1. Getting you thinking: Extension: What ‘AID your AO2’ points (choose 2) would be relevant here? Explain. Discuss with somebody else the AO2/3 point you wrote out for homework. Add to your notes if necessary.

2. Social Psychological explanations of aggression 2) Deindividuation Pages 117-119

3. Learning objectives : By the end of this lesson you will be able: To effectively evaluate deindividuation as an explanation of aggression.

4. Evaluation (AO2/3) For Deindividuation we are going to look at the following AO2/3 points and aim to expand on them in detail. 1)Research evidence 2)AID (culture bias) 3)Practical applications 4)Contrasting explanation 5)AID (free will versus determinism) Put this in your notes Discuss with somebody else the other four points listed here and how they relate to deindividuation.

5. 1) Research evidence 1)There is research evidence from Zimbardo (1969) and Silke (2003) to support deindividuation. 2)These pieces of research found… 3)The implications of this are … 4)This supports deindividuation as an explanation of aggression because… 5)HOWEVER there is conflicting research from Bloodstein (2003) and Mullen (1986) 6)They found.. 7)This contradicts deindividuation because… 8)In conclusion…which research is more convincing and why?

6. 2) AID (Culture bias) 1)An issue with deindividuation as an explanation of aggression is that is can be seen as culturally biased. 2)This is because…use key terms. 3)The implications of this are …why might this not be a universal explanation? How might collectivist cultures differ? 4)This questions deindividuation as an explanation of aggression because…

7. 2) AID (Culture bias) 5) HOWEVER there is research to suggest deindividuation has been found cross culturally. 6) Watson (1973) found…see page 119 7) This therefore supports Deindividuation because… 8) In conclusion…does the argument sway more towards for or against deindividuation having cultural relativity?

8. 3) Practical applications 1)A positive is that deindividuation can lead to practical applications to try and reduce aggression. 2)For example….what techniques do the Police use? 3)The implications of this are … 4)This supports deindividuation as an explanation of aggression because… 5)HOWEVER these techniques may not always be effective.. 6)For example….Tottenham riots in 2011? 7)This questions the practical applications because… 8)In conclusion…how effective do these practical applications seem?

9. 4) Conflicting explanation 1)One weakness is that there are conflicting explanations as to how aggression occurs. 2)For example…when we cover biological explanations you can come back and complete this point. 3)The implications of this are …. 4)This questions deindividuation because…. 5)HOWEVER deindividuation may be a more valid explanation than biological. 6)Because…. 7)This therefore provides support for deindividuation because.. 8)In conclusion…which explanation seems more valid and why? Put this structure in your notes to complete later.

10. 5) AID (free will vs. determinism) 1)Deindividuation falls onto the.……….. side of the debate. 2)This is because… 3)The implications of this for the legal and justice system are…. 4)This is an issue of deindividuation because…link to SSR. 5)HOWEVER free will would argue… 6)For example…. 7)This questions deindividuation as an explanation of aggression because… 8)In conclusion…which side of the argument is more effective and why?

11. Check your understanding Design three multiple choice questions on deindividuation (AO1 and AO2/3) that you can ask somebody else. Try to make them tricky to catch your partner out. Extension: Compare the evaluation of SLT and Deindividuation, which explanation is more convincing?

12. Learning objectives : You are now able: To effectively evaluate deindividuation as an explanation of aggression.

13. Homework Due next lesson: 1)Go back over your SLT notes and complete the AO2/3 point we left blank on ‘conflicting explanation’. 2)Answer summary questions 1 and 2 on page 123. Preparation for next lesson: Think about what we mean by ‘institutional aggression’.