Self-Study Assignment

Topic- Aggression and Violence

Submitted by-
Kanak Kataria
I MPhil Clinical Psychology

Supervisor-
Dr Rajakumari Reddy
Associate Professor
Dept of Clinical Psychology

Submitted on- 06.01.2020

 1

Despite historically offering many advantages to those who demonstrated it, contemporary
views on aggression point predominantly to the negative costs it brings. The evolutionary
value of aggression appears to have become less important as humans continued to become
more social (Bushman & Huesmann, 2010). Aggression remains a widely used word, often
having different meanings in everyday parlance and social psychological research. It also
occurs in drastically varying degrees, ranging from actions such as shouting or slapping to
murders and terrorism. In social psychology literature, aggression is commonly defined as
‘any behaviour that is intended to harm another person who is motivated to avoid that harm
(Bushman & Huesmann, 2010). The harm inflicted by aggression can serve several functions
and take several forms, but there are some key characteristics common to the concept of
aggression. First, aggression is an observable act or behaviour, not simply a feeling or
thought. While aggressive affect and cognitions are indeed central to contributing to
aggressive acts, they are not by themselves enough to qualify as aggression. Secondly,
aggression must be intentional. Thirdly, aggression is a social behaviour, and involves
people. It may, however, include those acts of causing harm to inanimate objects which are
intended to indirectly harm another person (Allen & Anderson, 2017).

A related concept is that of violence, which is considered in social psychology to be a subset

of aggression. Violence is defined as ‘an extreme form of aggression that has severe physical
harm as its goal, such as injury or death (Anderson & Bushman, 2002). As with aggression,
intentionality is a key characteristic in violence, and absence of actual caused physical harm
does not disqualify an act from being termed violent as long as intent to cause physical harm
is present. Violence and aggression are best viewed along a continuum with aggressive acts
of relatively lower severity, such as pushing or shouting being on the former end of the
spectrum and violent acts of higher severity, such as murders or assault being on the latter
end of the spectrum. In recent years, the discourse on violence has evolved, with some acts
which are not physically harmful also being termed as violent acts, such as certain patterns of
verbal aggression being labelled ‘emotional violence’; however, violence is most frequently
used to refer to physical forms of severe aggression (Allen & Anderson, 2017).

Types of Aggression
Aggression can be classified into forms bases on several characteristics. On the basis of
response mode, it is commonly classified as physical (involving physically harming another),
verbal (using words to harm another), or relational (also known as social, damaging social
 2

relationships and making them feel excluded or hurt) (Bushman & Huesmann, 2010). On the
basis of immediacy, aggression is classified as direct or indirect, with the former occurring
when the person is physically present and the latter occurring when the person is physically
absent, such as with spreading a rumour about the person (DeWall, Anderson, & Bushman,
2012). One of the oldest and most prevalent classifications of aggression is into categories of
hostile aggression and instrumental aggression. Hostile aggression is characterised by a
motivation to hurt the other person, and is also known as reactive aggression. Instrumental
aggression is aggression motivated by a wish to attain a different desired goal, such as
money, social status, etc. The two are also considered characterised by ‘hot’ and ‘cold’
affective systems, respectively. Aggression is also classified as displaced or triggered
displaced (subtype of displaced) aggression. Displaced aggression is said to occur when an
innocent substitute becomes a victim of aggression (Bushman & Huesmann, 2010) and
triggered displaced aggression is said to occur when aggression is inflicted on someone who
had committed a minor transgression or offence. Both these types occur as it is often not
possible to directly aggress against the provocateur or because the aggressor is afraid of
retaliation by the provocateur (Bushman & Huesmann, 2010). Additionally, aggression is
also classified as active (engaging in harmful behaviour) or passive (failing to engage in
helpful behaviour), overt (visible behaviour) or covert (relatively low in visibility, such as
leaving mean notes for someone), and personological or situational (based on the relative
influence of personal and situational factors on the aggression) (Allen & Anderson, 2017).

