Social Psychology
Page 18
Summary
Aggressive behaviour is a complex topic to study, partly due to the myriad forms that it takes, and the requirement that psychologists investigate the topic in an ethical way. The most effective way of explaining aggressive behaviour has been found in the learning approach, with a number of social models attempting to explain the presence and prevalence of aggression. Many mediating factors, at both an individual and environmental level, have been shown to affect the occurrence of aggression, and the same theories used to explain aggression have also been shown to be the most effective at reducing it. There can be no doubt that violence in society is a worry, but by understanding its origins, and the factors involved in its sustenance, it may be possible to reduce its prevalence – though a complete eradication of aggression is an unlikely, and perhaps even an undesirable, outcome.
Food for thought
As the managing director of a football club, or perhaps the local chief constable, how would you use the theories outlined in this chapter to prevent aggressive behaviour by the football fans (for both home and away supporters) in and around your stadium? How would you measure (ethically) whether your efforts were having a significant effect?
Dig deeper
Anderson, C. A. et al. (2010). ‘Violent video game effects on aggression, empathy, and prosocial behavior in Eastern and Western countries: A meta-analytic review’. Psychological Bulletin, 136(2), 151–173.
Krahe, B. (2013) The Social Psychology of Aggression. Second edition. Psychology Press.
Lorenz, K. (2002). On Aggression. Routledge.
Ritter, D. & Eslea, M. J. (2005) ‘Hot sauce, toy guns, and graffiti: A critical account of current laboratory aggression paradigms’. Aggressive Behavior, 31, 407–419.
Russell, G. W. (2008). Aggression in the Sports World: A Social Psychological Perspective. OUP USA.
Fact-check
1 Which of the following is not an element to be included in a good definition of aggression?
a Intent
b Expectancy
c Singularity
d Avoidance
2 A person shoots a politician because he believes that his ideas are dangerous to society. This is an example of which type of aggression?
a Instrumental
b Hostile
c Ecological
d Expected
3 The machine pioneered by Buss to measure aggression measured which of the following:
a Duration of electric shock
b Intensity of electric shock
c The number of electric shocks
d All of the above
e None of the above
4 Which of the following methods for measuring aggression typically does not involve the deliverance of electric shocks?
a The teacher-learner paradigm
b The competitive reaction time task
c The essay evaluation task
d They all do
e None of them do
5 Baron’s study involving aggressive behaviour at a set of traffic lights was which kind of study?
a A field experiment
b A naturalistic observation
c A cross-cultural study
d None of the above
6 Which of the following theories is an example of a hydraulic explanation for aggression?
a The frustration-aggression hypothesis
b Freud’s psychodynamic theory
c Social learning theory
d The excitation-transfer model
7 Which of the following is an example of a learning theory of aggression?
a The frustration-aggression hypothesis
b Social learning theory
c The excitation-transfer model
d They all are
e None of them are
8 Bandura’s Bobo doll experiments are used to support which of the following theories?
a The frustration-aggression hypothesis
b Freud’s psychodynamic theory
c Social learning theory
d The excitation-transfer model
9 Which of the following traits has not been linked to increased levels of aggression?
a Type ‘A’ personality
b Type ‘B’ personality
c Emotional susceptibility
d Self-esteem
10 Which of the following stipulations is not true with regards to punishment being an effective method for reducing aggression?
a The punishment must be reasonably adverse
b The punishment must have a high probability of being imposed
c Its effectiveness is increased if other, more attractive, behavioural alternatives are available
d The offender must be rational enough to be able to calculate the costs of the punishment against the perceived rewards of the aggression
10
An introduction to groups
One line of thought goes that if the human race is to survive, then it will need to travel to the stars. If we are to do this, then the first stop is probably to establish a colony on Mars; this will involve sending a small group of astronauts on an essentially one-way journey which will take approximately 150–300 days (depending on orbital alignments, and other such factors). In order to do so, it will be vital to ensure that the group is stable, and able to function optimally in conditions of extreme isolation and hardship. In fact, experiments have already been conducted to study the functioning of groups in such conditions, from the Biosphere projects in the Arizona desert in the 1980s and 1990s (e.g. Biosphere 2, 1991), through to the Mars 500 experiments between 2007 and 2011. Knowing how groups work is one of the first steps to sending humans into space.
