AGGRESSION: I
INTRODUCTION
-DEFINITIONS OF AGGRESSION
	--Problem of intent
	--Instinct Theories
		Problems
	--Learning Theories
		--Frustration-Aggression Theory 
		(Dollard et al.)
		--Berkowitz's revised F-A theory
			Role of aggressive cues
		--Social Learning Theories
		(Bandura; Patterson)
	--Information Processing Theory 	(Dodge)
		--Biases in inform. process.


DEFINITIONS OF AGGRESSION 
	-- A behavior that has as its goal the injury of the person to 
whom it is directed (Dollard et al.).  How a problem:  intentionality 
not a property of behavior, but instead refers to an antecedent 
condition that must be inferred from the behavior.
	-- Attempts to skirt this problem:  Response that delivers a 
noxious stimulus to another (Buss).  Then we have the difficulties of 
calling a dentists or a surgeons behavior aggressive.
	-- Behavior designed to harm or injure another who is motivated 
to avoid such treatment (Baron).  Again, the issue of intent.  
Perhaps we should instead adopt an empirical position:  what are the 
factors that result in people labeling an act as aggressive?  
	Subjective social labeling.  Doesn't much solve problem for 
researcher who does observational studies with children, for example. 
Must adopt a topographical definition, perhaps with functional 
components.


THEORIES OF AGGRESSION
Instinct Theories
	--Freud: Thanatos.  In opposition to Eros (the love force).  An 
example of the kind of dualisms that are common in the classics.  The 
process of living generated this destructive force, and it had to be 
drained in some fashion.  This is a hydraulic motivational notion:  
force builds up, and must be dissipated.  Thus we have wars, either 
real or soccer wars; people kill, either themselves or others, etc.  
The ubiquitousness of aggression undoubtedly was one of the factors 
responsible for the positing of a death force by Freud.
	--Lorenz: Ethologist who popularized notions of catharsis.  That 
society must develop alternative acceptable methods of ridding it 
citizens of aggression.  Aristotelian notion -- that participation in 
plays, etc. would drain our reservoir.  Not all ethologists agreed 
with Lorenz.
	--Criticisms of instinct theories:
		Cross-cultural differences in aggression:  Some societies 
pacifistic.
		Aggression, even in infrahuman societies extraordinarily 
changeable by environmental manipulation:  Kuo's (p. 331) classic 
study of kittens.
		As Shaffer indicates, no physiological evidence for 
aggressive energy that is built up, produced, etc.
Learning theories
	All major learning theories also had to deal with aggression.  
Perhaps the first important attempt came from the Yale group (that 
groups of very distinguished behavioral scientists at Yale in the 
late 30's -- Dollard, Miller, Doob, Mower -- who attempted to marry 
psychoanalytic and then modern behavior theory.
	--Frustration-Aggression Theories.  Came up with the notion that 
frustration led to aggression.  If aggression, prior frustration; if 
frustration, then aggression 
(F<-->A)
	While it was an interesting theoretical adventure, both of these 
parts of the theory are incorrect in its strong interpretation:  
(1) clearly other responses can be given in response to frustration 
-- such as problem solving, studying, dependency, or what have you.
	-- Barker, Dembo and ,Lewin nursery school children were 
introduced to attractive toys.  As soon as a child expressed 
interest, a wire mesh screen was introduced between the toys and the 
children, thus frustrating their attempts at playing with them.  
While some kids kicked the wire enclosure, other kids regressed 
(crying, whimpering, and the like).
(2) furthermore, aggression can follow other motives than 
frustration:  e.g., aggression as part of sex; the responses of a 
hitman or an executioner. 
	-- The numerous experiments on the effects of exposure to 
aggressive models clearly indicates that prior frustration is not 
responsible for aggression following exposure to aggressive models.
	-- Berkowitz is perhaps the foremost proponent of a modern 
version of the FA theory.  Berkowitz emphasizes frustration or attack 
as important antecedents of aggression, and the presence of 
aggressive cues for the elicitation of aggression 
		In a non famous study, college students were angered, and 
in a room containing either a cue for aggression (a gun), or a cue 
without association with aggression (a tennis racket); the former 
stimulus elicited or provoked substantially higher levels of 
aggression than the latter.
Social Learning Theories:
	Bandura, and Patterson
--The emphasis is on exposure to models (Bandura, Ross, and Ross 
study a classic) as critical for the acquisition of aggressive 
responses; Bandura has been the foe of broadcasters for years because 
of concern with TV aggressive models.
--and of the importance rewards for the maintenance of aggression.  
Clearly there can be different rewards for different folks:  getting 
the goody when one aggresses; social approval (as in wrestlers or 
football players); pain cues for some folks, etc.
--Bandura also emphasizes cognitive processes:  our interpretation of 
events will importantly determine emotional reactions to events, 
whether we aggress, and if so, how, and our self-reactions to 
aggression.
Information Processing Theories:
	Dodge.  The model is basic information processing model -- they 
are about as rampant as mini-stage theories about one or another 
aspect of cognitive social behavior.
When an incident occurs -- e.g., I am tripped, here is what happens:
--Search for cues (1) and then their interpretation (2).  Aggressive 
kids have been shown to interpret event in a biased manner:  as 
intentional when it is ambiguous.
--Search for responses: (3)  aggressive kids seem to short-circuit 
search, and immediately go for the aggressive response.  Indeed Shore 
and her associates (coming from a cognitive social learning position) 
base treatment on teaching kids to withhold initial response, and 
consider a greater range of possible responses.
--Then response decision (4):  what will happen if..... (again part 
of retraining programs);
--and finally enacting a response (5).
	Figure 9-4 (p. 248 of text) nicely depicts some of the 
information processing biases in aggressive kids.  We can enter the 
figure at any point.  Begin at upper left.  Aggressive children tend 
to infer aggressive or hostile intent more readily than 
non-aggressive kids.  This biases the production of aggressive 
counter-attack.  That in return produces rejection and counterattack 
by peer (lower right).  That reinforces aggressive kids original 
interpretation of the world as hostile in intent, and we are back to 
the upper left cell.
Criticism of all of these theories:  they are not really 
developmental.  Where do they talk about systematic changes with 
development, etc.????


	Social Development
	Thought Questions:  Aggression 1 (P&B, pp. 197-225)
	Wed., November 16
1.	Why might aggressive children be relatively deficient in 
role-taking skills?

2.	How does the development of empathy change with age?

3.	Do you agree or disagree with Piaget's theory that until 7 or 8 
years of age children think others have the same visual, emotional, 
and cognitive experience that they have?  Why?

4.	Bandura has suggested, in essence, that aggression is whatever 
people say it is.  Give your own definition of aggression and give 
examples to support your definition.

5.	Choose one theory on aggression and briefly discuss it.  
Include its strengths as well as its weaknesses.

6.	Discuss the differences and similarities between the views of 
aggression of learning theorists and of social learning theorists.






 

 
 
Psychology 326 (Social & Personality Development:
Hartmann), Sp97, Aggression I, p. 7