1. Social Determinants of Aggression
Question/day = Does frustration lead to aggression?
Answer – it depends, upon mediators

2. Outlining (learning tip)
Frustration
Evidence it facilitates aggression
Evidence it does not facilitate aggression
Mediating factors
Magnitude of Frustration
Aggressive Cues
Arbitrariness of Frustration
Emotional and Cognitive Processes
Verbal/Physical Attacks
Retaliatory Aggression
Why people retaliate
Retaliation as a Defensive Strategy
Retaliation as Impression Management
Characteristics of the Target
Sex of Target
Race of Target
Instigation by other people
Obedience
Bystanders
Words and Actions of Bystanders
Presence and Apparent Value of Bystanders

3. Frustration Does frustration lead to aggression?
Evidence it facilitates aggression
Evidence it doesn’t facilitate aggression
Mediating factors
Magnitude of Frustration
Aggressive Cues
Arbitrariness of Frustration
Emotional and Cognitive Processes
Facilitates
-- What is frustration? Blocking a goal
-- clear evidence. four conditions, control, task frustration, personal frustration, verbal insult. Result = more in each, in that order
-- task frustration is unsolvable puzzle (tell them my story about same at USC, I am egotistical ass, since I couldn’t do it, I realized impossible, so must be manipulation, so I didn’t get frustrated,
-- personal frustration is solvable puzzle but worked with someone who interfered with them
-- Insult condition is solvable puzzle without interruption but insult via accusation by another that you are low intelligence
-- see page 131 chart for results,
Doesn’t
-- doesn’t facilitate. Three conditions, control (no information), know-how (told they would master task in 30 trials), and grade (same information about 30 trials but also told that if don’t master it would affect their grades). All manipulated so that learned (in teacher-learner paradigm) didn’t learn until 70th trial.
-- result = more frustrated in know-how, even more in grades, but NOT more aggression
-- If null, infinite of possible third variables, haven’t proven or disproven
-- How to reconcile with above study? MEDIATORS, see below
Mediating
Magnitude
-- from chapter 1, page 23, three things – degree of expecting satisfaction, degree of interference, number of frustrating sequences
-- research from chapter 4, cut in line, either 2nd person, or 12th person, Result = more verbal for 2nd in line
2. Cues
-- research, aggressive cue (film of gang fight), no cue (car race), Result = more aggression with cue
3. Arbitrariness
-- research, no expectancy group (no info about which of three prizes to get), expectancy group (told get prize they liked best), choice (could choose prize). Result = only aggression in last two because those two about expectations
4. Emotion and cognition
-- research, must produce negative affect, Geen page 23, stress in work place=aggression if negative affect
Original formulation – Frustration – always aggression. Aggression – always from frustration
Each reformulated
Video for aggressive cues – guns – from PSY309 – Chicago overrun with gun violence
Video for emotional and cognitive processing – if need time, from PSY 309:
(alcohol from bars in Australia causing brawls)

4. Verbal/Physical Attacks
Does provocation by other people lead to aggression?
Retaliatory Aggression
Why people retaliate
Retaliation as a Defensive Strategy
Retaliation as Impression Management
Attack more perceived as more powerful than frustration, but notice any study can have varying degrees of each, so depends on magnitude of each
Retaliatory Aggression
Four conditions, incrementally higher, incrementally lower, constant high, constant low. Result – reciprocate in same way, so if incrementally higher, then you go incrementally higher, if constant high, you go constant high, etc.
Retaliatory, called tit for tat, reciprocal, research is different levels manipulation, and aggression corresponds
Ask Why? Because protecting future self, because if go higher, you know they will go higher, hurt you more in future
(illegal drug violence on border)
Why people retaliate
Defensive Strategy – escape-avoidance theory. Why don’t go lower? In other words, above I asked why tit-for-tat, so next question is why not go lower expecting them to go lower next time? Because protecting future self again. If go lower after them going higher, then sending message that they can hurt you without you responding.
Research – 2 x 2 (intent versus outcome) and found that intent mattered more than outcome.
Research – intent only that going to attack is enough, don’t need attack, Perception of act is enough to create aggression
Impression Management – (1) public (save face), (2) self identity (loser), (3) justified (because tit for tat)
News report – students as Harvard created new company, where put money into account, if you don’t do the thing you promised yourself, the money goes to a charity you dislike, for example, if you want to run a marathon, put in $1,000 and if don’t run the marathon, then money goes to charity you dislike. WHY? because you have multiple selves. You are trying to incentivize your future self. Your present self says you want to run the marathon, but when you wake up the next morning to start training, that future self says I want to sleep.

5. Characteristics of the Target
Do characteristics of the target influence aggression?
Sex of Target
Race of Target
Women less victims, chivarly, unless she is percieved as threat, see research
Most violence male on male
Race- mixed research

6. Instigation by Other people
Does instigation by other people lead to aggression?
Obedience
Bystanders
Words and Actions of Bystanders
Presence and Apparent Value of Bystanders
Obedience – Milgram
Show video
Show video – 7:28-11:02,
See my social psychology class for all milgram stuff
Also, when discussing why difference between what you think you would do and what you actually do? because of multiple selves idea, because of situaitonal forces within the situation/environment
Why obedience, because adopted situation, chosen it, accepted it, imagine opposite of forced to be in study, adopted script,
Bystanders – Milgram third party present