session 7: sociocultural explanations of violence

Human RelationshipsSession 7: Sociocultural Explanations

of violence

Evaluate sociocultural explanations of violence

Today’s Learning Outcomes

What the command terms mean…

Evaluate: Make an appraisal by weighing

up the strengths and limitations.

Questions for Discussion

1. Is violence ever justified?2. How old do you think the youngest

murderer ever was?3. Give explanations of terrorism.4. What do you think are the reasons for

school shootings?5. Will there ever be a nuclear war?6. Are humans less or more violent than we

used to be?7. Why does violence sell?

Defining violence

Definition of Violence

Violence: An aggressive act in which the perpetrator abuses individuals indirectly or directly

Examples of violence: Murder, bullying, war, genocide, domestic violence, suicide

Defining sociocultural factors

Definition of Sociocultural Factors

Social psychologists focus on social rules and roles, how groups affects attitudes and behaviour, why people obey authority, and how each of us is affected by other people

Cultural psychologists examine how cultural rules and values – both explicit and implicit – affect people’s development, behaviour and feelings

Sociocultural Explanations of Violence

There are many sociocultural explanations for origins of violence but we will focus on just two:

1. Social learning theory2. Subculture of violence theory


1. Social learning theory as an explanation for origin of violence (Bandura, 1977)

Write down everything you can remember about social learning theory

Two Minute Challenge

Suggested people learn to behave violently (including violent attitude and norms) through direct experiences and through observing models

SLT focuses on observational learning and modeling.

Theory proposes that children learn to be violent due to exposure to violent models & because this violent behaviour is rewarded

Social Learning Theory- Bandura (1977)

SLT has been applied to explain the development of aggression & intergenerational transmission of violence through a process of socialisation◦ Children are influenced by socialisation factors such

as the family, the immediate environment including peers & the media

Social learning can be:◦ direct (via instructions/explicitly teaching)◦ Indirect (e.g. observing role models)


Children who grow up in violent families and neighbourhoods where they watch models use violence & obtain benefits from it (e.g. power) may be likely to see violence as a legitimate means to get what they want or exert power over other people.

Support for this proposition comes from the results of Bandura & Ross’ classic 1961 Bobo doll study


Two aims:1. To investigate whether children would imitate

aggression modeled by an adult2. To see if children were more likely to imitate same sex

models

Participants 72 children aged 3-6 years 36 boys and 36 girls Children were divided into 3 groups Groups were matched with regards to levels of

aggression based on an evaluation from parents and teachers

Bandura and Ross (1961)

Condition Description

Aggressive Model

Exposed to adult models who showed aggression by bashing an inflatable “Bobo” doll

Non-aggressive model Observed a non-aggressive adult who assembled toys for 10 minutes

Control No model observed

Bandura & Ross (1961)

After watching the models, the children were placed in a room with toys

Very soon, they were taken out of the room, being told that these toys were for other children and were then put into a room with the Bobo doll

Bandura and Ross (1961)

Results Children who had observed the aggressive

model were significantly more aggressive- both verbally and physically- towards the Bobo doll

According to Bandura, the theory of social learning theory was demonstrated in the study, since the children showed signs of observational learning


Results Bandura also observed that girls were more likely to

imitate verbal aggression and boys were more likely to imitate physical aggression

When boys observed women bashing the Bobo doll, they often made comments like “ladies shouldn’t do that!”

Children were more likely to imitate same-sex models


Low Ecological Validity

Experiment has been criticised for low ecological validity. Not only was the study carried out in a laboratory, there were other factors which made the situation artificial:

Only a brief encounter with the model Children were intentionally frustrated after they were put

in toy room Could be argued study does little to demonstrate what

happens if a child is repeatedly exposed to aggressive parents or violence on television

Does aggression against a Bob doll indicate learned aggression in general or is it highly specific to this situation

Evaluation of Bandura & Ross (1961)

Other methodological issues

Aggression modeled by adults was not completely standardised meaning children may have observed slight differences in aggression displayed

Despite attempts to match participants on levels of aggression across groups, the evaluations were based on observations from teachers and parent which may not be accurate or reliable.

