However, this study is low in ecological validity as it was researched in prison surroundings and therefore we cannot generalise to a wider community. This study shows a link between aggression and crowding but does not show whether deindividuation has occurred.
Cox's study is supported by Stokols (1976) who identified three conceptual perspectives that may explain why crowding might lead to increased aggression. These three concepts are stimulus overload, behavioural constraints and the ecological model.
When is a crowd, a person's sensor will be working more than normal with increased people to look at, increased noise etc... and this may cause the individual to reach a sensory overload and exceed their ability to cope with all that they are asked, leading to negative consequences (EG: aggressive behaviour). The second perspective is behavioural constraints. This suggest that when our behaviour is constricted for some reason (EG: in a traffic jam) we may become frustrated and this will lead to aggression. This research is supported by the 'frustration aggression hypothesis' by Dolard (1976) The third perspective is the ecological model. This states that high density will produce negative consequences as crowds will cause a lack of resources for the crowd and this will lead to aggressive behaviour as we strive for the resources (EG: fighting for food). This perspective is supported by the Sociobiological theory which states that every animal must try to maximise its fitness, even if this involves being aggressive for food or resources. This theory is hard to prove or disprove as there have been no studies into this theory and therefore it is personal opinion as to whether this theory is correct or not.
Another explanation of aggressive behaviour and environmental factors is temperature. Temperature states that when at times of high temperature, violence increases also. People may become frustrate by the hot weather and this leads to aggressive behaviour. This is again supported by Dolards 'frustration aggression hypothesis'. More supporting evidence is found by the 'US riot commision report' of 1968 which found that all but one riots in 1967 happened when temperature was above 27 OC. Goranson and King (1970) also showed that riots were more likely to occur in hot summers. Baron (1976) found that drivers were more likely to use the horns in their cars in temperature exceeding 29 0C (excluding air-conditioned cars). Anderson & Anderson (1984) found that the giher the temperature, the higher the amount of rapes and violent crimes.
These studies are all valid to a certain extent as they are all naturalistic experiments and therefore demand characteristic are not a factor in the findings. However, these studies are mostly correlational, as they do not state a link between cause and effect. Confounding variables also play a big part in these studies. These studies were mostly carried out in southern North America where the temperature is always hot and therefore only extremely warm temperatures would be seen as abnormal. This evidence is both supported and challenged by Baron & Rosenberger who showed that the relationship between temperature and aggressive behaviour is a curvilinear one. This means that as temperature increases, so does aggressive behaviour. However, once the temperature reaches a certain high, then it becomes too warm to be aggressive as the body is concerning itself with keeping cool and effectively it is too warm to be aggressive. This is supported by the negative effect escape model which explains the curvilinear relationship between temperature and aggression. Showing that once the temperature is at a certain point the individual become preoccupied with keeping cool that aggressive behaviour is not an option.
The third perspective into aggressive behaviour and environmental factors is Noise. When noise is uncomfortably loud of at high pitch, people will become more aggressive than if there was no noise present. Geen & O'Neil (1969) found that high intensity noise increased aggression only in already aggressive people (who has just previously watched a violent film) Non-aggressive people did not become aggressive by the noise.
The key study into noise and aggression is by Donnerstein & Wilson (1976). They asked male participants to write a short essay which was then evaluated by a confederate, who marked them in a favourably (non-angered condition) or critically (angered condition). The participants were then asked to administer electric shocks to the confederates who had marked their essay. They were also exposed to bursts of high-density noise. Participants in the angered condition were much more likely to give more and longer shocks if they heard the noise than those who did not. Participants in the non-angered condition were unaffected by the noise.
This study provides some, but not many explanations into noise and aggression. It does not explain why people who were not already angered did not react in an aggressive manner to the noise. It appears to show that noise onl releases already stored anger in a person and does not create anger in itself. This research shows that there is a correlation but there is no link between cause and effect.
