Aggressive Act - Case Study Example

Aggression – Whether an Inevitable Part of Our Lives? Baron and Richardson defined aggression as any form of behavior directed towards the goal of harming or injuring another living being, who is motivated to avoid such treatment. An important aspect of aggressive behavior is the intention underlying the actor's behavior. Not all behaviors resulting in harm are considered as aggression. The act of aggression involves deliberately hurting or attempting to hurt someone. Any harm done accidentally or with an intention to do good does not amount to aggression. For instance, a doctor who makes an injection that harms people, but who did so with the intention of preventing the further spread of illness, is not considered to have committed an aggressive act. Also, it is important to understand that aggression need not necessarily be physical; it can be just verbal. It may be direct, indirect, active or passive. The definition by Baron and Richardson mentioned above is only an attempt to define aggression and it must be borne in mind that no universally accepted definition of aggression exists. The range of actions that can be interpreted as aggression is large. The concept of aggression is complex, and also, depending upon the context the term can be made to carry either positive or negative connotations. Also as per Dollard and Miller, aggression may be hostile or instrumental. Hostile aggression is aggression with a goal to injure another and instrumental aggression is aggression in service of a goal, for instance, kids fighting over a toy. What causes aggression has been an intriguing question for many years now. There have been many psychological theories in the past, the understanding of which becomes essential to analyze if aggression is an inevitable and inescapable part of our lives. The earliest of these theories is that of Sigmund Freud’s Instinct theory. Freud proposed that aggression is an instinctive biological urge. According to Freud this instinct, is made up of the libido (pleasure) and "Thanatos" (the death wish/pain). This basic instinct is present from birth. At first the aggression is relatively uncontrolled, but with the development of ego and superego, it becomes channeled into socially acceptable behaviors. If these impulses are not released periodically in safe ways, they soon reach dangerous levels capable of producing acts of violence. Sometimes the aggressive impulse is turned inward and produces self - punishment action, even suicide. The best that can be hoped for, according to Freud, is that aggressive impulses will be channeled into socially acceptable forms, such as football, sport etc. (Bernstein et al page 715). However, this theory does not explain why some people are aggressive and others are not. Konrad Lorenz like Freud, believed that aggressive energy builds up in the individual, and eventually has to be discharged in some way. Lorenz states that aggression is the "fighting instinct" in man, and that man is naturally aggressive. This instinct developed during the course of evolution because it yielded many benefits; for example, fighting serves to disperse populations over a wide area, ensuring maximum use of resources. Such behavior often helps to strengthen genetic make-up of a species by assuring that only the strongest individuals manage to reproduce (Baron/Byrne page 328). This fighting instinct is present in both, humans and animals. Aggression in animals is due to rituals and appeasement, and through these rituals and series of appeasements animals avoid destroying each other, but aggression in humans, is no longer under the control of rituals, and it has become distorted in man (Gross page 445). Lorenz examined herring gulls and other territorial birds and observed that they defend their territory (their food and breeding source) by aggression using fixed action patterns, elicited by sign stimuli. However nearly all the evidence of Lorenz's theory comes from research with animals, and many psychologists doubt whether the results apply to humans. In the animal world, instinct plays a more significant role than with humans (Berstein et al page 716). Further, it is generally agreed that there is a powerful human tendency to cooperate, which is a legacy from our ancient hunting past, when we had to co-operate or starve. Man is not naturally aggressive and in almost all the societies, peaceful coexistence and cooperation is the norm (Bernstein page 715). Support for instinct theory has come from psychologists who study serial killers. As Megargee states, the theories of Freud and Lorenz hold good to the extent that people who commit brutal aggressive crimes, are often over-controlled individuals, who repress the anger and over a period of time the pressure to be aggressive builds up(Gross page 450). Freud and Lorenz, both accepted a hydraulic model of instinct, that is, they believed that aggressive forces build up like water in a dam, and these forces have to be released or else, they spill over into aggressive behavior. Sociobiology is a more recent version of instinct theory and it escapes the drawbacks of earlier instinct theories. Sociobiology model does not rely on fixed action patterns. It expects aggressive responses to show an element of learning and also it believes that socialization can inhibit basic aggressive responses. In the context of animal behavior, animals show species specific aggression which is linked to biological conditions. For example, predatory aggression, defensive aggression, maternal defensive aggression and inter-male competition aggression. In humans, inter-male competition is one (but only one) major factor in aggressive behavior. Young men in particular fight for respect, resources and ultimately to be chosen by women. They pursue these goals with displays of boasting, bragging and attempts to humiliate competitor males. Some psychologists are of the opinion that cultural aspects also influence aggressive behavior. According to Leaky and Lewis, cultural influences are far more important determinants of human aggression than biological factors. Any potential for aggression that man has is culturally overridden and re-packaged into behavior which fits current circumstances. In most cases, cultural forces teach or support non-aggression, but when pro-social aggression is necessary (disciplining children, and wrong doers), cultural process teach and sustain it (Gross page 446). Albert Bandura, Baron and Zillmann argue that aggressive behavior is a learned form of social behavior, acquired and maintained in much the same manner as other forms of social activity. Bandura said that children were capable of learning aggressive behavior as a result of being exposed to it because children tend to