1.0 Introduction
The definition of “aggression” keeps evolving in the past few decades. Bandra (1973) first defines that aggression is a behavior that results in personal injury or property destruction. However, the definition is rather vague and inaccurate. Researchers cannot make a clear distinction between aggression and violence. According to the most updated definition, aggression refers to a behavior that involves threat or action which potentially or actually cause pain, withdrawal, or loss of properties(Anderson&Bushman, 2002). Violence, on the other hand, is physically or psychologically harmful human aggression that involves the use of force. In other words, all violence is aggression but the other way round is not true. In the past five thousand years of recorded human history, there have been over 14,000 wars. Aggression is often the dominating factor that leads to these disastrous outcomes（Péguy &de La Noue, 2002). In short, aggression is an important social and psychological problem. Studying the causes of aggression can help researchers and sociological scientists propose viable solutions to reduce aggression in society. In this short secondary research, Bandra’s Social Learning Theory (SLT) and Zimbardo’s Deindividualization theory of aggression will be employed to provide a systematic and scientific explanation of aggression. Besides, the strength and weakness of each theory will also be discussed and evaluated in details.
2.0 Social Learning Theory of Aggression
First, the Social Learning Theory of Aggression suggests that human beings may learn aggressive behaviors via observing others or role models. Social Learning is a learning process through observing, imitating and modelling another person or role model. According to Bandra (1973), there are mainly four processes involved in the social learning, including attention, retention, reproduction and motivation. Using the four processes, Bandura (1973) manages to explain why a young girl may imitate her mother putting on make-up.
The strength of this theory is that it is supported by the Operant Conditioning Theory that behavior is taught by direct reinforcement(Staddon&Cerutti, 2003). Children, for instance, often observe and learn through vicarious learning. In other words, children’s behaviors will be influenced by observing the consequences of another person’s behavior. By witnessing the examples of aggressive examples at school, home, television or newspapers, children will decide whether they copy it or not. Besides, the explanation provided by social learning theory can also be supported by reciprocal determinism(Bandura, 1978). It means that in the process of interaction between human beings and environment, the learning process per se can shape human’s behaviors unintentionally.
Bandura(1965) conducts a research to apply the social learning theory in explaining children’s aggressive behaviors. 36 boys and 36 girls are invited to watch a short film in which the model behaves very aggressively. The invited participants are divided into three groups. The vicarious consequences of the model are model-rewarded, model-punished and no-consequence. Children are then put in a room of toys and given 10 minutes to deal with the toys. The results show that children in the model-punished group exhibit less aggressive behaviors. Then, the participants are all invited to stay in a room for 20 minutes to play with toys. Before they could play with the toys, a model comes in and sets up some toys normally in front of the non-aggressive group. But the model is very aggressive to the dolls in front of the other aggressive groups. After finishing the experiment, the researchers discover that 70% of the children from non-aggressive group has an aggressive rating of zero. Therefore, they make the conclusion that children’s aggressive behaviors are influenced by observing or modeling others.
However, some researchers point out that the research is not a study of aggression but rather depicts how children are motivated to please adults or desire to become adults after following in the instructions of the video. In other words, to hit the bobo doll is a behavior to imitate adults instead of being influenced by adult’s aggressive behaviors As such, the validity of the research may be compromised.
3.0 Deindividualization Theory of Aggression
Deindividualiazation theory can also provide a viable explanation to aggression. The theory is constructed upon the “classic crowd”. it is an idea that when people are putting into a big crowd, their behaviors and decision-making process will soon be influenced. In other words, they may behavior differently from how they normally would. Deindivdidualization is a state when a person is less concerned about others(Diener, 1977). Anonymity, suggestibility and contagion can jointly give an individual a collective mind such that aggressive behaviors could be excused.
The Deindividualization theory has been supported by many previous researchers and studies. Diener (1980) points out that deindividualization often occurs when self-awareness is blocked by environmental events. The deindividuated individual is trapped in the moment when the perception of time is distorted. It is thus unlikely for them to ethical judgement or rational decision. It thus leads to aggressive behaviors. Diener (1980) also explains that aggressive behaviors are triggered by critical factors such as increased arousal, strong group feeling, sense of anonymity, etc. The critical factors make individuals reduce their self-awareness and then leads to deindividualization. As a result, aggressive behaviors can be developed in the whole process.
Haney,Banks and Zimbardo (1973) conduct the famous Standford experiment to illustrate how aggressive behaviors can be developed through deindividualization. He first simulates a prison of 24 male participants. Half are assigned to be guards whereas the other half are prisoners. The guards are allowed to wear police uniforms, reflective glasses and carry hand cuffs. On the contrary, prisoners can only wear prisoner clothes and be named by number. Throughout the experiment, the guards create a brutal atmosphere. They become aggressive both verbally and physically. Prisoners on the other hand become obedient and submissive. Both participants clearly show classic signs of deindividualization.
However, one potential weakness is that the experiment has gender biases. Zimbardo assumes that men can be more influenced than women in developing aggressive behaviors. It is also the reason why he insists to invite male participants only. But in order to see the full picture, female participants should also be invited. In addition, the experiment is potentially violating human rights of the research participants even though the researcher manages to obtain consents. the ethical issue is that prisoners may be verbally or physically abused by guards. It is also the reason why the Stanford experiment is hardly repeatable now. Thus, it is difficult to validate the reliability of the experiment at the current context.
4.0 Conclusion
In conclusion, it is indisputable that both the Social Learning Theory and Deindividualization Theory can provide psychological explanation to aggression. However, Deindividualization theory seems to be more reliable than SLT. It is largely because Bandura’s experiment may reflect that children have the intention to imitate adults rather than undergo a social learning process to observe or model adult’s behaviors. Therefore, the validity of the research is questionable. The Stanford Experiment, on the other hand, is more reliable as they tangibly show how participants become verbally and physically aggressive when they are in a big crowd. But the experiment may potentially violate the human rights of participants. It is thus less encouraging to repeat such experiments in the future researches.
Reference
Anderson, C. A., & Bushman, B. J. (2002). Human aggression. Annual review of psychology, 53.
Artino Jr, A. R. (2007). Bandura, Ross, and Ross: Observational Learning and the Bobo Doll. Online Submission.
Bandura, A. (1973). Aggression: A social learning analysis. prentice-hall.
Bandura, A. (1965). Behavioral modification through modeling procedures. Research in behavior modification, 310-340.
Bandura, A. (1978). The self system in reciprocal determinism. American psychologist, 33(4), 344.
Diener, E. (1980). Deindividuation: The absence of self-awareness and self-regulation in group members. The psychology of group influence, 209-242.
Diener, E. (1977). Deindividuation: Causes and consequences. Social Behavior & Personality: an international journal, 5(1).
Haney, C., Banks, W. C., & Zimbardo, P. G. (1973). A study of prisoners and guards in a simulated prison. Naval research reviews, 9(1-17).
Staddon, J. E., & Cerutti, D. T. (2003). Operant conditioning. Annual review of psychology, 54(1), 115-144.
Teker, B. (2019). ZAK| 2014: Still at War. From Poison Gas to Drone.
Péguy, C., & de La Noue, F. (2002). Just wars, wars of aggression and international humanitarian law. International Review of the Red Cross, (847), 523-546.