Revision Library

revisionlibrary.co.uk

A-Level · Psychology

PSY.OPT19 Social Psychological Explanations of Aggression

AQA 7182 · Calculators not allowed · about 60 minutes

Total Marks

Name: _______________________________ Date: ____ / ____ / ______

Answer ALL questions. Show all your working.

Outline the frustration-aggression hypothesis as proposed by Dollard et al. (1939), naming the key idea about frustration and aggressive behaviour.

Outline the frustration-aggression hypothesis (Dollard et al., 1939).

(Total for Question 1 is 3 marks)

Explain two ways the frustration-aggression hypothesis accounts for why aggression may be displaced onto a target that did not cause the frustration, and how an environmental cue might trigger an aggressive response.

Explain displacement and the role of an environmental cue in the frustration-aggression hypothesis.

(Total for Question 2 is 4 marks)

Outline Social Learning Theory (SLT) as an explanation of human aggression, naming the processes that explain how aggression is learned.

Outline Social Learning Theory as an explanation for human aggression.

(Total for Question 3 is 3 marks)

Briefly describe the main finding from Bandura, Ross and Ross's Bobo doll research that is relevant to SLT accounts of aggression.

Describe a main finding from Bandura's Bobo doll research.

(Total for Question 4 is 2 marks)

Explain what is meant by vicarious reinforcement and by self-efficacy in Social Learning Theory, and how each affects aggressive behaviour.

Explain vicarious reinforcement and self-efficacy in SLT and their effects on aggression.

(Total for Question 5 is 4 marks)

Outline the concept of de-individuation as a social psychological explanation of aggression, naming the key features such as loss of individual identity and reduced self-awareness.

Outline de-individuation and its main features in relation to aggression.

(Total for Question 6 is 3 marks)

Explain two mechanisms by which anonymity and reduced self-awareness can increase aggressive acts under de-individuation theory.

Explain anonymity and reduced self-awareness mechanisms in de-individuation.

(Total for Question 7 is 4 marks)

Apply the three social psychological explanations above to the following scenario. Prompt: During an evening football match a supporter, Callum, is jostled and insulted by a rival fan. He feels angered but cannot safely reach the rival fan because stewards and barriers separate them. Later, in the crowd outside the ground, Callum punches a glass bottle and throws the broken glass at a nearby advertising hoarding, smashing it. The crowd are cheering and several people are wearing scarves that partly obscure their faces.
Describe how the frustration-aggression hypothesis, Social Learning Theory and de-individuation could each explain Callum's aggressive action. Use evidence from the scenario in your answer.

Apply frustration-aggression, SLT and de-individuation to Callum's behaviour at a football match.

(Total for Question 8 is 6 marks)

Name one famous study or researcher commonly cited in discussions of de-individuation and briefly state its relevance, without reproducing the full procedure or findings.

Name one study/researcher linked to de-individuation and state its relevance.

(Total for Question 9 is 2 marks)

Explain two evaluation points for the frustration-aggression hypothesis, focusing on empirical and conceptual limitations such as the fact that aggression can occur without prior frustration and the need for additional variables to predict when frustration leads to aggression.

Evaluate the frustration-aggression hypothesis with two developed points.

(Total for Question 10 is 6 marks)

Explain two evaluation points for Social Learning Theory as an explanation of aggression, covering issues such as mixed evidence from field and laboratory studies and the theory's ability to account for cognitive mediators like self-efficacy.

Evaluate Social Learning Theory for explaining aggression with two developed points.

(Total for Question 11 is 6 marks)

Explain two methodological or ethical limitations of de-individuation research that reduce confidence in straightforward claims that anonymity causes aggression.

Evaluate de-individuation research with two developed points.

(Total for Question 12 is 4 marks)

Discuss social psychological explanations of aggression. In your answer, compare and evaluate the frustration-aggression hypothesis, Social Learning Theory and de-individuation. Refer to theory, evidence and methodological or ethical issues as appropriate. You may refer briefly to Zimbardo's work only as an illustration of de-individuation, but do not reproduce full accounts of other studies from other topics. Conclude with an overall judgement about how well social psychological explanations account for aggression.

