Chapter 13: Aggression
Social Psychology by
Tom Gilovich, Dacher
Keltner, and Richard
Nisbett
Aggression
Hostile aggression - behavior intended to harm another,
either physically or psychologically, and motivated by
feelings of anger and hostility
Instrumental aggression - behavior intended to harm
another in the service of motives other than pure
hostility (for example, to attract attention, acquire
wealth, and to advance political and ideological
causes)
Modern Theory of Aggression
Social Determinants
Personal Determinants
Frustration
Provocation
Exposure to aggressive models
Cues associated with aggression
Causes of discomfort/negative affect
Arousal
High irritability
Beliefs about aggression
Proaggression values
Type A behavior pattern
Hostile attribution bias
Affective
States
Aggression
Aggressive
Cognitions
Personal Determinants

Type A behavior pattern

Hostile attributional style

Narcissism (inflated self-esteem)

Gender (higher in males when not provoked)
–
–
Next
males tend to use direct forms (push, shove, insult)
females tend to use indirect (gossip, spread rumors)
Personal Determinants

Biological
–
Instinct theory - innate (unlearned) behavior pattern


–
–
–
Freud- redirecting the “death instinct” (thanatos) to others
Lorenz- inherited “fighting instinct” developed through the
course of evolution (strongest survive)
Neural Influences
Genetic Influences
Blood Chemistry


high testosterone linked to higher aggression and less helping
low levels of serotonin inhibit ability to restrain aggressive
urges
Social Determinants

frustration
–


direct provocation (physical or verbal)
exposure to media violence
–

elicits aggression esp. when cause is unjustified
primes aggressive thoughts; desensitizes viewers
heightened arousal (provocation, exercise)
–
arousal in one situation can persist and intensify
reactions in another, unrelated situation
Frustration-Aggression Theory
Direct
Outward
aggression
Instigation
to aggress
Indirect
Frustration
(Goal)
Inward aggression
(e.g., suicide)
Other additional responses
(e.g., withdrawal)
Back
Bandura, Ross, & Ross


–
What did it look like?
Physical Aggression
20.0
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
N
ol
on
ag
gr
es
siv
e
A
gg
re
ss
iv
e

Subjects were exposed to
either aggressive or
nonaggressive models
Nonaggressive model
assembled tinker toys
Aggressive model hit Bobo doll
Subject then spent 20 mins
alone in room with various toys
including Bobo.
C
on
tr

Female
Male
Measuring Human Aggression in the
Laboratory

Buss Technique (similar to Milgram’s)
Participants (“teacher”) told to shock a “learner” each time
they made an error on a simple learning task
Note: teachers chose how strong the shocks were
–

Competitive Reaction Time task (Taylor et al.)
–
Participants compete with “opponent” on reaction-time trials.
After losing a trial, they receive shock levels ranging in
intensity from very mild to painful. After winning a trial, they
pick shock level to administer to opponent
Chermack, Berman, & Taylor
8


Subjects competed against
“opponent” in reaction time
game
After each trial, loser received
a shock
2 conditions
–
–
Low provocation - shocks
stayed at setting #2
High provocation - shocks
gradually increased from 2 to 9
7.2
7
Shock Setting

6
5
4
4.6
3.8
3.4
4
3
2
1
0
Block 1
Low Provocation
Back
3.9
Block 2
Block 3
High Provocation
Excitation Transfer Theory
Arousal and
irritation
attributed to
delay at gate
Meeting your
future in-laws
Back
Heightened
arousal
Residual
arousal
Aggression
is increased
Frustration
(delay at gate)
Arousal and
irritation are
attributed
mainly to
“meeting the
parents”
Aggression is
not increased
Situational Determinants
high temperatures
hotter years (and summers) increased rates of violent
crimes, but not property or rape crimes
Temperature
95
75
55
35
15
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
-5
–
Index of Assaults

Situational Determinants

alcohol
–
–
intoxicated participants
behave more
aggressively and
respond to provocations
more strongly
low aggressors became
more aggressive when
intoxicated, whereas high
aggressors did not
Sober
Intoxicated
4.9
5
4.2
4
4.4
3.2
3
2
1
0
Low Aggressors
High
Aggressors
Situational Determinants

Media
Controlling Aggression

Catharsis (“blowing off a little steam”)
–

Punishment
–

does not reduce aggression
must be prompt, strong, and justified
Exposure to nonaggressive models
–
place prosocial models in violent situations
Controlling Aggression (con’t)

Cognitive interventions
–
–

Teach social skills
–

apologizing can be effective
engage in activities that distract attention away from
causes of anger
better communication
Induce incompatible responses
–
humor
Study Smarter:
Student Website

http://www.wwnorton.com/socialpsych
Chapter Reviews
Diagnostic Quizzes
Vocabulary Flashcards
Apply It! Exercises