AQA A-level Psychology (7182): Paper 3 – Aggression – Study Guide

This guide follows the AQA AS and A-level Psychology (7181, 7182) specification, Version 1.4 (1 September 2025), for teaching from September 2025. It covers section 4.3.8, Aggression, and the general aims printed at the start of section 4.3. Aggression is one of the three topics in Option 3, and the specification assesses it in Paper 3, Issues and Options in Psychology, Section D.

Use it with the aggression revision notes and the aggression practice questions. The 7182 course hub and the 7182 checklist show the whole course. Social learning theory first appears in Approaches in Psychology; this guide applies it to aggression only.

Coverage table

Syllabus reference	What you must know or be able to do (from the document)	Where assessed
4.3 (aims)	Demonstrate knowledge; apply it in a range of contexts; analyse, interpret and evaluate concepts, theories, studies and research methods	Paper 3
4.3.8 Neural, hormonal, genetic	Neural and hormonal mechanisms, including the limbic system, serotonin and testosterone. Genetic factors, including the MAOA gene	Paper 3, Section D
4.3.8 Ethological and evolutionary	The ethological explanation, with innate releasing mechanisms and fixed action patterns. Evolutionary explanations of human aggression	Paper 3, Section D
4.3.8 Social psychological	The frustration-aggression hypothesis, social learning theory applied to human aggression, and de-individuation	Paper 3, Section D
4.3.8 Institutional aggression	Prisons: dispositional and situational explanations	Paper 3, Section D
4.3.8 Media	Media influences, including computer games. The role of desensitisation, disinhibition and cognitive priming	Paper 3, Section D

How Paper 3 is set out

Section 2.2 of the specification sets out Paper 3: a written exam of 2 hours, 96 marks in total, worth 33.3% of the A-level. It assesses compulsory content 8 (Issues and debates in Psychology) and “one from option 1, 9–11, one from option 2, 12–14, one from option 3, 15–17”.

• Section A: multiple choice, short answer and extended writing, 24 marks. Sections B to D each take one option topic; your teacher will confirm that Section A covers Issues and debates.
• Section D: “one topic from option 3, 15–17 above, multiple choice, short answer and extended writing, 24 marks”. Option 3 is Aggression (15), Forensic Psychology (16) and Addiction (17).

Sections B and C take one topic each from Options 1 and 2. Research methods and maths skills are also assessed in Paper 3.

Neural and hormonal mechanisms

The limbic system is a set of structures under the cortex that process emotion. The amygdala judges threat and triggers fast emotional responses. The hypothalamus helps turn those responses into bodily arousal. The orbitofrontal cortex (OFC) normally damps limbic activity, so poor OFC control can allow reactive aggression.

• Klüver and Bucy (1939) removed the temporal lobes, including the amygdala, on both sides of the brain in rhesus monkeys. The monkeys became placid and fearless.
• Gospic et al. (2011) scanned 35 people playing the ultimatum game, a money-splitting task. Rejecting unfair offers was linked to amygdala activity. A benzodiazepine (an anti-anxiety drug) reduced the amygdala response and cut rejections from 37.6% to 19.0%.

Serotonin is a neurotransmitter with an inhibitory role. It helps the OFC hold back impulses. Low serotonin is linked to impulsive aggression.

• Raleigh et al. (1991) gave male vervet monkeys drugs that raised or lowered serotonin activity. With raised serotonin the treated males became dominant; with lowered serotonin their cage mates did. The researchers stressed that dominance is not the same as aggression.
• Virkkunen et al. (1994) found lower levels of a serotonin by-product (5-HIAA) in the spinal fluid of impulsive alcoholic offenders than in non-impulsive alcoholic offenders.

Testosterone is an androgen. It is thought to act on brain areas such as the amygdala and OFC.

• Dabbs et al. (1987) measured saliva testosterone in 89 male prisoners. Of the 11 with the highest levels, 10 had committed violent crimes. Of the 11 with the lowest, 9 had committed non-violent crimes.

Evaluation. Drug studies such as Gospic et al. show cause and effect, not just correlation. However, the amygdala does not act alone: the OFC and serotonin interact with it. Animal findings may not generalise to humans. Hormone research is often correlational: status contests may themselves raise testosterone. The dual-hormone hypothesis (Mehta and Josephs, 2010) proposes that high testosterone predicts dominance mainly when cortisol is low. A single hormone is too reductionist.

Worked paragraph (testosterone). Testosterone may raise the likelihood of aggression in men. Dabbs et al. found that prisoners with the highest saliva testosterone had mostly committed violent crimes. But the data are correlational: prison conflict could raise testosterone, so the direction of cause is unclear. The dual-hormone hypothesis suggests testosterone matters most when cortisol is low, so a single-hormone account is too simple.