Discuss social psychological explanations of aggression, comparing frustration-aggression, SLT and de-individuation.

(Total for Question 13 is 16 marks)

Mark scheme · PSY.OPT19 Social Psychological Explanations of Aggression

Question 1

B1 states that frustration occurs when a goal is blocked or thwarted oe
B1 states that frustration creates a drive or readiness to behave aggressively oe
B1 links frustration to an increased likelihood of aggressive behaviour, not necessarily directed at the original source oe
Answer: Frustration occurs when a goal is blocked; this creates a readiness to behave aggressively, so frustration increases the likelihood of aggressive behaviour.

Question 2

M1 explains displacement: frustration cannot always be expressed against the original source, so aggression is redirected to a safer or more available target oe
A1 explains why displacement occurs, e.g. because the original source is more powerful or unavailable, so the aggressive drive seeks another outlet oe
M1 explains environmental cue: cues associated with aggression can serve as triggers that convert frustrated anger into aggressive action oe
A1 gives an example or further clarification, e.g. presence of a weapon or aggressive imagery increases the likelihood the frustrated person will act aggressively when aroused oe
Answer: If the original source cannot be attacked, frustration may be displaced on a safer target; environmental cues associated with aggression, such as weapons or aggressive images, can trigger the frustrated person to act aggressively.

Question 3

B1 states that aggression is learned through observation of others oe
B1 identifies imitation and modelling as key processes oe
B1 mentions vicarious reinforcement, where observing others being rewarded increases the likelihood of copying aggressive behaviour oe
Answer: SLT says aggression is learned by observing and imitating others; people are more likely to copy aggressive models, especially if the model is seen to be rewarded, a process known as vicarious reinforcement.

Question 4

B1 states that children who observed an aggressive model imitated aggressive actions toward the Bobo doll more than children who observed a non aggressive or no model oe
B1 may mention that observed reinforcement for the model increased imitation oe
Answer: Children who observed an aggressive model imitated those aggressive behaviours toward the Bobo doll more than children who saw a non aggressive or no model; observed reinforcement increased imitation.

Question 5

M1 defines vicarious reinforcement: learning to perform a behaviour after observing a model being rewarded for it oe
A1 explains that vicarious reinforcement increases the likelihood of imitating aggressive behaviour because observers see benefits or lack of punishment for the model oe
M1 defines self-efficacy: a persons belief in their ability to perform a behaviour or control outcomes oe
A1 explains that high self-efficacy in aggression means a person feels capable of using aggression successfully, making them more likely to act aggressively after observing a model oe
Answer: Vicarious reinforcement is learning from seeing a model rewarded, which makes imitation of aggressive acts more likely; self-efficacy is the observers belief in their ability to carry out behaviours, so greater self-efficacy for aggression makes imitation more likely because the observer believes they can succeed.

Question 6

B1 states that de-individuation involves loss of individual identity when people are in crowds or groups oe
B1 states that de-individuation reduces private and public self-awareness, lowering personal restraint oe
B1 links anonymity or lack of accountability to increased likelihood of aggressive behaviour oe
Answer: De-individuation is the loss of individual identity in crowds, involving reduced private and public self-awareness and increased anonymity, which lowers restraint and can raise the chance of aggressive behaviour.

Question 7

M1 explains anonymity: when individuals feel anonymous they expect lower likelihood of personal negative consequences, reducing inhibitions against aggression oe
A1 develops why this matters, e.g. anonymity weakens social controls and fear of disapproval, so aggressive impulses are more likely to be acted on oe
M1 explains reduced self-awareness: attention shifts away from internal standards and personal values, so behaviour is guided more by immediate situational cues oe
A1 develops the point, e.g. less self-evaluation means less guilt or shame about aggressive acts, increasing the probability of aggression in the moment oe
Answer: Anonymity reduces concern about personal consequences and social censure, lowering inhibitions and making aggression more likely; reduced self-awareness shifts attention away from personal standards so people act on situational cues without self-monitoring, increasing aggressive acts.

