2nd edition

Part IV. How We Relate to Others

Module 10:
Aggression

10-1
 2nd edition

Module 10: Aggression

Module Overview

In Module 10 we tackle the sensitive issue of aggression. We will start by defining

aggression and then its types to include instrumental, hostile, relational, and cyberbullying. We

then will tackle specific forms of aggression such as crime, workplace violence, bullying, school

violence, domestic violence, rape, and sexual harassment. From this we tackle dispositional and

situational factors that affect aggression. For dispositional we will discuss whether aggression is

instinctual, the influence of genes or the environment, nervous and endocrine system

explanations, personality, negative affect and mood, the hostile attribution bias and aggression

schemas, rumination, and arousal. For situational factors, we will discuss the culture of honor,

observational learning and operant conditioning, the frustration-aggression hypothesis, social

rejection, alcohol use, the media, temperature, and crowding. With an understanding of what

aggression is, the forms it can take, and potential causes, we conclude by discussing ways to

reduce aggression.

Module Outline

• 10.1. Defining Aggression

• 10.2. Forms Aggression Can Take

• 10.3. Why We Aggress – Dispositional Factors

• 10.4. Why We Aggress – Situational Factors

• 10.5. Reducing Aggression

10-2
 2nd edition

Module Learning Outcomes

• Define aggression and its types.

• Identify and describe forms aggression can take.

• Outline dispositional reasons why we aggress.

• Outline situational reasons why we aggress.

• Propose measures to reduce aggression.

10.1. Defining Aggression

Section Learning Objectives

• Define aggression.

• Identify and define the three forms aggression can take.

• Explain why the addition of cyberbullying is needed.

10.1.1. Aggression and Its Types

Aggression can be defined as any behavior, whether physical or verbal, that is carried out

with the intent to harm another person. The key here is determining the intention or motive for

the aggressive behavior. Aggression should also be distinguished from being angry, which is an

emotional reaction to an event but can just stay that – an emotion. Just because someone is angry

does not mean they will necessarily act on it and engage in aggressive behavior. If they do

aggress, how intense is the behavior? To understand that, consider that aggressive acts occur

along a continuum of least harmful to most harmful. On the extreme side are violent acts or

violence. The World Health Organization (WHO) defined violence in their 2002 World Report

on Violence and Health, as “The intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual,
10-3
 2nd edition

against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, that either results in or has a

high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment or

deprivation” (pg. 5). They state that violence can be self-directed in the form of suicidal behavior

or self-abuse, interpersonal and between family members or individuals who are unrelated, or

collective in terms of social, political, and economic and suggest motives for violence. They add

that violence acts can be physical, sexual, psychological, or involve deprivation or neglect. For

more on the report, and to view the 2014 report on violence prevention, please visit:

[Link]

Aggression has three types. First, instrumental aggression occurs when a person

attempts to obtain something but does not intend to harm others. The behavior serves as a means

to another end. An example would be if a toddler tries to take a toy from another toddler.

Second, hostile or physical aggression occurs when a person intends to harm another person by

hitting, shooting, kicking, punching, or stabbing them, or by simply threatening such action. The

behavior is an end in itself. Third, relational aggression occurs when efforts are made to

damage another person’s relationships and could include spreading rumors, name calling,

ignoring a person, or social exclusion.

Should a fourth type of aggression be listed – cyberbullying? Cyberbullying involves the

use of technology such as social media, e-mail, chatrooms, texting, video games, Youtube, or

photographs to humiliate, embarrass, intimidate, or even threaten someone to gain power and

control over them. According to the National Bullying Prevention Center, cyberbullying involves

an electronic form of contact, an aggressive act, intent, repetition, and harm to the target (Hutson,

2016) and in 2015 the CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) reported that 15.5% of

high school students and 24% of middle school students were cyberbullied. Unlike bullying done

10-4
 2nd edition

outside of the online environment, the target may not know who is actually bullying them or

why, the cyberbullying could go viral and to a large audience, parents and adults may have

difficulty managing it, and the harmful effects of cyberbullying on the target may not be easily

seen by the bully, thereby perpetuating it.

For more on cyberbullying, please visit: [Link]

10.2. Forms Aggression Can Take

Section Learning Objectives

• Describe crime and its types.

• Clarify what workplace violence is and its prevalence.

• Clarify what bullying is and its prevalence.

• Clarify what school violence is and its prevalence.

• Clarify what domestic violence is and its prevalence.

• Clarify what rape is and its prevalence.

• Clarify what sexual harassment is and its prevalence.

10.2.1. Crime

Aggression towards others can take the form of crimes, or acts understood to be

unacceptable within a society and which can result in punishment. According to the Federal

Bureau of Investigation (FBI), these include:

• Cybercrimes – Includes network and computer intrusions, ransomware, identity theft,

and online predators.

• Public Corruption – Includes prison and border corruption; election crimes such as

campaign finance crimes, voter/ballot fraud, and civil rights violations; and

international corruption such as attempts to rig a bid, to fix prices, bribing foreign

officials, or money laundering or the embezzlement of state funds

• Civil Rights violations – Includes the use of excessive force during arrests, sexual

assault, false arrest, obstruction of justice, hate crimes, depriving medical care, or if a

law enforcement official fails to keep an individual from harm.

• Organized Crime – This involves the elimination of transnational organized crime

groups (TOC) defined as, “…self-perpetuating associations of individuals who

operate, wholly or in part, by illegal means and irrespective of geography. They

constantly seek to obtain power, influence, and monetary gains. There is no single

structure under which TOC groups function—they vary from hierarchies to clans,

networks, and cells, and may evolve into other structures. These groups are typically

insular and protect their activities through corruption, violence, international

commerce, complex communication mechanisms, and an organizational structure

exploiting national boundaries” (Source: [Link]

crime).

• White-collar Crime – Includes corporate fraud, money laundering, investment fraud,

broker embezzlement, market manipulation, and pyramid schemes.

• Violent Crime – Includes gang related violence, crimes against children, active

shooter incidents, bank robbery, homicide, assaults, stalking/intimidation, and jewelry

and gem theft.