Question of demand characteristics: children may have acted aggressively because they thought it would please the researcher


Ethics

Use of young children is ethically questionable

Observing adult strangers act in an aggressive manner may have been frightening for children

Teaching aggressive behaviour to children also questionable. No guarantee that if aggressive behaviour was learned that it would be reversible


Qualitative study on girlfriend abuse among violent male youth in Canada

Aim: to explore how young girlfriend abusers used violence to construct their masculinity. Study focused on how families and peer groups contributed to learning and identification with violent norms as part of establishing a masculine gender role

Procedure: Purposeful sample of 30 abusive adolescent males from a large city in

Canada All had pro-abusive beliefs, masculine ideals and admitted to using

violence towards their girlfriends Mean age of boys was 15.6 years. 6 belonged to an ethnic minority & rest were white Many were gang members and most had dropped out of school early Semi-structured interviews were used to collect data

Totten (2003)

Adolescents backgrounds had similar features. They had all been exposed to violent behaviour in

the family and they saw this as justified and even necessary

Their fathers all had rigid authoritarian beliefs (e.g. rigid gender roles) & all used violence to control family members or defend their honour

All were abusive and used physical and sexual violence for same reasons as their fathers

Boys said they had the right to use violence if girlfriends did not behave

In some cases, fathers had given instructions on how to abuse women in particular situations

Totten (2003)

Totten (2003)

Used a small and purposive sample so it is not possible to generalise

Qualitative data gave in-depth insight into how the violent adolescents experienced the use of violence themselves

Practical applications: research could be a starting point to design interventions to prevent violence, such as by providing positive role models (mentoring) as well as education and job opportunities

Totten (2003)

More support for SLT

Eron (1986): Found a positive correlation between number of hours of violence watched on television at the age of 8 and the level of aggression they demonstrated as teenagers, as well as the number of criminal acts as adults

Charlton et al (2002) Conducted a natural experiment Island of St Helena in the Atlantic Ocean

Conflicting evidence for Bobo doll study

Aim: to investigate whether children would exhibit more aggressive

behaviour after the introduction to the island in 1995Procedure: children aged 3-8 were observed before and after the

introduction of television Content analysis of TV showed level of violence on television

matched what children in UK generally exposed to Behaviour observed through the use of video cameras that

were set up in the playgrounds of 2 primary schools on the island

Researchers also conducted interviews with teachers,

parents and some of the older children

Charlton et al (2002)

Results: Analysis of hundreds of hours of videotape,

backed up by interview data showed there was no increase in aggressive or anti-social behaviour.

This was also the case after five years


Parents and teachers said that antisocial behaviour was not accepted on the island and that there was a high degree of social control in the community. Shows that people may learn aggressive behaviour but may not exhibit it for different reasons.

Social and cultural factors play a role in what behaviours are acceptable, so even though children had no doubt learned aggressive behaviour, they did not show it.


This study does not necessarily disprove SLT but rather conflicts with results from the Bobo doll study

In relation to SLT it may be explained that children from St Helena were not motivated to imitate the behaviour due to the norms of their society


High ecological validity: study investigated a naturally occurring event as opposed to an artificial task

Results of study do not question SLT but rather the results of Bandura and Ross (1961). Results also support the idea that people must be motivated to imitate behaviour.

Evaluation of Charlton et al (2002)

Empirical evidence that supports theory i.e. Bandura (1961), Totten (2003)

Social norms of violence can be transmitted from parents to children as predicted by SLT

SLT can be used to explain why adolescents use violence in marginalised social peer groups because it pays off in the form of status (reinforcement)

Theory has practical applications for forming violence intervention programmes i.e. mentoring programmes

Strengths of SLT in relation to origins of violence

SLT cannot explain how structural factors such as poverty contribute to establishing norms of male superiority

Theory does not take individual differences into account like intelligence and personality

Neglects biological factors. Some people may be more prone to violence due to genetic inheritance/brain damage

Weaknesses of SLT in relation to origins of violence


2. Subculture of violence theory (Wolfgang and Ferracuti, 1967)

According to theory, violent behaviour results from a commitment to sub cultural norms and values

Individual violent values lead to violent behaviours because sub cultural values act as a mechanism of social control among group members

Subculture of violence theory (Wolfgang and Ferracuti, 1967)

Violence is used as a means to:◦ defend honour◦ maintain status within the group/family/in relation to other

groups Theory was developed based on work in an inner-

city African American neighbourhood in Philadelphia It was originally suggested that the subculture of

violence phenomenon was a lower-class masculine phenomenon related to race. This view is now contested

Subculture of violence theory (Wolfgang and Ferracuti, 1967)

Aim: to investigate whether pro-violent values influenced group conduct norms as predicted by the subculture of violence

theory

Procedure: Large scale survey of adolescent boys and girls in 49 public

schools in Iceland Aged 15-16 Sample was racially homogenous Answered questions on how often they engaged in various

threatening & physically violent acts (e.g. punching, kicking, fighting)

Berburg and Thorlindsson (2005)

