Social Learning Theorists, such as Bandura (1965), claim that aggressive behaviour is learned through observing and imitating

aggressive models. Aggressive behaviour is strengthened and maintained if it has a desirable outcome (reinforcement). Bandura's series of Bobo doll experiments revealed a number of factors that determine whether observed aggressive behaviour is imitated:
Vicarious reinforcement if the model is observed to use aggression and the outcome is desirable it increases the likelihood that the behaviour will be imitated e.g., if a child sees another child get their way by hitting someone they are more likely to imitate the aggressive behaviour. Models are more likely to be imitated if they are similar to the observer e.g., same sex. A model is more likely to be imitated if the observer admires their status e.g., children are more likely to imitate successful football players like David Beckham than less successful players like Chris Birchall

Evaluation
Children are more likely to imitate aggressive behaviour directed towards a doll than towards another child. According to Durkin (1995), Bandura does not distinguish between real aggression and playfighting. Conversely, some of the research on the relationship between watching violence in the media and real life aggression seems to support Bandura. Cumberbatch (1990) found that children who had not played with a Bobo Doll before were five times as likely to imitate the aggressive behaviour than those who were familiar with it; he claims that the novelty value of the doll makes it more likely that children will imitate the behaviour. Despite the criticisms above, Bandura has successfully demonstrated that learning can take place through observation, and that vicarious consequences are a factor in whether or not the behaviour is copied; nevertheless, the issue here is whether social learning plays a large part in aggressive behaviour. It is clear that it plays some part; however, Bandura has ignored other factors, such as emotions and personality. Social Learning Theory also does not explain why people who are not normally aggressive sometimes behave uncharacteristically aggressively in some situations.

Hogg and Vaughan (1998) define this as: a

process whereby people lose their sense of socialized individual identity and engage in unsocialised, often anti-social behaviour
How might this happen I hear you ask well, people tend to behave nicely in general because they are so easily identified and society has strong norms against such uncivilised behaviour. However, in certain situations e.g. crowds people may relax their restraints and take part in an

orgy of aggressive,

selfish and anti-social behaviour (Hogg & Vaughan, 1998).

Milgram found that his participants were more likely to give higher levels of shock when they could not see their victim they were deindividuated. When the victim was in the same room, they were far less likely to give them high levels of shock. Zimbardo (1969) said there is a difference between individual behaviour and deindividuated behaviour: INDIVIDUAL BEHAVIOUR rational, conforms to acceptable social standards DEINDIVIDUATED BEHAVIOUR based on primitive urges, does not conform to societys norms Zimbardo said that being part of a crowd can diminish awareness of individuality. In a large crowd, each person is faceless and anonymous. People dont feel so much guilt, and theyre not so worried about their actions coming back to haunt them if people dont know who did it, there are no consequences. Have you ever been really awful in a class with a supply teacher? This is deindividuation. How about in assembly have you talked because everyone else is too? Mmmm this theory is far reaching. Malamuth and Check (1981) questioned male students at an American University, and found that almost 1/3 said that there was a chance that they would rape if there was no chance that they would be caught. Deindividuation research has found a difference between the effects of reduced public self-awareness (being anonymous to others) and reduced private self-awareness. If someone is self-focussed they act according to attitudes and moral standards that they have internalised. Zimbardo (1963) repeated Milgrams (1963) obedience experiments with participants either wearing a name tag (individuated) or in a hood (deindividuated). The latter gave more shocks.

Diener et al. (1976) observed the behaviour of over 1000 children on Halloween; the house owner asked some of the children to give their names. Those who remained anonymous were more likely to steal some money and/or extra chocolate when briefly left alone (i.e. behave anti-socially).