Source: [Link]

10-6
 2nd edition

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) federal law enforcement agencies

made a total of 151,460 arrests in 2016. Assaults increased from 14.8 to 16.9 while rape or

sexual assaults declined from 1.6 to 1.1 per 1,000 persons age 12 or older, and from 2015 to

2016. The overall rate of violent crime did not show any statistically significant change during

the same period, though the trend was upward (18.6 to 19.7 per 1,000). For more statistics,

please visit: [Link]

10.2.2. Workplace Violence

According to the U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health

Administration (OSHA), workplace violence is defined as, “…any act or threat of physical

violence, harassment, intimidation, or other threatening disruptive behavior that occurs at the

work site. It ranges from threats and verbal abuse to physical assaults and even homicide. It can

affect and involve employees, clients, customers and visitors.” The National Institute for

Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) says workplace violence falls into one of four

categories: criminal intent or when the criminal has no connection with the business and is

robbing, shoplifting, or trespassing; customer/client; worker-on-worker; and personal

relationship, which typically targets women (See

[Link] for more).

In 2014 there were 403 workplace homicides and annually, nearly 23 million American

workers report being victims of workplace violence. So, who is at risk? OSHA says, “Among

those with higher-risk are workers who exchange money with the public, delivery drivers,

healthcare professionals, public service workers, customer service agents, law enforcement

personnel, and those who work alone or in small groups.”

10-7
 2nd edition

For more on workplace violence, please visit: [Link]

You can also visit: [Link]

10.2.3. Bullying and Cyberbullying

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), defines bullying as “…any

unwanted aggressive behavior(s) by another youth or group of youths, who are not siblings or

current dating partners, involving an observed or perceived power imbalance. These behaviors

are repeated multiple times or are highly likely to be repeated. Bullying may inflict harm or

distress on the targeted youth including physical, psychological, social, or educational harm.”

[Link] adds that this behavior can include verbal (teasing, name-calling, taunting,

threats of harm, or inappropriate sexual comments), social (spreading rumors or excluding

someone intentionally), or physical (spitting on, hitting, kicking, breaking someone’s things, or

making rude hand gestures) bullying. The BJS reports that during the 2015-2016 school year,

22% of middle schools reported at least one incident of student bullying each week while 15% of

high schools, 11% of combined schools, and 8% of primary schools reported incidents.

For more on bullying, please visit:

[Link]

[Link]

10.2.4. School Violence

The CDC defines school violence as, “a fatal injury (e.g., homicide, suicide, or legal

intervention) that occurs on school property, on the way to/from school, or during or on the way

10-8
 2nd edition

to/from a school-sponsored event” (See

[Link] They report

most school violence occurs during transition times to include during lunch and before or after

school and at the start of each semester. About half of all perpetrators gave some type of warning

signal before the event. When firearms were used in school related homicides or suicides, most

came from the person’s home or from a friend or relative. They write, “Homicide is the second

leading cause of death among youth aged 5-18. Data from this study indicate that between 1%

and 2% of these deaths happen on school grounds or on the way to or from school. These

findings underscore the importance of preventing violence at school as well as in communities.”

From 1992 to 2015 the number of deaths involving students, staff, or other individuals

not directly affiliated with the school, went from 57 (1992) to 47 (2015) with a peak of 63 during

the 2006-2007 school year (Source: CDC link above). According to the BJS, in 2016 there were

749,000 victimizations (theft and nonfatal violence) at school and 601,300 away from school, or

29 and 24 per 1,000 students, at school and away from school, respectively. The victimization

rate was higher for males and most schools during the 2015-2016 school year reported

developing a procedure for an active shooter incident. (To view the report for yourself, please

visit: [Link]

10-9
 2nd edition

10.2.5. Domestic Violence

According to the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence (NCADV), domestic

violence is “the willful intimidation, physical assault, battery, sexual assault, and/or other abusive

behavior as part of a systematic pattern of power and control perpetrated by one intimate partner

against another.” It can include telling the victim they never do right; complete control of

finances; embarrassing or shaming the victim with put-downs; telling the victim how to dress;

threatening to kill or injure the victim’s friends, loved ones, or pets; forcing sex with others;

preventing the victim from working or going to school; and destroying the victim’s property.

They estimate that on average, “nearly 20 people per minute are physically abused by an intimate

partner in the United States” and “1 in 4 women and 1 in 9 men experience severe intimate

partner physical violence, intimate partner contact sexual violence, and/or intimate partner

stalking with impacts such as injury, fearfulness, post-traumatic stress disorder, use of victim

services, and contraction of sexually transmitted diseases.” Finally, intimate partner violence

accounts for 15% of all violent crime.

For more on domestic violence, please visit: [Link]

10-10
 2nd edition

10.2.6. Rape

According to [Link], rape occurs when there has been sexual penetration,

without consent. The U.S. Department of Justice adds that consent involves clearly stating ‘yes’

to any type of sexual activity. Rape also occurs if you are drunk, high, drugged, passed out, or

asleep as in these situations you cannot give consent. It is a type of sexual assault and during

their life, 1 in 5 women and 1 in 71 men will be raped. NCADV adds that “Almost half of female

(46.7%) and male (44.9%) victims of rape in the United States were raped by an acquaintance.

Of these, 45.4% of female rape victims and 29% of male rape victims were raped by an intimate

partner.” Violence of a sexual nature culminating in rape starts early with as many as 8.5 million

women reporting an incident before the age of 18.

For more information, please visit: [Link]

safety/sexual-assault-and-rape/rape

10.2.7. Sexual Harassment

Sexual harassment occurs when unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors,

or sexually charged words or gestures have been made. In the workplace, the sexual harassment

comes with the expectation of submission, whether stated implicitly or explicitly, and as a term

of one’s employment. It includes unwanted pressure for sexual favors, pressure for dates, sexual

comments, cat calls, sexual innuendos or stories, questions about sexual fantasies or fetishes,

kissing sounds, howling, hugging, kissing, stroking, sexually suggestive signals, staring at

someone, winking, etc. A February 21, 2018 article by NPR (National Public Radio) reported

10-11
 2nd edition

that 81% of women and 43% of men had experienced sexual harassment of some sort during

their life.

“The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS) is an ongoing

survey that collects the most current and comprehensive national- and state-level data on

intimate partner violence, sexual violence and stalking victimization in the United States.” To

view the report and other resources yourself, please visit:

[Link]

To read the full NPR article, please visit:

[Link]

percent-of-women-have-experienced-sexual-harassment

10-12
 2nd edition

10.3. Why We Aggress – Dispositional Factors

Section Learning Objectives

• Clarify whether we are prewired to aggress.

• Identify any brain areas, influence of genetics, hormones, or other mechanisms that
lead to aggressive behavior.

• Clarify whether personality can explain aggression.

• Describe the role of mood and negative affect on aggression.

• Define the hostile attribution bias and its role in aggression.

• Define dehumanization and victim-blaming.

• Describe the function of rumination on aggression.

• Describe the function of arousal on aggression.