Question 8

M1 applies frustration-aggression: Callum was blocked from retaliating against the rival fan, creating frustration which was displaced onto the available target (hoarding) oe
A1 develops application, mentioning that barriers and stewards prevented direct attack, so aggression was redirected to the hoarding as a safe outlet oe
M1 applies SLT: the crowd cheering and any observed aggressive acts by others could serve as models, and if aggressive acts appear rewarded or condoned, Callum is more likely to imitate or escalate aggression oe
A1 develops application, e.g. seeing others act aggressively or receive no sanction could act as vicarious reinforcement, increasing Callum's likelihood of aggressive behaviour oe
M1 applies de-individuation: scarves obscuring faces and crowd cheering increase anonymity and reduce self-awareness, lowering restraint and making violent action more likely oe
A1 develops application, linking anonymity and reduced self-awareness to the crowd context which permits Callum to act without feeling personally accountable oe
Answer: Frustration-aggression: Callum was prevented from confronting the rival fan, so frustration was displaced onto the hoarding. SLT: the crowd environment and visible aggressive acts serve as models and possible vicarious reinforcement, encouraging imitation or escalation. De-individuation: obscured faces and cheering create anonymity and reduced self-awareness, lowering restraint so Callum felt able to act aggressively.

Question 9

B1 identifies Zimbardo (e.g. the Stanford Prison Experiment) or a classic de-individuation study oe
B1 states its relevance briefly, e.g. used as an example of how taking on roles or being in a group can reduce personal restraint and increase aggressive or abusive behaviour oe
Answer: Zimbardo is commonly cited; his work is used to illustrate how role taking and group contexts can reduce personal restraint and increase aggressive or abusive behaviour.

Question 10

M1 identifies limitation: aggression sometimes occurs without clear prior frustration oe
A1 explains why this is a problem for the theory, e.g. spontaneous or premeditated aggression that lacks an antecedent blocked goal is not accounted for by the hypothesis oe
M1 identifies limitation: the original hypothesis is too simple and requires moderating variables such as the intensity of frustration, the presence of cues, or individual differences oe
A1 explains development, e.g. later researchers added role of environmental cues and cognitive appraisal, showing the hypothesis alone does not fully predict when aggression will occur oe
M1 offers supporting empirical counter-evidence or qualification, e.g. research showing frustration does not always produce aggression and other factors mediate the response oe
A1 explains impact, e.g. the mixed empirical support reduces the explanatory power of the frustration-aggression hypothesis as a sole explanation for aggressive behaviour oe
Answer: The hypothesis is limited because aggression can and does happen without prior frustration, and the original account needed additional variables such as cues, appraisal and individual differences to explain when frustration leads to aggression; empirical research offers mixed support, weakening its claim as a comprehensive explanation.

Question 11

M1 identifies strength: SLT accounts for cognitive mediators such as vicarious reinforcement and self-efficacy oe
A1 explains how this is a strength, e.g. it recognises that learning is not just imitation but depends on observed consequences and beliefs about ability, improving explanatory depth oe
M1 identifies limitation: mixed evidence, e.g. strong laboratory findings like Bandura but some field studies failing to find direct model to behaviour links oe
A1 explains effect of mixed evidence, e.g. ecological validity concerns and that modelling in real life is more complex, so SLT may overpredict imitation in natural settings oe
M1 identifies limitation: difficulty establishing causality in naturalistic observational studies where many confounding social factors exist oe
A1 explains consequence, e.g. children who observe aggression in their environment may differ in other ways from those who do not, so attributing later aggression solely to modelling is problematic oe
Answer: SLT is strong because it includes cognitive mediators like vicarious reinforcement and self-efficacy, but evidence is mixed: laboratory studies show clear imitation while field studies are more ambiguous, and causal attribution in natural settings is difficult because of confounding variables.