Genetic factors and the MAOA gene

Twin studies compare identical (MZ) and non-identical (DZ) twins. Coccaro et al. (1997) studied adult male twins and estimated that genes explained about 47% of the variance in direct physical aggression. Rhee and Waldman (2002) pooled twin and adoption studies and estimated that about 41% of the variance in antisocial behaviour was genetic.

MAOA is a gene that codes for the enzyme monoamine oxidase A. This enzyme breaks down serotonin and other neurotransmitters. A low-activity variant (MAOA-L) is linked to aggression.

• Brunner et al. (1993) studied a large Dutch family in which several men showed impulsive aggression. The affected men had a mutation in the MAOA gene and a complete lack of MAOA enzyme activity.
• Caspi et al. (2002) followed boys in Dunedin, New Zealand, from birth to adulthood. Maltreated boys with the high-activity MAOA variant were less likely to develop antisocial problems; the low-activity variant mattered mainly for those who had been maltreated. This is a gene-environment interaction.

Evaluation. Twin designs assume MZ and DZ twins share equally similar environments. Brunner’s family was one unusual case. Caspi et al. show genes are not destiny: the low-activity variant mattered most with maltreatment. That supports a diathesis-stress view and avoids biological determinism.

Worked paragraph. The MAOA gene helps explain why some people are more aggressive. The low-activity variant means less of the enzyme that breaks down serotonin. Caspi et al. found this variant was linked to antisocial behaviour mostly in men maltreated as children. So the gene seems to raise vulnerability rather than cause aggression directly. This interactionist finding is a strength because it fits evidence that environment matters.

The ethological explanation

Lorenz argued that aggression is adaptive: it spreads animals across territory and lets the strongest breed. Within a species, aggression is often ritualistic, ending with an appeasement display such as a wolf exposing its neck.

• An innate releasing mechanism (IRM) is an inborn neural process that is triggered by a specific stimulus in the environment.
• A fixed action pattern (FAP) is the sequence of behaviour the IRM releases. It is universal in the species, ballistic (once started, it runs to the end), single-purpose and triggered by a specific stimulus.
• Tinbergen (1951) showed male three-spined sticklebacks attacking crude models with a red underside but largely ignoring realistic models without red. The red patch acted as the sign stimulus.

Evaluation. Tinbergen’s work is controlled and repeatable. But many “fixed” patterns vary with experience and context. Ritualised aggression is not universal: Jane Goodall observed chimpanzees at Gombe killing members of a former group in the 1970s. Extending animal findings to humans is weak, because human aggression is heavily shaped by culture and learning.

Worked paragraph. Aggression may be released by specific triggers. Tinbergen found sticklebacks attacked a red-bellied model even when it looked nothing like a fish. The red underside was the stimulus that set off the IRM, and the attack ran as a fixed sequence. This supports a biological, innate account. However, the Gombe chimpanzee killings show that animal aggression is not always ritualised and harmless.

Evolutionary explanations of human aggression

Evolutionary psychologists argue that aggression helped ancestors survive and reproduce. Males face paternity uncertainty: they cannot be sure a child is theirs. Sexual jealousy may have evolved to prevent cuckoldry (raising another man’s child).

• Mate retention strategies include direct guarding (watching a partner’s behaviour) and negative inducements (threats or violence to stop a partner leaving).
• Shackelford et al. (2005) surveyed men and women in heterosexual relationships. Men’s use of mate retention tactics predicted their violence towards partners.
• Wilson and Daly (1996) argued that male sexual proprietariness (a sense of ownership over a partner) underlies much violence against wives.

Evaluation. The theory explains a sex difference: men show more physical aggression than women. But it cannot easily explain cultural variation in levels of aggression, which suggests learning matters. Many claims cannot be tested directly, because the ancestral environment cannot be observed. It could also be misused to excuse violence.

Worked paragraph. Sexual jealousy may be an evolved response to paternity uncertainty. Shackelford et al. found that men who used more mate retention tactics were more violent towards partners. This supports the claim that some aggression aims to keep a mate. But the evidence is correlational and self-reported, and the explanation is hard to falsify because ancestral behaviour cannot be observed.

Social psychological explanations

Frustration-aggression hypothesis. Dollard et al. (1939) proposed that frustration always leads to aggression, and aggression is always caused by frustration. Releasing aggression is cathartic. If the cause is unavailable or too powerful, aggression is displaced onto another target. Berkowitz (1989) revised the idea: frustration creates negative feelings, which make aggression more likely but not certain. Berkowitz and LePage (1967) found that angered participants gave more electric shocks when guns, rather than badminton racquets, were nearby (the “weapons effect”). However, Bushman (2002) found that hitting a punchbag while thinking about the provoker led to more aggression than doing nothing, which contradicts catharsis.

