Baron. 1977. Said that
:-Aggression is not always provoked in by the words or deeds of others.
:-Aggression can be elicited by the surrounding environment.
:-Aggression is not always related to ongoing social interaction.
The environment is one of the major causes of aggression.
Environmental factors.
:-Crowding.
:-Noise.
:-Temperature.
Temperature.
The riots in the USA in the 60s and 70s were attributed by the media to be the ambient temperature.
Baron. 1977. Suggested that increases in Fahrenheit shortened tempers. This increase irrationability and inevitably sets the stage for the outbreak of collective violence.
Research exploring the effects of temperature on aggression.
Anderson. 1989. Said that.
:-Hotter regions tend to have more aggression than cooler regions (correlationial)
:-Hotter years, seasons and days tend to have more incidents of violent crime.
This implies that there is a relationship between temperature and aggression.
Griffit. 1970. Explored the temperature and found there was an aggression link.
Procedure.
:-Participants were places in one of two conditions. One. Uncomfortably hot. Two. Cool condition.
:-Behavior and attitudes were recorded after exposure
Findings.
:-Under comfortably hot conditions people became more prone to outbursts of anger.
:-They also had negative responses.
Conclusion.
:-These findings imply there is a relationship between temperature and anti social behavior. A positive correlation.
Kenrik. 1986. He carried out research exploring the effects of heat on behavior.
Procedure.
:-They observed drivers responses to a car blocking the road at a set of traffic lights.
Findings.
:-They found that drivers’ responses became more negative as the temperature increased. They ‘honked their horns’ more.
Conclusion.
:-These findings imply that there is a positive correlation between temperature and anti social behavior.
Cohn. 1993. Suggested that increases in temperature are linked with increases in domestic violence (correlationial).
Maes. 1994. Found that there was a positive correlation between temperature and violent suicides (correlationial).
Both of these studies imply that environmental factors may lead to increased levels of anti social behavior.
AO2. However, even though all of these studies suggest that there is a positive correlation between temperature and anti social behavior, the findings must be treated with caution for a variety of reasons. Correlation equals no cause and effect. Many variables have not been controlled that may have lead to anti social behavior, for example, alcohol.
The relationship between temperature and aggression is not straightforward.
Research indicates that it is not always a positive correlation.
Baron. 1972. Proposed that higher temperatures (91 to 95F) actually reduced aggression.
Halpern. 1995. Suggested that there is an inverted ‘u’ relationship between heat and aggression.
:-Maximum aggression is brought about by moderate temperature.
:-As the temperature increases to extremely high levels, antisocial behavior starts to decline.
Why?
:-Motives change
:-As temperature increases the motive to aggression is replaced by the motive to escape.
Baron. 1975. Found that as temperatures get really high then trying to minimize the discomfort becomes the dominant response rather than the aggression.
Crowding
Kaya and Erkip. 1999. Said:-
:- Crowding refers to the psychological state of discomfort that is induced in our expectations about the use of space are violated by the presence of others. As a result of this discomfort, emotional distress may arise and a number of behavioural adjustments aimed at preserving one’s personal space may occur.
Horn. 1994, Found:-
:- High density usually affects interaction between two individuals.
:-When an increase in social density is seen as undesirable, social outcomes are generally negative and more aggression occurs whilst, at the same time, there is less cooperation.
Individuals subjected to high density often respond by withdrawing from social interaction and avoiding social contact. Although the role of crowding or population density has been proposed as an environmental stressor there is not strong evidence to support this.
Geen.1990. Found:-
:- The increased density of people, such as on congested travel routes, and violations of personal space may produce an aggressive response.
Stokols. 1972. Suggested:-
:- Different people react differently to the same level of density. This depends upon their personal perceptions of crowding. This is a common finding.
Matthews et al.1979. Found:-
:- There is some evidence the aggression results from the arousal and frustration crowding causes.
:- As with temperature there may be a curvilinear relationship between crowding and aggression.
:- As crowds swell people become uncomfortable and irritation increases. Once there is a certain level of density there is too much discomfort to be able to act aggressively.
:- Evidence of a link between aggression and density is inconclusive.
Mummendey. 1996. Found:-
:- There to be no link between high density and aggression.
:- Some studies indicate the opposite.
Stokols et al. 1973:-
:- A laboratory study which found that increased density in males led to an increase in aggressive feelings.
:- The opposite was found to be true for females.
Perception of crowding can vary from person to person. There are three main reasons for this :-
:- Intensification. Freedman. 1975 found an increase in the density of people can mean usual reactions are intensified. For example, if you do not enjoy an activity such as taking the train, then crowding will make this worse. If you do enjoy an activity, such as nightclubbing, crowding could make this experience better.
:- Stimulus Overload. Cohen. 178 found that situations involving a large number of people are stressful because there is more stimuli to manage. An example would be a parent accompanying a group of children on a school trip. This situation would be more demanding than a similar family trip as there is more stimuli to manage.
:- Perceived Control. Sherrod. 1974 conducted an experiment similar to Glass and Singer. 1972. The level of crowd density was used as a stressor, instead of noise, during a problem solving task. As with the noise study the participants were told they could control the interference by leaving the room, thus the effects were minimised. If we believe we have the ability to leave a crowded situation then this has an affect on our perception of crowding.
Stokols.1976. Identified:-
:- There are three ways of explaining increased levels of aggression because of crowding.
:- Stimulus overload. Sensory inputs can overwhelm people in high density situations. When the amount of stimulation produced by high density exceeds our ability to deal with it, negative consequences occur.