Aggression appears to be affected by several factors, including personal, situational, cultural,

and sociodemographic variables. General consensus on trends in aggression indicate that
aggression appears to be reducing worldwide (Pinker, 2007; Human Security Brief, 2007),
that aggression peaks when individuals are aged between 1-3 years (Broidy et al., 2003, as
cited in Bushman & Huesmann, 2010) whereas violent criminal offending peaks between
ages 15-30, declining after that, males are prone to have higher prevalence of physical
aggression whereas females show higher indirect aggression (Crick & Grotpeter, 1995) and
that gender differences in aggression and violence are a result of both nature and nurture.

Theories of Aggression and Violence

 Evolutionary Theory
Aggression is considered to have strong evolutionary significance, insofar as aggressive
individuals were expected to be able to defend themselves, sustain themselves, live longer,
 3

and be most likely to pass on their genes to the next generation; the value of aggression to
males was seen in the increased access it provided to females, food, shelter and resources,
whereas for females was seen in defending their offspring and themselves as well as gaining
resources for them (Bushman & Huesmann, 2010). First given importance by Darwin in
1871, the instinct theory of aggression proposes that aggressive behaviour is motivated
neither by the pursuit of pleasure or avoidance of pain, but rather as an evolutionary
adaptation that allows humans to survive better (Darwin, 1871/1948).
Evolutionary theories propose that humans have evolved adaptations designed to inflict harm
to others that are essential and universal components of human existence. The exercise of
these tendencies is presumed to depend on situational factors (King, 2012). Ethological
theories, which involve studies of behaviour from biological viewpoints (Klopfer, 1974, as
cited in Brennan, 1998) are also of relevance in understanding the evolutionary value offered
by aggression and violence. Based on his study of mammalian species, fish and birds, Lorenz
described aggression as being common to most species, including man. He proposed a
hydraulic model of aggression, stating that the build-up of aggressive urges, when not
released elsewhere, result in inevitable aggression in the same manner a hydraulic pressure
reacts inside a closed environment (Lorenz, 1966).
The value of aggression across species has been viewed as helping establish dominance in
social hierarchy or establish rights over resources (Morris, 1967), both of which provide clear
evolutionary advantages.
In the case of humans, much evidence points to an extensive history of violence- ancient
skeletal structures have been discovered with multiple fractures that can only be explained by
the use of clubs, fragments of weapons are often found lodged in skeletal ribcages, etc.
(Trinkaus & Zimmerman, 1982, as cited in Buss & Shackelford, 1997). These findings can be
explained by evolutionary models which posit that interactions between genetic dispositions
and situational factors lead to acts of aggression and violence. Solving adaptive problems is
the essential goal of human behaviours, and from an evolutionary perspective, it is believed
that those mechanisms which help solve these problems are to be retained (Buss &
Shackelford, 1997). The adaptive problems that aggression may seek to solve in humans
include co-opting resources of others, defending against attack, inflicting costs on same-sex
rivals, negotiating status and power hierarchies, deterring rivals from future aggression,
deterring long-term mates from sexual infidelity and reducing resources expended on
unrelated children such as step-children (Buss & Shackelford, 1997). The multiplicity of
these adaptive problems that may be solved by aggression highlights that aggression is a
 4

complex phenomenon, and one that is highly situation-specific, triggered in those contexts
where it may have utility.

