Aggression

Limbic system The limbic system - set of structures deep within the brain including the hypothalamus and amgydala responsible for aggressive behaviour. evidence from fMRI scans show damage or underactivity in the preftrontal cortex leads to lack of control over limbix system meaining some ppl/animals may show sudden/unexpected aggressive responses to percieved threats in enviro. overactivity in amgydala same effect produced. Seretonin neurotransmitter assosciated w communication of impulses between neurones and has inhibitory/calming effect on the brain. lower levels of seratonin in the orbito-frontal cortex have been linked to poor self control and impulsive behaviours such as depression. aggressive behaviours may be split into impulsive (hot tempered,sudden) or non impulsive (cold calculted) Low seratonin levels seem to explain why some people lose control over their aggression, eg evidence comparing the cerebrospinal fluid of violent impulsive and violent non impulsive offenders, shows significantly lower levels of seratonin metabolite in violent impulsive offenders. also reported more difficulties sleeping compared to non impulsive group, their nervous sytem was in a excited state was suggested Hormonal. increases dominant seeking behaviour. motivation for dominance and envy reliable observation that men more aggressive than women - testosterone thought to be linked to displays of aggression. evidence shows that prevalence of aggressive behaviours tend to correlate w fluctuating testosterone levels and males show more aggressive behaviours in majority of animal species aswell. amygdala reduces inhibitory control from prefontal cortex, enhances rewarding nature of aggression

testosterone only triggers aggression and dominance when cortisol levels are low aggression driven by testesterone and control

Charles Whitman The is supporting evidence from case studies for the neural explanation for aggression from case studies such as Charles whitman. Charles whitman committed a mass shooting at the University of Texas tower. Charles whitmans autopsy showed he had a tumour near his amygdala. The amygdala has been linked to aggression and emotional regulation, which shows the reason behind his aggressive behaviour. However case study. Reductionist One criticism of neural explanations of offending behaviour is that they can be considered reductionist. For example, where researchers look at the way a neurotransmitter or brain region might contribute to offending behaviour, they are overlooking other important factors, such as how the environment might have an impact on these areas as well. That being said, such researchers will argue that to be reductionist allows a more straightforward investigation to be conducted as it would be nearly impossible to disentangle all of the possible explanations and their interactions and investigate them scientifically.This is important to consider as while reducing complex behaviour to its simplest form does require researchers to overlook key factors, it is also essential for good scientific practice. Supporting evidence There is supporting evidence showing that drugs that increase serotonin activity also reduce levels of aggressive behaviour. Berman split participants into two conditions where ps were given either a placebo or a dose of paroxetine (a drug which enhances serotonin activity). Participants then took part in a lab-based game where they gave and received electric shocks in response to provocation. The placebo group gave more intense shocks than the group given paroxetine because the paroxetine group had experienced an increase in their serotonin levels. This was only true of participants who had a prior history of aggressive behaviour. This study therefore demonstrates the link between serotonin levels and aggression. (low serotonin can lead to aggression and increasing serotonin can lower aggression).

One issue with viewing aggressive behaviour as being caused by hormonal imbalances such as testesterone is that its deterministic. This is because it suggests peoples actions are controlled by their hormones, which they have no free will or individual control over. Viewing the cause of behaviour in this way is controversial bc it leads to the view that some people who display aggressive criminal behaviour arent responsible for their crime and therefore shouldnt be punished. This was seen in Sandie Craddocks case, a woman who stabbed her coworker 3 times in the heart, had her murder charge downgraded to manslaughter on the grounds of premenstrual synfrome(pms) diminised responsibility. issue as difficult to porve a persons aggressioms completely dtermined by their hormones- socially sensitive debate. here is supporting evidence showing the role of testosterone in aggression from animal studies. Giammanco et al (2005) showed experimental increases in testosterone are related to aggression. Conversely, castration studies leading to a decrease in testosterone and therefore a reduction in aggressive behaviour. This is a strength because it shows a direct link between the hormone testosterone and aggression in animals. Evidence to support the role of testosterone in human aggression comes from Dabbs et al. They measured testosterone in the saliva of criminals and found those with the highest levels had a history of primarily violent crimes, whereas those with the lowest levels had committed only non-violent crimes. This suggests that testosterone levels may have caused this difference in aggression.