imitate what they see. Bandura exposed school children to a film of an adult behaving aggressively towards an inflated doll (Bobo Doll). Following the exposure, the children tended to imitate the aggressive behavior. This showed that young children can learn to be aggressive by just watching others behaving aggressively. Support for the modeling and imitation theory comes from Patterson who found that aggressive behavior is frequently reinforced in the home (Biechker/Hudson page 415). A young child who finds that anger and aggression are more effective in gaining what they want and which can enable them to control resources such as toys and parental attention, is having his aggression reinforced. Further, aggressive parents who discipline with physical force act as models for their children and are likely to encourage aggression in their children towards other people (Hardy/Heyes page 163). In contrast, critics pointed out that Bandura's experiments were too artificial and that the Bobo Doll was designed specifically to be hit and that the children were aware of this, so maybe they were just expressing the behavior that was expected of them. Although Bandura has been criticized, his findings have led to considerable research into the influence of violence in the mass media, especially television, on promoting aggressive behavior. Dollard and Miller developed a "frustration - aggressive hypothesis" in which they put forward the view that aggression was an inevitable consequence of frustration. When people perceive that they are being prevented from achieving a goal, their frustration is likely to turn to aggression. The closer you get to a goal, the greater the excitement and expectation of the pleasure. Thus the closer you are, the more frustrated you get by being held back. This view has been criticized by psychologists who point out that it does not explain aggressive behavior in all circumstances. Frustrated individuals do not always respond with aggressive action, they may show resignation and despair (Baron/Byrne page 329). Berkowitz suggested that external conditions serve to arouse a strong motive to engage in harm producing behavior, and that frustration produces not aggression, but a readiness to respond aggressively. Once this readiness exists, cues in the environment (such as guns, knives, violent television scenes), that are associated with aggression, will often lead a frustrated person to behave aggressively. Neither the frustration alone nor the cues alone are sufficient to set off aggression, but when combined however, they do. Berkowitz went on to say that unexpected failure at some task tends to create a more intense negative reaction then a failure that is expected. Support for Berkowitz theory is very strong. Studies and experiments have found that frustration may facilitate aggression (Berstein et al page 718). On the other hand, several experiments have reported that frustration sometimes may actually tend to reduce the level of aggression shown by the individual. Existing evidence points to the conclusion that whether frustration increases or fails to enhance aggression, depends on whether the frustration is intense and whether the aggression is seen as just or illegitimate. However, few researchers currently hold the view that frustration always leads to aggression; frustration is simply one of many different causes of aggression (Baron/Byrne page 329). Dollard and Miller went on to modify their frustration – aggression hypothesis. Through their studies of Displacement they stated that aggression displacement occurs when people can not respond to a target person and direct their responses to a substitute person. This happens especially when the target is too threatening to confront. People who are closer to the target in some ways will more likely elicit an aggressive response. For instance, one would direct their aggressive response towards people who they are comfortable and familiar with, like parents and friends, rather than others. However, displaced aggression doesn’t fully reduce the aggressive drive. As per Dollard and Miller, individual differences in aggressive responses result from a variety of differences: A failure of ego development that allows aggression to get out of control. Problems with early attachment, so lack of development of empathy for others. Childhood physical abuse, which desensitizes some children to the effects of pain in themselves and others. People with fragile self-esteem, who when challenged may be violent in response to threats to the ego. Aggression is a response to a narcissistic wound. One particularly powerful threat is a threat to masculinity, which can produce violence against female partners or homosexuals. (Laramie case) Aggression at higher level cause high impact. But one can control their urge to behave aggressively through self control. As per Dollard and Miller, language provides discriminative cues for learning how to deal with situations. When we have self control, it often comes in the form of self-talk. Language also facilitates generalization of learning from one situation to the next. Self-control particularly generalizes. Language also enables problem-solving skills using reason and planning. People can imagine solutions and outcomes without having to painstakingly endure the experience to see how it works out. Neurosis is due to maladaptive learning. Fear, conflict, and repression play a role in this development. D&M called neurosis the stupidity-misery syndrome, but we more likely call it today learned helplessness. Although aggression has been viewed as a natural emotion, it is also a social act. People are likely to be more aggressive when they believe it will increase their social standing. Aggression needn’t always be seen as a negative or harmful act. It is quite essential while defending oneself and also in some cases, to help build a self esteem. Freud supported the fact that the bottled up aggressive factors must be used to do something that is socially acceptable. To summarize, the following factors (only illustrative, not exhaustive) may increase the desire to act aggressively: Bottling up emotions for a very long time. Frustration. If there has been aggression in one’s life earlier. Watching a lot of violence on television. If one thinks that he/she is getting lesser than what they deserve. In order to defend oneself. The opposite person deliberately acts against the one acting aggressively. Drinking alcohol and other stimulants. High testosterone levels. Though the above list of factors is only illustrative, it can be concluded that as long as these factors or any other factors that cause aggressive behavior exist, aggression is surely going to be an inevitable and inescapable part of our lives. Read More