 Psychodynamic Theories
In understanding psychodynamic theories, it must be borne in mind that due to the vastness of
theories and opinions within psychodynamic approaches, there exists a fundamental
disagreement between structuralists who view aggression as an innate drive or an instinct,
and self-psychologists, who conceptualise aggression as stemming from narcissistic injury
(Bjorkly, 2006). Aggression was not part of Freud’s initial formulation of the nature of the
psyche. Aggression as in instinct was instead first proposed by Alfred Adler in 1908, who
viewed it as a primary, innate drive. He held that all behaviour arose from an aggressive
protest against feelings of inferiority, this protest being termed a ‘masculine protest’ and
sexuality being reduced to men’s attempts to master women through aggression (Dennen,
2005). Adler viewed aggression as a primary drive, one which when acting in confluence
with other drives such as sexual drives, would always tend to dominate the others.
It was in 1920 that Freud introduced his dualist theory of life instincts being matched with a
death instinct (Bjorkly, 2006); he termed the life instinct Eros and the death instinct Thanatos.
Previously considered a part of self-preservative instincts, aggression was now viewed in
Freudian theory from the point of being a result of the destructive urges of the death instinct
(Dennen, 2005). The life instinct was presumed to counteract the urges of the death instinct
and preserve life by redirecting destructive urges outside through aggression than be directed
inwards, which he later conceptualised as the cause of depression (Freud, 1917/61, as cited in
Bushman & Huesmann, 2010). Displacement and substitution were viewed as important
means through which the outward redirection of aggressive impulses occurred. Freud also
considered that, if not combined with love, aggressive impulses would result in increased
violence, aggression, and destructiveness (Bjorkly, 2006). He considered the idea that
catharsis or reduction of tension of destructive energy could result in reduced aggressive
behaviour and violence. Catharsis is defined as the process wherein the affective, non-
destructive display or hostile and aggressive inclinations can discharge energy from the
destructive urges and thereby reduce the strength of these urges (Bjorkly, 2006).
Melanie Klein also extended the notion of aggressive and destructive drives in individuals.
She agreed with Freud and Adler in that aggression was constitutional, i.e. it was inborn and
innate, and not induced due to trauma from the external world (King, 2012). She proposed
that this instinctive aggression was expressed by infants through fantasies of attacking what is
 5

good, i.e. the mother’s breast (Royston, 2006). At later stages, infants were expected to learn
to isolate the projected aggression towards the good breast by attributing it to the ‘bad breast’.
Klein hypothesized that the ability of the mother to withstand the attack and for the infant to
be able to reconcile both breasts as part of the same individual enables the infant to introject
the good object and use loving feelings to manage destructive urges (Harding, 2006).
While such theories concern themselves mainly with the emergence of mechanisms to curb
destructive urges, as opposed to other theories which concern themselves with the emergence
of violent and aggressive tendencies, the instinctive view of aggression continues to be one
looked at with scepticism. Royston (2006) has proposed that the concept of a death instinct
should altogether be abandoned and asserted that if there is constitutional destructiveness, it
is an outcome of interpersonal processes (King, 2012).

 Frustration-Aggression Theory
Frustration and Aggression by Dollard and colleagues has been considered the first
comprehensive theoretical account of the etiological factors involved in aggression, and
perhaps the first to award importance to the role of learning processes in aggression (Eron,
1994). It provided a bridge between Freudian and Social Learning perspectives, and
translated some of the assumptions of Freud’s theory into more observable terms. While
convinced that learning processes were important, the authors of the monograph appeared to
be in agreement with older notions of aggression having a biological basis, although not an
instinctual one (Eron, 1994).
Frustration was defined by Dollard and colleagues as ‘an interference with the occurrence of
an instigated goal-response at its proper time in the behaviour sequence’ (Dollard et al., 1939,
as cited in Eron, 1994). They defined aggression as ‘any sequence of behaviour, the goal-
response to which is the injury of the person toward whom it is directed’ (Dollard et al., 1939,
as cited in Eron, 1994). The essence of the frustration-aggression perspective was
summarised by two statements in the opening page of the monograph, the first stating “The
occurrence of aggressive behaviour always presupposes the existence of frustration,” and the
second, “The existence of frustration always leads to some form of aggression.”. Hence, they
were of the opinion that frustration was necessary but not sufficient for aggression. Like
Lorenz, their model too was of a hydraulic form, with the underlying assumption that there
would be a build-up of aggressive energy within the person when thwarted from achieving a
goal, and that this energy necessitated expression or release in the form of aggressive acts.
 6