Twin studies have compared the aggression levels of MZ and DZ twins, for example by looking at people with a history of violent and criminal behaviour, and comparing them with their twin. The higher the concordance rate for aggressive behaviour between the twins, the higher the likelihood that their behaviour was biologically determined, for example through genes. Because MZ twins share 100% of the same genes, and DZ twins share 50% of the same genes, we would expect that if aggression is genetic, then there would be a higher concordance rate for aggression between MZ twins. Coccaro et al (1997) found in male participants with a history of physical assault, there was 50% concordance for MZ twins and 19% for DZ, corresponding with their shared genetic profile. Adoption studies such as Rutter et al, compare the aggressive behaviour of adoptees to that of their biological parents (nature) and their adoptive parents (nurture). Research has suggested that criminality and aggression does have some inherited factors, as the ps’ aggressive history was more similar to their estranged biological parents (inherited factors could explain around 41% variance) compared to the adoptive parents who brought them up. MAOA Gene MAOA is an enzyme which breaks down neurotransmitters such as serotonin, dopamine and noradrenaline. Some people develop an underactive MAOA gene (aka ‘The Warrior Gene’) which only produce low levels of the MAOA enzyme which in turn means there are higher levels of the neurotransmitters in these people’s brains. MAOA-L (low variant) has been associated with high levels of aggressive behaviour, hence showing the inherited behaviour as warrior

nature nurtuse reductionist Reductionist. can break dwon all human complex behaviour into a single gene There is supporting evidence showing genetic factors in human aggression. Brunner et al studied 28 members of a Dutch family who all had a history of impulsively violent and aggressive behaviour, including physical assaults, rape, and attempted murder. Findings showed that all these men had the ‘warrior gene’ (MAOA-L) which had led to low levels of the MAOA variant in their brains and thus high levels of serotonin and noradrenaline. This is a strength because this research could potentially help identify individuals at risk of becoming violent if it is possible to detect this genetic variation early on. Some research has identified low MAOA is linked to aggression but only in individuals who have experienced early trauma. Frazzetto et al (2007) found an association between antisocial aggression and Low MAOA gene variant in adult males but only in those who experienced significant trauma (e.g. sexual or physical abuse) during the first 15 year of life. Those who had not experienced trauma were not especially aggressive as adults even if they possessed the low-activity gene variant. These findings suggest that a genetic explanation alone cannot fully account for aggression and therefore a diathesis stress explanation may be more appropriate. Furthermore, twin studies e.g. Coccaro et al (1997) found concordance rates for direct physical aggression in MZ twins is 50% and DZ twins is 19%. This shows that genes alone cannot fully explain aggressive behaviour.

adaptive functions of aggression looks at aggression as as an adaptive response which is beneficial for surivival. When two members of the same species fight, they rarely kill their opponent but instead defeat them, and the victor gains territory, resources and mates. Aggression also serves a purpose of establishing social hierarchies within a group of animals. The most dominant male will exert power over the others in the social group, gaining special status such as being given the first opportunity to feed after a hunt, or having mating rights over the females. This can be seen in many animal species, including chimpanzees and lions. Ritualistic Aggression A ritual involves carrying out certain behaviours in a specific set order. This can be seen in animal aggression, for example through certain ritualistic displays of aggression which occur before a physical fight. These techniques are used to scare off the opponent before it reaches the point of physical aggression; e.g. bearing teeth or claws, growling, roaring, and showing threatening body posture. Lorenz also identified ritualistic behaviours of a defeated animal, for example, cowering or whimpering. Chimps who lose a fight offer a subordinate hand display and lower their head to the victor. It is very rare that the victor would actually kill their opponent as this would affect their own genetic blood line, therefore these rituals work to clearly display the winner of the fight. Innate Releasing Mechanisms and Fixed Action Patterns Innate Releasing Mechanisms (IRMs) are built-in physiological processes or structures, for example particular circuits in the brain, which are triggered by environmental stimuli. Once triggered, IRMs activate a certain sequence of behaviours which an animal is compelled to carry out; Fixed Action Patterns (FAPs). adaptive sequence of ritual behaviours Lea (1984) identified the main features of FAPs: Ballistic – an inevitable course which must be completed Response to a specific stimulus that is viewed as a physical threat. Universal to the species Stereotypical, unchanging sequences of behaviour Hasn’t been learnt

environmental stimuli -> triggers IRM (inbuild procedures eg brain circuits -> triggers FAP sequence of behaviour

