Module 5
Aggression
Aggression: Concept
Aggression refers to a behavior directed toward the goal of
harming another living being who is motivated to avoid
such treatment.
In the past, aggression involved face-to-face assaults
against others, either verbal or physical) or indirect efforts
to harm them through such tactics as spreading malicious
rumors about them. But now, there are many new—and
deadly—ways to harm others. Web to spread
embarrassing photos with other kinds of content and
“smear campaigns,” designed to harm the targets’
reputations.
Perspectives related to
Aggression: Biological Perspective
The oldest and probably most famous explanation for human aggression
attributed it to biological factors, our basic nature as a species. The most
famous supporter of this theory was Sigmund Freud, who held that
aggression stems mainly from a powerful death wish (thanatos) we all
possess. According to Freud, this instinct is initially aimed at self-
destruction, but is soon redirected outward, toward others. This perspective
is called instinctive perspective.
A related view was proposed by Konrad Lorenz, a Nobel Prize–winning
ethologist, who suggested that aggression springs mainly from an inherited
fighting instinct, which ensures that only the strongest males will obtain
mates and pass their genes on to the next generation (Lorenz, 1966, 1974).
Drive Theory of Aggression: Frustration
Aggression Hypothesis
This widespread belief in the importance of frustration as a cause of aggression
stems, at least in part, from the famous frustration-aggression hypothesis mentioned
in our discussion of drive theories of aggression (Dollard et al., 1939). In its original
form, this hypothesis made two sweeping assertions:
(1) Frustration always leads to some form of aggression and (2) aggression always
stems from frustration. In short, the theory held that frustrated people always engage
in some type of aggression and that all acts of aggression, in turn, result from
frustration. Bold statements like these are appealing, but it does not mean that they
are necessarily accurate.
In fact, existing evidence suggests that both portions of the frustration-aggression
hypothesis assign far too much importance to frustration as a determinant of human
aggression. When frustrated, individuals do not always respond with aggression. On
the contrary, they show many different reactions, ranging from sadness, despair, and
depression on the one hand, to direct attempts to overcome the source of their
frustration on the other. In short, aggression is definitely not an automatic response to
frustration.
Social Learning Theory of Aggression
The social learning perspective (e.g., Bandura, 1997), begins
with a very reasonable idea: Human beings are not born with a
large array of aggressive responses at their disposal. Rather,
they must acquire these in the much the same way that they
acquire other complex forms of social behavior: through direct
experience or by observing the behavior of others
(i.e., social models—live people or characters on television, in
movies, or even in video games who behave aggressively;
Anderson et al., 2010; Anderson & Bushman, 2001; Bushman
& Anderson, 2002).
Thus, depending on their past experience and the cultures in which
they live, individuals learn.
Various ways of seeking to harm others.
Which people or groups are appropriate targets for aggression.
What actions by others justify retaliation or vengeance on their
part.
What situations or contexts are ones in which aggression is
permitted or even approved.
In short, the social learning perspective suggests that whether a
specific person will aggress in a given situation depends on
many factors, including the person’s past experience, the current
rewards associated with past or present aggression, and attitudes
and values that shape this person’s thoughts concerning the
appropriateness and potential effects of such behavior.
GAM: General Aggression Model
Building on the social learning perspective, a newer framework known as
the general aggression model (GAM) (Anderson & Bushman, 2002),
provides an even more complete account of the foundations of human
aggression. According to this theory, a chain of events that may ultimately
lead to overt aggression can be initiated by two major types of input
variables: (1) factors relating to the current situation (situational Factor
2) factors relating to the people involved (person factors). Variables falling
into the first category include frustration, some kind of provocation from
According to the general aggression model (GAM), these
situational and individual (personal) variables lead to overt
aggression through their impact on three basic processes:
arousal—they may increase physiological arousal or
excitement; affective states—they can arouse hostile
feelings and outward signs of these (e.g., angry facial
expressions); and cognitions—they can induce individuals
to think hostile thoughts or can bring beliefs and attitudes
about aggression to mind.