The strength of tendency to aggress was considered to vary on the basis of the amount of
frustration, the degree of interference with goal-directed responses, and the number of
frustrated responses experienced by the individual (Bjorkly, 2006). Within this model,
aggressive acts are considered self-reinforcing through the release of aggressive energy,
leading to strengthening of aggressive actions.
However, it was observed that not all frustrations led to aggressive behaviour, leading to
revisions of the theory, the first being by one of the original authors, Miller, in 1941. Miller
explained that several different tendencies could be instigated by frustrations, such as
tendencies to escape or find alternative ways to the goal (Miller, 1941). He proposed that,
eventually, the most dominant tendency is the one that helps release the frustration, and that
this dominant tendency may be of an aggressive or non-aggressive form. Subsequently, the
frustration-aggression hypothesis was also evaluated by Berkowitz, who found adequate
research evidence for parts of the formulation limited to frustration reactions and hostile,
rather than instrumental acts of aggression. However, he proposed a modification of the
initial hypothesis, proposing that frustrations generate aggressive actions only to the extent
that they evoke negative affect (Berkowitz, 1989). Since unexpected failures to reach goals
are more distress evoking than failures which are more expected, they lead to greater degree
of aggression and violence. Berkowitz also considered that the cognitions and appraisals
made by the individual regarding the goal thwarting were important determiners of
aggression. He stated that aggression, could, thus, arise out of any form of negative affect, be
it depression, sadness, anxiety, or irritability (Berkowitz, 1989).
The idea of learning through experience to respond to aggression set the background for the
emergence of learning theory models of aggression (Bushman & Huesmann, 2010).

 Social Learning Theories

The decline of frustration-aggression theories led to an increased emphasis on the role of
learning processes and the external environment in initiating and maintaining aggressive
behaviour than on inherent factors (Eron, 1994). Classical conditioning and operant
conditioning principles of associations and reinforcement were used to explain aggressive
behaviour, but the learning view that dominates discourse on aggression is that of social
learning or observational learning, popularized by Bandura after his famous Bobo doll
experiment (Bandura, Ross, & Ross, 1963). In the Bobo dolls studies, one group of nursery-
school students saw an adult engage in aggressive actions against a Bobo doll, whereas
another group was exposed to a model who behaved quietly and non-aggressively.
 7

Observations revealed that those who had seen the aggressive adult model often imitated the
model’s behaviour- they also punched the doll, sat on it, even uttered verbal comments
towards it as the model had done. On the other hand, the control group children rarely
demonstrated such aggressive actions. Hence, it was proposed that aggressive behaviour
could be learned or modelled from observation. Observational theories require that an
individual attend to a model, retain what they have observed, produce the actions by
translating memory into behaviours, and be motivated to engage in the behaviour (Baron &
Misra, 2016). Research indicates that aggression can be learned by observation (Eron, 1987,
as cited in Eron, 1994). Observational learning provides the opportunity for individuals to
learn new (aggressive) behaviours. Evidence suggests that effects of being exposed to violent
models may be higher for individuals who are highly aggressive by nature (Bushman, 1995).
Observational learning theories also help explain the impact of media on violence and
aggression. Media violence may convey messages that violence is an acceptable means of
handling difficulties and may lessen emotional reactions to aggression and the harm it
produces so that violent outcomes seem less objectionable (Baron & Misra, 2016).
Bandura (as cited in Bjorkly, 2006) proposed that aggressive behaviour is learned and
maintained through environmental experiences either directly or vicariously, and that
learning of aggression is controlled by reinforcement contingencies and punishment in a
fashion similar to the learning of any new behaviours. Hence, along with observational
processes, reinforcement processes were also viewed as contributing to aggression learning.
Bandura proposed that in order to understand learning theories of aggression, one must
carefully examine the ways such actions are acquired (Origins of aggression), the factors that
instigate their occurrence (Instigators of aggression), and the conditions that maintain their
performance (Regulators of aggression) (Bandura, 1973, as cited in Bjorkly, 2006).
Origins of aggression may take the form of acquisition of material incentives, social approval
or increased status, alleviation of aversion treatment, and pain and suffering on the part of the
victim. Four processes were seen as constituting instigators of aggression- a) a directive
function of modelling, which serves to inform the observer about the causal means-ends
relations in the situation, b) a disinhibitory function, teaching observers that they can get
away with aggressive behaviour without being punished for it, c) evoking emotional arousal
in individuals observing aggressive models, and d) observations of a model having stimulus-
enhancing effects by directing the observers’ attention to the aggressive expressions and
methods being used. Additionally, Bandura also highlighted the role of instructions as
instigators of aggressive behaviour. The maintenance of already initiated aggression is carried
 8

out by a variety of factors. These regulators of aggression are similar to factors that initiate
learning of aggression; successful aggression often continues to provide aggressors with
tangible and social rewards, has the potential of alleviating aversive or abusive treatment
from others, and self-reinforcement by self-administering praise and approval also maintains
aggression.