Beginning with Section 10.3 we will now explore reasons why we engage in aggressive

behavior. In Section 4.2.1 we stated that according to attribution theory (Heider, 1958), people

are motivated to explain their own and other people’s behavior by attributing causes of that

behavior to either something in themselves or a trait they have, called a dispositional

attribution, or to something outside the person called a situational attribution. In this section

we will address dispositional reasons why people aggress and in Section 10.4 we will cover

situational factors.

10.3.1. Instinct Theory – Prewired to Aggress?

At times, a person or animal will respond in predictable ways to certain stimuli or as

ethologists call it an instinct. Instincts are inborn and inherited such as with the phenomena of

10-13
 2nd edition

imprinting observed by Konrad Lorenz. He noted that young geese will follow the first moving

object they sense after birth. Though this is usually their mother, it may not be in all cases.

Human beings do not possess this specific instinct. The instinct theory of motivation states that

all of our activities, thoughts, and desires are biologically determined or evolutionarily

programmed through our genes and this serve as our source of motivation. William McDougall

(1871-1938) stated that humans are wired to attend to stimuli that are important to our goals,

move toward the goal such as walking to the refrigerator, and finally we have the drive and

energy between our perception of a goal and then movement towards it.

On the other hand, Sigmund Freud (1856-1939) believed motivation centered on

instinctual impulses reaching consciousness and exerting pressure which, much like strain, is

uncomfortable and leads to motivated behavior. Freud identified two types of instincts - 1) life

instincts or Eros including hunger, thirst, sex, self-preservation and the survival of the species,

and all the creative forces that sustain life; and 2) death instincts or Thanatos which are

destructive forces that can be directed inward as masochism or suicide or outward as hatred and

aggression. When these instincts create pressure, it is interpreted as pain and its satisfaction or

reduction results in pleasure. Our ultimate goal, or pleasure, is to minimize the

excitation/pressure.

Sexual and aggressive instincts tend to be repressed in the unconscious due to societal

norms against their expression which could result in some type of punishment or anxiety. Still,

they need to be satisfied to reduce the pressure they exert and some ways Freud said this could

be done was through humor containing aggressive or sexual themes or dreams. In the case of

dreaming, the censorship relaxes during sleep but is not removed and so impulses do enter the

content of dreams but are disguised. Despite the disguise, we can still satisfy many of our urges

10-14
 2nd edition

(i.e. dreams with sexual content). Freud proposed that another way we can release aggression is

through what he called displacement, or when we channel a feeling or thought to a substitute

target because we cannot aggress against the primary target either due to social norms, laws, or it

is not accessible to us. For instance, we all have been upset at our boss before. Instead of lashing

out on them, we instead go home and engage in aggressive behavior to our significant other and

possibly our children. It could be that we are upset at not receiving our financial aid and so do

not have the textbooks we need for the first week of class. We cannot lash out at our university

or wherever the funds are supposed to come from, so we take out our frustration on our

roommate. Or maybe we are upset about social injustices perpetrated by our government. There

is really no one specifically we can aggress against in this situation (lack of access) and so we

aggress against those around us who are easy targets and available.

Another perspective on instincts comes from American psychologist, William James

(1842-1910) who was influential on the Functionalist school of thought in Psychology.

Essentially, functionalism said that any structure or function that existed today, did so because it

served an adaptive advantage to the organism, demonstrating the influence of Darwin’s theory of

evolution on our field. James agreed with this and suggested the existence of 37 instincts. These

include parental love, jealousy, sociability, play, curiosity, fear, sympathy, vocalization, and

imitation. James begins Chapter 24 of his book, The Principles of Psychology, by saying,

“INSTINCT is usually defined as the faculty of acting in such a way as to produce certain ends,

without foresight of the ends, and without previous education in the performance.” Instincts aid

in self-preservation, defense, or care for eggs and young, according to James.

Interestingly, the founder of the school of thought called Behaviorism, John B. Watson

(1878-1958), initially accepted the idea of instincts and proposed 11 of them associated with

10-15
 2nd edition

behavior. That said, in 1929 he came to reject this notion and instead argued that instincts are

socially conditioned responses and in fact, the environment is the cause of all behavior.

Finally, we are sometimes motivated by forces outside conscious awareness or what is called

unconscious motivation. For Freud (1920), awareness occurs when motives enter

consciousness, the focus of awareness, from either the preconscious, defined as the part of a

person's psyche that contains all thoughts, feelings, memories, and sensations; or the

unconscious, defined as the part of a person's psyche not readily available to them. It is here that

repressed thoughts and instinctual impulses are kept. For information to pass from the

unconscious to the preconscious it must pass a censor or gate keeper of sorts. Any mental

excitations that make it to the gate/door and are turned away are said to be repressed. Even

when mental events are allowed through the gate, they may not be brought into awareness. For

that to occur, the eye of the conscious must become aware of them. Could it be then that we are

frustrated with some situation or person and are not aware of it?

10.3.2. Genetic and Endocrine/Nervous Systems Explanations

[Link]. Brain areas. One area of the brain that has been implicated in aggression is the

amygdala which is responsible for emotion. For instance, Matthies et al. (2012) found that

participants with higher aggression scores as measured through the Life History of Aggression

Assessment (LHA) had a 16-18% reduction of amygdala volumes, indicating a significant

negative correlation of trait aggression and amygdala volume. A similar study found that men

with lower amygdala volume displayed higher levels of aggressive behavior and psychopathic

features from childhood to adulthood (Pardini, Raine, Erickson, & Loeber, 2014). Finally,

exaggerated amygdala reactivity was reported to faces expressing anger in subjects diagnosed

10-16
 2nd edition

with intermittent explosive disorder (IED), which is characterized by reactive aggressive

behavior (Coccaro, McCloskey, Fitzgerald, & Phan, 2007).

The hypothalamus has also been indicated in aggressive behavior in mice (Lin et al.,

2011), rats (Spiteri et al., 2010; Panksepp, 1971), hamsters (Ferris et al., 1997), cats (Romaniuk,

1965), sparrows (Mukai et al., 2009), and humans (Haller, 2013).

[Link]. The role of testosterone. The hormone, testosterone, when present in high

levels, as well as a large body mass, were shown to lead to greater levels of social dominance

and physical aggression in adolescents, especially in situations where physical aggression leads

to social dominance (Tremblay, 1998). In another study, 30 male college students provided a

saliva sample so that testosterone level could be assessed and then either interacted with a gun or

a child’s toy for 15 minutes. After this another saliva sample was provided. They then added as

much hot sauce to a cup of water that they wanted to, believing that another subject would have

to drink it. The researchers found that males who interacted with the gun had greater increases in

testosterone level and added more hot sauce to the water than did participants who interacted

with the toy (Klinesmith, Kasser, & McAndrew, 2006).

