Session 7: Sociocultural Explanations of violence


Evaluate sociocultural explanations of violence

5.
6.
1.
2.
3.
4.
7.
Is violence ever justified?
How old do you think the youngest murderer ever was?
Give explanations of terrorism.
What do you think are the reasons for school shootings?
Will there ever be a nuclear war?
Are humans less or more violent than we used to be?
Why does violence sell?



Violence: An aggressive act in which the perpetrator abuses individuals indirectly or directly
Examples of violence: Murder, bullying, war, genocide, domestic violence, suicide

Social psychologists focus on social rules and roles, how groups affects attitudes and behaviour, why people obey authority, and how each of us is affected by other people
Cultural psychologists examine how cultural rules and values
– both explicit and implicit – affect people’s development, behaviour and feelings


There are many sociocultural explanations for origins of violence but we will focus on just two:
1.
Social learning theory
2.
Subculture of violence theory

1. Social learning theory as an explanation for origin of violence (Bandura, 1977)

Write down everything you can remember about social learning theory




Suggested people learn to behave violently
(including violent attitude and norms) through direct experiences and through observing models
SLT focuses on observational learning and modeling.
Theory proposes that children learn to be violent due to exposure to violent models & because this violent behaviour is rewarded


SLT has been applied to explain the development of aggression & intergenerational transmission of violence through a process of socialisation
◦ Children are influenced by socialisation factors such as the family, the immediate environment including peers & the media

Social learning can be:
◦ direct (via instructions/explicitly teaching)
◦ Indirect (e.g. observing role models)



Children who grow up in violent families and neighbourhoods where they watch models use violence & obtain benefits from it (e.g. power) may be likely to see violence as a legitimate means to get what they want or exert power over other people.
Support for this proposition comes from the results of Bandura & Ross’ classic 1961 Bobo doll study

Two aims:
1.
To investigate whether children would imitate
2.
aggression modeled by an adult
To see if children were more likely to imitate same sex models




Participants
72 children aged 3-6 years
36 boys and 36 girls
Children were divided into 3 groups
Groups were matched with regards to levels of aggression based on an evaluation from parents and teachers

Condition
Aggressive
Model
Non-aggressive model
Control
Description
Exposed to adult models who showed aggression by bashing an inflatable
“Bobo” doll
Observed a non-aggressive adult who assembled toys for 10 minutes
No model observed



After watching the models, the children were placed in a room with toys
Very soon, they were taken out of the room, being told that these toys were for other children and were then put into a room with the Bobo doll


Results
Children who had observed the aggressive model were significantly more aggressiveboth verbally and physically- towards the
Bobo doll

According to Bandura, the theory of social learning theory was demonstrated in the study, since the children showed signs of observational learning




Results
Bandura also observed that girls were more likely to imitate verbal aggression and boys were more likely to imitate physical aggression
When boys observed women bashing the Bobo doll, they often made comments like “ladies shouldn’t do that!”
Children were more likely to imitate same-sex models

Low Ecological Validity





Experiment has been criticised for low ecological validity.
Not only was the study carried out in a laboratory, there were other factors which made the situation artificial:
Only a brief encounter with the model
Children were intentionally frustrated after they were put in toy room
Could be argued study does little to demonstrate what happens if a child is repeatedly exposed to aggressive parents or violence on television
Does aggression against a Bob doll indicate learned aggression in general or is it highly specific to this situation

Other methodological issues



Aggression modeled by adults was not completely standardised meaning children may have observed slight differences in aggression displayed
Despite attempts to match participants on levels of aggression across groups, the evaluations were based on observations from teachers and parent which may not be accurate or reliable.
Question of demand characteristics: children may have acted aggressively because they thought it would please the researcher

Ethics



Use of young children is ethically questionable
Observing adult strangers act in an aggressive manner may have been frightening for children
Teaching aggressive behaviour to children also questionable. No guarantee that if aggressive behaviour was learned that it would be reversible

Qualitative study on girlfriend abuse among violent male youth in Canada

Aim: to explore how young girlfriend abusers used violence to construct their masculinity. Study focused on how families and peer groups contributed to learning and identification with violent norms as part of establishing a masculine gender role