 Social Cognitive Theories

In the 1980s, there was a surge of research and literature on cognitive explanations of
aggression. One popular model, proposed by Huesmann and Eron (1984) focused particularly
on scripts, beliefs and observational learning. In memory, scripts define situations and guide
behaviour; the person first selects a script to represent the situation and then assumes a role in
the script (Huesmann & Eron, 1984, as cited in Bushman & Huesmann, 2010). Scripts may
be learned directly or through observation. Another popular model, developed by Dodge and
colleagues (Dodge, 1980, as cited in Bushman & Huesmann, 2010) emphasised perceptions
and attributions. Attributions are the explanations people make about why others behave the
way they do. These two models were supplemented by a third similar model, called the
General Aggression Model, developed by Anderson and his colleagues (Anderson &
Bushman, 2002). Although these three models differ in their details, all view aggression as
the outcome of a social problem - solving process in which situational factors are evaluated,
social scripts are retrieved, and these scripts are evaluated until one is selected to guide
behaviour.
An attempt has been made by Huesmann and Kirwil (2007) to integrate the concepts of these
three models into a unified framework. According to this model, information processing
starts with assessment of the social situation and ends with the choice to follow a particular
script of action. Individuals also evaluate the consequences of their chosen scripts; if
consequences are positive, the script is likely to be used again. Scripts, world schemas,
normative beliefs and emotional predispositions are four individual differences in social
problem solving which play an important role in the model. World schemas are beliefs about
what the world is like, used to analyse intentions of others. These attributions, in turn,
influence the search for a script for behaving. Normative beliefs are beliefs about what types
of behaviour are normal. They are used to judge the appropriateness of aggressive behaviour
and to filter out inappropriate scripts and behaviours. And emotional predispositions are
individual differences in a variety of emotion -related tendencies. These predispositions affect
how people evaluate scripts. In any social situation, the features of the situation interact with
 9

these four individual differences to determine action. Individual differences in aggression are
thus linked to differences in these four social problem-solving factors (Bushman &
Huesmann, 2016).

 Biological and Neurocognitive Bases of Aggression and Violence

In some individuals, repetitive acts of aggression are grounded in an underlying
neurobiological susceptibility that is just beginning to be understood. The failure of “top-
down” control systems in the prefrontal cortex to modulate aggressive acts that are triggered
by anger provoking stimuli appears to play an important role. Brain imaging, neurological,
and animal studies suggest that frontal and prefrontal dysfunction may account for low levels
of arousal, low (stress) reactivity, and fearlessness. An imbalance between prefrontal
regulatory influences and hyper-responsivity of the amygdala and other limbic regions
involved in affective evaluation are implicated. Insufficient serotonergic facilitation of “top-
down” control, excessive catecholaminergic stimulation, and subcortical imbalances of
glutamatergic/gabaminergic systems as well as pathology in neuropeptide systems involved
in the regulation of affiliative behaviour may contribute to abnormalities in this circuitry
(Siever, 2008).
Testosterone seems to affect aggression through long short- term effects (Archer, 1991). In
the long term, it seems to impact the development and organization of various collections of
cells in the brain associated with affecting bodily structures (e.g., muscles, height) that
influence the likelihood and the success rate of aggression. In the short term, it may also have
an instigating effect on aggression by increasing feelings of dominance. Although both
effects are well established in animals, only the long - term effects are well established in
humans.
Aggressive behavior has often been associated with poor executive function and verbal
processing in adolescents and adults. Cognitive performance is particularly impaired in
neuropsychological tests that are sensitive to frontal and temporal dysfunction. Tasks that
rely on behavioural inhibition were most likely to show deficits in individuals with
aggressive behaviour and violence, and reduced responses in evoked potential tasks have
predicted impulsiveness in aggressive prison populations (Coccaro & Siever, 1995, as cited in
Siever, 2008).
 10

