Aggression Theories and Their Evaluation - Term Paper Example

Name: Course: Tutor: Date: Aggression Theories and Their Evaluation Aggression can be defined as the intentional behavior to harm or cause injury to another person or individual who is determined to resist such behavior. Resistance is aimed at avoiding harm that could otherwise be of adverse effects to the victim (Baron and Richard 7). Aggression can either be classified as physical or verbal, direct or indirect. Verbal aggression is that form of aggression which is done through the word of mouth. This is normally analyzed by recording the subject’s speech and taking note of his use of words. The behavior of the perpetrators is usually hostile or even offensive but more than often they are unprovoked. The goal-response of aggression is injury infliction to an organism. In an attempt to understand aggression, many theories have been put across by different proponents. Most of these are in relation to Biology. Examples of these theories as found in books and other materials are aggression vs. heredity, aggression vs. frustration. In this paper, only two of the many aggression theories will be discussed (Hewstone and Stroebe 317). Frustration vs. Aggression Frustration can be associated with aggression depending on how one argues out his points. Freud, a socio-psychologist who managed to come up with lots of theory in psychology, argues that aggression related to his statement of pleasure is should be sought while pain should be avoided. It is argued that aggression might not necessarily lead to frustration but frustration always leads to aggression of some form. Not all injuries can be classified as forms of aggression. This is so because individuals meet such forms of injury everyday without having to be involved in an aggressive act. For instance, a doctor inflicts pain to a patient without his consent. In an illustration, if the person who is frustrated is particularly strong than his victim, then he is likely to be aggressive towards that individual. On the other hand, if the frustrated person is overpowered by his victim in terms of strength then he is likely to be less aggressive even if the situation calls for it. Aggression is not always caused by frustration nor frustration caused by aggression. This is best illustrated by Hewstone and Stroebe (318). An assassin who is paid to take out individuals kills his prey without even knowing the victim. In this case, the assassin does not experience any form of aggression or frustration in order to kill his victim. Aggression can be caused by ones frustrations if the individual has higher expectations of an exercise that has negative results as those expected by such person. If two groups of students were to sit for a test, one group has greater expectations of passing the test and the other low expectations of the same. If the results are released and the group with expectations of passing fails the test, they may be frustrated that can also lead to aggression. On the other hand, if the other group fails the test, they would be expected to demonstrate the same intensity of aggression as they were psychologically prepared for the outcome. There are so many illustrations of frustration-aggression theory in the current society. The economic recession that recently faced many countries in the world can also be used as a potential demonstration of this idea. One is likely to be aggressive as a way of expressing his frustrations that could be as a result of his financial problems. However, this is just on a minimal scale and cannot be generalized to all the cases, which is why this theory receives criticisms from other socio-psychologists. Critiques of the Theory Aggression is not only motivated by threat to thwart one’s goals, but instead, it is evoked when frustration is evoked by some element of attack. Berkowitz assumed that insult and attack were the major causes of frustration. However, these have been determined as independent of each other and they can be separated in terms of their influence on human behavior. In comparing the theory to their works, Bandura, 1973a, and Buss, 1961 concluded that frustration is a weaker determiner of aggression. When thwarted, some people become dependent and seek help and support rather than resorting to aggression. While others display withdrawal and resignation, some will experience psychosomatic dysfunctions. In its drive to try and explain the relation of aggression and frustration, the theory is seen to have missed a few details that make it fall short of its initial expectations of showing the clear correlation between the two items of study. The theory assumes that inter-group behavior is primarily emotionally driven rather than being goal oriented. This is questionable as one’s behavior in a group never the same when the individual is alone as proposed by this theory. Secondly, aggression does not have to be necessarily a product of frustration but aggression cues. These are items or clues that trigger an individual’s urge to be aggressive. For instance, in a scenario where two people were in disagreement, the presence of a weapon in a close distance could make anyone of the two aggressive than just the mere fact of frustration. Bandura’s Social Learning Theory Punishing a child or rewarding them determines the level of aggressiveness they develop when they turn into adults. For instance, punishing a child by the parents without explaining what wrong the child might have committed could lead to aggression in the future towards other people. It is also noted that punishing a person more could lead