EXPLANATIONS OF INSTITUTIONAL AGGRESSION
Those serving in institutions e.g. police, military, terrorist groups etc. bound together by a
common purpose to be aggressive. The aggression is influenced by factors associated with
the institutional setting. NOT aggression within institutions. E.g. Deindividuation - use of
uniforms, Power of Social roles – behaviour can change according to the expectations of their
role and Situational Variables – physical or to do with norms and rules – clothing and
hierarchy of power .
1. Within a group
a) Situational forces.
Research – Zimbardo – Stanford Prison Study – however was a self selected sample
so may be unrepresentative. 24 healthy volunteers (similar levels of aggression)
randomly allocated as prisoner or guard. Prisoners formerly arrested, blindfolded
and moved to the ‘prison’. Guards were told to maintain control but no physical
violence allowed. As study progresses guards punishments were more degrading –
Hellmann most degrading of all the guards. Zimbardo argued behaviour was a
product of situational forces (e.g. loss of personal identity due to uniform) not
dispositional characteristics of the person concerned.
Abu Ghraib atrocities – Zimbardo argued it was the circumstances in the prison
that led even good soldiers to do bad things.
Behaviour due to several key factors.
Status and power
Revenge and retaliation
Deindividuation and helplessness.
Dehumanisation
These factors combined can influence behaviour. E.g. overcrowding can increase
fear and frustration. Hodgkinson found that trainee nurses and new prison officers
were more likely to suffer assault
AO2
Lots of evidence that peer violence is used to relieve deprivation – McCorkle et al –
but not all research is consistent e.g. evidence overcrowding is a factor in prisons
but not in psychiatric institutions.
b) Interpersonal factors
A few ‘bad apples’ i.e. aggression comes from the individual not the system – if
rank and file police officers perform badly attributed to a ‘few bad cops’ that are
not representative of the whole police force.
Irwin & Cressey – claim prisoners bring own personal history and traits with them
into prison and this influences their adaptation to prison environment.
AO2
Some support for I&C e.g. factors such as age, education level and race do seem to
effect aggression. Black inmates have higher rates of violent behaviour but lower
alcohol and drug related misconduct.
c) Hazing – a form of institutional bullying. Based on a tradition in many groups to
discipline junior members and maintain a strict pecking order. Initiations can
spiral out of control and cause lasting physical and psychological damage. (student
clubs)
AO2
Research evidence supporting the concept e.g. McCorkle found in prisons,
domination of weak seen as essential.
But what constitutes aggressive behaviour – many exposed to hazing see it as
harmless fun.
AO2
Research into aggression is difficult. Information is socially sensitive and control of variables
very difficult, so cannot establish cause and effect. There is only a limited amount of well
documented studies.
Bernard – aggression is seen as ‘just’, ’acceptable’ and in some situations ‘expected’ because
the working environment of most police officers is mainly structured by codes of deviance,
secrecy, silence and cynicism. i.e. the situation that leads to show of aggression.
Robert Agnew – General Strain Theory. Negative experiences and stress generate negative
effective states (feelings and emotions) and without effective coping strategies can lead to
violent behaviour. Strain emerges from negative relationships with others – when individual
feels they have not been treated in manner they think is appropriate. Can lead to anger and
frustration.
2. Between groups – AO1
E.g. Genocide. The murder of 6 million Jews by the Nazis and murder of 800 000 Tutsi
and moderate Hutu by extremist Hutu (Rwanda).
Staub outlined 5 stages in the process of genocide.
 Difficult social conditions
 Scapegoating of less powerful group



Negative evaluation and dehumanisation of target group
Moral values and rules no longer apply and killing starts
Passivity of bystanders enhances the process
E.G of dehumanising – Hutu controlled ‘hate’ radio referred to the Tutsi as cockroaches.
Obedience to authority – Milgram believed the holocaust mainly due to situational pressures
that forced the Nazi soldier to obey their leaders, regardless of any personal repugnance.
AO2
Staub’s model emphasises the importance of bystander behaviour in preventing genocide.
(doing nothing may actually escalate killings by signalling apathy) Intervention can effect
duration and severity – in different ways . Intervention by e.g. the UN may shorten the
conflict it might also increase the severity – in Rwanda 800 000 died in just 100 days.
Evidence of dehumanisation – can also explain violence against immigrants. Social dominance
orientation (SDO). People high in SDO endorse social hierarchies and see world as
‘competitive jungle’. Esses – showed individuals high in SDO tend to dehumanise outgroup,
especially refugees and asylum seekers. Negative attitudes are rationalised through
‘legitimising myths’ e.g. foreign refugees are by nature deviant and therefore deserve our
hostility.
Mandel rejects Migram’s claims – argues Milgram’s account is monocausal and doesn’t match
historical record. Goldhanger suggests main cause was anti –Semitism.
Dehumanisation is difficult to investigate empirically- difficult to define what is and what isn’t
dehumanising behaviour. Ethical issues in studying people who have been subjected to
dehumanising violence.