AGGRESSION
When one animal attacks another, it engages in the most obvious example of aggressive
behavior. Psychologists have adopted several approaches to understanding aggressive
behavior in people.
The Biological Approach. Numerous biological structures and chemicals appear to be
involved in aggression. One is the hypothalamus, a region of the brain. In response to
certain stimuli, many animals show instinctive aggressive reactions. The hypothalamus
appears to be involved in this inborn reaction pattern: electrical stimulation of part of the
hypothalamus triggers stereotypical aggressive behaviors in many animals. In people,
how-ever, whose brains are more complex, other brain structures apparently moderate
possible instincts.
An offshoot of the biological approach called sociobiology suggests that aggression is
natural and even desirable for people. Sociobiology views much social behavior, including
aggressive behavior, as genetically determined. Consider Darwin's theory of evolution.
Darwin held that many more individuals are produced than can find food and survive into
adulthood. A struggle for survival follows. Those individuals who possess characteristics that
provide them with an advantage in the struggle for existence are more likely to survive and
contribute their genes to the next generation. In many species, such characteristics include
aggressiveness. Because aggressive individuals are more likely to survive and reproduce,
whatever genes are linked to aggressive behavior are more likely to be transmitted to
subsequent generations.
The sociobiological view has been attacked on numerous grounds. One is that people's
capacity to outwit other species, not their aggressiveness, appears to be the dominant factor
in human survival. Another is that there is too much variation among people to believe that
they are dominated by, or at the mercy of, aggressive impulses.
The Psychodynamic Approach. Theorists adopting the psychodynamic approach hold that
inner conflicts are crucial for understanding human behavior, including aggres-sion. Sigmund
Freud, for example, believed that aggressive impulses are inevitable reactions to the
frustrations of daily life. Children normally desire to vent aggressive impulses on other
people, including their parents, because even the most attentive parents cannot gratify all of
their demands immediately. Yet children, also fearing their parents' punishment and the loss
of parental love, come to repress most aggressive impulses. The Freudian perspective, in a
sense, sees us as "steam engines." By holding in rather than venting "steam," we set the
stage for future explosions. Pent-up aggressive impulses demand outlets. They may be
expressed toward parents in indirect ways such as destroying furniture, or they may be
expressed toward strangers later in life.
According to psychodynamic theory, the best ways to prevent harmful aggression may be to
encourage less harmful aggression. In the steam-engine analogy, verbal aggression may
vent some of the aggressive steam. So might cheering on one's favorite sports team.
Psychoanalysts, therapists adopting a psychodynamic approach, refer to the venting of
aggressive impulses as "catharsis."' Catharsis is theorized to be a safety valve. But research
findings on the usefulness of catharsis are mixed. Some studies suggest that catharsis leads
to reductions in tension and a lowered likelihood of future aggression. Other studies,
how-ever, suggest that letting some steam escape actually encourages more aggression
later on.
The Cognitive Approach. Cognitive psychologists assert that our behavior is influenced by
our values, by the ways in which we interpret our situations, and by choice. For example,
people who believe that aggression is necessary and justified-as during war-time-are likely
to act aggressively, whereas people who believe that a particular war or act of aggression is
unjust, or who think that aggression is never justified, are less likely to behave aggressively.
One cognitive theory suggests that aggravating and painful events trigger unpleasant
feelings. These feelings, in turn, can lead to aggressive action, but not automatically.
Cognitive factors intervene. People decide whether they will act aggressively or not on the
basis of factors such as their experiences with aggression and their interpretation of other
people's motives. Supporting evidence comes from research showing that aggressive people
often distort other people's motives. For example, they assume that other people mean them
harm when they do not.