Social Cognition: Aggression Experiments

1
Social Cognition Aggression Experiments

• PS4772 Implementing Psychological Research
  Techniques
• Mike Eslea
• Department of Psychology
• 4 December 2007

2
Outline

• Why study aggression in the lab?
• Strengths weaknesses of aggression measures
• Classic aggression paradigms
• Modern aggression paradigms
• Limitations and problems
• The perfect aggression paradigm?

3
Why Study Aggression In A Lab?

• Most real-world aggressive behaviours occur in
  very complicated social situations
• All aggression measures have significant
  weaknesses discuss!
• Official statistics
• Observation
• Self report Qs
• Behavioural
• Dispositional (attitude Qs scenarios)
• Peer (and other) reports

4
Classic Lab Paradigms

• Reviewed by Tedeschi Quigley (1996)
• Teacher/Learner Paradigm (Buss, 1961)
• Essay Evaluation Paradigm (Berkowitz et al, 1962)
  
• Competitive Reaction Time Game (Taylor, 1967)
• Bobo Modelling Paradigm (Bandura, 1973)
• Also worthy of classic status
• Point Subtraction Aggression Paradigm (Cherek,
  1981)

5
Teacher/Learner Paradigm (Buss, 1961)

• Participants play the role of a teacher to a
  learner (actually a confederate) in a memory
  task. Typically, the participant is located in a
  separate room where he receives information about
  the learners responses on the memory task
  (correct or incorrect) and then punishes
  incorrect responses by delivering electric shocks
  (or, in recent versions, sound blasts)

6
Essay Evaluation Paradigm (Berkowitz et al, 1962)

• Similar to the previous setup participants
  evaluate essays supposedly written by a
  confederate. The evaluation takes the form of a
  number of electric shocks, from a minimum of one
  shock to a maximum of ten. First, participants
  receive an evaluation of their own essay (usually
  either one or seven shocks) from the confederate,
  and then they administer shocks in return.

7
Competitive Reaction Time Game (Taylor, 1967)

• Participants play a game against another player
  (actually a confederate), in which they must
  press a button as quickly as possible after a
  signal. Before each trial, the players decide
  what severity of electric shock or noise blast
  will be applied to the other in the event that
  they are slower. In fact, winning, losing and
  confederate choice of shock intensity are
  manipulated by the experimenter. The main outcome
  variable, intended to be the measure of overt
  aggression, is the intensity of shock. It is also
  interesting to examine the length of shocks, for
  a measure of covert aggression. Of particular
  interest is the way participants escalate or
  de-escalate shocks as the game progresses.

8
Bobo Modelling Paradigm (Bandura, 1973)

• Participants (usually children) watch an adult
  playing aggressively with a large inflatable toy
  clown (Bobo). Many variables can be
  manipulated, such as whether the adult model is
  seen to be rewarded or punished for their
  behaviour. The outcome variables are usually
  either the childrens own use of aggressive
  behaviours when they are subsequently allowed to
  play with Bobo, or their recall of the behaviour
  of the model.

9
Point Subtraction Aggression Paradigm (Cherek,
1981)

• Participants are seated at a computer and told
  that pressing a particular button (usually 100
  times) will earn them a sum of money (usually 10
  cents or equivalent). Alternatively, they can
  press a second button (usually 10 times) to
  deduct the same sum from another participant
  supposedly playing the same game in a different
  room. An on-screen counter displays their running
  total, and allows them to see when their
  (fictitious) opponent has deducted 10 cents from
  their pot. In fact, subtractions are made at
  random by the computer. The outcome (aggression)
  variable is the number of presses of the
  participants own subtraction button.

10
Strengths Weaknesses Of The Classic Paradigms
Discussion
11
Limitations of Lab Paradigms

• Distance
• Rough tumble play
• Permission from authority figure
• Lack of non-aggressive response options
• Motivations are (possibly) confounded
• Altruism
• Competitiveness (ego v task orientation)
• Almost always involve reactive aggression, not
  proactive

12
Hot Sauce (Lieberman et al, 1999)

• The setup is disguised as a study of taste
  preferences. Participants are required to
  determine the amount of hot sauce to be
  (purportedly) consumed by another person who has
  provoked them beforehand (either by giving them a
  noxious juice sample, or writing a world-view
  threatening essay), and who allegedly does not
  like spicy foods

13
Bungled Procedure (Russell et al, 1996, 2002)

• Participants are told they will shoot at a human
  target with a pellet or paintball gun. The target
  is a woman, and the task is presented as a novel
  form of male entertainment. Aggression is
  operationalised as the power of the gun chosen
  (from an array of guns of varying power)
  multiplied by the number of pellets elected to be
  shot. In reality participants never actually
  shoot, as they are told that there has been a
  mistake (the Bungle of the title), that they
  are in fact in the control condition

14
Experimental Graffiti and Tearing (Norlander et
al, 1998)

• First, participants are given a picture of "Adam
  and Eve in the Garden of Paradise" and instructed
  to draw upon it. Judges then rate the amount of
  graffiti added, the destruction caused, and any
  aggressive or sexual content. Next, participants
  are given a picture of "Samson and the Lion"
  (chosen for its strongly aggressive character,
  which was intended to provoke participants to
  exhibit aggressiveness) and instructed to tear
  it into a number of pieces of their own choice
  and then place all the pieces in an envelope that
  was half the size of the picture. The number of
  pieces produced was the dependent variable.
  Factors under investigation included sex
  differences, the influence of alcohol, and the
  effect of frustration (one group having been
  given an impossible task beforehand).

15
(No Transcript)
16
The Ideal Paradigm

• Interaction with a real human being
• No distance
• Full range of possible responses
• No authority approval of aggression
• Consideration of motivations
• Do they really mean to harm?
• Includes overt covert forms
• Allows proactive, as well as reactive, aggression

17
Group Exercise Design A New Aggression Paradigm
18
The Hand Slapping Game
David Oldenburg, 2002
19
The Hand Slapping Game

• In theory, the HSG was not confounded by
  competitiveness
• To win short, fast slap
• To harm big, slower slap
• In practice, post-expt interviews revealed that
  provocations in the HSG were almost always seen
  as competitive, not aggressive
• Provocation made no difference to behaviour,
  STAXI or POMS scores

20
The Chopstick Game
21
(No Transcript)