[Link]. Heritability of childhood aggression. Porch et al. (2016) utilized two large

twin cohorts and found that heritability of aggressive behavioral problems was high, between 50

and 80% in the two samples. For both samples, the shared environment accounts for about 20%

of the variation in aggression across all ages. Of course, parent report bias could be what is

driving such high genetics effects, though a more recent review states that studies utilizing non-

parent raters are coming to similar conclusions (DiLalla, 2017). The exact relationship between

genes and environment really depends on the type of aggression studied too.

10-17
 2nd edition

[Link]. Other mechanisms of aggression. Nelson and Trainor (2007) published a

review that identified several mechanisms for aggression as follows. First, they point out that

hypothalamic and limbic brain regions facilitate aggressive behavior but that neural activity in

the frontal cortex can inhibit it. Second, the neurotransmitter, serotonin, regulates aggressive

behavior, and its release, reuptake, and sensitivity can be modified to affect such behavior. Third,

dopamine is necessary for aggressive behavior through arousal, learning, and/or memory. Fourth,

aggressive behavior can be increased in humans through mutations in the monoamine oxidase A

(MAOA) enzyme (Meyer-Lindenberg et al., 2006). Fifth, genetic mutations or hormones that

increase aggression in one environment do not necessarily increase it in another, indicating a

gene-environment interaction.

10.3.3. Personality and Aggression – A Dark Triad?

There are some people who are willing to use others for their own gain. How do we

explain such behavior? Psychologists use personality as one such explanation for aggressive

behavior, and three traits in particular, called the Dark Triad, are important – Narcissism,

Machiavellianism, and psychopathy (Paulhus & Williams, 2002). First, narcissism involves our

tendency to seek admiration and special treatment. Those high in the trait are self-focused and

not other-focused, show a great deal of self-love, and have low empathy for others. Second,

Machiavellianism is a trait reflecting a person’s willingness to manipulate others. Third,

psychopathy refers to a person’s tendency to be callous and insensitive, impulsive, and to exert

poor self-control. Paulhus and Williams (2002) write, “To varying degrees, all three entail a

socially malevolent character with behavior tendencies toward self-promotion, emotional

coldness, duplicity, and aggressiveness” (pg. 557).

10-18
 2nd edition

The Dark Triad has been measured through a brief measure called the “Dirty Dozen”

(DD) scale which has four items per trait or 12 total (Jonason & Webster, 2010). Recent research

suggests this scale is too short and some essential content may have been removed to obtain the

brief version, such as being too narrow in assessing interpersonal antagonism by leaving out

dishonesty, immodesty, and noncompliance; and there being no attempt to capture disinhibition

(Miller et al., 2012). Another brief measure has been introduced by Jones and Paulhus (2013)

called the Short Dark Triad (SD3) to assess dark personality traits. Building off the limitations of

the DD, it assesses each trait through 9 items for 27 total and uses a 5-point Likert scale where 1

indicates the person disagrees strongly to 5 or agrees strongly. Across four studies the authors

found that the SD3 “achieves an optimal compromise between instrument brevity and

respectable reliability and validity” (pg. 10). To measure Machiavellianism, questions such as

‘It’s not wise to tell your secrets,’ ‘It's wise to keep track of information that you can use against

people later,’ and ‘Most people can be manipulated’ are used. To measure Narcissism, ‘People

see me as a natural leader,’ ‘I like to get acquainted with important people,’ and ‘I insist on

getting the respect I deserve’ are used. Finally, Psychopathy is measured through ‘Payback needs

to be quick and nasty,’ ‘People who mess with me always regret it,’ and ‘I’ll say anything to get

what I want’ to name a few. Maples, Lamkin, and Miller (2014) pitted the DD against the SD3 in

a community sample of 287 participants and found that the SD3 proved to be the stronger scale

and better measured the dark triad personality traits.

10.3.4. Negative Affect and Mood

Another possible dispositional factor on aggression is negative affect and mood. In a

study of 49 participants in a treatment program for child physical abuse, researchers found that

10-19
 2nd edition

negative affect contributed to parent-to-child aggression (PTCA) in the form of minor physical

violence but not severe physical violence and that PTCA has qualities of impulsive aggression

which is believed to be driven by negative affect, is not planned, and often occurs in response to

aversive events. As such, the authors suggest that physically abusive parents may benefit from

interventions that promote positive emotion-focused coping strategies (Mammen, Kolko, &

Pilkonis, 2002). In another study, participants who placed their nondominant hand in cold water

as they administered either a reward or punishment to a fellow student and were told that they

might experience pain reported greater discomfort; were more annoyed, angered, and irritated;

and were more punitive to the available target (the other student) even though this person was

not the cause of their discomfort (Berkowitz & Thome, 1987).

10.3.5. Hostile Attribution Bias and Aggression Schemas

The hostile attribution bias leads people to project blame onto others and is an extra-

punitive mentality (Adams & John, 1997), while negative reciprocity beliefs are an individual’s

proclivity to reciprocate negative treatment for negative treatment or to take an eye for an eye

(Eisenberger et al., 2004). In a study of workplace incivility and interpersonal deviance, Wu et

al. (2014) found that when employees high in the hostile attribution bias categorize incivility as

hostile, they will return interpersonal deviance. Those low in the bias do not respond to incivility

in a negative manner. Also, those holding strong negative reciprocity beliefs will reciprocate

mistreatment with mistreatment if they perceive hostile intent, while those low in the belief do

not respond this way even if they believe ‘eye for an eye’ is an appropriate social norm. The

presence of a three-way interaction (between workplace incivility, hostile attribution bias, and

negative reciprocity beliefs) suggests that both constructs are necessary to predict an employee’s

10-20
 2nd edition

interpersonal deviance. The authors write, “Individuals with strong hostile attribution bias and

negative reciprocity beliefs are most influenced by workplace incivility because they are inclined

to categorize uncivil behaviors as hostile and make a decision to reciprocate interpersonal

deviance” (pg. 196).

Recall from Section 3.1.2. that as we gather information from our world, we organize it

in a way that we can obtain it again when needed. One way we do this is through the creation of

schemas, or organized ways of making sense of our experience. As we can have schemas for the

self, roles, events, groups, or persons, it should not be surprising to learn that we can develop

schemas about aggression. Our aggression schemas provide us information about when

aggression may be appropriate and the form it should take. This information comes from the

society we live in through social norms, is learned in ways to be described in Section 10.4.2, and

can be affected by arousal, the media, domestic violence, etc. We will cover all of these topics in

due time.

