Discuss two social psychological theories of aggression

The social learning theory may offer an explanation for why Ridgway, and the Ripper, may have become serial killers. The social learning theory suggests that “behaviours are learnt by observing the behaviour of others” (Jones, 1998:355), therefore if a person witnesses aggressive attitudes, this may increase the chances of that person acting in the same negative manner (Choon Chan, 2012:52).

The deindividuation theory and the social learning theory compliment each other as they both agree that if an individual witnesses aggressive behaviour the individual could change their personality to match role models which could in turn, change their aggression levels.

Bandera believed that behavior could be shaped through observing and imitating behavior. He hypothesized that nonaggressive models would have a less violent effect on the kids (vice versa for aggressive models), women models would have a greater effect on the girl kids (same with men and boys), and boys in general would be more violent than girls. In this study, his main goal was to discover whether imitative learning would generalize to settings in which the bobo doll was not present with the child. Bandera used 36 girls and 36 boys (aged 3-6), which he split into three groups, one control group, one group seeing aggressive models, and the final group watching the nonaggressive models.

The fundamentals of the social learning theory significantly describe offenders and their criminal behavior which is learned based on observation and imitation. A researcher by the name of Albert Bandura along with coworkers tested the social learning theory with several experiments on children and their imitation of aggression based on what they saw and were exposed to. Bandura’s focus was to prove that human behavior such as aggression is learned through social imitations and copying the actions of others. Walters (1966) gives details about the Bobo doll experiment and explains its purpose related to learning a violent behavior based on observation. In the experiment, the tested subjects were children of both sexes, ranging from the ages of three to six years. Some of the children were exposed to a non-aggressive adult, while the other children were placed in a room with an aggressive adult who would both physically and verbally attack the Bobo doll. The control group in the experiment was not exposed to any adult. During the second phase of the experiment, the children were left in a room by themselves with the toys, and watched to see if they would demonstrate the aggressive behavior like that of which they observed adults doing earlier. Walter (1966) describes the results as “children who had been exposed to an aggressive model showed more imitative physical and verbal

Social learning theory suggests that the mechanism underlying the continuity of violence is observational learning in which children who were abused learn to repeat abusive or neglectful modeled behavior (Begle, Dumas & Hanson, 2010). Observational learning, in the case of child

The first reason why the nurture side of the debate provides more evidence towards understanding violent behavior is due to the fact that children learn violence through parents and other adults in their life. The first way children learn is that they imitate behavior that they

Social learning theory is described by different environmental factors that’s influence the behavioral response of a person (Bandura, 1965). For example, social learning theory assumes a person bases their responses through an actual environmental stimuli, such as violence. In addition, when applied to the domestic violence, social learning theory states the actual act of violence is learned, through role models, such as parents, siblings or relatives as a natural coping mechanism when conflict is present. As described in the book (I am not your Victim) the countless abuses that Sam did over Beth was a form coping mechanism for him to avoid the conflicts around. Sam’s initial reaction of violence could be actual result of their

Classical conditioning is often associated with physiologist Ivan Pavlov’s experiment with the salivating dog (Hutchinson, 2015). This experiment focused on conditioning the dog to associate food with the bell while salivating, and eventually salivates when the bell is rung even without the presence of food. Operant conditioning theory is changed behavior as the result of a reinforcement (Hutchinson, 2015). In our society, we associate positive reinforcements with compliments, smiles, high-fives in order to encourage a behavior more. Negative reinforcement involves jail, detention, and grounding, and this is to stop a behavior from continuing. A cognitive social learning theory states that behavior can be learned through observations, beliefs, expectations, and imitation of others (Hutchinson, 2015). A major difference between cognitive social learning theory and the others, is a lack of manipulation to encourage the individual to follow through with a behavior. Rather, cognitive social learning theories suggest that a change in thinking can ultimately result in a change in behavior (Hutchinson, 2015).