Space travel is just one of a multitude of reasons as to why we need to understand groups (see below). Given that the majority of important decisions affecting us all are made by groups (whether it be locally by a council, nationally by a Government, or internationally by the UN Security Council), it is important that we understand group processes to ensure that groups function as well as they possibly can. Whilst other chapters will look at group-specific topics such as decision making (Chapter 11) and intergroup conflict (Chapter 14), this chapter starts from first principles and attempts to address some basic group questions such as: what is a group?; why do we join groups?; what properties does a group have?; and how can a group affect the functioning of an individual?
‘Small groups have always been a major focus of social psychological theory and research. The reasons for this abiding interest in groups are not difficult to identify. At a theoretical level, an understanding of groups is essential for almost every analysis of social behavior. Some of the most intriguing forms of social behavior, such as leadership, majority-minority relations, status and role differentiation, and socialization, are group phenomena. And small groups provide important contexts within which other forms of social behavior occur.’
(Levine & Moreland, 1998, p. 415)
What is a group?
Psychologists have attempted to explain what a group is and isn’t (see Spotlight below). For example, are three people standing at a bus stop a group? Or a number of psychology students sitting in a lecture theatre attending to their lecturer’s every word? It prompts the seemingly philosophical question of ‘when is a group not a group?’
Early theorists attempted to address the definition problem. According to Lewin, a group was defined by sharing a common fate, Sherif believed that a group had to have a formal or implicit social structure, and Bales thought that a group only existed if face-to-face interaction was possible (clearly before the Internet). These early definitions were good attempts, but are clearly inadequate given the current nature of society. This of course begs the question as to whether today’s definitions will be adequate in 60 or 70 years’ time.
Spotlight: Defining a group
According to Brown (1999): ‘A group exists when two or more people define themselves as members of it, and when its existence is recognized by at least one o
ther [who doesn’t define themselves as belonging to the group].’
This definition is by no means perfect, after all it probably excludes secret societies, but it will suffice for general purpose use.
Johnson and Johnson (1987) offer a complex, but perhaps slightly more comprehensive, definition of a group:
1 A collection of individuals who are interacting
2 Two or more persons who perceive themselves as belonging to a group
3 A collection of individuals who are interdependent
4 Individuals who join together to achieve a goal
5 Individuals who are trying to satisfy some need
6 Their interactions are structured by a set of norms or goals
7 A set of individuals who influence each other.
In general, a group should have a degree of bonding, which, in the examples above, would mean that three people standing at a bus stop wouldn’t be a group (they would generally be referred to as an ‘aggregate’), but the students probably would be.
There is also another aspect of the group to address, and that is how being part of a group will affect our thoughts, feelings and behaviour. The individualistic perspective suggests that the people in the group will behave in more or less the same way as they would when by themselves. However, the collectivistic perspective suggests that a group is more than the sum of its parts, and when a group forms, the individuals may behave very differently. For example, if you were riding on the Manchester metro system, you would be unlikely to sing and shout if you were on your own; however, if you were wearing a Manchester United shirt, and were surrounded by other people wearing United shirts, then perhaps you would be much more likely to do so, especially if everyone else was shouting and singing.
Why do individuals join a group?
There are many reasons why individuals join groups. As we saw in Chapter 5, Baumeister and Leary’s ‘belongingness hypothesis’ suggests that humans have a need to form interpersonal relationships, and this idea extends to needing to join groups. Generally, group membership affords advantages that might not otherwise be available, and it also offers security and protection; from an evolutionary perspective, being part of a group increases our chances of survival. In addition, being part of a group can tell us things about ourselves: it allows us to make comparisons with similar others to ensure that we are ‘doing the right thing’; it helps to define ourselves and gives us our unique social identity; it can help to reduce uncertainty and can increase our self-esteem which will make us feel better about ourselves.
Forsyth (1996) suggests that, because not all groups offer all of the things we need, we may therefore need to belong to more than one group. He goes on to list further advantages of being part of a group:
• Belonging: groups promote contact, regulate our relations with others and typically increase the quality and duration of our social interactions.
• Intimacy: group membership can give us warm, supportive and loving relationships.
• Generativity: being part of a group can help to increase our productivity and to accomplish both personal and shared goals. For example, we might join a writers’ circle to help us write more, or a chess club to improve our game. Groups can help us to complete tasks that we might find difficult to do on our own.
• Support: a group can help its members to cope with major and minor crises, and give them access to both emotional and tangible resources in times of need. It can offer encouragement, provide mutual assistance and share much needed resources.