Dehumanization is when we view an individual as not having human qualities or being

less human. We might call these people ‘animals,’ ‘cockroaches,’ or ‘vermin.’ Defining a person

through a single characteristic such as diabetic, alcoholic, or addict dehumanizes them also. We

could also engage in what is called victim-blaming, or when shift focus from the perpetuator

and taint the target of violence. We might say, ‘You made me do it.’ Rudman and Mescher

(2012) found that when men associated women with primitive constructs such as animals or

instinct, they were more willing to rape or sexually harass them. Greitmeyer and McLatchie

(2011) found that playing violent video games increased dehumanization which led to higher

levels of aggressive behavior. They state that video-game-induced aggressive behavior occurs

when victimizers view the victim as less than human.

10-21
 2nd edition

10.3.6. Rumination

Rumination is when we constantly think about something. In terms of aggression, we

may dwell on some afront made against us, such as an insult or physical attack. Research shows

that rumination increases the chances of engaging in aggressive behavior. For instance,

participants who were made to ruminate for 25 minutes over a provocation were more aggressive

toward a fumbling confederate than distracted participants. The participants showed displaced

aggression to a minor annoyance (Bushman et al., 2005). Another study found that ruminating on

an anger-inducing provocation reduces self-control and can lead to increased aggression (Denson

et al., 2011).

10.3.7. Arousal

Have you ever been driving to work and nearly had an accident? This likely upset you

and caused heightened arousal. But you also likely remained aroused for a period of time after

this event, and then once you made it to work, may have snapped at a colleague due to some

frustration such as them not submitting a report to you or failing to reply to an email. This idea is

called the excitation-transfer theory and states that physiological arousal dissipates slowly,

such that we may still be slightly aroused as we move from an initial situation that caused an

increase in arousal to subsequent situations. We detect a stimulus in our environment, experience

arousal due to it, and subsequently experience a more intense emotional reaction than we may

normally to another stimulus. Have you ever tried to beat the end boss in a video game and just

could not do it for whatever reason? If a friend makes a snide comment about your inability, you

will likely snap at them in anger and storm out of the room. Zillman, Katcher, and Milavsky

(1972) used a 2x2 factorial design (factor one – low vs. high aggressive instigation; factor two –

10-22
 2nd edition

low vs. high sympathetic arousal due to physical exercise) and measured subsequent aggressive

behavior (DV) through the intensity of a shock delivered to the earlier instigator. Results showed

that the shock was greater if the instigation was high initially and if there was residual

sympathetic nervous system activation. Residual excitation led to greater levels of subsequent

aggressiveness if the instigation was high.

10.4. Why We Aggress – Situational Factors

Section Learning Objectives

• Define culture of honor and describe research related to it.

• Describe socialization of aggression from a learning theory perspective.

• Describe the frustration-aggression hypothesis and whether it has received empirical

• Clarify the role of social rejection in aggression.

• Describe research showing the effects of alcohol on aggression,

• Describe research showing the effects of media on aggression.

• Describe research showing the effects of temperature on aggression.

• Describe research showing the effects of crowding on aggression.

10.4.1. Culture and Aggression – A Culture of Honor?

In some cultures, individuals are expected to safeguard their reputation, family, or

property by answering threats, insults, and affronts with violence. This is called a culture of

honor. So, what if someone bumps into you as they walk by but calls you an “asshole” (not our

word)? Across three experiments, Cohen, Nisbett, Bowdle, and Schwarz (1996) found that for

10-23
 2nd edition

male University of Michigan students raised in the North, the affront did not affect them. But for

students raised in the South, they were more likely to think their masculine reputation or status

was at stake in front of others, to be more upset as shown by a rise in the stress hormone cortisol,

to show a rise in testosterone indicating they were physiologically ready to aggress, more

cognitively primed for aggression, and were more likely to engage in behavior classified as

aggressive and dominant on subsequent tasks. The authors state that their results show that a

Southern culture of honor exists, but also that their aggressive behavior might be due to the fact

that southerners are more polite than northerners and do not experience such rudeness. It may be

that culture of honor norms are “socially enforced and perpetuated because they have become

embedded in social roles, expectations, and shared definitions of manhood” (pg. 958).

The existence of this southern culture of honor persists today even though the norm is no

longer functional. Why is that? One possibility that has received empirical support is that

southern males believe their peers endorse and enforce the norms (Vandello, Cohen, & Ransom,

2008). What about school violence? Could there be differences in states with a culture of honor

norm compared to those that do not have the norm? In a study of high school students in which

demographic characteristics were controlled for, Brown et al. (2009) found that students from

culture of honor states were more likely to have taken a weapon to school in the past month and

that these states had more than twice as many school shootings per capita over the past 20 years.

Another study found that in a cross-cultural sample of Turkish and Dutch participants, the

former reacted more aggressively to insults than the latter. But the difference was not just linked

to gender norms. Instead, the Turk’s aggressive behavior was associated with concern for family

honor and they stated that they would respond more aggressively to insults. Masculine honor was

a factor for both groups when aggression did occur, but could not explain cultural differences in

10-24
 2nd edition

aggression. In their second study, Turks, Dutch, and Turkish-Dutch participants were included

and it was found that the Turkish-Dutch scored in between the Turks and Dutch suggesting the

individuals endorsed both sets of norms. The authors write, “Turkish culture is more

interdependent than Dutch culture, which could imply that any type of insult in Turkey is an

insult to one’s interdependent self, encompassing both the self and relations whereas in the

Netherlands, it is an insult to the self only” (pg. 341; van Osch et al., 2013).

10.4.2. Learning Theory

In Module 9, Section 9.2.2, we discussed the socialization of negative group stereotypes

and prejudice. Please review this section as it pertains to how aggression is learned too. Plomin,

Foch, and Rowe (1981) conducted a replication and extension of Bandura’s classic Bobo doll

study (Bandura, Ross, & Ross, 1963) using three key behaviors as dependent measures: number

of hits, intensity of hits, and the number of quadrants into which the Bobo doll was struck. The

study included 216 twin children but found no evidence of hereditary influence. The

environment was determined to be the primary source of individual differences. Recall that in the

Bobo doll study, children who watched the aggressive model behaved aggressively with the

Bobo doll while those who saw the nice model, played nice, when deprived of the coveted toy.

Hence, they displayed the same behavior as the model they observed. As Nathan Heflick writes

in a 2011 article for Psychology Today entitled, ‘Children Learn Aggression from Parents,’

“Children learn their behaviors from adults. If we are to have a more peaceful world, it starts

with the way adults act around children.” To read the article, please visit:

[Link]

parents.

