UNIT ONE: SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGICAL THEORIES OF AGGRESSION
Social learning theory; Deindividuation; Cue Arousal; Relative Deprivation.
Explanations of institutional aggression
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).
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.
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

UNIT ONE: SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGICAL THEORIES OF AGGRESSION
Social learning theory; Deindividuation; Cue Arousal; Relative Deprivation.
Explanations of institutional 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.
You will not be required to describe the study in the exam
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 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.
2

UNIT ONE: SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGICAL THEORIES OF AGGRESSION
Social learning theory; Deindividuation; Cue Arousal; Relative Deprivation.
Explanations of institutional 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).
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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

UNIT ONE: SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGICAL THEORIES OF AGGRESSION
Social learning theory; Deindividuation; Cue Arousal; Relative Deprivation.
Explanations of institutional aggression
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
Design
Sample
Experiment
Independent groups
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 a 12-guage shotgun and a .38 calibre revolver were in view in the room.
Condition two 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.
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.
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

UNIT ONE: SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGICAL THEORIES OF AGGRESSION
Social learning theory; Deindividuation; Cue Arousal; Relative Deprivation.
Explanations of institutional aggression
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
*Brixton, London 1981
*Notting Hill, London, 1958 *Los Angeles 1992
*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.
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.
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

UNIT ONE: SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGICAL THEORIES OF AGGRESSION
Social learning theory; Deindividuation; Cue Arousal; Relative Deprivation.
Explanations of 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.
Aggression in institutions can be considered in terms of two forces:

Situational forces

Dispositional forces
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

UNIT ONE: SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGICAL THEORIES OF AGGRESSION
Social learning theory; Deindividuation; Cue Arousal; Relative Deprivation.
Explanations of institutional aggression
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.
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.
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
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!
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.
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

UNIT ONE: SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGICAL THEORIES OF AGGRESSION
Social learning theory; Deindividuation; Cue Arousal; Relative Deprivation.
Explanations of 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.
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.
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.
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