AQA A-level Psychology (7182): Paper 3 – Aggression – Revision Notes

For full explanations and worked paragraphs, read the aggression study guide first.

These notes follow the AQA AS and A-level Psychology (7181, 7182) specification, Version 1.4 (1 September 2025), for teaching from September 2025. They cover section 4.3.8, Aggression. The specification assesses it in Paper 3, Issues and Options in Psychology, Section D, which is “one topic from option 3, 15–17” for 24 marks.

Practise with the aggression practice questions. The 7182 course hub and 7182 checklist show the rest of the course. For the general version of social learning theory, see the approaches revision notes.

Paper 3 at a glance

Feature	What the specification prints
Paper	Paper 3: Issues and Options in Psychology
Length and marks	Written exam, 2 hours, 96 marks, 33.3% of A-level
Section A	Multiple choice, short answer and extended writing, 24 marks (compulsory content 8 is assessed in Paper 3; your teacher will confirm it sits in Section A)
Sections B, C, D	One topic from option 1 (9–11), option 2 (12–14) and option 3 (15–17), 24 marks each
Option 3	Aggression, Forensic Psychology, Addiction
Question types	Multiple choice, short answer and extended writing

Key terms

Term	Definition
Limbic system	Subcortical structures, including the amygdala and hypothalamus, that process emotion
Amygdala	Limbic structure that assesses threat and triggers rapid emotional responses
Orbitofrontal cortex (OFC)	Frontal area that regulates limbic activity and impulse control
Serotonin	Inhibitory neurotransmitter; low levels linked to impulsive aggression
Testosterone	Androgen hormone linked to dominance and male aggression
MAOA gene	Codes for monoamine oxidase A, an enzyme that breaks down serotonin; low-activity variant linked to aggression
Innate releasing mechanism (IRM)	Inborn neural process triggered by a specific environmental stimulus
Fixed action pattern (FAP)	Universal, ballistic, single-purpose behaviour sequence released by an IRM
Ritualistic aggression	Displays that end in appeasement, so conflict rarely kills
Cuckoldry	A man unknowingly raising another man’s child
Mate retention	Strategies to keep a partner, such as direct guarding and negative inducements
Displacement	Aggression redirected to a safer target than the source of frustration
Catharsis	The claim that expressing aggression releases it
Vicarious reinforcement	Learning that a behaviour pays by seeing others rewarded
De-individuation	Loss of personal identity and self-awareness in crowds or under anonymity
Importation model	Dispositional: prisoners bring aggressive traits and norms into prison
Deprivation model	Situational: prison conditions cause aggression
Desensitisation	Reduced emotional and physical response to violence after repeated exposure
Disinhibition	Media weaken usual restraints by making violence seem normal
Cognitive priming	Media activate aggressive thoughts that later cues can trigger

Theories and studies at a glance

Who	What	Finding	One evaluation point
Klüver and Bucy (1939)	Temporal lobes removed on both sides in rhesus monkeys	Monkeys became placid and lost normal fear	Animal brains may not generalise to humans
Gospic et al. (2011)	Ultimatum game in a scanner, drug vs placebo	Drug lowered amygdala activity and rejection of unfair offers	Drug manipulation shows cause, not just correlation
Raleigh et al. (1991)	Serotonin-raising or -lowering drugs in male vervet monkeys	Raised serotonin: treated males became dominant; lowered: cage mates did	Animal study; dominance is not the same as aggression
Dabbs et al. (1987)	Saliva testosterone in 89 male prisoners	10 of the 11 highest had committed violent crimes	Correlational; direction of cause unclear
Mehta and Josephs (2010)	Dual-hormone hypothesis	Testosterone predicts dominance mainly when cortisol is low	Shows a single-hormone account is too simple
Coccaro et al. (1997)	Adult male twins	Genes explained about 47% of the variance in direct physical aggression	Assumes equal environments for MZ and DZ twins
Brunner et al. (1993)	Affected men in one Dutch family	MAOA mutation, no MAOA activity, impulsive aggression	One family; may not generalise
Caspi et al. (2002)	Dunedin boys, MAOA and maltreatment	Maltreated boys with high-activity MAOA less likely to become antisocial	Supports gene-environment interaction
Tinbergen (1951)	Stickleback models	Red underside triggered attack	Controlled, but animal-only evidence
Lorenz	Ethology	Aggression adaptive and often ritualistic	Gombe chimpanzee killings show lethal aggression
Shackelford et al. (2005)	Couples survey	Men’s mate retention predicted partner violence	Self-report and correlational
Dollard et al. (1939)	Frustration-aggression hypothesis	Frustration always leads to aggression	Too absolute; Berkowitz (1989) revised it
Berkowitz and LePage (1967)	Shocks with guns vs racquets nearby	More shocks with guns present	Aggressive cues matter
Bushman (2002)	Hitting a punchbag while thinking of the provoker	More aggressive than doing nothing	Contradicts catharsis
Bandura et al. (1961)	Bobo doll	Children imitated adult aggression	Doll is not a person
Bandura (1965)	Model rewarded or punished	Punished model, less imitation until reward offered	Learning differs from performance
Zimbardo (1969)	Hooded vs named participants	Hooded gave longer shocks	Postmes and Spears (1998): weak overall support
Irwin and Cressey (1962)	Importation model	Prisoners bring norms in	Camp and Gaes: similar misconduct at different security levels
Sykes (1958)	Pains of imprisonment	Five deprivations cause frustration	Useful for prison management
Anderson and Dill (2000)	Violent game in the lab	More aggressive thoughts and behaviour	Lab measures lack validity
Carnagey et al. (2007)	Violent or non-violent game, then videos of real-life violence	Lower skin conductance after violent game	Short-term lab effect
Josephson (1987)	396 boys, violent or non-violent TV, cue, floor hockey	Violent TV plus cue raised aggression in groups with more high-aggressive boys	Naturalistic observation raises validity; effect not found in all boys