Procedure:
Purposeful sample of 30 abusive adolescent males from a large city in
Canada
All had pro-abusive beliefs, masculine ideals and admitted to using violence towards their girlfriends
Mean age of boys was 15.6 years.
6 belonged to an ethnic minority & rest were white
Many were gang members and most had dropped out of school early
Semi-structured interviews were used to collect data







Adolescents backgrounds had similar features.
They had all been exposed to violent behaviour in the family and they saw this as justified and even necessary
Their fathers all had rigid authoritarian beliefs
(e.g. rigid gender roles) & all used violence to control family members or defend their honour
All were abusive and used physical and sexual violence for same reasons as their fathers
Boys said they had the right to use violence if girlfriends did not behave
In some cases, fathers had given instructions on how to abuse women in particular situations




Used a small and purposive sample so it is not possible to generalise
Qualitative data gave in-depth insight into how the violent adolescents experienced the use of violence themselves
Practical applications: research could be a starting point to design interventions to prevent violence, such as by providing positive role models (mentoring) as well as education and job opportunities


Eron (1986): Found a positive correlation between number of hours of violence watched on television at the age of 8 and the level of aggression they demonstrated as teenagers, as well as the number of criminal acts as adults




Charlton et al (2002)
Conducted a natural experiment
Island of St Helena in the Atlantic Ocean





Aim: to investigate whether children would exhibit more
 aggressive behaviour after the introduction to the island in
1995
Procedure: children aged 3-8 were observed before and after the introduction of television
Content analysis of TV showed level of violence on television matched what children in UK generally exposed to
Behaviour observed through the use of video cameras that were set up in the playgrounds of 2 primary schools on the island
Researchers also conducted interviews with teachers, parents and some of the older children



Results:
Analysis of hundreds of hours of videotape, backed up by interview data showed there was no increase in aggressive or anti-social behaviour.
This was also the case after five years



Parents and teachers said that antisocial behaviour was not accepted on the island and that there was a high degree of social control in the community. Shows that people may learn aggressive behaviour but may not exhibit it for different reasons.
Social and cultural factors play a role in what behaviours are acceptable, so even though children had no doubt learned aggressive behaviour, they did not show it.



This study does not necessarily disprove
SLT but rather conflicts with results from the Bobo doll study
In relation to SLT it may be explained that children from St Helena were not motivated to imitate the behaviour due to the norms of their society



High ecological validity: study investigated a naturally occurring event as opposed to an artificial task
Results of study do not question SLT but rather the results of Bandura and Ross
(1961). Results also support the idea that people must be motivated to imitate behaviour.


Empirical evidence that supports theory i.e. Bandura
(1961), Totten (2003)

Social norms of violence can be transmitted from parents to children as predicted by SLT

SLT can be used to explain why adolescents use violence in marginalised social peer groups because it pays off in the form of status (reinforcement)

Theory has practical applications for forming violence intervention programmes i.e. mentoring programmes


SLT cannot explain how structural factors such as poverty contribute to establishing norms of male superiority

Theory does not take individual differences into account like intelligence and personality

Neglects biological factors. Some people may be more prone to violence due to genetic inheritance/brain damage

2. Subculture of violence theory (Wolfgang and
Ferracuti, 1967)



According to theory, violent behaviour results from a commitment to sub cultural norms and values
Individual violent values lead to violent behaviours because sub cultural values act as a mechanism of social control among group members




Violence is used as a means to:
◦ defend honour
◦ maintain status within the group/family/in relation to other groups
Theory was developed based on work in an inner-city African American neighbourhood in
Philadelphia
It was originally suggested that the subculture of violence phenomenon was a lower-class masculine phenomenon related to race. This view is now contested

Aim: to investigate whether pro-violent values influenced group conduct norms as predicted by the subculture of violence theory




Procedure:
Large scale survey of adolescent boys and girls in 49 public schools in Iceland
Aged 15-16
Sample was racially homogenous
Answered questions on how often they engaged in various threatening & physically violent acts (e.g. punching, kicking, fighting)