 Role of Culture
Social and cultural norms are rules or expectations of behaviour and thoughts based on shared
beliefs within a specific cultural or social group. While often unspoken, norms offer social
standards for appropriate and inappropriate behaviour that govern what is and is not
acceptable in interactions among people (WHO, 2009). Social norms can be defined as rules
of behaviour that individuals conform to because they believe that most people in their
reference group either think they ought to conform to them (normative expectations) or
conform to them as a norm (empirical expectations) (Bicchieri and Penn Social Norms
Training and Consulting Group, 2016). Different social and cultural norms affect how
individuals feel about acts of aggression and violence, and how they respond to the same. For
instance, research shows that witnessing violence as a child creates norms that can lead to the
acceptance or perpetration of a multitude of violent behaviours or acts (Abraham & Jewkes,
2005).
There is general agreement that the causes of violence are related to power, the normative use
of violence, and the meaning of being a man or a woman in a society (Lundgren, 2018).
Lundgren suggests that understanding the meaning an act of violence requires looking at the
ways in which power is demonstrated in society and accounting for cultural context. She
highlights the effects and roles of systemic actors (schools, religious institutions, community,
and family), the setting (where we live, work, and play), and the processes of how we learn
(mentoring, discipline, peer influence, etc.). Through a complex process of interaction,
culture comes to shape how one feels about violence and to what extent one engages in
aggressive behaviour. When children are raised in a violence-accepting culture, they may be
socialized to be even more violent. In a study of students at a high school near Detroit,
Michigan, USA, Souweidane and Huesmann (1999) found that the children who had been
born in the United States were more accepting of aggression than were children who had
emigrated from the Middle East, especially if they did so after the age of 11 (Souweidane &
Huesmann, 1999).
The impact of cultural factors is perhaps most evident in the case of domestic violence, where
cultural factors are easily observed in their impact on acceptance of and attitudes towards
violence. Some theories that examine the connection between culture and abuse claim that
battering is a result of “cultural values, rules, and practices that afford men more status and
power than women” (Torres, 1991, as cited in Kasturirangan, Krishnan, & Riger, 2004).
Although underlying patriarchal values may be widely shared, women from diverse racial
 11

and ethnic groups may differ in the types of violence they experience and in their responses
to violence (Campbell et al., 1997, as cited in Kasturirangan, Krishnan & Riger, 2004;
Sullivan & Rumptz, 1994). In the African American community, for example, “women are
socialized to appear in control in the presence of Anglo Americaans,” which may make it
difficult for women to seek help from shelters staffed by White women (Moss et al., 1997as
cited in Kasturirangan, Krishnan & Riger, 2004). Women may be unwilling to disclose their
experience of domestic violence for fear of bringing shame to their families and communities
or of reinforcing stereotypes. As a result, when seeking help for domestic violence, women of
color may feel they have to place importance on their gender identity above their racial or
ethnic identity (Moss et al., 1997, as cited in Kasturirangan, Krishnan & Riger, 2004;
Yoshihama, 2002, as cited in Kasturirangan, Krishnan & Riger, 2004). Cultures emphasising
‘honour’ have been widely researched and implicated in the violence that ensues when a
transgression of cultural values and morals is perceived by communities, such as with honour
killings (Singhal, 2014).

 Precipitating and Predisposing Factors

The factors which may be seen as contributing to violence and aggression can be situated at
situational, personal and environmental levels, and include a wide range of factors within
each category. A brief overview of these factors is presented in the following section.