:- Behavioural constraint. High density is aversive because it may lead to reduced behavioural freedom. Whether or not we experience negative effects depends on what we want to do and whether high density stops us from doing it.
:- Ecological model. This assumes high density will produce negative consequences since it may result in insufficient resources for people in that setting. Resources are broadly refined and may include both material, such as food, and privacy. An example of this is fighting for food at a famine relief centre.
:- Something common to all three explanations is that conditions in which there is a lack of control are more likely to produce negative consequences.
The effects of crowding:-
:- There is little evidence of a correlation between urban density and crime.
:- Baron. 1977. Found there is little correlation between crowding and the incidence of violent crimes such as murder and rape.
:-Cave. 1998. Found a high level of correlation between density and violence in prisons.
:- Cox et al. 1984. Reported that a 30% reduction in the prison population produced a 60% less chance of attack on other inmates. This is particularly true within males prisons.
Freedman et al. 1972. Found that crowding increased aggression in all male groups. This was based on the recommended sentencing of a jury for people found guilty in tape:-recorded trials. The opposite was found to be true for females. There was no significant effect apparent for crowding within mixed groups.
:-Loo. 1972. Found that in four and five year old crowding tended to reduce aggression.
:-Freedman. 1975. Said that crowding itself had neither good or bad effects. It only serves to intensify individuals reactions to the situation, this can be positive or negative.
Macintyre and Homel. 1997. Found:-
:- In the six Australian nightclubs studied, the more crowded venues seemed to be the most violent with higher levels of observed aggressive incidents.
:- This was still true when accounting for the levels of male drunkenness and staff interactions with club:-goers.
Gender differences show that increased density and higher levels of adult aggression are apparent within males. In females this is not true:-
:-Stokes et al. 1973. Looked at same:-sex groups of eight in either a small or large room. Males rated themselves as more aggressive in the smaller room whereas the opposite was true in females.
:-Schettino and Borden. 1975. Used a ratio of people in a classroom to the total number of seats as a measure of density. Males reported increased feelings of aggression as density increased, the opposite was true for females.
Conclusions:-
:-Research allows several tentative conclusions to be drawn. Higher densities of people may lead to less liking for both people and places as well as greater withdrawal. This effect appears to be stronger in males.
:-Social density refers to the number of people in a space whereas spatial density refers to the amount of space available. Research is inconsistent suggesting only a weak relationship between high densities and aggressive behaviour. High social density will produce negative effects more than high spatial density. Paulus. 1977. Found that social density manipulations are generally aversive, but spatial density manipulations are only problematic among males in same:-sex groups.
:- Some studies have shown that cities contain more stressful environmental features, such as increased temperature, noise, crowding and inconvenience. Urban dwellers typically report being affected far more adversely by these physical stressors than rural dwellers.
Noise
Baron and Byrne. 1997. Defined noise as:- ‘an unwanted sound which brings about a negative response.’ Unpredictable or loud sounds often cause a negative response.
Bell et al. 1990. Found that predictable sounds, such as a clock ticking, do not generally have this effect.
Cohen et al. 1980. Found:-
:- Noise typically produces stress.
:- In a study of the stress levels of children living beneath Los Angeles airport’s flight path and children living in quieter environments, there were more signs of chronic, long:-term, stress in the children living near to the airport.
Geen and O’Neal. 1969. Found:-
:- That high intensity noise increased aggression only in participants who had previously witnessed a violent film.
:- Participants who had watched a non:-violent film were no more aggressive in a high:-density noise condition than in a low:-density one.
Glass and Slinger. 1972. Found:-
:- When participants worked on arithmetic sums whilst being exposed to loud, random burst of noise they could complete the tasks.
:- However, when asked to proof:-read in a quiet environment they performed particularly badly.
:- The explanation to this is probably that whilst exposed to noise the participants overcame the problem to continue what they were doing. However, the noise had caused them to be more aroused and frustrated. These feelings showed when they no longer had to concentrate to shut out the noise.
:- Another finding is that participants who were told they could use a button to turn off the noise made far less mistakes on the second task. Having control over noise reduced their level of arousal.
Baron. 1977. Said:-
:- Given the frequency with which we are all exposed to provocation and annoyance from others the experimental findings suggest that high noise levels present in many urban areas may contribute to:- if not actually initiate:- interpersonal aggression.
Donnerstein and Wilson. 1976:-
:- They asked male participants to write an essay which was then evaluated favourably (non:-angered condition) or quite critically (angered condition).
:- The participants then got to swap roles and become ‘teachers’. In this role they then evaluated the confederates essay through electric shocks, which is a measure of aggression.
:- When acting as the teacher participants wore headphones and were exposed to one:-second blasts or either low:-intensity 65 db noise, or a high:-intensity 95 db noise.
:- The participants in the ‘angered’ condition were more likely to administer more and longer shocks is they heard the high:-intensity noise whilst the non:-angered participants were mostly unaffected by noise density.
:- In a second, related experiment Donnerstein and Wilson added a no:-noise control condition and exposed participants to noise before they could deliver shocks to the confederate.
:- In a further condition participants believed they could stop the noise by asking.
:- The original findings were confirmed and the new condition showed that noise intensity had no effect on aggression.
:- Donnerstein and Wilson suggested that when participants believed they could terminate the noise it seemed less arousing and unpleasant to them.
Bandura. 1973. Said:-
:- The heighted physiological arousal produced by loud noise will only result in overt aggression if such behaviour represents a strong or dominant response.
