What is aggression?

Although there are several different definitions of aggression, social psychologists tend to
define it as follows:
o A physical or verbal behaviour that is intended to cause either physical or psychological pain to
someone.
There are three main ideas in that definition:
o The presence of behaviour, hence omission/negligence does not constitute
aggression.
o The causing of harm or pain to someone intentionally, hence assertiveness, accidents
and play dont constitute aggression, since they lack the intent to hurt another.
o The nature of the harm caused to the person can be either physical or psychological.
It has to be noted that many social psychologists consider threat to
reputation or social relations, a third type of harm caused to a person.
Relational aggression, since it is intended to destroy ones relations with
others.
It is considered to be the type of aggression manifested most often
by women.
Different types of aggression
We distinguish between several different types of aggression depending on the situation,
relational aggression being only one of them. However, we will focus on the main different
types, which are:
Direct aggression: when we have face to face contact with the person
Indirect aggression: when we are trying to hurt another without contact, as such it often
involves an agent (e.g. hiring a hit man, spreading rumors)
Hostile aggression (or emotional aggression): an act of aggression stemming from feelings of
anger and aimed at inflicting pain.
Instrumental aggression: aggression is used as a means to some goal other than causing pain.
o There is still the intention to hurt the other person, but the hurting takes place as a
mean to some other aim such as money, success or defense.
Even though we tend to consider men as more prone to manifest aggressive behaviors than
women, it all depends on the definition of aggression used in coming to a conclusion. Here
are a few conclusions made on the basis of several studies:
o physical aggression (men more than women):
Some of these differences seem to be age-related.
Gender differences seem great in children as male infants show more anger
and boys like more violent stories and activities than girls, but gender
differences are not as great with an adult population.
Within relationships, men more likely to do severe physical damage and use
weapons more often, whereas women more likely to slap or hit.
o Women, more emotional harm than physical:
More relational aggression or even instrumental and indirect aggression.
Spreading false stories or manipulate others to the detriment of the target.
o May be reflected by the greater weight women attach to
relationships, as injuring one another through a relationship
may be seen as more effective by them.
o social desirability and norms:
Women more likely to hide their aggression, does not fit social norms for
them to be aggressive.
Depending on how aggression is defined, on the schoolyard bullying occurs
at an equal rate for boys and girls, but girls report doing less bullying (hidden
videotape).
o As male get older (age 15-18), physical violence declines and there is an increase in
the use of verbal/psychological and indirect aggression.
o In neutral situation, men more likely to use aggression,
Gender differences decrease when there is some provocation for aggression
such as frustration, threat or insult. However, in the real world,
Men are more likely to interpret AMBIGUOUS SITUATIONS as
provoking, than women.
Is there a gender difference in aggression?
Physical aggression seems to be much greater among males than females
Women think more of emotional harm than physical harm
Social desirability and norms play a role
Men are more likely to engage in instrumental aggression and assert control as they get older
When emotions are involved, women get more aggressive and differences between sexes
may lessen
Evolutionary approaches to aggression
Emphasis on factors/explanations within the person
Presence of an evolutionary based instinct for aggression (Lorenz)
o Person-based, rather than situation-based understanding of aggression
Influenced by Freuds work on Thanatos
o Freud believed that this drive(aggression) was not adaptive but it did count for out species most
destructive behavior
Adaptive or functional view of aggression:
o Aggression instinct has evolved because it had some usefulness in terms of the
survival and transfer of genes
A display of aggression can be sufficient to display superiority
Main criticisms of the evolutionary approaches to aggression:
o De-emphasize the idea that there can be meaning or purpose to aggression (i.e.,
instrumental aggression)
o Instinct-based rather than situation-based explanations
If this is the case then instances of aggression between two men of rivalry are
all stripped of contextual factors
o Is the goal of aggression really survival and/or propagation of genes?
No it is not
This limits this approach
Situational approaches to aggression
Focus on how factors outside the person the environment or situations can play a part
in aggressive behaviour
The Frustration-Aggression Hypothesis (Dollar & al., 1939)
o How frustrating experiences cause aggressive behaviour
o Environment triggers aggression
o The occurrence of aggression always presupposes the existence of frustration and,
contrariwise, the existence of frustration always leads to some form of aggression
Goal response being blocked
o If a person cannot get what they want this causes frustration
The Revised Frustration-Aggression Hypothesis (Berkowitz, 1962, 1989)
o It is not just frustration that can result in aggression
Peoples perceptions of being deprived of what they want
Any aversive event can result in frustration
o Thus, any unpleasant experience could be a contributing factor to subsequent
aggression
o Main criticisms of the Frustration-Aggression Hypothesis
Will out aggression be directed at specific targets?(specify is not present)
Aggression or conflict will be seen as not having any meaning
Hostile/reactive aggression is the only type that is explained
Berkowitzs aggressive and aversive stimuli and aggression (1989, 1990, 1993)
o Any kind of negative affect can potentially produce aggressive inclinations (though
not necessarily aggressive behaviour)
o Series of influential studies on cognitive neo-associations
Idea that negative affect is associated with anger-related feelings and
aggressive thoughts and intentions
Cues to aggression
o Studies involved
Creating a negative affect(angering participants)
They angered participants in 2 ways
o administering electric chocks and by treating them in a
patronizing and insulting manner or
o By letting them hear negative facts about the participant.