Brunner et al Strength is that theres supporting research to show aggression has innate basis. brunner et al studied 28 fam members who all had past history of extremly violent behvaiours such as rape and physcial assault, they all found to have the maoa-l variant gene.This is further supported by the existence of IRMs for aggression in the brain where activity in the limbic system has been shown to trigger aggressive behaviour. Therefore as the ethological explanation argues that aggression is genetically determined and hereditable, its validity is supported by evidence that there is a genetic and physiological basis for aggression criticsm; Is that aggressive behaviour is more common in some cultures than in others. For example Nisbett found that there was a north-south divide in the US for homicidal rates with more killing in the southern states Nisbett concluded this was as a result of a culture of honor where response to social aggression was a learned social norm. Its difficult for the ethological theory to explain how culture can override innate influences Other causes of aggression; Social learning theory and Bobo doll experiment; behaviour was learnt not innate; not an advantage as trivial use; reductionist.

Evolutionary psychologists argue that aggression is adaptive (good for survival) as it would have been effective for solving a number of survival and reproductive issues among early humans. For eg, acquiring and defending resources, intimidating or eliminating male rivals for females, and deterring mates from sexual infidelity. Solving these problems enhanced the survival and reproductive success of the individual and therefore these behaviours would have spread through the gene pool, becoming common amongst all humans (particularly males). Sexual Competition: Ancestral males seeking access to females would have had to compete with other males (intra-sexual selection). One way of eliminating this competition would have been through aggression. The successful individual would have increased their social status and been more successful in acquiring and protecting their mates from competing males and so would be more successful in passing on their genes to the offspring. This would then have led to the development of a genetically transmitted tendency for males to be more aggressive to other males. Sexual Jealousy: Male aggression may also occur as a result of sexual jealousy, which arises as a result of paternal uncertainty (Archer, 2013). Unlike women, men can never be entirely certain that they are the fathers of their children. Therefore men are always at risk of ‘cuckoldry’ (when a man is deceived into raising and investing in offspring that are not his, thus aiding the survival of genes that are not his). Wilson and Daly (1996) identified several mate retention strategies used by males including: Direct Guarding – Vigilance over their partner, keeping tabs on them to ensure they are not seeing other men. E.g. controlling where their partner goes, who they are allowed to spend time with, checking their messages. Negative Inducements – Threatening their partners if they act in a way which he doesn’t want them to. E.g. saying they’ll hurt themselves if the partner tries to leave them.

There is supporting evidence aggression may be motivated by a response to the threat of sexual jealousy and/or sexual competition. Shackelford et al (2005) aimed to investigate intimate partner violence (IPV) in heterosexual couples. 107 married couples who had been married for less than one year completed questionnaires about their relationship. Men completed the ‘Mate Retention Inventory’ where they rated how likely they were to use different mate retention techniques (e.g. Direct Guarding). Women completed the ‘Spouse Influence Report’ where they rated the extent of their partner’s violence in the relationship. They found a strong positive correlation between the men’s reports of their mate retention techniques and the women’s reports of their partner’s aggressive behaviour. This is a strength because it supports predictions from the explanation about aggression being caused by the threat of infidlity, cuckoldry and that aggression can have an adaptive value. In addition, further support for evolutionary explanations of aggression comes from crime data. For example, male sexual jealousy is claimed to be the single most common motivation for killings in domestic disputes in the US (Daly et al, 1982) and sexual jealousy is reported to account for 17% of cases of murder in the UK. This seems to show that there is a large body of evidence from controlled research and criminal statistics that support the link between sexual infidelity in males, jealousy and increased aggression. Cultural differences; the Kung San tribe of Kalahari Desert have little violence as is frowned upon; evolutionary theory expects they’d act the same due to adaptive advantages being passed down;