Situational factors may be classified as factors precipitating aggression, arousing situational

stimuli, and factors interfering with aggression inhibition. Factors precipitating aggression
include unpleasant events (based on the principle of negative affectivity from Berkowitz’
modified frustration-aggression hypothesis) such as social rejection, social stress,
temperatures, crowding, etc. and presence of weapons or means to inflict harm. Situational
stimuli that lead to arousal include, but are not limited to, provocation, media violence and
heat. The link between arousal and aggression can be explained by multiple pathways- first,
that high levels of arousal may be experienced as, and may thus instigate aggression in the
same way as other aversive stimuli. Second, arousal narrows our span of attention. Third,
arousal increases the dominant response, which is defined as the most common response in
that situation. Thus, whatever people are normally inclined to do (including behaving
aggressively), they will be even more strongly inclined to do when they are physiologically
aroused. Fourth, arousal may be mislabelled as anger in situations involving provocation,
thus producing anger - motivated aggressive behaviour. This process has been demonstrated
 12

in several studies by Dolf Zillmann, who has named it excitation transfer. Excitation -
transfer theory assumes that physiological arousal, however created, dissipates at a low
speed. If two arousing events are differentiated by a short amount of time, some arousal
caused by the first event may transfer to the second event and add to the arousal caused by
the second event. Situational factors interfering with inhibition of aggression include alcohol,
psychotropic substances, and anonymity. Rather than directly causing aggression, alcohol
works by causing disinhibition, narrowing focus of attention, decreasing self-awareness and
disrupting executive functions (Bushman & Huesmann, 2016). Anonymity causes individuals
to enter a state of deindividuation, or losing their sense of individuality. Anonymity increases
aggression both inside and outside the lab (Anderson & Bushman, 1997), and occurs in both
individual and group scenarios.

Personological Factors serve as predisposing factors to the precipitating factors often brought
about by situations. Personality variables form a major part of predisposing factors to
aggression and violence, with commonly implicated traits being those of narcissism, low self-
control (Gottfredson & Herschey, 1990, as cited in Bushman & Huesmann, 2016) and
psychopathy or characteristics of what is contemporarily referred to as antisocial behaviour,
i.e. callous and unemotional affective reactions and low empathy. Biological factors
implicated include low arousal, low serotonin, high testosterone and executive functioning
deficits (Bushman Huesmann, 2016).

Environmental Factors can also take the form of predisposing factors. Common factors of this
form are punitive family and academic environments, low monitoring family environments,
coercive family interactions, bullying and other violent peer interactions, mass media
environment and cultural expectations and norms, discussed earlier.

Impact of Aggression and Violence

Violence and aggression have a tremendous impact on the physical, mental and emotional
well-being of individuals as well as society. The impact of violence is important to examine
not only due to its own merit but also due to the costs it poses on health systems, economies,
and nations. The consequences of violence on a global level are mortality, morbidity,
psychological trauma, family disruption, economic loss, social disruption, loss of potential
and diminished quality of life. According to WHO’s fact sheet on injury and violence, one
third of the 5.8 million deaths globally due to injuries are caused by acts of violence. This
 13

burden is more apparent in middle and low-income countries than developed nations.
Morbidity due to violence is difficult to quantify but presents as stress and psychological
difficulties, loss of work, potential and quality of life, and physical injuries not requiring
medical care.
The impact of violence on children is particularly significant, insofar as it can cause
behavioural and emotional disorders or difficulties, attachment related difficulties, post-
traumatic stress, social isolation or difficulties socialising, and have neurodevelopmental
impacts. With adolescents, there is a growing concern regarding engaging in risky behaviours
and substance use. With adults, aggressive behaviour may take the form of road rage, sexual
abuse, physical abuse, verbal abuse, and child abuse, and may invite legal action. With old
age populations, the risk of alienation, ostracism, and elderly abuse puts individuals at greater
risk for psychological problems.
The societal costs of violence and aggression are manifest in that while rates of violent
crimes may be reducing, the nature of the crimes is frequently observed to be more
disturbing. School shootings and gruesome assault cases are alarming public health and
societal concerns. The normalization of violence in society also poses dangers for reduced
emotional sensitivity, callousness and reduced prosocial behaviours. Living in fear of
violence is also shown to have negative effects on the well-being of individuals.