to acts of aggression. It is therefore appropriate to say that aggressive T.V models could also be a fundamental determinant of aggression to the children as the latter will try to imitate what the model does. If the actions of the model are rewarded by his act of aggression, the child takes his actions up with his peers. However, if the model is punished for his aggression, the child could, but not in all cases, refrains from such acts of aggression. Aggression can also be triggered by a child’s violent environment. This means that if the child more than often watches violent scenes in the society, he could also grow to be a violent individual. An individual is only believed to display aggression if that particular person has been conditioned, through a learning process, to act in a way whose goal is to cause harm or injury to another person who might or might not be able to defend himself from the latter’s act of aggression (Huesmann 8-9). If the individual anticipates positive results for his aggressive act then he is motivated to display the behavior of that interest him. In addition to this, researchers believe that aggression also results in increased self-esteem and status among one’s peers. This is used a ‘weapon’ against one’s peers who at time could be a hindrance towards the child’s goal. For instance, if the child realizes that his peer has an interest in thwarting his anticipated achievements, he develops some form of aggression to get his way through to his desired goal. Bandura also explains that the first step to having a child acquire an aggressive behavior is by modeling. The child therefore learns to be aggressive by observing aggressive act from a model in the society. In his experiment, Bandura allowed the children to watch, by observation; adults display certain behaviors of interest and later on left them alone in an attempt to check if they would get to do the same. For instance, if children are allowed time to observe how a caretaker treats children; they may develop the same behavior. If the caretaker is passionate towards crying children, the children have a higher chance of growing up to be soothing individuals as opposed to when the children observe the caretaker give harsh treatment to their colleagues who cry (Hewstone and Stroebe 324). Critiques of Social Learning Theory Bandura fails to address several threats to internal validity that are glaring as one reads the study. Among these internal validities are the selection bias, history, maturation and ambiguous temporal sequence. His study can not be generalized to all cases as he did his study with highly educated students. However, he attempted to rectify this by coming up with the social-Cognitive model of aggression. In this, he included sophisticated cognitive structures as explanatory devices for the acquisition and gene realization of the observed aggression. He went further to eliminate the racial disparity that was formerly evident in social learning theory. Even though the timeframe spanned by the research was never formally cited, by Bandura’s own admission, data for the subjects in real life aggression and control group conditions came from their 1961 study. This bears heavily on the threats to internal validity as well as maturation of the participants. Events occurring concurrently with the experiment, in addition to those occurring naturally as a part of their aging process, could easily have been confused with observations of the 1963 study. Hence, one may concede to the threat of ambiguous temporal sequence since the lack of classification as to which variables occur, first causes confusion as per the true causes and effects (Karen and Kristonis 4). Application of Aggression Theories The theories help in understanding the role of varied factors on aggression rather than pinning it down on a limited number of factors. For instance, personality has a role to play in the intensity of aggression. Aggression is also believed to be greatly influenced by one’s sex orientation. It is in this light that men are believed to be more physically aggressive than women. A person’s socialization and cultural values also determine the level of aggression one displays in different social set-ups. The society from with which one identifies with could also be a moderating factor to aggression. An individual from a violent community is likely to express aggressive behavior which a contradiction of a quiet and calm and a peaceful society. For students of socio-psychology, the theories could be applied in understanding varied display of aggressive behavior. The individuals should also find it useful to use the theories in predicting behavior of their immediate surrounding and if possible, modify so as to reduce the negative effects of the same. Also handy is the application of the theories in the manner in which punishments are administered to children. Prescribed punishment should not over emphasize the wrong done but should aim at correcting the same (Geen and Edward 15-25). Works Cited Baron A.R. and Richardson, R.D. Human Aggression. New York: Springer. 2004. Geen, R. and Donnerstein, E. Human Aggression: Theories, Research, and Implications for Social Policy. New York: Elsevier. 1998. Hewstone, M. and Stroebe, W. Introduction to Social Psychology: A European Perspective. New York: Wiley-Blackwell. 2001. Huesmann, R. L. Aggressive Behavior: Current Perspective. London: Springer.1994. Karen, H.E and Kritsonis A.K. National Forum of Applied Educational Research Journal. Vol. 20. 2006. Krahe, Barbara. The Social Psychology of Aggression. London: Psychology Press. 2001. Read More