Frustration Aggression Hypothesis DOLLARD AND MILLAR stated frustration always results in aggression and aggressions always caused by frustration. aggression usually occurs in an outburst after a person feels that their actions or goals are being blocked by some obstacle. Catharsis is about relieving feelings of frustration; aggression makes a person feel better when they have an opportunity to vent or ‘let off steam’.   focus of aggression is not always the cause of frustration – aggression can be displaced .  likelihood of aggression depends on proximity to goal and the chance aggression will enable the goal to be achieved .aggression becomes the dominant/most likely response if it has been rewarded in the past 2. Indirect Expression Often the person cannot express their true feelings of anger directly at the obstacle causing the frustration. For instance, it may be a person in higher power than them (e.g. a boss, a teacher) or it could be anger at a situational factor (e.g. the weather, the economy). People therefore use the defence mechanism, displacement, to direct their anger at someone, or something else. Aggression can be expressed physically (e.g. punching a wall), verbally (e.g. screaming into a pillow), or through a fantasy (e.g. acting out with a friend what you want to say to your boss). Environmental Cues BERKOWITZ (1989) suggested that frustration does not make us instantly aggressive, but may create a ‘readiness’ for aggression. When people feel frustrated this heightens their emotional state meaning they are more likely to act on impulse if prompted by an environmental cue. For example, someone is more likely to snap at an annoying friend if they are having ‘a bad day’ but they might not have shown aggression if they hadn’t seen the friend. This shows that aggressive behaviour from internal anger can be triggered by external factors.

Support: * Research support; Marcus-Newhall et al (2000) meta-analysis of 49 studies; concluded it was a reliable phenomenon as pps provoked but unable to retaliate their frustration were significantly more likely to do so against an innocent person; same outcome as predicted; high internal validity. Contradictory findings Bushman (2002) found participants who vented anger by repeatedly hitting a punch bag became more aggressive rather than less aggressive. He concluded that venting to reduce anger is like using petrol to put out a fire. This is a weakness of the Frustration-Aggression Hypothesis as it criticises the validity. It could be that exposing someone to aggression increases their likelihood of future aggressive behaviours. Weapons effect can be applied to real life; gun control is a big debate in places such as USA and as Berkowitz research suggests open presence of weapons can trigger aggression; research application useful as it can be used for the gun control debate

Direct and Indirect Learning Bandura originated the Social Learning Theory (SLT) building on the behavioural approach to acknowledge that aggression may be learnt directly or indirectly. SLT suggests that direct learning of aggression happens through operant conditioning, for example, a child who angrily snatches a toy from their sibling and receives no reprimand or punishment for their behaviour will learn that aggression leads to rewards. Additionally, we can learn aggression indirectly (vicariously); if the child’s friend watched this aggressive behaviour, they might be motivated to imitate, believing they too will not be punished. Children observe the behaviours of their role models and are motivated to imitate these behaviours, particularly if it seems to lead to positive consequences. Therefore, SLT would suggest that if a child witnesses aggressive behaviours from role models (e.g. parents, peers, media) they are more likely to act aggressively than a child who has not observed aggression, or one who has seen people being punished for aggression. 2. Cognitive Control Bandura also acknowledged that people do not passively imitate aggression and have some cognitive control over their actions, so he focused on the following mediational processes involved in social learning. Attention - focus directly on behaviour - paying attention to aggressive acts retentions - can u accurately remember it reproduction - do u have ability to carry it out motivation - do u have desire to act on it aggression learned as a result of observation, imitation, modelling, identification; vicarious reinforcement; mediating cognitive factors affect likelihood of behaviour being reproduced, e.g. attention

There is supporting evidence showing the role of social learning in aggression. Bandura et al (1961) found Children who had observed the aggressive behaviours of an adult model in a video, imitated almost identically (same actions, same language, etc) what they had seen and acted aggressively towards the Bobo Doll. A control group who had not watched the aggressive role models, did not act aggressively. A replication of Bandura’s research showed the adult being rewarded or punished for their aggressive behaviour. Children who observed an adult being rewarded were four times more likely to be aggressive than those who saw the model being punished. These findings demonstrate support for several key aspects of SLT including the role of vicarious reinforcement in the learning of aggressive behaviour. not representative of real life aggressin soft deterministic

