UNIT ONE: SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGICAL THEORIES OF AGGRESSION

Social learning theory; Deindividuation; Cue Arousal; Relative Deprivation.

Explanations of institutional aggression

Explorations in Education
Page

Toy Design Rubric

Evaluators Name:_______________________________________________________________
Partner Group Names: __________________________________________________________
Name/Description of
Toy/Game/Manipulative:______________________________________________________
Intended Age Range: _________________________________________________________
Developmental Area: Check off all areas that apply to the toy.
Physical
Social
Moral
Cognitive
Emotional
Directions: Please place an x in the appropriate spaces below.
5-Outstanding

Criteria
Age-Appropriate

4-Above Average 3-Good

1-Very Poor

Toy Design
4

2-Poor

Visually
Appealing
Addresses
learning within
Developmental
area
Professionalism
of Drawing and
Design
Originality of
Design
Designed for
durability
Is safe
Fun for child to
play with
Total Points

UNIT ONE: SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGICAL THEORIES OF AGGRESSION

Page

Social learning theory; Deindividuation; Cue Arousal; Relative Deprivation.

Explanations of institutional aggression

Criteria
Communicated
toy design
efficiently
Clear
Instructions for
the toys use
present
Speech
Techniques
(ex. Volume,
rate,
enunciation, eye
contact)
Total Points

Presentation of Toy
4
3

Overall Total Points:____________

Comments:______________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________

UNIT ONE: SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGICAL THEORIES OF AGGRESSION

Social learning theory; Deindividuation; Cue Arousal; Relative Deprivation.
Explanations of institutional aggression

Page

Explorations in Education
Toy Design Project

As a way to help you apply your understanding of a childs growth and

development, I would like for you to get into partner groups and create a
visual representation of a toy, game, or manipulative for your chosen
aged child according to the following specifications:
Age Appropriate: Your toy/game must be age appropriatedo
some research and find out what this means.
Developmental Area: You must choose a developmental area
you would like to stimulate using your creative
toy/manipulative/game.
Originality: Your toy must be original and unique although it
may incorporate one other aspect of different toys that have
already been created.
Fun: Your toy should be fun so that children will want to play
with it and wont want to put it down.
Safe and Durable: Your toy/game should be designed for
durability and must meet basic safety requirements.
Visual: You will be expected to present a visual representation
of your toy/game that is professional and neat in nature. A
digital copy of whatever type of visual you create will be
collected. Your visual could take the form of a video, a drawing
from side, front, and top view, a brochure, a website, etc.
Presentation: You will be expected to explain the following
about your toy/game:
o What is it?
o Who is your target audience?
o What area(s) of development are you trying to
stimulate?
o How does it work?
o Which theorist or perspective did you use as your
foundation to design your toy/game? How did that
perspective/theory resonate through the final version of
your toy/game?
o What makes your toy so unique compared to all of the
other toys/games out there?
o What is the downside of your toy/game?

To up the ante, this will be a competition to see which toy a

specific group of people would like to buy.

UNIT ONE: SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGICAL THEORIES OF AGGRESSION

Social learning theory; Deindividuation; Cue Arousal; Relative Deprivation.
Explanations of institutional aggression

Page

You will be presenting on Monday, October 17, 2011, in your

partner groups.

UNIT ONE: SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGICAL THEORIES OF AGGRESSION

Social learning theory; Deindividuation; Cue Arousal; Relative Deprivation.
Explanations of institutional aggression

Page

Toy Design Planning Sheet

Partner 1: _______________________ Partner 2: _____________________

What is it?

Who is your target audienceage group, gender?

What area(s) of development are you trying to stimulate?

What perspective, understanding, or theory have you used to design your

toy/game?

How does it work?

What makes your toy so unique compared to all of the other toys/games
out there?

What would you charge if you were to package it and sell it?

What is the downside of your toy/game?

UNIT ONE: SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGICAL THEORIES OF AGGRESSION

Albert Bandura

Page

Social learning theory; Deindividuation; Cue Arousal; Relative Deprivation.

Explanations of institutional aggression

SOCIAL LEARNING THEORY AND

AGGRESSION

LEARNING BY IMITATION OF A ROLE MODEL

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
6

UNIT ONE: SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGICAL THEORIES OF AGGRESSION

Social learning theory; Deindividuation; Cue Arousal; Relative Deprivation.
Explanations of institutional aggression

Page

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.

SOCIAL LEARNING THEORY AND 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.
BANDURAS BOBO DOLL STUDY 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 nonaggressive 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 nonaggressive 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
7

UNIT ONE: SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGICAL THEORIES OF AGGRESSION

Page

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 childrens behaviour.

Social learning theory; Deindividuation; Cue Arousal; Relative Deprivation.

Explanations of institutional aggression

The children who witnessed the

aggressive role models 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.

SOCIAL LEARNING THEORY AND 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.
Banduras 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, Banduras 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 childrens 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. Banduras 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 firstworld 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 neuroanatomical 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 (naturenurture debate). Potentially, the discovery of
mirror neurons is a major breakthrough in
understanding of human aggression although
research is still in its early stages.

DEINDIVIDUATION
THE LOSS OF ONES SENSE OF
INDIVIDUALITY
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 Rangers 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-ortreating 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.

DEINDIVIDUATION
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 als 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
where
could
hat and

(1986) has also shown that in violent situations

people are being attacked, individuals who went to
provide help to the victim often would do so if they
mask their true identity, for example by wearing a
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 doesnt 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 individuals 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.

CUE AROUSAL
Learning Objectives- You will be able to:

Explain how cue arousal contributes to aggressive behaviour with reference to

research.

Frustration leads to anger (Dollards 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 individuals behaviour and anger may be expressed as
aggression.
RESEARCH EVIDENCE
Berkowitz and LePage (1967)
Method
Experiment
Design
Independent groups
Sample
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 partners
performance on the task and issue the shocks.
Condition one
the room.
Condition two
room.

a 12-guage shotgun and a .38 calibre revolver were in view in

a badminton racket and shuttlecocks were in view in view in the

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.

RELATIVE DEPRIVATION
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
*Notting Hill, London, 1958
*Los Angeles 1992
*Brixton, London 1981
*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

2. 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 individuals 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 persons 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
persons 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.

INSTITUTIONAL AGGRESSION
Zimbardos Stanford prison simulation (1973)
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
prisoners 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 wasnt 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 werent
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 Eshlemans 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)?

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. Zimbardos
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.
Bernards 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.
Bernards 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.

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 Baraks 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.