Exposing them to a stimuli(aggressive cues)
Following that negative stimuli followed and this elicited an
aggressive response in the participant
Provide them with the opportunity for aggression
Main criticisms of the neo-associations approach
o Little attention the who present
o Only focuses on reactive aggression
No place for instrumental aggression
o The methods used were not relatable to the real world
In addition to there were only 2 methods used to create negative emotions
and it is unlikely that only these two elicit negative affects
The Social Learning Theory of Aggression (Bandura)
Aggression not mostly learned through direct reinforcements, but vicariously, through
observation and imitation
o Individuals form cognitive representations o behavior, remember it and replicate it in
the future
Aggression is basically under cognitive control
o Individual can come up with an original form of anger by combining more than one
type
o Outcomes resulting from the expression of anger can lead to reinforcement
Child can anticipate success associated with expression of anger
This is the only model that focuses on instrumental aggression
Based on the idea that if we observe other people we will learn a lot from them.
Excitation transfer and aggression model (Zillmann, 1974, 1983)
Both the person and situation need to be considered when attempting to understand
aggression
Emphasize who people cognitively appraise their physiological and psychological states of
heightened arousal or excitation
Takes different aspects into consideration
o Looks at the fact that cognitive process can lead to a misattribution of an arousal
event
Ex. Almost get it by a car and this increases arousal; later you get bumped
into- you are more likely to be aggressive because you are aroused
Misattribution of arousal
o Idea that we might incorrectly make sense of heightened state of arousal, perceiving
it as being caused by something other than what actually had caused it










This model has a lot of empirical support
It is a process:
o at first, there is an arousing stimulus (film that arouses and increases heart rate),
o Then there is a lingering state of arousal (the feeling remains when the stimulus is no
longer present).
o If there is a subsequent provoking event, you may misattribute the arousal and this
gives rise to opportunities to act aggressively
Does erotica increase of decrease aggression? (Zillman & al, 1977, 1982; Mulac & al, 2002)
o mild porn was associated with attention shift
o explicit porn would increase arousal(especially after provocation)
Main criticisms of the excitation transfer model
o Atypical experimental situations
o Do people really engage in a cognitive appraisal of the cause of heightened arousal?
o Aggression seen as reactive
General aggression model (Anderson and Bushman, 2002)
Incorporates many different approaches to aggression with the idea that aggression involves
both the person and the situation
Several potential causes of aggression, such as person factors and internal states
Focuses on the idea of cycle/episodes of aggression
Arousing
stimuli
Lingering state
of arousal
Subsequent
provoking
event
Misattribution
of arousal
Opportunity to
act aggressively
Aggressive act
o Instances of aggression may not end with the aggressive act, but instead, the
aggressive act and response to it may feed into the cognitions and affective response
of the person who aggresses (and others) and can result in other aggressive or non-
aggressive behaviour
What are the inputs?
o Person and situation
Includes past experiences, gender, personal dispositions and personality
traits(all have to do with the person)
What are the routes?
o Internal states
Emotions(affect), cognitions(interpretations) or arousal(physiological)
one or more of these can be activated
What are the outcomes?
o Appraisal and decision-making processes
How is one interpreting what is going on in you
Are you using schemas(impulsive or are you thinking through and
considering all the factors
o Thoughtful action
o Impulsive action
Social encounter
o The outcomes of aggression may or may not feed into the outcomes of further
instances of aggression
Desensitization to violence (Carnagey, Andrerson, & Bushman, 2007)
o Exposure to violence through media desensitizes individuals to violence
Main criticisms of the General aggression model
o Based on the idea that aggression is reactive
o It was not developed as a means to explain instrumental aggression but it can do just
that
o Over emphasizing visual stimulus and underemphasizes the etiology of aggression
Goals pursued through aggression
o This may depend on the context and the person involved
o The evolutionary perspective has no goals and says the goal Is not important
Coping with feelings of annoyance
o Aggression target towards the person who elicits the annoyance
Gaining material and social rewards
o If you successfully gain something by using aggression, you could learn that using
aggression is a mean to obtaining rewards.
Gaining or maintaining status
o Usually a more cultural phenomenon.
o Ex: in Italy, some Italians may condone aggression in adolescent boys because it was
an indication of their sexual prowess and dominant role in the household. Bullying
rates are really high in these areas.
Protecting oneself or others
o Self-defensive attributional style is a tendency to interprets threats as hostile
If you feel threatened you may justify using aggression.
Females are most aggressive in protecting themselves and the young
How is aggression measured?
As a DV
o Observed actual aggression (physical)
o Observed direct verbal aggression
o Questionnaire evaluations
As an IV
o Aversive situations
o Victim empathy
Criticisms of measures of aggression
Aggression and Intergroup Conflict
Does the way Social Psychologists define aggression prevents us from explaining the totality
of human aggression?
Process versus content
o Dehumanization of out groups
Ideologies that justify aggression
None of these theories illustrate how people in power can become overly aggressive and
cause genocides