Question 12

M1 identifies methodological limitation: many studies use artificial lab settings or contrived tasks that limit ecological validity oe
A1 explains why this matters, e.g. behaviour in simulated anonymity may not match behaviour in real crowd settings with social norms and consequences oe
M1 identifies ethical limitation: experiments that induce strong aggressive behaviour or distress pose ethical concerns about protection of participants oe
A1 explains consequence, e.g. ethical constraints limit the intensity of aggression researchers can study, so results may underrepresent real aggressive outcomes or rely on proxy measures oe
Answer: De-individuation research often relies on artificial tasks that reduce ecological validity, and ethical constraints limit the extent to which real aggression can be induced or observed, both of which weaken causal claims that anonymity alone causes aggression.

Question 13

Level 4 (13-16): Knowledge of the social psychological explanations is accurate and detailed. The answer shows thorough, well-developed evaluation, interacting evidence, methodological and ethical critique, and clear comparison between explanations. Application to scenarios or theoretical integration is well developed. The response is well structured and uses specialist terminology precisely.
Level 3 (9-12): Knowledge is clear and mostly accurate. Discussion includes evaluation and some interaction between theory and evidence, with attention to methodology and ethics. Comparison between explanations is present but may be uneven. Application and judgement are present but not fully developed. Specialist terminology is used appropriately.
Level 2 (5-8): Knowledge is present but limited or partially inaccurate. Evaluation is superficial or one sided, and comparisons between explanations are minimal. Some relevant evidence or methodological points may be missing. The answer lacks depth and organisation, and specialist terminology is used inconsistently.
Level 1 (1-4): Very limited knowledge and understanding. Little or no evaluation. Comparisons are absent. The response may be fragmentary, poorly organised, and show little use of appropriate terminology.
Level 0 (0): No creditable content.
Indicative content:
- AO1: Frustration-aggression hypothesis: blocked goals create frustration which produces an aggressive impulse; later revisions include displacement and the role of environmental cues in triggering aggression.
- AO1: Social Learning Theory (Bandura): aggression is learned through observation, modelling and imitation, particularly when observers see models rewarded (vicarious reinforcement); cognitive mediators such as self-efficacy determine whether observed behaviour is enacted.
- AO1: De-individuation: in crowds or groups people may lose individual identity, show reduced private and public self-awareness and feel anonymous, lowering restraint and increasing the likelihood of aggressive acts.
- AO2: Apply theories to examples: frustration may explain displaced aggression when direct retaliation is blocked; SLT explains how observed aggressive behaviour in peers or media can be imitated, especially with vicarious reinforcement and increased self-efficacy; de-individuation explains how anonymity and crowd dynamics remove inhibitions.
- AO3: Strengths and evidence: Bandura's laboratory work provides controlled evidence for modelling and vicarious reinforcement; frustration-aggression has face validity and plausible mechanisms such as displacement and cue-triggering; de-individuation links well to observational accounts of crowd violence.
- AO3: Limitations and mixed evidence: frustration is neither necessary nor sufficient for aggression, because aggression can occur without prior frustration and not all frustration leads to aggression; empirical support for SLT is mixed between lab and field studies, with ecological validity issues and potential confounds in natural settings; de-individuation studies often use artificial tasks and face ethical limits, and alternative explanations such as emergent group norms or social identity processes may better explain crowd aggression.
- AO3: Methodological and ethical critiques: lab studies may lack ecological validity, field studies struggle with causality, and ethical constraints limit realistic investigation of severe aggression. Measures used as proxies for aggression may not generalise to serious violent behaviour.
- AO3: Integration and nuance: social psychological explanations capture situational and social learning influences and can be complementary rather than mutually exclusive, for example frustration creating arousal that is then shaped by observed models and by crowd anonymity. Individual differences and cognitive appraisal mediate outcomes.
- AO3: Conclusion: an informed judgement might argue that social psychological explanations explain many forms of everyday aggressive behaviour and escalation in crowds, but they are incomplete as sole explanations of all aggression; best account comes from integrating frustration, learning mechanisms and situational group processes while recognising methodological limits and the role of dispositional and biological factors outside the scope of this question.

Social Psychological Explanations of Aggression - Worksheets, Questions and Revision