Sociocultural+explanations+of+violence

= Evaluate sociocultural explanations of the origins of violence. = The psychology of evil - Philip Zimbardo

media type="custom" key="22734008" //"So how do psychologists go about understanding such transformations of human character...There are three ways.//
 * Excerpt from the transcript**
 * 1) // The main way is -- it's called **dispositional**. We look at what's inside of the person, the bad apples. This is the foundation of all of social science, the foundation of religion, the foundation of war. //
 * 2) // Social psychologists like me come along and say, "Yeah, people are the actors on the stage, but you'll have to be aware of what that situation is. Who are the cast of characters? What's the costume? Is there a stage director?" And so we're interested in, what are the **external factors around the individual** -- the bad barrel? //
 * 3) // And social scientists stop there, and they miss the big point that I discovered when I became an expert witness for Abu Ghraib.**The power is in the system. The system creates the situation that corrupts the individuals,and the system is the legal, political, economic, cultural background**. And this is where the power is of the bad-barrel makers." //

=**Sociocultural explanations**=

**Power differences and social norms**

 * (– in the context of social learning theory)**


 * Social norms**
 * We can argue that norms tell us how to behave
 * Marsh 1978, Anderson 1994 (Hill page 74)
 * this helps explain why there are cross-cultural differences in violence – different cultures have different norms


 * Social learning theory**
 * However, we can also argue that these norms are actually established through modeling – social learning theory
 * Evidence: Bandura – see Hill page 72
 * What were his findings?
 * In other words, norms are not created on their own
 * What does this mean?
 * Limitations and strengths of social learning theory?


 * Social norm conformity theory**
 * research suggests there are norms for aggression and violence in certain societies - violence is expected
 * See Hill page 72 for further evidence
 * What evidence can you find?

Power differences and social norms- in the context of social learning theory
 * Abie and Andrea ** - Power differences and social norms - in the context of social learning theory
 * Social norms within a society provide guidance for individuals as to how emotions may be expressed. Norms dictate how power is distribute within a society and define how males and females are supposed to behave. Because of this it can be said that violent societies breed violent behaviors- if society is violent, it is likely that behavior will be manifested in its people.
 * This violence is a survival mechanism that is learned though modeling- SLT. In other words, SLT plays a role in determining the behaviors of individuals in a society.
 * Level of violence are depended on the social norms of society
 * Oliner 1988: found that Christians who sheltered Jews during the second world war were disassociated themselves from the violence ensued by the Nazis because they identified strongly with a parent who exemplified norms and concern for others

De-individuation theory
(Eysenck page 579 – 581; Hill page 74)
 * Large group -> anonymity -> individual shakes off responsibility
 * Zimbardo electric shock experiment (1969)
 * What were the findings?


 * Can de-individuation be considered a cause? One argument is that de-individuation might be considered to facilitate aggression and violence, rather than being a cause
 * What does this mean?

Evaluation of Deindividuation Theory
Deindividuation theory is that the psychological state of deindividuation is aroused when individuals join crowds or large groups. The state is characterized by diminished awareness of self and individuality. Being in a large group provides a degree of anonymity, which allows an individual to avoid responsibility for his or her actions, thus impeding all social inhibitions and become impulsive, irrational, aggressive or even violent. This describes mob mentality.
 * Nathan and Kevin **
 * Zimbardo 1969:**
 * Female undergraduates were asked to deliver electric socks to another student to “aid learning”.
 * Half wore bulky lab coats and hid their faces, spoken to in groups of four and never referred to by name. The other half wore normal clothes, given large nametags and were introduced by name.
 * Both sets of participants could see the student being shocked. All participants were told something about the learner prior to each experiment, either positive or negative things.
 * **FINDINGS**: Hooded participants delivered twice as many shocks, participants wearing nametags related the amount of shock to the description given.
 * **CONCLUSIONS**: It is inferred that those whose identity has been obscured were more likely to deliver a harsher punishment. Deindividuation appears to have lowered sense of self-consciousness and accountability.
 * **LIMITATIONS**: There is no ecological validity due to the laboratory setting; there is high artificiality throughout the experiment. There is also an ethical issue posed by electric shocks and can cause long-term stress in a long-term scheme.

observed children on Halloween to see if deindividuation had an effect on child behavior, looking at how much candy children took
 * Diener et al.:**
 * One group were asked for names/address, other group was not – highlighting identity
 * **FINDINGS**: 8% of ‘known’ group took more than one candy, 80% of deindividuation group took more than one sweet when encouraged to take a single candy

Decreased self-awareness leads to:
 * LeBon(1895)** argues that anonymity is an important factor for individuals in mobs that can lead to violence because they ‘lose’ their personal identity and don’t follow normal social constraints. Diffused responsibility also plays a role, when responsibility of what happens is spread out among the crowd.
 * Poor monitoring of one’s own behavior
 * Reduced concern of social approval
 * Reduces rational thinking
 * Increases impulsive behavior

Strength: Limitations:
 * Explains mob behavior, when people act unlike themselves when in large crowds
 * Explains how people may act differently in different situations
 * Does not explain how people act normally when not in crowds.
 * Does not take into account cognitive/biological factors
 * Reductionist and limiting in terms of explanation

Social identity theory
Read the excerpt from Jamison (pages 151 – 153) and use notes from Crane as well
 * The group influences us
 * What does this mean?
 * What evidence can you find?
 * However, we can also argue that self-categorization plays a role – we look for other individuals in the group that we identify with, not just the group as a whole.
 * What is Jamison’s evidence on self-categorization?

Evaluation

 * Cognitive processing behind group processing is culturally dependent
 * Social identity must be thought of in a cultural context
 * “The type of social identity one has with in-groups and out-groups is adaptive to the conditions in which people evolved, which ties social identity to the biological level of analysis” (Jamison p.157) - INTERACTION
 * What does this mean?
 * What evidence can you find?