“Aggression” is a familiar term in common everyday language, as well as a key concept in the study of social psychology. The word “aggressive” could be used to define a person assaulting another or a carnivorous animal seeking its prey. For the benefit of this paper, the more narrow definition in psychology is most appropriate – Aggression is the intentional infliction of some form of harm on others (Baron, Branscombe & Byrne, 2000). The theories discussed in this paper all form a continuum along which, at one end, aggression is seen as a repercussion of purely innate factors and, at the other end, of external factors.
Among the theories that support the biological explanations for aggression is the Psychodynamic Theory. A prominent psychologist associated with the aggression as an innate phenomenon is Sigmund Freud. He states that all human beings have a life instinct, Eros which drives them to reproduce and have basic survival skills – and a death drive, Thanatos. The death drive seeks destruction, life’s return to an inorganic state. In some cases this aggressive drive is directed inward, resulting in suicide. Freud believed that most people channel their death instincts outwards as a result of us redirecting our self-destructive energies to avoid aggressing against ourselves.
These two primitive forces – life and death instincts, seek constant expression while at the same time, opposing each other subconsciously. This conflict is thought to be the origin of aggression. Hence, if this theory is true, one can never truly and fully eliminate aggression. One can only control it by channelling it into ways involving indirect gratification. This thus results to Catharsis, which is the release of drive energy or pent-up emotions. Failure to release this energy leads to aggressive behaviour.
A second theory that supports this notion is the Frustration-Aggression hypothesis (Dollard, 1939) which implies that aggression is often a result of frustration. Dollard and his colleagues define frustration as “an interference with the occurrence of an instigated goal-response at its proper time in the behavioural sequence”. An example we can draw from our own experience that can meet this definition is a student who doesn’t get the grade she deserves. This theory suggests that when people perceive that they are being prevented from achieving a goal, their frustration is likely to turn into aggression.
The initial formulation of this hypothesis suggested that aggression was the primary and sole response to frustration. However, a few years later, Dollard and his colleagues re-formulated this to suggest that while frustration always requires a response, aggression is only one possible outcome. This hypothesis attempts to explain the reason to why people scapegoat. This theory suggests that when the source of frustration cannot be challenged or confronted, the aggression gets displaced onto an innocent target – a scapegoat. People can be aggressive towards this scapegoat without fear of the consequences.
While some scientists have shared the same point of view as Sigmund Freud and Dollard, it is not widely accepted by the psychologists of the present time. The psychologists of today emphasize environmental and socio-cultural aspects as the major factors of aggression. This however does not prove or imply that the genetic factors of an individual play absolutely no role in human aggression.
The following theories move towards the other end of the spectrum, which is that of external stimuli as the source of aggression. These theory presume that aggression is largely a learned behaviour. This is supported by the findings that there exists a strong association between exposure to aggression and the use of aggression. Adherents to these theories argue that although the potential for aggression may be innate, the expression of aggression is greatly dependant on social contexts.
Among these factors is the Social Learning Theory (Bandura, Ross and Ross 1961). This theory demonstrates the tendency for a person to replicate the actions, attitude and emotional responses displayed by someone else. In this classic “Bobo doll” study, children witnessed adults play with an inflatable rubber doll. The adults were instructed to either behave aggressively towards the doll – hitting and kicking it or interact peacefully with it. The findings of this study showed that when it was time for the children to interact with the doll, they interacted with it in the manner of which they witnessed the adults play with the doll. The study indicated that imitation was the principal way in which children learned to be aggressive. The results of this study supported Bandura’s social learning theory which stated that new behaviours can be acquired by imitating and observing others.
In 1963, Bandura conducted a follow-up experiment which replicated many aspects of the first study. In this experiment, instead of observing first-hand the adults’ reaction towards the doll, the children watched a video of the doll being struck. Participants who were shown the film of aggressive behaviour towards the doll were more likely to act with aggressive behaviour towards the doll as compared to the control group. This indicates that indirect exposure to aggressive behaviour may also lead to actions being imitated in a similar way to the exposure being observed in person (Bandura et al, 1963).
A second model that supports the assumption that aggression is a learned behaviour is Operant Conditioning. In operant conditioning, reinforcement or punishment are used to either increase or decrease the probability of the behaviour occurring again. E.L. Thorndike was among the first to observe the impact of reinforcement in a puzzle box experiment with cats. The experiment involved a hungry cat that was placed in a puzzle box which had to figure out how to escape. Thorndike placed a piece of meat outside the box to encourage the cat to attempt to escape and would record how long it took each animal to figure out how to free itself. Eventually, the cats would figure out how to open the door, and would subsequently receive the award. After each trial, the cats became much faster at opening the door because when they used effective methods, it led to a favourable outcome.
Thorndike termed this the “Law of Effect” which suggested that the strength of a response increases when it is followed by a reinforcement while responses are weakened when followed by unpleasant effects. This method can also be used when discussing the topic of learned aggression. If aggressive behaviour is rewarded, it is more likely to be repeated. Meanwhile, when it is punished, the likelihood of one repeating that behaviour is decreased.
To conclude, both assumptions of the source of aggression have valid and supporting theories to back them up. Freud and Dollard’s theories both suggest that aggression is innate and rooted in the genetics of an individual. Freud suggests that aggression originates from the death drive, Thanatos which seeks destruction. Dollard however suggests that aggression is a result of frustration. On the other hand, Bandura and Thorndike’s findings favour the assumption that aggression is a learned behaviour. Bandura’s “bobo doll” experiment indicates that aggression is learnt in the form of imitation while Thorndike’s findings show that reinforcement and punishment play a role in increasing or decreasing the tendency of an individual to be aggressive.
After reviewing these theories, it can be suggested that aggression is a learned behaviour has more supporting arguments and theories that help us lean towards agreeing with it. This however does not discredit the possibility of some factors of aggression being innate. It could be concluded that while aggression is primarily learned, an individual’s level of aggression could be dependent on more biological factors.