Social learning theory leads us to consider the various ways in which children might be exposed to aggressive models. In particular, this has meant a consideration of television as a powerful source of imitative learning. Huesman (1988) suggests that children may use television models as a source of scripts that act as a guide for their own behaviour. These scripts are then stored in memory, strengthened and elaborated through repetition and rehearsal.
The relationship between observations of aggression in the media and subsequent aggressive behaviour is complex. Manstead et al highlighted several variables that may influence this. If the observed violence is thought to be real it is more likely to elect aggression than if it was considered to be fictional violence. If the viewers identify with the aggressor in some way they are subsequently more aggressive than if they did not identify with the aggressive model. Heroes are therefore more powerful models than villains. Aggression that is identified as being motivated by a desire for revenge is more likely to elect aggression than aggressive behaviour that is instrumental in the attainment of other goals. Also if the aggressive behaviour is seen as being justified in the context in which it occurs it will elect more aggression. Finally the observation of unsuccessful aggression, in which the aggressor is punished, does not elect aggressive behaviour in the observer, but tends to inhibit it.
Social learning theory can account for the lack of consistency in people’s aggressive behaviour. If someone is assertive and domineering at home but weak and submissive at work, it means that they are reinforced differently in the two situations. They have learned to behave differently in the two situations because assertiveness brings rewards in one context but not in another. Social learning theory explanations have also lead to an increased focus on the effects of visual media on both children and adults. If violence is learned then exposure to successfully aggressive models may lead people to imitate them (Hogg and Vaughan, 1998). Aggression can, therefore, be passed across generations, as each new generation observes and imitates what it perceives to be appropriate and successful behaviours of the preceding generation. However biological explanations suggest that a higher level of the male hormone testosterone is a primary casual agent in aggressive behaviour. Also Premenstrual syndrome has been cited in criminal trials as a reason for aggressive behaviour. These together with other biological explanations cast doubt on aggression being purely a learned behaviour. The social learning theory itself relies heavily on experimental evidence and field studies in which there are some mythological flaws. For example low ecological validity, after all the Bobo doll was not a living person. Johnson et al found in a similar study that the children who acted more aggressively towards the doll were rated as their teachers and peers as being more violent in general. This would cast doubt on whether the children learned the behaviour from watching an aggressive model or whether their behaviour was due to individual differences a predisposition for violent acts.
The Deindividuation Theory is defined by Hogg and Vaughan as ‘a process whereby people loose their sense of socialised individual identity and engage in unsocialised, often antisocial behaviours’.
People normally refrain from acting in an aggressive and selfish manner in part because in society we have strong norms against such uncivilised behaviour. In certain situations such as in crowds, these restraints may become more relaxed because moral responsibility has been shifted to the group, it is then likely that we will engage in aggressive, selfish and antisocial behaviour. La Bonne believed that the more anonymous the crowd the greater was its potential for extreme action. According to Zimbardo, being part of a crowd can diminish awareness of individuality. In a large crowd, each person is faceless and anonymous. There is diminished fear of retribution and a diluted sense of guilt. Conditions that increase anonymity serve to minimise concerns about evaluation by others and thus weaken the controls based on guilt, shame or fear.
The concept of Deindividuation can be applied to the victim of aggression. Milgram (1965) found that participants were more likely to give higher levels of shocks when they could not see their victim. When the victim was in the same room, the participants were less likely to give high levels of shock to someone they could see and that could see them. This study was supported by a similar study by Zimbardo. He found that hidden by lab coats and hoods half the group gave double the shocks given by participants dressed in normal clothes. More recent developments of the concept of Deindividuation have distinguished between the effects of reduced public self-awareness (being anonymous to others) and reduced private self-awareness. A person who is self focused tends to ct according to internalised attitudes and moral standards. If the person submerges themselves within a group, they may loose this focus and become less privately self-aware. This reduction in private self –awareness is associated with increased antisocial behaviour (Prentice, Dunn & Rogers, 1989)
Although much of the early evidence for Deindividuation was supportive, the concept is not without its problems, not least, of which is the findings in some studies that Deindividuation may produce increases in pro-social behaviour, for example expressions of collective god will at religious rallies.The Deindividuation perspective argues that our submergence in a group indeterminism the influence of social norms. This is a sharp contrast to social psychological research, which has demonstrated the strong normative hold that groups have on individual members. Rather than individuals pursuing behaviour based on primitive urges and not conforming to societies norms, they might be seen as conforming to a ‘local’ group norm (Manstead et al. 1995). This norm need not necessarily be antisocial, and could thus account four some contradictory findings.