• Influence: certain groups can offer an arena in which to exercise and apply social power and influence. They potentially provide the means by which we can influence far more people than we could on our own. For example, if a scientist has important findings to disseminate to the general public, then being a member of the Royal Society will give them far more influence in terms of publicizing their work.
• Exploration: other groups can provide information, exposure to new ideas and new experiences, instruction and opportunities for learning.
When we join groups, there are generally two possibilities: the first is that we are forming a group from scratch (for example, when we are a member of a jury, or perhaps decide to form a neighbourhood watch group to protect the homes in our locality), and the second is that we are joining a group that already exists (for example, when we apply for a job with a company or a corporation and get accepted). These two processes have been studied quite closely by social psychologists.
Forming a group
There are a number of theories that look at group formation, and they all tend to have similar stages. These include:
1 Orientation: potential group members begin to familiarize themselves with each other.
2 Conflict: the group members attempt to define group goals.
3 Structure: some semblance of organization for the group appears.
4 Work: the group begins to function and works towards achieving the task(s) for which it has been created.
5 Dissolution: the group disbands, either as a consequence of completing its task, or because it has encountered difficulties that it cannot resolve.
One of the more memorable theories of group formation was put forward by Tuckman in 1965 (see Case study below). Group formation theories have implications for how cohesive a group becomes, and this cohesion (see below) may in turn have an effect on the successful functioning of a group. It should also be noted that models of this nature specify the usual order for development of a group: however, not all groups will go through all stages, and not all groups will complete the cycle.
Key idea: Tuckman’s group formation model
A five-stage model which proposes to explain how groups form initially, function and dissolve.
Tuckman’s model of the stages of small group development has become ‘the most predominantly referred to and most widely recognized in organizational literature’ (Miller, D. (2003, p 122)).
Case study: Tuckman’s model of group formation
Tuckman proposed a five-stage model that was based on a literature review of small group development. Critics have pointed out that the ‘therapy-group setting’ was perhaps overrepresented in his review and therefore its original framework was a limited one. However, as with all good theories, it has been somewhat hijacked and applied to a wider field. Whilst his model broadly parallels other models, the thing that sets Tuckman’s slightly above the rest, and thus makes it easier to recall, is his memorable naming of the five stages:
1 Forming: At this stage the group is without norms (see below), but as the individuals begin a series of guarded interchanges with one another, the ice begins to break, and an information exchange between its potential members begins.
2 Storming: Tension begins to fade with regards to the newness of the group, but it starts to rise as the individuals start to define the goals and roles of the group. There may also be conflict as individuals vie for the role of group leader. Generally, conflict is commonplace, can help to clarify group goals, and may actually be a good thing as a catalyst for creating group cohesion.
3 Norming: The group starts to become unified and organized. Dissenters have either left the group or quietened down, and mutual trust and support amongst members begins to appear. The group becomes more cohesive and rules for group functioning (norms) emerge.
4 Performing: The group starts to produce. However, productivity is not always immediate and may require the group to mature. Many real-world examples show that it is only towards the end of a group’s life (e.g. a climate change conference) that something is achieved. Of course, not all groups will reach this stage.
5 Adjourning: Entry into this stage can either be planned (as in the case of a jury when it has reached its verdict) or spontaneous (as in the case of an unsuccessful team). In the latter case, it could be a stressful event, and members may tend to blame one another for the group’s failure. This stage was added as a revision to the model in 1977.
&nb
sp; Joining an existing group
Moreland and Levine (1982) put forward an influential model with regard to the stages that an individual will go through when joining an existing group; this is referred to as the group socialization model. Initially, two processes dominate when searching for groups to join:
1 Evaluation: the individual will weigh up the costs and rewards of joining the group.
2 Commitment: the individual will consider the relationship requirements between themselves and groups that they may join.
The two processes are linked, and the model makes the assumption that the evaluation and commitment between the group and the individual will change over time. The commitment that an individual feels towards the group will increase as they put more into the group in the form of time, energy and personal resources. The downside to this increase in commitment is the additional costs which in turn has an effect on their evaluation of the group.
Key idea: Moreland and Levine’s group socialization model
The model proposes to explain how an individual integrates into, and functions within, an existing group, and how the existing group facilitates, and reacts to, this integration.
The group socialization model proposes that there are five stages, and each stage involves a two-way process between the individual and the group; there is also a ‘transition point’ from one stage to the next to denote the changing relationship between them. To illustrate a real-world application of this theory, think of the two parties as the employee and the company.
1 INVESTIGATION STAGE