Must-know distinctions

• IRM vs FAP. The IRM is the trigger mechanism; the FAP is the behaviour it releases.
• Ethological vs evolutionary. Ethology studies animals directly. Evolutionary explanations apply natural selection to human aggression.
• Dispositional vs situational. Importation is about the prisoner; deprivation is about the prison.
• Learning vs performance. Bandura (1965) showed children learn aggression without performing it until motivated.
• Desensitisation vs disinhibition. Desensitisation reduces arousal; disinhibition changes norms about what is acceptable.
• Original vs revised frustration-aggression. Dollard: frustration always leads to aggression. Berkowitz: frustration makes it more likely.
• Gene vs gene-environment interaction. MAOA-L alone predicts little; with maltreatment it predicts much more.

Mini essay plan: discuss institutional aggression in the context of prisons [16]

1. AO1, importation. Irwin and Cressey: prisoners bring traits, gang links and an inmate code into prison.
2. AO1, deprivation. Sykes’ pains of imprisonment: liberty, goods and services, heterosexual relationships, autonomy, security. Add crowding and poor management.
3. AO3, importation support. Camp and Gaes: random assignment, similar misconduct across security levels.
4. AO3, deprivation value. Practical use: improving conditions should reduce violence if the model is right.
5. AO3, debate. Each model is one-sided. An interactionist view combines person and situation.
6. AO3, issues. Nature-nurture and free will-determinism; social sensitivity when blaming individuals.
7. Conclusion. Judge which model has the stronger evidence, with a reason.

Issues and debates hooks

• Nature-nurture. Biological, ethological and evolutionary explanations stress nature; social learning, de-individuation and media explanations stress nurture. Caspi et al. (2002) supports an interactionist view.
• Determinism. Gene and hormone accounts are biologically deterministic; this matters if they are used to reduce responsibility for violence.
• Reductionism. Explaining aggression by one neurotransmitter or hormone ignores social context.
• Gender bias. Much hormone and evolutionary research focuses on male aggression.

The issues and debates study guide explains each debate in full.

Quick self-test

1. Name two limbic structures linked to aggression.
2. What does the OFC do in relation to aggression?
3. Which neurotransmitter does MAOA break down?
4. What did Caspi et al. (2002) find about maltreatment?
5. Give the four features of a fixed action pattern.
6. What triggered attack in Tinbergen’s sticklebacks?
7. What is cuckoldry, and why is it relevant?
8. State the two claims of the original frustration-aggression hypothesis.
9. What did Bandura (1965) show about learning and performance?
10. Which prison model is dispositional?
11. Define cognitive priming.

Answers

1. The amygdala and the hypothalamus.
2. It regulates limbic activity and impulses; poor OFC control allows reactive aggression.
3. Serotonin (among other neurotransmitters).
4. The MAOA variant mattered mainly for boys maltreated as children: maltreated boys with high-activity MAOA were less likely to become antisocial.
5. Universal, ballistic, single-purpose, triggered by a specific stimulus.
6. A red underside on the model.
7. Raising another man’s child; sexual jealousy and mate retention may have evolved to prevent it.
8. Frustration always leads to aggression; aggression is always caused by frustration.
9. Children who saw a model punished still learned the aggression and performed it when offered a reward.
10. The importation model.
11. Violent media activate aggressive thoughts that later cues can trigger.

Where marks are usually lost

• Describing the amygdala without saying how it produces aggression.
• Writing “the warrior gene causes violence” instead of explaining the gene-environment interaction.
• Muddling IRM and FAP, or calling FAPs learned.
• Applying ethology to humans without noting the cultural and learning problem.
• Describing the Bobo doll study without linking it to human aggression.
• Giving importation and deprivation without saying which is dispositional and which is situational.
• Naming desensitisation, disinhibition and priming but not showing how each leads to aggressive behaviour.
• Treating correlational studies (Dabbs et al., survey research) as proof of cause.
• Forgetting issues and debates in 16-mark answers: determinism, reductionism, nature-nurture, gender bias.
• Using Forensic Psychology content on offending in an aggression answer.

Official syllabus

AQA AS and A-level Psychology (7181, 7182) specification, Version 1.4 (1 September 2025), for teaching from September 2025. Section 4.3.8 Aggression; Paper 3 structure in section 2.2. Check aqa.org.uk/7182 for the current version.