Results
Showed a significant impact of conduct norms on aggressive behaviour
The most violent students said they conformed to group norms
Boys were more likely to behave aggressively than girls
Group pressure to respond to personal attacks with violence could act as a form of social control


Conclusions
Predictions of subculture of violence were supported by these cross cultural data

Conclusion was that group adherence to values and norms encourage aggressive behaviour through:
◦ Internalisation of values encouraging violence
◦ Social control processes ensure adherence (conformity) to conduct norms




Evaluation
Survey based on large sample of adolescents from Iceland so findings can be generalised to similar age groups in Iceland
An equal number of boys and girls participated so there was no gender bias
Data was collected via self reports so there may be bias. Respondents may have been dishonest due to socially sensitive nature of topic



Found support for the theories proposition that violence is used to maintain honour in the Southern states of the USA where there are high rates of violence
They argue that a “culture of honour” seems to have survived from herding economies brought to the area by Irish and Scottish settlers between 17 th -19 th centuries


Theory can explain how violence may be used to establish & maintain power with a social group & to establish social hierarchies. Dominance & power could be a possible explanation for school bullying:
◦ e.g. Gest et al (2003) found that bullies are often seen as popular and “cool”

Theory does not explain what sociocultural structural factors could lead to violence because the primary focus is on social norms and values as the origin of violence. According to Anderson (1999) high rates of violence could be the result of poverty and class oppression that than a culture of honour


These two psychological explanations of violence
(SLT & subculture of violence) suffer from the same limitations of mainstream theories of violence that tend to focus on either:
◦ Internal causes (personality, genes, brain injury, hormones)
◦ External causes (from social/cultural environment)

Such one dimensional explanations of violence mostly acknowledge the importance of other variables but these are often not included in the explanations

Biological factors & violence

In addition to sociocultural explanations, some psychologists have also suggested that biological factors influence violent behaviours e.g. testosterone has been linked to violence






Testosterone is a steroid male sex hormone secreted in the testes of males and in the ovaries of females
Men produce 10 times more testosterone that women
Testosterone has been linked to aggression & dominance behaviour
Castration of a male usually results in a pacifying effect on aggressive behaviour in males
Relationship between aggression and testosterone is complex and difficult to test scientifically because measurement of testosterone levels from blood and saliva is not reliable

McAndrew (2009)




Offer evolutionary explanation of link between testosterone & aggression
Evolution has shaped hormonal responses in males that are particularly sensitive to situations that involve challenges to status or competition with other males
Testosterone is secreted to prepare the body to respond to competition or challenges to one’s status
Any situation that is perceived as a threat/challenge to a male’s status will result in an increase in testosterone level
Hormonal changes in such situations are important factors of explanations of aggression. Explanations that do not include biological factors are incomplete at best.


Quasi experimental study to test relationship between culture of honour & physiological responses to an insult
Aim: to test whether male participants from South of USA (assumed to belong to a culture of honour) would be more likely than males from the North USA to respond with aggression to insults
Researchers also measured cortisol and testosterone levels




Procedure
Researchers predicted that southerners from a culture of honour would be more aggressive and have higher levels of cortisol and testosterone than northerners
Participants were experimentally insulted publicly.
Cortisol levels were measured before and after the insult through a saliva and blood test

Results

After the experimental insult:
Cortisol levels
Testosterone levels
Northerners
Rose by 33%
Slightly higher
Southerners
Rose by 79%
Higher

Southerners were generally more aggressive and showed more domineering behaviour

Conclusions




Researchers argued that southerners who were insulted in front of others saw themselves as diminished in masculine reputation and status
This could explain why they exhibited more aggressive and domineering behaviour
In a culture of honour males who do not retaliate to insults risk their masculine reputation
Culture of honour norms dictate retaliation. Such norms have become embedded in social roles, expectations and shared definitions of masculinity



Although Nisbett and Cohen (1996) studying both biological factors and culture of honour this does not mean that the theory of subculture of violence itself includes biological explanation
This study does however, lend support to idea of subculture of violence theory