10-25
 2nd edition

In terms of operant conditioning, positive and negative reinforcement play into the

learning of aggressive behavior. Similar to the examples given in Module 9, people might learn

that aggressive behavior is good if it helps them obtain what they want (PR). A child uses force

to take the toy they want from another child and is happy afterwards, because the toy is fun to

play with. In the future, the child will engage in the same behavior to obtain what they want (i.e.

instrumental aggression). In terms of negative reinforcement, if someone is harassing or bullying

us, we may finally have enough and aggress against them. If the bullying stops, we will be more

likely to engage in aggressive behavior in the future when we are bullied (i.e. hostile aggression).

10.4.3. Frustration-Aggression Hypothesis

Have you ever been unable to complete a task, had to wait for some needed resource, was

upset because things didn't go the way you wanted them too, or was interrupted in your pursuit

of a goal in some way? Of course, we all have and this is the essence of what is called

frustration, or when a person is prevented from reaching a goal because something or someone

stands in the way. If your favorite team has a stellar season but gets to the championship game

and loses, this can be very frustrating. What if as you are leaving the stadium the opposing

team’s fans are gloating and maybe even heckling you and your fellow fans. What might you do?

Of course you can just walk away and ignore them. But according to Dollard and colleagues

(1939) you are likely to aggress. This is the essence of what has come to be called the

frustration-aggression hypothesis or the idea that the occurrence of frustration always leads to

aggression and this aggression is caused by our being frustrated. In fact, the more salient a goal

is for us, the more frustrated we will become when attempts to acquire it are thwarted. The

frustration causes a drive to aggress and acting out reduces the drive and restores equilibrium.

10-26
 2nd edition

Here’s the issue. We cannot always aggress against the source of our frustration. Recall our

earlier conversation of displacement in Section 10.3.1, or when we channel a feeling or thought

to a substitute target because we cannot aggress against the primary target either due to social

norms, laws, or it is not accessible to us. As noted above, we cannot punch our boss for

reprimanding us in front of coworkers for something that was his mistake, so we go home and

holler at our spouse and children.

The hypothesis stood for about 50 years despite mixed results in laboratory

investigations. In fact, in 1941, just two years after its publication, Neal Miller, one of the

authors of the original study, proposed that frustration always causing aggression is misleading

and instead, it should be said that “frustration produces instigations to a number of different

types of response, one of which is an instigation to some form of aggression” (Miller, 1941).

In a review of the Dollard et al. (1939) theory, Berkowitz (1989) offered two “friendly

amendments” to the original conception of frustration-aggression before moving into criticisms.

First, he says that their supposition “seems to neglect the possibility that aggression can be

learned instrumental behavior” (pg. 62) and second that they assume that “aggression was always

primarily aimed at doing harm” (pg. 62). Berkowitz says these issues fail to distinguish between

instrumental and hostile aggression, and only focus on hostile, “forgetting that instrumental

aggression can be learned much as other instrumental behaviors are learned” (pg. 62). He instead

proposes that aversive events often cause high levels of aggressive behavior and that any kind of

negative affect can produce aggression and anger. This might include physical pain,

psychological discomfort, hot weather, crowding, social rejection, or our team losing the

championship game. He states:

10-27
 2nd edition

Frustrations are aversive events and generate aggressive

inclinations only to the extent that they produce negative affect. An

unanticipated failure to obtain an attractive goal is more unpleasant

than an expected failure, and it is the greater displeasure in the

former case that gives rise to the stronger instigation to aggression.

Similarly, the thwarted persons' appraisals and attributions

presumably determine how bad they feel at not getting what they

had wanted so that they are most aggressively inclined when they

experience strong negative affect (Berkowtiz, 1989, pg. 71)

Interestingly, a 2015 article assessing the impact of video game play on player aggression

focused on the social context of gaming and not just the game content as most studies have done.

The effects of game outcome and trash-talking were examined in a sample of 75 participants.

Results showed that the unfavorable outcome, not trash-talking by an opponent, can increase

postgame aggression and that this is mediated by negative affect (Breuer, Scharkow, & Quandt,

2015).

10.4.4. Social Rejection

Human beings have a fundamental need to belong and when it cannot be fulfilled or is

thwarted, this is painful and could be detrimental to health (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). We

might expect that if a person is socially rejected, they could display greater levels of aggression.

Twenge and Campbell (2003) found this to be true, but when social rejection was coupled with

having high levels of narcissism. Across four studies, narcissists were angrier at, and aggressed

more, against someone who rejected them, but also innocent third parties. Interestingly, we

10-28
 2nd edition

might wonder if self-esteem predicts aggression after being socially rejected but the researchers

found that it did not. Peer rejection and aggression in early childhood is also a predictor of later

conduct disorder (Miller-Johnson et al., 2002).

The perception of groupness, or as Campbell (1958) called it “entitativity,” states that

aggregates of people vary in terms of how much they are perceived as a cohesive whole. For

example, people in line for the bathroom at a baseball game are not as cohesive as a football

team is. Across two experiments, Gaertner, Iuzzini, and O’Mara (2008) investigated the

hypothesis that both social rejection and perceived groupness are involved in multiple-victim

incidents of aggression such as the Columbine High School massacre and the mass shooting at

Virginia Tech. Their results showed that participants who experienced groupness in a three-

person aggregate and rejection by one member subsequently behaved more aggressively against

the whole aggregate as well as showed less favorable affective associations toward the group,

than those who did not experience both groupness and rejection. They speculate, “Perceived

groupness activates processes of transference and depersonalization by which the rejectee

integrates the rejection experience into his/her prototype of the group and subsequently

generalizes the rejection to all group members.” Of course, the implications of this are dire.

