Transcript Chapter 12: Aggression - Arts & Sciences | Washington

Chapter 12: Aggression





Why are some human
beings capable of
committing unspeakable
atrocities towards others?
Why are some societies
(e.g. the U.S.) so violent?
What is the best way to
punish violent people?
What are the causes of
terrorism?
How and why do we
interpret violence in
various ways?
Two alternate models of aggression in Iraq.
“ideological”
(political)
causes
VIOLENCE
Generic
frustration
(e.g., over
unreliable utilities)
Social psychological approaches
General issues
Important distinctions
– Intentionality important
– Hostile vs. instrumental aggression
– Predatory vs. Rage aggression
 Levinson & Flynn (1965)
– Lateral hypothalamus-predatory
– Medial hypothalamus—rage
Nature vs. nurture (again)

Thomas Hobbes: Leviathan
(1651)
 Jean-Jacques Rousseau
(1762)
 Freud
– Eros vs. thanatos
– Superego  regulating
impulses of the ID
The “kitten and rat” study
(Zing Yang Kuo, 1961)
Two interpretations
Follow-up study by Eibl-Eibesfeldt (1963)
Fleshing out of the “instinctive”
view

Sociobiological view (again)
 Konrad Lorenz: “Resources, food, maters, and shelter
and necessary to life and to reproductive fitness. If
resources are in short supply, then characteristics
resulting in the acquisition of resources will be favored
in the course of evolution.”
 The
question of rape
Currently accepted view:
“Dual influence” model
(Lore & Schultz, 1993)
Introductory comments on Bowling for
Columbine




United States does not have the highest overall
homicide rate (we are 25th in the world). However, all of
the other 24 are non-industrialized countries. Thus,
compared to industrialized (“modern”) societies, U.S. is
by far the highest.
Things get worse when you consider homicides via
firearms. We are 8th and again the other seven are not
industrialized (e.g. Mexico, Thailand, Columbia).
Canadian homicide rate (via firearms or generally) is
much lower than the U.S. But many other countries are
lower still (e.g. Sweden, Switzerland, Norway, Ireland,
Finland).
Canada is NOT safer than the United States in terms of
overall violent crime rate. Depending on how you
compute statistics, Canada is either roughly equal or
even higher than U.S.
United States vs. Canada
 United

States
Population
 Canada

– Approximately 300 million

Average # homicides per
year
– Approximately 30 million

– 22,000

Average # homicides
involving guns
~64% of all homicides due
to guns
Average # homicides per
year
– 650

– 14,000

Population
Average # homicides
involving guns
– 200

~31% of all homicides due
to guns
Difference between U.S. and
Canada due to gun control?

Unlikely.
 Stringent gun control in Canada is relatively
recent but its homicide rate via firearms has
always been much lower than the U.S.
– And after gun control laws passed in Canada homicide
rates were relatively unchanged.

Statistics internal to the United States do not
appear to consistently support the idea that gun
control = fewer crimes/homicides.
Bottom line
– U.S. can safely be regarded as, by
far, the most violent in the “modern”
industrialized world, but this is true
only with respect to homicides
involving firearms.
– And it is not clear why.
Wrap-up and summary of
Bowling for Columbine
Cross cultural rates in aggression
Figure 8. Rate of Incarceration in Selected Nations
United States
699
Russia
644
South Africa
400
United Kingdom
125
Canada
110
Australia
110
Spain
110
Germany
95
France
90
Italy
90
Netherlands
90
Switzerland
85
Sweden
60
Japan
40
0
100
200
300
400
500
Number of people in prison per 100,000 population
Source : The Sentencing Project.
600
700
800
Country
Description
1.
Mexico
13,829
2.
United
States
12,658
3.
Poland
2,170
4.
France
1,051
5.
Germany 960
6.
Korea,
South
955
7.
United
Kingdom
850
8.
Italy
746
9.
Japan
637
10.
Spain
494
11.
Canada
489
Amount
Total number of
murders, 1998-2000
1.
Mexico
0.1 per 1,000 people
2.
Poland
0.1 per 1,000 people
U.S.
0.04 per 1,000 people
4.
Finland
0.03 per 1,000 people
5.
Slovakia
0.03 per 1,000 people
6.
Portugal
0.02 per 1,000 people
7.
Hungary
0.02 per 1,000 people
8.
S. Korea
0.02 per 1,000 people
9.
France
0.02 per 1,000 people
10
.
Czech R.
0.02 per 1,000 people
11
.
Canada
0.01 per 1,000 people
12
.
Total number
of murders,
1998-2000,
per capita
Total number of murders, 1998-2000,
per capita, via firearms
1
.
Mexico
0.03 per 1,000 people
2
.
United
States
0.03 per 1,000 people
3
.
Slovakia
0.02 per 1,000 people
4
.
Czech
Republic
0.02 per 1,000 people
5
.
Portugal
0.01 per 1,000 people
6
.
Switzerland
0.01 per 1,000 people
7
.
Canada
0.01 per 1,000 people
8
.
Germany
0.005 per 1,000 people
9
.
Hungary
0.004 per 1,000 people
Within-culture differences
Within-culture differences:
North vs. South
 Murder
rates
 Three hypotheses
– Environmental
– Poverty
– subculture of aggression—”culture of honor”
Blumenthal et al. (1972)