Results Showed a significant impact of conduct norms on

aggressive behaviour The most violent students said they conformed

to group norms Boys were more likely to behave aggressively

than girls Group pressure to respond to personal attacks

with violence could act as a form of social control


Conclusions Predictions of subculture of violence were

supported by these cross cultural data

Conclusion was that group adherence to values and norms encourage aggressive behaviour through:◦ Internalisation of values encouraging violence◦ Social control processes ensure adherence (conformity)

to conduct norms


Evaluation Survey based on large sample of adolescents

from Iceland so findings can be generalised to similar age groups in Iceland

An equal number of boys and girls participated so there was no gender bias

Data was collected via self reports so there may be bias. Respondents may have been dishonest due to socially sensitive nature of topic


Berberg & Thorlindsson (2005)

Found support for the theories proposition that violence is used to maintain honour in the Southern states of the USA where there are high rates of violence

They argue that a “culture of honour” seems to have survived from herding economies brought to the area by Irish and Scottish settlers between 17th-19th centuries

Nisbett & Cohen (1996)

Theory can explain how violence may be used to establish & maintain power with a social group & to establish social hierarchies. Dominance & power could be a possible explanation for school bullying:◦ e.g. Gest et al (2003) found that bullies are often seen as

popular and “cool”

Theory does not explain what sociocultural structural factors could lead to violence because the primary focus is on social norms and values as the origin of violence. According to Anderson (1999) high rates of violence could be the result of poverty and class oppression that than a culture of honour

Evaluation of Subculture of Violence Theory

These two psychological explanations of violence (SLT & subculture of violence) suffer from the same limitations of mainstream theories of violence that tend to focus on either:◦ Internal causes (personality, genes, brain injury, hormones)◦ External causes (from social/cultural environment)

Such one dimensional explanations of violence mostly acknowledge the importance of other variables but these are often not included in the explanations

Conclusions about sociocultural explanations of violence

Biological factors & violence

In addition to sociocultural explanations, some psychologists have also suggested that biological factors influence violent behaviours e.g. testosterone has been linked to violence

Critical thinking: considering alternative explanations

N.B. You can use

biological factors as an

evaluation point for s/c

explanations of violence

Testosterone is a steroid male sex hormone secreted in the testes of males and in the ovaries of females

Men produce 10 times more testosterone that women

Testosterone has been linked to aggression & dominance behaviour

Castration of a male usually results in a pacifying effect on aggressive behaviour in males

Relationship between aggression and testosterone is complex and difficult to test scientifically because measurement of testosterone levels from blood and saliva is not reliable

Testosterone & Violence

McAndrew (2009)

Offer evolutionary explanation of link between testosterone & aggression

Evolution has shaped hormonal responses in males that are particularly sensitive to situations that involve challenges to status or competition with other males

Testosterone is secreted to prepare the body to respond to competition or challenges to one’s status

Any situation that is perceived as a threat/challenge to a male’s status will result in an increase in testosterone level

Hormonal changes in such situations are important factors of explanations of aggression. Explanations that do not include biological factors are incomplete at best.

Testosterone & Violence

Quasi experimental study to test relationship between culture of honour & physiological responses to an insult

Aim: to test whether male participants from South of USA (assumed to belong to a culture of honour) would be more likely than males from the North USA to respond with aggression to

insultsResearchers also measured cortisol and

testosterone levels

Back to Nisbett & Cohen (1996)

What do we mean

by quasi

experimental?

Procedure Researchers predicted that southerners

from a culture of honour would be more aggressive and have higher levels of cortisol and testosterone than northerners

Participants were experimentally insulted publicly.

Cortisol levels were measured before and after the insult through a saliva and blood test


Results

After the experimental insult:

Southerners were generally more aggressive and showed more domineering behaviour


Northerners Southerners

Cortisol levels Rose by 33% Rose by 79%

Testosterone levels

Slightly higher Higher

Conclusions

Researchers argued that southerners who were insulted in front of others saw themselves as diminished in masculine reputation and status

This could explain why they exhibited more aggressive and domineering behaviour

In a culture of honour males who do not retaliate to insults risk their masculine reputation

Culture of honour norms dictate retaliation. Such norms have become embedded in social roles, expectations and shared definitions of masculinity


Although Nisbett and Cohen (1996) studying both biological factors and culture of honour this does not mean that the theory of subculture of violence itself includes biological explanation

This study does however, lend support to idea of subculture of violence theory

Important reminder!

session 7: sociocultural explanations of violence

Documents

domestic violence

discussionis violence

directlyexamples of

origins of violence

media social learning

origin of violence bandura

violent models

social rules