Social learning theory applied to aggression. Children learn aggression by observing models, especially those they identify with. Vicarious reinforcement shows them aggression pays. The mediational processes (attention, retention, reproduction, motivation) operate, and self-efficacy for aggression grows when it works. In Bandura et al. (1961), children who watched an adult attack a Bobo doll imitated much of that aggression. In Bandura (1965), children who saw a model punished imitated less, but all groups imitated when offered a reward, showing learning differs from performance. Evaluation: it explains cultural variation, but Bobo dolls are made to be hit, so validity for aggression towards people is limited.

De-individuation. In a crowd or under anonymity, people lose personal identity and self-awareness, so social norms against aggression weaken. Zimbardo (1969) found that female students in hoods and lab coats gave longer shocks than named participants. Diener et al. (1976) found that anonymous children in groups were more likely to take extra Halloween sweets. But Postmes and Spears (1998) reviewed 60 studies and found weak overall support. Anonymity seems to increase following of local group norms, which may be peaceful as well as aggressive.

Worked paragraph (de-individuation). De-individuation may explain violence by masked crowds. Anonymity reduces self-awareness, so people stop checking behaviour against their own standards. Zimbardo found hooded participants gave longer shocks. But Postmes and Spears found anonymity leads people to follow the group’s norms, so a masked crowd will only become violent if aggression is the norm.

Institutional aggression in prisons

Dispositional explanation: the importation model (Irwin and Cressey, 1962). Prisoners bring their characteristics, values and norms into prison. Violent histories, gang ties and an “inmate code” learned outside predict violence inside.

Situational explanation: the deprivation model. Features of the prison cause aggression. Sykes (1958) described the pains of imprisonment: loss of liberty, goods and services, heterosexual relationships, autonomy and security. Aggression is a response to these frustrations. Overcrowding and poor staff management may add to it.

Evaluation. In a study by Camp and Gaes (2005), male prisoners with the same risk score were randomly assigned to lower- or higher-security prisons, and misconduct rates were similar. This supports importation over situation. But the deprivation model has practical value: if conditions cause violence, better management and less crowding should reduce it. An interactionist view (individual factors plus prison conditions) fits the evidence best.

Worked paragraph. The importation model claims prisoners bring aggression in with them. Camp and Gaes randomly assigned similar-risk prisoners to lower- or higher-security prisons, and misconduct rates were similar. This suggests the prisoner matters more than the prison regime. However, Sykes’ deprivations, such as loss of autonomy, may still add frustration, so an interactionist account is stronger.

Media influences, including computer games

Laboratory and correlational research suggests violent media may raise short-term aggression. Anderson and Dill (2000) found that playing a graphically violent game in the laboratory increased students’ aggressive thoughts and behaviour. Ferguson (2015) pooled 101 studies of children and adolescents, found the effect on aggression was minimal and argued that publication bias remains a problem.

The specification names three explanations:

• Desensitisation. Repeated exposure reduces the physiological and emotional response to violence. Carnagey et al. (2007) found that playing a violent rather than non-violent game led to lower skin conductance (a sign of arousal) while watching real-life violence.
• Disinhibition. Media make violence seem normal and acceptable, especially when unpunished or rewarded. Usual social restraints weaken.
• Cognitive priming. Violent content activates aggressive thoughts and scripts. These are then more easily triggered by a later cue. Josephson (1987) showed 396 young boys violent or non-violent TV; some groups later saw a cue linked to the violent programme. In floor hockey, groups with more highly aggressive boys were most aggressive after violent TV plus the cue, but not groups of mainly low-aggressive boys.

Evaluation. Lab measures are not real-world aggression, and correlational studies cannot rule out that aggressive people choose violent games.

Worked paragraph (desensitisation). Desensitisation suggests violent games blunt reactions to real violence. Carnagey et al. found lower skin conductance to real-life violence after violent play. But this was a short lab effect, and lower arousal is not the same as behaving aggressively.

Common errors

• Calling a fixed action pattern “learned”: it is innate, triggered by an IRM.
• Saying MAOA “causes” violence. Caspi et al. show an interaction with maltreatment.
• Confusing importation (dispositional) with deprivation (situational).
• Writing about Bobo dolls without linking them to human aggression.
• Listing desensitisation, disinhibition and priming without explaining how each leads to behaviour.
• Treating correlational hormone data as proof of cause.
• Drifting into offending behaviour (Forensic Psychology content).

Where to go next

Test yourself with the aggression revision notes, then try the aggression practice questions. Revise the biological approach in the approaches revision notes. Track topics with the 7182 checklist and return to the course hub.

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; assessment objectives in section 5.2. Check aqa.org.uk/7182 for the current version.