• Factors Leading to Deindividuation Deindividuation is a term coined by LeBon (1895) to explain why some people lose their sense of personal responsibility, for example when in a crowd, in a uniform or disguise. If the individual feels anonymous, they feel less responsible for their actions and are more likely to go along with the group behaviour, which often includes acting aggressively towards rival groups. This is commonly known as ‘mob mentality’ where people stop thinking like they normally would as an individually and instead act aggressively as part of the faceless crowd. • Self-Awareness Prentice-Dunn and Rogers (1982) explained the link between aggression and deindividuation in terms of two types of self-awareness: Private Self-Awareness: This regards paying attention to our own thoughts, feelings, and behaviour, something we monitor when we are acting on our own. This is restricted when in a crowd as our attention is focused outwardly rather than inwardly, meaning we are more perceptive of environmental factors such as the mood of the crowd, and absorb that energy, including aggression. Self-Awareness: This concerns how much we care about other people’s judgement and opinion of our behaviour, and this is also reduced in crowds. We believe that others would be less likely to identify us for our actions, and so the consequences seem less likely, meaning we are more likely to behave aggressively and not feel accountable for it.

There is supporting evidence showing the deindividuation in aggression. Zimbardo’s ‘Stanford Prison Experiment’ demonstrated that when people lose their sense of identity, they become disinhibited; stop monitoring and regulating their behaviour, forget about potential consequences for their actions and act impulsively and emotionally. This can ultimately lead people to carry out violent and aggressive acts that they never would have thought themselves capable of. Deindividuation has real-life application to everyday modern aggression. Douglas and McGarty (2001) looked at aggression online, in chatrooms and instant messaging. They found a strong correlation between anonymity (i.e. fake profiles, decrypted usernames) and sending threatening messages to other users. This shows that people are more likely to act aggressively online (e.g. Troll) when they feel anonymous. This is exactly what the theory predicts i.e. people do not self-monitor when part of a group in chatrooms and therefore can be more aggressive because they take on the mood of the group and do not feel personally identifiable. Research has demonstrated that de-individuation can lead to pro-social rather than anti-social behaviour like aggression: : Johnson and Downing (1979) found, in a replication of Zimbardo’s electric shock study, that participants shocked more than a control group when dressed like the Ku Klux Klan, but actually shocked less than controls when dressed in nurses uniforms. This suggests that aggressive behaviour is dependent upon the norms associated with the uniform as opposed to the uniforms themselves.

Dispositional explanations for aggression focus on the personality factors that the people have before they enter prison and how this might prime them for aggression inside the institution. The Importation Model was devised by Irwin and Cressey (1962) who believed there are certain factors that criminals ‘import’ into prison that lead to aggression such as; beliefs, values, norms, attitudes, as well as personal characteristics such as gender, race, and class. Statistically, most aggressive inmates tend to be young ethnic minority males from lower class backgrounds; this could be due to a variety of reasons (e.g. biological – testosterone, evolutionary – exerting power and status, social learning – imitation of personal experiences). There is also higher aggression levels shown by prisoners who had issues such as addictions, or were members of gangs before being arrested. These groups’ aggression levels within the prison environment mirror their behaviour before they entered the prison, and often a history of impulsive aggression and violence is the reason they were sent to prison in the first place.

Evidence to support the dispositional explanation comes from Poole and Regoli. They found that the best indicator of violence amongst juvenile offenders was their level of pre-institutional violence, regardless of any situational factors (or ‘deprivations’) in the institution. This suggests the importation model may be a stronger explanation of institutional aggression than the deprivation model. ignores situational which may have greater affect Fischer (2001) found that isolating known gang members in a special management unit reduced the rates of serious assault by 50%. his suggests research into the importation model can help to reduce prison violence.

