Human Aggression

This is one of my favorite topics in social psychology because it inevitably gets into the area of media and how it affects the viewers. Sometimes I wonder if I really should have gotten into communications, but psychology and communications are very related so I feel like I should have plenty of opportunity to slide over into that area should I so desire. Anyway...

Sometimes there are some really obvious things that social psychology points out, and other times there are incredibly interesting social effects that you would never assume. Think for a minute if you were to suffer a heart attack, would you rather it happen in a very public area with a number of bystanders or would you prefer it to be in an empty parking lot with maybe just one or two other people looking on? Most people respond public area because any number of people can help, but research consistently shows that the opposite is more preferable. People inevitably assume that someone else can help out and typically do nothing. In an area where only one person is available that person always feels a sense of responsibility and almost always acts.

One experiment that we talked about today in class had to do with having a person sit stopped at a green light and they measured the response of drivers sitting behind them. They manipulated a few different variables - the person sitting stopped at the green light was in a pick-up truck and three independent variables, 1) there was either a curtain drawn that hid the driver from view of the car behind or not, 2) a gun rack with guns in the back of the truck or not, and 3) a bumper sticker on the back of the truck that either said "Friend" or "Vengeance." It sounds like a joke, and apparently the person who ran the experiment always laughs when describing the scenario. So in your own thinking, under what conditions do you think people are most likely to aggress? When you can see the driver or not? When guns are visible or not? The idea with the bumper stickers is that sometimes the guns are not associated with aggressive behaviors because some associate guns more with sport than with aggression, so the vengeance sticker was meant to counteract that thought.

Intuitively, you would think that people would more likely show more aggression when they could see the driver because you wouldn't do it if there's the possibility that some huge guy could get out of the truck, right? And when there aren't visible firearms present, and certainly not with the "vengeance" bumper stick on back. Right?

But it was invariably the case that people were mostly like to display aggressive behaviors when, 1) the curtain was drawn, 2) gun rack was visible, and 3) and the "vengeance" bumper sticker was in full view. What happens essentially is that people are more likely to act up when they have no idea who it is that they're encountering, guns automatically activate aggressive nodes in cognitive processes, and the vengeance reminder strenghtens that cognitive link.

Another area of research that is really interesting to me is the idea of the cathartic effects that certain kinds of therapies have on people. Some of it you've probably heard of, or at the very least vague pop references to some of these. Primal Therapy got press attention in the early 1970's when John Lennon went to be treated by the therapist who coined the phrase "primal scream."

Essentially the idea behind these therapies is that you reacquire your frustrated and angry feelings, and let them out through aggressive behaviors in safe and controlled settings. This idea is millenia old and goes back to Aristotle's time. One interesting one that actually sounds kind of fun is Sarah's Smash Shack down in San Diego. Basically you go in and you just break stuff. And people tell themselves all the time that these therapies are great, or that listening to some heavy rock music helps to just let it all out.

So do these methods actually work?

Brad Bushman, one of the leading psychologists in the world on aggression, was called by Oprah's people to discuss some of these popular therapies and they asked him what suggestions he had about how to alleviate frustration so that he might possibly share it on the show. And he told them I can tell you, but you're not going to like it. If you're upset, go out for a walk or do some exercise. When you're having an argument count to ten or step outside to collect yourself before responding. Listen to classical music. The cathartic effect is an illusion, at least in the ways that people are trying to find it. They never called him back after that conversation.

What happens is that oftentimes people are totally unaware of the subtle effects that they are experiencing, or being influenced by. Studies show that when people try these therapies, they subjectively report that they feel so much better. It feels so good to just scream in my car, yell swear words, listen to Metallica when I'm angry, or whatever else people do. And they are being completely honest, as far as they understand, but then all of the physiological measures betray what they're really feeling - heightened blood pressure, increased heart rate and levels of cortisol and testosterone, etc.

People misattribute their feelings. What happens is that people will subjectively say they feel better, but in their next provocation they show enhanced aggressive responses. Essentially their baseline rates of aggression have been heightened, not lowered.

This brings me to my final point, which unfortunately for you has taken me a long time to get to. Media violence and the effect it has on viewers. I read this article a few years ago when I took applied social psychology as an undergrad - It's Only Violence. That is the Ensign article, and I would link you to the actual scholarly article it's based on, but it's still protected. That article gives you the vital information though.

For some reason, people are always so skeptical about this, even members of the church. But the facts are there - the effect of viewing media violence on subsequent aggression has greater correlations than the effect of calcium on bone density, greater effects than condom use preventing HIV transfer, greater effects than second-hand smoke on lung cancer, among other things. The literature is there, and this is done with meta-analyses and across thousands of studies. Watching violent media makes people more prone to violence. Does it happen in 100% of the cases? No, just like George Burns can smoke cigars every day of his life and die of old age and not cancer. But prolonged exposure to violent media makes people act more violently.

What was really interesting was watching student reactions to this lecture in class and just how skeptical they were. For some reason people don't like to accept this finding, but somehow someone suggests that Baby Einstein makes kids smarter and all of the sudden every parent in the country is buying that stuff for their kids even though no studies have confirmed that line of thinking.

I'm not saying you can't watch anything, but just be mindful. I once had this conversation (argument) with a friend of mine who insisted that he felt the spirit more in movies like The Patriot and Saving Private Ryan than most other movies. While what you may be feeling is appreciation for what some of those men did in reality, what you're not feeling is the spirit. This guy also tended to display more aggressive behaviors than almost anyone I know so he obviously must have been right. Right...

What's interesting is that the media will try to write off these findings like they don't mean anything, but then what is their business based upon? Advertisers. And why do advertisers pay for commercial time or print ad space? Because showing people these ads actually affects their purchasing behavior. So how is it that viewing 30-second commercials can make someone want to go out and buy perfume, cars, Coke, or a million other things, but the 1 hour long Law and Order show about rape and murder can't have any effects on the viewers?

I've made this point before, but just be aware of what message it is that the show/book/movie/music is advertising to you. It may be much more than you bargained for.

Lastly, what movie do you think was rated most violent by these guys doing content analyses on all these different things? Rambo? Total Recall? Natural Born Killers? The Godfather? How about Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. Apparently that has by far more acts of violence per segment than any other film. Typically, what's on Saturday mornings is more violent than what's on during primetime television.