General Aggression Model (GAM) represents a theoretical basis for social-cognitive integrated model of human aggression, and aims at the interpretation of the connection between the motivation of aggression, and the following aggressive behavior, aggressive effect (i.e., physiological stimulation), aggressive cognition, (i.e., thoughts), reduced pro-social behavior, and reduced empathy (i.e., emotional facets) (Anderson and Bushman, 2001; Barlett and Anderson 2013). As a process model, GAM can be divided into two explanatory mechanisms; a) proximate and distal GAM (Anderson & Carnagey, 2004) or b) proximate GAM as single-episode GAM and multiple-episode GAM (see. Anderson & Bushman, 2001) as (long-term) effects of repetitive violence viewing (Barlett & Anderson, 2013).

This theory has played a significant role in helping mankind in the formation of social movements especially within contemporary society. It is imperative to note that Social movements are organized and sustained collective efforts that focus on some aspect of social change, and tend to persist over time in a more aggressive way compared to other forms of collective behaviour. Social movements may include actions that protect environments, defend the rights of the minority or promote social justice. The frustration- aggression theory argues that social movements are formed when frustration results in collective aggressive behaviour.

The general aggression model (GAM) is the most contemporary theory of aggression as of 2015. The GAM, as discussed by Anderson and Bushman (2002), focuses on addressing and discovering the biological, environmental, psychological, and social factors that influence aggression. This aggression model “accounts for both short- and long-term effects of an extensive range of variables of aggression (Warburton & Anderson, 2015, p.375)” due to its biosocial-cognitive approach. Benjamin (2016) describes the opportunity for appraisal presented within this theory. GAM articulates the influences on a person’s immediate appraisal of the situation. “This immediate appraisal occurs automatically, and includes an interpretation of the situation and an

These results correlate highly with the social learning theory on aggressive behavior. Those exposed to substantial violence and aggression were likely to imitate it later on in life. However, while an observational study can elicit enlightening results, they do not provide much on practical, empirical evidence. What the researchers did was observe behavior exhibited by the individuals they studied; they did not control the amount of violence the individuals were being exposed nor were they preventing others from being exposed to such programming. Thus, this study can not be deemed as an “experiment”. While they tried eliminating the lurking variables that may plague the results of their findings, it would be impossible to eliminate every possible influence other than the television exposure through an observational study.

Attitudes are positive or negative evaluations of a particular thing. Operant conditioning is the process in which people learn though their experience of rewards or punishments. Observational learning is learning by observing others, but we do not need to experience rewards and punishments. This being said, in the study, there was no negative attitude towards the children behaving violently. Operant conditioning uses punishments and rewards to fashion behavior, and in this study, the children were rewarded by being able to play with toys and given time to play however they wanted without the punishment for their actions, producing a positive attitude towards the aggression displayed. Observational learning is the basis of the whole study, as it was proved with this study that by observing others we can learn just as we learn through personal experience. We do not need to only experience things in order to learn

For professionals, theorists, parents, and the public as a whole aggression is a major problem of society (Perez, Vohs, & Joiner, 2005). An understanding of what drives aggression is needed to develop techniques to prevent or lessen the manifestation of aggression (Larson & Lochman, 2002). There are a number of theories trying to explain the exhibition of aggression: instinct theory, bio-chemical, social learning, frustration, and genetic are some.

Relational aggression (RA) is defined as nonphysical behaviors that aim to deliberately cause harm to another individual by destroying relationships, harming social status or self-esteem, or public embarrassment (Crick, Werner, Casas, O’Brien, Nelson, Grotpeter, & Markon, 1999). Examples include behaviors such as purposely ignoring a peer, spreading rumors, creating undesirable gossip, and excluding a peer from group activities, (Crick, 1996; Crick & Grotpeter, 1995; Crick, Ostrov, & Werner, 2006). RA can occur as early as preschool years, and plays a huge role in the interactions among this population with behaviors such as covering one’s ears as a sign of ignoring another peer (Bonica, Arnold, Fisher, Zeljo, & Yershova, 2003; Crick et al.,