Check out the article for yourself by visiting:

[Link]

10.4.5. Alcohol Use and Aggression

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, from 1997 to 2008 alcohol was a factor in

between 19% and 37% of violent crimes ([Link]

10-29
 2nd edition

The Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health reports that each year in the United

States, there are 7,756 homicides attributable to alcohol and 1,269 of these occur in persons

under the age of 21. Data also shows that 48% of homicide offenders drank right before the

murder and 37% were intoxicated during the murder. They note, “Research supports that alcohol

advertising plays a role in causing sexual violence, independent of the racial/ethnic composition,

social and economic characteristics, population, residential stability, poverty, and alcohol

availability of the neighborhood where the advertisements are displayed.” For more on the

report, please visit: [Link]

So, does alcohol cause aggression? Bushman (2002) proposed three possible reasons why

it might. One theory is that people experience a disinhibition or reduction of our control such

that the part of the brain that under normal conditions inhibits aggressive tendencies is

anesthetized by alcohol. As Muehlberger (1956) points out, alcohol leads to aggression not by

“stepping on the gas” but by “paralyzing the brakes” (pg. 40). Also, we expect that those who are

intoxicated will behave aggressively and so they can “blame the bottle” for any aggressive

behaviors they make. Finally, aggression under the influence of alcohol occurs because our

intellectual functioning is impaired, we make inaccurate assessment of risks, and we experience

a reduction in self-awareness (Bushman, 2002). The results from his study show that intoxicated

participants were more aggressive compared to sober individuals but that pharmacological (i.e.

disinhibition) and expectancy effects of alcohol are not solely to blame. Instead, alcohol was

shown to indirectly cause aggression through changes within the person. Provocations,

frustrations, and aggressive cues had a stronger effect on intoxicated than sober participants and

may explain why “barroom brawls” occur so frequently (Bushman, 2002).

10-30
 2nd edition

10.4.6. The Media

According to the Surgeon General’s Scientific Advisory Committee on Television and

Social Behavior, formed in 1969, and a follow-up report by the National Institute of Mental

Health in 1982, viewing violence on television may cause children to become less sensitive to

the pain of others, fearful of the world around them, and behave in aggressive ways toward

others. Exposure to media violence can desensitize people to violence in the real world (Krahe et

al., 2011) and for some, it can become an enjoyable experience and not cause the anxiety that

would be expected from viewing such material. Empathy and emotional reactivity are also

shown to be diminished (Mrug, Madan, Cook, & Wright, 2015).

A meta-analysis was conducted to test the effects of violent video games on aggression

and found that exposure to violent video games is a causal risk factor for increased aggressive

cognition, affect, and behavior, and decreases empathy and prosocial behavior (Anderson et al.,

2010). The authors propose that since the effects of violent video games on aggressive behavior

is clear, the public policy debate should focus on how to best deal with this risk factor and public

education could be useful. They conclude, “It is true that as a player you are “not just moving

your hand on a joystick” but are indeed interacting “with the game psychologically and

emotionally.” It is not surprising that when the game involves rehearsing aggressive and violent

thoughts and actions, such deep game involvement results in antisocial effects on the player. Of

course, the same basic social–cognitive processes should also yield prosocial effects when game

content is primarily prosocial” (pg. 171). Currently, there are few games on the market with main

characters modeling helpful behavior and having zero violent content though research has shown

that prosocial games can increase cooperation and helping behavior (Greitemeyer & Mugge,

2014). When participants played Halo II cooperatively and not competitively, they engaged in

10-31
 2nd edition

more tit-for-tat behaviors which is a pattern of behavior that precedes cooperative behavior,

leading researchers to state that the social context of the game is more important than the content

(Ewoldsen et al., 2012).

An analysis of 304 scenes from popular pornographic videos found that 88.2% contained

physical aggression in the form of spanking, gagging, and slapping and 48.7% had verbal

aggression mainly in the form of name calling. Most perpetrators were male and the victims were

principally female and displayed pleasure or responded neutrally to the aggression (Bridges et

al., 2010). So, what are the effects of such depictions? Recent research has shown that

pornography use leads to attitudes supporting violence against women but is higher when

viewing sexually violent pornography than the nonviolent variant (Hald, Malamuth, & Yuen,

2010) and with more frequent use (Malamuth, Hald, & Koss, 2011). In a survey of 489 college

males who were members of fraternities at a large public university in the Midwest, it was found

that those who viewed pornography (83% of the sample while 27% used sadomasochistic

pornography during the past 12 months) were less likely to intervene in potential rape situations,

were more likely to rape, and were more likely to believe rape myths (Foubert, Brosi, & Bannon,

2011).

For more on media violence and aggressive behavior, please visit the following:

[Link]

10.4.7. Temperature

The weather represents a situational factor that can affect one’s likelihood to engage in

aggressive behavior. Anderson, Deuser, & DeNeve (1995) found that hot temperatures produced

10-32
 2nd edition

increases in hostile cognitions, hostile affect, and physiological arousal while reducing general

positive affect and our perception of arousal. Thus, hot temperatures can increase aggression due

to biased appraisals of ambiguous social events.

10.4.8. Crowding

Crowding occurs when we do not feel we have sufficient space and can lead to stress.

This in turn can lead to aggression as has been shown in studies of nightclubs (Macintyre &

Homel, 1997), inpatient psychiatric wards (Nijman et al., 1999), prisons (Lawrence & Andrews,

2004), and neighborhoods (Regoeczi, 2003).

10.5. Reducing Aggression

Section Learning Objectives

• Outline ways to reduce bullying and cyberbullying.

• Clarify if punishment is an effective way to deter aggression.

• Explain how self-distancing can be used to reduce aggression.

• Clarify the effectiveness of catharsis on reducing aggression.

10.5.1. Bullying Prevention

According to the National Association of School Psychologists (NASP), Dan Olweus

(1993) has developed the most comprehensive body of research to date on how to prevent

bullying in schools and emphasizes changing the school climate to reduce bullying. Four

principles are important. First, the home and school environments should be characterized by

warmth, positive regard, and involvement with adults. Second, firm limits against unacceptable
10-33
 2nd edition

behavior should be established. Third, negative sanctions should be applied if a student breaks a

rule and these sanctions should be nonphysical and not hostile. Fourth, all adults in the school

need to understand they have a responsibility for creating and maintaining a safe and supportive

school climate.

As for specific strategies, they recommend dispelling myths about bullying such as boys

will be boys, have clear and enforceable rules and sanctions, determining how serious the

problem is at the school through an anonymous questionnaire, have students sign an anti-

bullying pledge, allow for the reporting of bullying in different ways, increase adult supervision

in areas determined to be problematic from the survey, foster nurturing relationships and

friendship patterns within the school and classroom, and be patient as it could take up to three

years for the strategies to have their intended effect. They conclude in their document, Bullying

Prevention and Intervention: Information for Educators, “Embolden the witnesses, who are

neither bullies nor victims, to make sure that bullying is not permitted on campus. Once a sense

of community and caring is established, students …. will feel empowered and have the support

and skills needed to keep it that way.”

As far as cyberbullying goes, NASP says that victims and parents can ask the cyberbully

to stop, ignore or block the communications, keep hardcopies of the material and send it to the

parents of the bully, file a complaint with the internet company, and contact an attorney and/or

the police. To prevent such instances from ever occurring, parents can keep computer(s) within

view, talk to kids about their online activities, review online communications from time-to-time

and let children know you will do this, develop a parent-child internet use contract, install

parental control filtering software, and look for warning signs that a child is being cyberbullied.

