In this essay I will evaluate and explain the Social Learning Theory (SLT), which explains aggressiveness from a behaviourism point of view. The opposite point of view is the biological point of view; they believe that aggressiveness stems from genetic ma

In this essay I will evaluate and explain the Social Learning Theory (SLT), which explains aggressiveness from a behaviourism point of view. The opposite point of view is the biological point of view; they believe that aggressiveness stems from genetic make-up.

        Together these two views can be seen as the nature and nurture debate; according to social psychologists aggression is learnt (nurture), from the view of the biological psychologists they believe aggression is innate (nature).

        Bandura and Walters’s believed that aggression is learnt through indirect and direct reinforcement; however they did not dismiss the biological views on aggression and said that the behaviourist approach looks at how and when we aggress.

        The social learning theory has many research study’s, the most popular being Bandura’s study with the bobo doll. Bandura has children observing a model who interacted with the bobo doll, either aggressively or non-aggressively. The children were then ‘frustrated’ by taken to another room filled with toys, but they were told it was an error and had to leave. The children were then left alone with the doll whilst Bandura observed their behaviour. Bandura found that children who had observed the aggressive model would be aggressive towards the doll, and the children who watched the non-aggressive model either played with the doll in a non-aggressive manner or left it alone.

Bandura’s furthered the study by rewarding the model for bad behaviour; he found that children will copy behaviour when rewarded, this is known as vicarious reinforcement, thus making the children repeat the behaviour due to the rewards they obtain, however if the imitation is not reinforced, the behaviour is less likely to repeated in the future. If a child is rewarded for behaviour throughout their lives i.e. a child who bullies other children successfully will lead the bully to put value on aggression this is called maintenance through direct experience.

        On of the criticism of Bandura’s study is that it is not associated with adults and can only be applied to children, however Phillips who looked at homicide rates after a major boxing match in the USA, found and increase in homicides. This could be a type of imitation. As boxing is seen as a mainly male sport it can only be generalised to American Males, also due to the study being a correlation we can’t determine cause and affect.

        One of the strengths of SLT is that it can explain aggression in absence of direct reinforcement and can also explain individual differences and context dependant learning.

        It is possible to assume in Bandura’s study, the children were aware what was expected of them, (demand characteristics). Noble, reports that one child arriving at the experiment said to his mother “look Mummy, there’s the doll we have to hit”. Bandura’s study also looks at a doll rather than a person (who would tend to hit back). However Bandura responded to this criticism by conducting another experiment where women hit a toy clown whilst children observed, the children were then let into a room with a real clown, they proceeded to hit him and punch him. Due to the clown not being aggressive back towards the children, this can also be seen as criticism.

        The SLT can be applied to explain cultural difference within aggression, however within the practices of the !Kung San or the Kalahari desert, aggression is completely rare, this is due to the way the children are brought up, the parents separate the children who are aggressive towards one another, neither punish or reward them for the behaviour the children use, nor do they use physical abuse towards the children thus making direct reinforcement and aggressive models absent within their upbringing.

        Due to the theory being part of the nature/nurture debate it is viewed as highly deterministic. However this deterministic interpretation is mistaken; evolutionary psychologists, for example, suggest that genes predispose us to behave in certain ways, but this does not dictate what individuals choose to do. Other factors also determine behaviour, such as culture we live in, and ultimately our personal experiences and decisions. The SLT can only be seen as an aspect as why people behave aggressively and we cannot dismiss other explanations.

Outline and evaluate explanations of institutional aggression. (25 marks)

Instituational aggression is aggressive behaviour displayed within an institutional situation such as a school or prison. Most research into institutional aggression has been conducted in prisons.

One explanation of institutionalised aggression is the importation model- dispsotional factors. This model suggests that prisoners bring (import) their own social histories and traits with them to the prison environment and these influence their subsequent behavious (Irwin and Cressey, 1962). Most of the aggressive behaviour studied in the prisson situation is not specific to that situation- the same behaviour was carried out in wider society by the same individuals. Such people bring with them into a prison a "ready-made" way of behaving which they just use in their new institutional setting (Cheeseman, 2003).

Irwin and Cressey realised the importance of different prisoner subcultures and identified three. Firstly; the criminal or theif subculture, the prisoner follow the norms and values that are present in the professional thief or criminal "careers", such as not betraying one another and being trustworthy. Secondly; the convict subculture, the subject has been raised in the prison system. they seek positions of power and influence and are therefore most likley to turn to aggression or another maladaptive form of coping. and the conventional or straight subculture tend to be one-time offenders and were not part of a criminal or theif subculture before entering prison. They reject the other two subcultures and identify more with the prison staff. this group is leats likley to be aggressive.