Situational explanations for aggression focus on the prison environment itself and how the harsh conditions cause stress and strain for the prisoners, leading them to retaliate by acting aggressively. The Deprivation Model was devised by Clemmer (1958) who identified a number of deprivations experienced by prisoners which correlated with aggression; Freedom, Independence, Material Goods, Safety and Intimacy. When a person has their regular routine and luxuries taken away, this leads to a loss of social norms (anomie) so they adopt behaviours of others rather than acting like they normally would, leading to some deindividuation and in turn aggression. Prisons that are overcrowded and regularly use punishments such as ‘lock-ups’ or taking away luxuries such as ‘TV time’ are more likely to experience prisoners acting aggressively. Deprivation of material goods and services can also lead to frustration and competition, so aggression becomes a means of solving this problem. libity autonomy goods and services heterosexual relationships safety

There is supporting evidence showing characteristics of the prison itself is linked to aggression. Steiner (2009) conducted a meta-analysis on factors predicting aggression using data from 512 US prisons. Aggression was more common in prisons with particular characteristics, for example; high proportions of female staff, high proportions of African-American and Hispanic inmates, and high proportions of inmates in protective custody for their own safety. The higher the percentage of these characteristics, the more aggression. These findings are a strength of the situational explanation of aggression because they suggest it is possible to predict aggression when certain characteristics are present. However it is not possible to separate out which of the situational factors are a more important predictor of subsequent aggression . ignores dispositional expl of aggresion; importation model. strength - zimbardo prison exp

Experimental Studies: Conducted in a lab, short term effects of media on aggression Bartholow and Anderson (2002) Procedures: Student volunteers were randomly allocated to one of two conditions; they either played a violent game ‘Mortal Kombat’ or a non-violent game ‘PGA Tournament Golf’ for ten minutes then carries out a standard task that measures aggression (delivering blasts of white noise at chosen volumes to an opponent). Findings and conclusions: Those who played the violent game gave significantly louder blasts of noise to their opponent (mean of 6.0 compared to 4.6 decibels). It was concluded that violent computer games can cause an immediate increase in aggressive behaviour. Correlational Studies: Relationships between real life variables in media and aggression DeLisi et al (2013) Procedures: Used structured interviews to study 227 juvenile offenders with histories of serious aggression such as hitting a teacher, parent, or gang fighting. Findings and conclusions: The offenders’ aggressive behaviour was significantly correlated with how often they played violent computer games, and how much they enjoyed them. It was concluded that computer game violence is a serious risk factor for aggression. Meta-Analysis Greitemeyer and Mugge (2014) performed a meta-analysis of 98 studies and found that violent video game use was linked to an increase in aggression whilst exposure to prosocial games was linked to an increase in prosocial behaviour. It was concluded that a range of evidence supports the link between violent computer games and aggression.

One strength of the laboratory experiment research is that it had a high degree of control over variables. This means the research is conducted in the controlled setting of a laboratory which allows extraneous variables to be controlled. For example, the type of violent game played and for how long. This is a strength as the research has high internal validity. It is therefore it is more likely we can make a cause and effect conclusion i.e. to say that it is the playing of an aggressive computer game that has led to the aggressive behaviour. However, a major weakness of these laboratory experiments is that researchers have not measured ‘real-life’ aggression. This means that ethical issues have restricted researchers to alternative measures of aggression. For example, administering ‘noise blasts’ has been used in place of real aggression which is very different, not least because it does not involve any fear of retaliation. This is a problem as the research may not represent real-life aggression. Point: Additionally, it is argued research has overstated the effects of the media: This means, although many results have been significant, they typically report only small-medium effect sizes. Furthermore, when focusing on the small of number of studies that measure aggression towards another person (as opposed to alternative measures), the influence of the media on aggression is actually close to zero. This suggests the influence of the media on aggression many be much smaller than is often thought.

