priming.

---

Social Learning Theory (SLT) in Media

Bandura’s SLT highlights the power of symbolic models. Children identify with high-status media characters.

When these characters achieve success through violence, the child experiences vicarious reinforcement. This increases the likelihood that the child will imitate the character’s behavior in the real world.

Empirical Validation: Longitudinal Effects

Williams (1986)

• Aim: To measure the impact of television on a community previously unexposed to it.

• Procedure: A natural experiment was conducted in an isolated Canadian town (“Notel”) before and after the introduction of TV.

• Findings: Within two years of receiving television, children in the town showed a significant increase in physical and verbal aggression compared to control towns.

• Conclusions: Exposure to television models directly contributes to the acquisition of aggressive behaviors in children.

---

Critical Evaluation

Methodological Limitations

Laboratory measures of aggression, such as the “Noise Blast Task,” are criticized for low mundane realism.

Blasting a stranger with sound in a safe lab is fundamentally different from physical assault in the real world.

Furthermore, the “File Drawer Problem” suggests that journals prefer publishing studies that find a link to aggression, while ignoring those that find no effect, potentially exaggerating the danger of media.

Confounding Variables: Complexity vs. Violence

Przybylski (2014) argues that aggression following a video game is often caused by frustration rather than content.

Violent games are frequently more difficult and complex than non-violent ones.

Therefore, the observed aggression may be a reaction to the game’s difficulty or “thwarted competence” rather than its violent imagery.

Lack of Face Validity

A significant challenge to this theory is the disconnect between media consumption and crime statistics.

While the popularity of hyper-realistic violent games has soared since the 1990s, violent crime rates in many Western nations have simultaneously trended downward.

This suggests that the relationship between virtual violence and real-world behavior is highly complex and not a simple cause-and-effect link.

Correlational Data

Much of the evidence linking media to aggression is purely correlational.

It is very difficult to establish a definitive cause-and-effect relationship because it may simply be that individuals who are already naturally aggressive actively choose to consume aggressive media, rather than the media causing the aggression.