“To what extent does a man have the right to…”
– kill another man in self defense
 Non-south 57%
 South  70%
– Kill a person to defend his family
 Non-south  67%
 South  80%
– Kill a person to defend his house
 Non-south  18%
 South  60%
TEN WORST STATES FOR MURDER, 2003
STATE
PER 100,000
(1) Louisiana
(2) Maryland
13.0
9.5
(3) Mississippi
(4) Nevada
(5) Arizona
9.3
8.8
7.9
TEN SAFEST STATES FOR MURDER, 2003
STATE
PER 100,000
(1) Maine
1.2
(2) South Dakota
(3) New Hampshire
(4) Iowa
(5) Hawaii
1.3
1.4
1.6
1.7
(6) Georgia
7.6
(7) South Carolina 7.2
(8) California
6.8
(6) Idaho
(7) North Dakota
(8) Oregon
1.8
1.9
1.9
(9) Tennessee
6.8
(9) Massachusetts
2.2
(10) Alabama
6.6
(10) Rhode Island
2.3
Source: FBI Uniform Crime Reports
Cohen, Nisbett, Bowdle, & Schwarz
(1996)
Antecedents of Aggression
Mere presence of guns
Berkowitz and LePage (1967)
control
Mean
number of
shocks
Gun present
6.07
4.67
2.07
2.67
No prior insult
Prior insult
Hormones
TESTOSTERONE
Less
aggressive
more
aggressive
Evidence for the testosterone (T)—
aggression link
Injections (in animals)
 violent vs. non-violent
prisoners
 Fraternity studies
 Side note on gay men

– Old “cure” to make them
straight: inject T
Gender: A closer look

male body naturally produces much higher
baseline level of T.
 suggests biological difference
 Some scary statistics
 Qualifications on gender effect:
– Expression: overt vs. covert
– Interpretation of ambiguous events
– When explicitly/unambiguously provoked: gender
differences smaller
alcohol
Does not make people more aggressive per
se
 Rather: disinhibitor

– Also explains link to sexual misconduct

Also: narrows attention
“media” effects: general
considerations




Correlational vs.
experimental studies
“One-shot” vs. longterm experimental
studies
Children vs. adults
Be careful about
availability heuristic
– E.g. assassination
attempt on President
Ronald Reagan
some representative
experimental studies-children

“One shot” experimental paradigms
– Often show moderator effects

Effect of media violence greater for participants already prone
to aggression
– Liebert and Baron, 1972
– Josephson (1987)

Longer-term paradigms
– Research by J. Philippe Leyens
– Here, moderator effects LESS likely—
– Dosage of violence seems to affect everyone
adults

Interesting enough, most of the data here
are correlational
 Usual cautions about causation
– Johnson, 2002
– David Philips (1983, 1986) —boxing studies
If exposure to violence does cause
aggression, WHY would this happen?

Weakens inhibitions
 Information
 (Re) Labelling of emotion/mood
 Habituation
 World viewed as dangerous place
Sex, violence, and advertising

Bushman and Bonacci (2002)
 TV shows: either neutral, violent, or sexual
– During each of these three shows, participants
were exposed to the identical nine ads

Recall for brands advertised much worse for
violent and sexual shows compared to
neutral
Rape and pornography
 The
problem of “date rape”
 Scripts of “no”
Does mere exposure to pornography
increase aggression toward women?

Complicating factor: Type of material
Sexual content
H
Violence H
(toward
woman)
L
L
Representative study

Donnerstein & Berkowitz (1981)
– Prior provocation by female confederate
– 3 films



Aggressive/erotic (violent pornography)
Purely erotic
Non-erotic violence against women
– DV: Intense shocks only delivered in aggressive-erotic
condition
– Other research shows that such films increase
aggression only when the target is female.
Summary of literature (meta analysis
of 30 studies; Allen et al,. 1995):

Most clear, replicable effect: violent
pornography has robust effect on aggression
toward women
 Non-violent pornography has small but
measurable effect
 Interestingly: pictures of nude women not
engaged in explicit sexual activity small
trend toward reducing violence.
Reducing violent aggression
Is capital punishment a
reliable deterrent to murder?
– Your book says no.
– However, this is a matter of some debate.
 Liberals say no
 Conservatives say yes.
Does catharsis work?

Generally, no
 Three different types of studies
– Participation in violent sports
– Observing sports
– Direct aggression toward original source (Geen et
al., 1975)

SO: Venting is NOT a reliable way to reduce
anger!
Well, what does work?
Sounds corny, but it’s true: count to 10
 Expressing emotion to other person, not
“venting”
 Self awareness
 Diffusion of anger through apology
 Modeling
 Training/building empathy