A01 Knowledge: Desensitisation Physiological responses to aggression are based on the fight or flight response; when someone witnesses violent actions, their sympathetic nervous system is activated, raising heart rate and blood pressure ready to respond to the threat. However, the more often people are exposed to aggression, the less sensitively their nervous system reacts to it, meaning the more they play violent computer games, or watch violent media, the less of a physiological arousal they show. This in turn suggests that people, particularly children, who have large exposure to violent media show less emotion in response to aggression in real life. A03 Evaluation of Desensitisation Support for the role of desensitisation comes from Krahé They found that participants who reported regularly viewed violent media (including violent films and computer games) showed lower levels of arousal (e.g. sweating) when shown violent film clips than non-regular viewers. Lower arousal was correlated with unprovoked aggression in a ‘noise blast’ task. This supports the view that regular exposure to media aggression does serve to ‘desensitise’ the viewer, but also that this desensitisation is linked to higher levels of unprovoked aggression. However, this research has been criticised for not measuring real-life aggression. This is because, delivering blasts of white noise at chosen volumes to punish a (non-existent) opponent is very different to real aggression, not least because it does not involve any fear of retaliation. Furthermore, as aggression is only correlated with ‘desensitisation’, we cannot say desensitisation causes aggression, merely that they are linked. However, desensitisation is thought to have both positive and negative real-life consequences: On the positive side, for army troops, they can become desensitised to the horrors of combat and therefore become a more effective soldier. One practical application may therefore be to use violent media such as computer games to desensitise soldiers as part of their conflict training. On the negative side though, Bushman et al (2009) suggest that exposure to violent media and the resulting desensitisation can reduce helping behaviour which might otherwise be offered. They become ‘comfortably numb’ to the pain and suffering of others and are consequently less helpful. This suggests awareness of the role desensitisation in people’s behaviour is important in a range of situations. A01 Knowledge: Disinhibition The normal belief is that aggression is harmful and unacceptable in a society; children are taught that aggressive behaviour will receive punishments (i.e. formal or informal sanctions) directly through operant conditioning or indirectly through social learning theory. If children continue to interact with violent media, especially if they perceive that the aggression was rewarded or not punished, then their usual moral restraints become looser; they minimise the effects of violence and justify its use meaning they may act aggressively themselves in future. A03 Evaluation of Disinhibition Support for the role of disinhibition in aggression comes from Berkowitz. They found that, participants that watched a film depicting aggression as vengeance gave more (fake) electric shocks of longer duration to a confederate. This suggests that media violence may disinhibit aggressive behaviour when it is presented as vengeance, possibly because vengeance is seen as a strong justification for violence and therefore more socially acceptable. However, the chances of disinhibition occurring may depend on other factors. Heath et al (1989) found that children growing up in households with strong norms against violence are unlikely to experience sufficient disinhibition for them to exhibit aggressive behaviour, whereas the disinhibition effect is stronger in families where children experience physical punishment from their parents and where they identify with violent heroes. This suggests there may be practical applications of this research in encouraging parents to prevent their children from feeling the effects of disinhibition by establishing clear household norms and expectations around violence. A01 Knowledge: Cognitive Priming aggressive images in the media such as guns act as priming stimuli for a schema of an aggressive behaviour. exposure to these cues in a similar context can trigger the memory leading to reproduction of the aggressive or antisocial behaviour. effects can be specific such as reproduction of specific aggressive acts or more general. our life experiences help to write our schema or ‘script’ about violent situations which is stored in our memory ready to ‘play out’ when we encounter such situations in the future. For people who have had large amounts of exposure to violent media, show more of a readiness to act aggressively. They are primed for aggression which means their schema may be ‘triggered’ by cues that they perceived to be more aggressive than others. Cognitive priming refers to the priming effects of media images on previously learnt behaviours or cognitive schema, activating the memories and making aggression more likely     Violent computer games may increase the likelihood of aggression in players who have learned aggressive responses in the past and/or who hold aggressive schema A03 Evaluation of Cognitive Priming Support for the role of cognitive priming in aggression comes from Bushman They found that, when undergraduates watched a 15 minute segment of a violent film, they had faster reaction times to aggressive words than those who had watched a non-violent film. This suggests that exposure to violent media does increase the ‘accessibility of violent thoughts and ideas, as predicted by the theory. Furthermore, Anderson and Dill (2000) found that participants who played violent computer games had more cognitively accessible aggressive thoughts than did those who played non-violent computer games. They concluded that a single incident of violent game play was enough to prime aggressive thoughts. However, blaming aggression on the influence of the media may ignore the role played by biological factors. For example, it is possible that aggressive behaviour may be, at least in part, genetic. Brunner discovered a defective ‘MAOA gene’ in a Dutch family with a history of male violence. Furthermore, testosterone has been shown play an important role in determining some aggressive behaviour. This suggests media influence explanations of aggression may be limited in the amount of aggressive behaviours they can successfully explain on their own and other approaches may be needed to explain all cases of aggression.