Educators can implement a threat assessment for any report of cyberbullying, use the same

10-34
 2nd edition

survey approach as above to determine how pervasive and serious the issue is, and educate the

larger school community about preventing and responding to cyberbullying.

For more on bullying prevention from NASP, please visit:

[Link]

crisis/bullying-prevention.

You can also examine ways to prevent bullying at school at

[Link]

10.5.2. Punishment

One way to deal with aggression and acts of violence is to punish it. So, does punishment

work? As with all things in life, the answer is yes…and no. In other words, there are pros and

cons. Let’s explore them.

In terms of the pros of punishment, consistency is key. 1) If you punish each and every

time the person engages in undesirable or problem behavior, they will stop making the behavior

(i.e. speeding). 2) Punishment can also be unquestionably effective and deter some criminals

from repeating their crimes. 3) Sometimes, after punishment has been administered a few times,

it is not needed any more for the mere threat of it is enough to induce the desired behavior. 4)

Severity also does not matter. The mere fact of being punished is enough most times, not all. 5)

Finally, you do not have to necessarily experience punishment firsthand. Seeing others punished

for engaging in behavior you have considered making can be enough.

10-35
 2nd edition

As for cons of punishment, 1) it is often administered inappropriately. In a blind rage,

people often apply punishment broadly such that it covers all sorts of irrelevant behaviors.

Parents take out their frustrations at work on their kids and what would not have upset them

much one day, angers them immensely another (i.e. displacement). 2) The recipient of the

punishment often responds with anxiety, fear, or rage and these emotional side effects generalize

to the entire situation. You can see this in animals when they have been punished for soiling the

carpet and are disciplined. 3) The effectiveness of punishment is often temporary, depending on

the presence of the punishing person or circumstances. When the punisher is not there, the

punished misbehaves again. This is captured in the cliché, “When the chiefs away the cat will

play.” 4) Most behavior is hard to punish immediately and during the delay behavior may be

reinforced several times – i.e. not getting a speeding ticket every time you speed. 5) Punishment

conveys little information; it does not tell the person how to act. If you want them to display

desirable behavior, they have to know what it is. 6) Finally, an action meant to punish may

instead be reinforcing as when a child acts out for attention. For them it is a positive reinforcer.

What about the case of the child acting out to get out of math work? In this case the behavior

leads to a consequence and specifically negative reinforcement.

So, what is the final verdict on punishment? The list of cons are much more extensive

than the list of pros, and the first pro, consistency, is not practical most times leading to the

fourth con. This might make us think that punishment is not useful. It can be if the following is

practiced:

1. Do not use physical abuse (takes care of Cons 1 and 2).

2. Tell the person how to behave (takes care of Con 5).

3. Reinforce the desired behavior when it occurs.

10-36
 2nd edition

10.5.3. Self-distancing

As shown earlier, rumination after a provocation feeds our anger and can lead to

aggressive behavior. One solution is to self-distance and or take a “fly on the wall” perspective.

Self-distancing occurs when our egocentric experience of a stimulus is reduced (Trope &

Liberman, 2003). Mischkowski, Kross, and Bushman (2012) wanted to know if people could do

this “in the heat of the moment” and found that when a person self-distanced they had fewer

aggressive thoughts and feelings of anger and less aggressive behavior compared to a group who

self-immersed or was in the control. Thus, they say that people can self-distance after a

provocation and it can reduce aggression. Other research has also shown that self-distancing, not

self-immersion, can lead children of all backgrounds to adaptive self-reflection over anger

experiences such that they focus less on what happened to them and more on reconstruing their

experience (Kross et al., 2012).

10.5.4. Catharsis

What if to reduce crime and to stabilize the economy, our government chose to allow

citizens to have a 12-hour period wherein all crime was legal, including murder? Sirens would

blare to announce the start and stop of what could be an annual holiday, emergency services

would be suspended during the time, only the most senior government officials would be granted

immunity, and all weapons could be used except the most destructive ones (i.e. grenades,

weapons of mass destruction, and biological or chemical agents). Failure to follow these simple

rules would result in public hanging. We could even have the emergency broadcast system

announce the beginning of this ‘event.’ This event could be used as an act of catharsis for

citizens in our great country. Blessed be our New Founding Fathers and America, a nation

10-37
 2nd edition

reborn……………….WAIT…………………… That’s not real, but it is the premise of four

movies and a television series under the name, The Purge.

So, can catharsis work to reduce aggressive thoughts and behaviors? In a first study,

participants were asked to read a procatharsis message which stated that aggressive behavior can

reduce anger and aid with relaxation. Results showed that these participants desired to hit a

punching bag more than participants who read an anticatharsis message. In the second study,

participants were given the same messages and then actually could hit a punching bag. What

would they do if given the chance to engage in laboratory aggression after this? Results showed

that the procatharsis group was subsequently more aggressive which contradicts the catharsis

hypothesis (Bushman, Baumeister, & Stack, 1999). Additional research provided similar results

(Bushman, 2002)

For more about The Purge, please visit: [Link]

Module Recap

In Module 10 we defined aggression as any behavior, whether physical or verbal, that is

carried out with the intent to harm another person. Aggression can be instrumental and focused

on obtaining a resource, hostile and intending to harm another, relational and attacking another’s

relationships, or involve cyberbullying through the use of social media, e-mail, and other online

tools. When we think of aggressive acts, crimes like homicide come to mind and the ever-

increasing workplace or school violence. But also important are domestic violence, rape, sexual

harassment, and bullying. So why do people engage in aggressive behavior? When trying to

attribute a cause to such behavior we can point a finger at something inside the person that

10-38
 2nd edition

makes them act aggressive, called a dispositional attribution, or something outside them, or a

situational attribution. We explored several reasons under each. For example, rumination,

instincts, mood, personality, and arousal are considered dispositional reasons while one’s culture,

alcohol, the media, socialization, crowding, and temperature are situational factors on

aggression. With these issues addressed we proposed ways to reduce bullying, offer punishment

and the threat of it as a deterrence to violence, focused on self-distancing, and proposed

experiencing catharsis could reduce aggression.

Module 10 is the first of three modules discussing ways we relate to others. It followed

on the heels of the prejudice module and for logical reasons. We close out this book on a more

positive note – our decision to help others in Module 11 and interpersonal attraction in Module

12. We hope you enjoy these final topics.

10-39