Reducing Aggression
Reducing aggression is a pressing concern given the costs it poses and the threats placed on
individuals’ basic needs of safety and security. Designing effective interventions for reducing
aggression is difficult as there is no single cause contributing to aggression. Effective
interventions must a) aim to tackle as many factors affecting aggression as possible and b)
address aggressive behaviour at stages of early development wherever possible, given the
temporal stability of aggression (Bushman & Huesmann, 2016). Systemic interventions
targeting individual, family, and environmental factors are most likely to effect change.
A long-standing approach to aggression management is the use of cathartic techniques.
According to catharsis theory, acting aggressively or even viewing aggression purges angry
feelings and aggressive impulses into harmless channels. Research has not found significant
support for venting of aggressive impulses verbally (Bushman, Baumeister, & Stack,
Catharsis, aggression, and persuasive influence: Self - fulfilling or self - defeating
prophecies? , 1999) and can in fact increase aggression. Exercise, another proposed means of
catharsis, has also not been demonstrated to reduce aggression as it enhances arousal rather
 14

than diminish it (Bushman, 2002). Punishment has also been frequently employed as a way of
tackling aggression across cultures. Punishment is defined as inflicting pain (positive
punishment) or removing pleasure (negative punishment) for a misdeed. Punishment is most
effective when it is intense, prompt, applied consistently and with certainty, perceived as
justified, and replaced by a more desirable alternative behaviour. However, even if
punishment occurs under these ideal conditions, it may only suppress aggressive behaviour
temporarily, and it has several undesirable long-term consequences. Additionally, it often
models the very behaviour it intends to curtail.
More useful strategies at aggression reduction aim at teaching individuals non-aggressive
means of behaving. The development of self-control through psychotherapy is a promising
means of reducing aggression. While aggression does not require the exercise of self-control,
most nonaggressive alternatives to frustration do. Hence, behaviour modification principles
such as differential reinforcement that focus on teaching and reinforcing nonaggressive
behaviours may be considered. Furthermore, teaching social skills may also be a useful point
of entry, to enhance perspective taking and limit self-centredness which may be contributing
to aggressive behaviours. Having prosocial models is also likely to help reduce aggression.
Other approaches to reducing aggression focus on reducing anger and arousal levels using
relaxation and cognitive- behavioural techniques such as relaxation and self-instructional
training (Bushman & Huesmann, 2016).

References
Abraham, N., & Jewkes, R. (2005). Effects of South African men’s having witnessed abuse of their
mothers during childhood on their levels of violence in adulthood. American Journal of
Public Health, 95, 1811-1816.

Allen, J. J., & Anderson, C. A. (2017). Aggression and VIolence: Definitions and Distinctions. In P.
Sturmey, The Wiley Handbook of Violence and Aggression (pp. 1-14). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Anderson, C. A., & Bushman, B. J. (2002). Human Aggression. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 27-
51. doi:doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135231

Archer, J. (1991). The influence of testosterone on human aggression. British Journal of Psychology,
1-28.

Bandura, A., Ross, D., & Ross, S. A. (1963). Imitation of film-mediated aggressive models. The Journal
of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 66(1), 3-11.

Baron, R. A., & Misra, G. (2016). Psychology (5th ed.). Pearson.

Berkowitz, L. (1989). Frustration-Aggression Hypothesis: Examination and Reformulation.

Psychological Bulletin, 106(1), 59-73.
 15

Bicchieri C., Penn Social Norms Training and Consulting Group. Why people do what they do: A social
norms manual for Viet Nam, Indonesia and the Philippines. Innocenti Toolkit Guide from the UNICEF
Office of Research; Florence, Italy: 2016.

Bjorkly, S. (2006). Psychological Theories of Aggression: Principles and Application to Practicice. In D.

Richter, & R. Whittington, Violence in Mental Health Settings (pp. 27-46). Springer Link.

Brennan, W. (1998). Aggression and violence: Examining the theories. Nursing Standard, 36-38.

Bushman. (2002). Does venting anger feed or extinguish the flame? Catharsis, rumination,
distraction, anger, and aggressive responding. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
724-731.

Bushman, B. J. (1995). Moderating role of trait aggressiveness in the effects of violent media on
aggression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 950-960.

Bushman, B. J., & Huesmann, R. L. (2010). Aggression. In S. T. Fiske, D. T. Gilbert, & G. Lindzey,
Handbook of Social Psychology, 5th Edition (pp. 833-863). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Bushman, B. J., Baumeister, R. F., & Stack, A. D. (1999). Catharsis, aggression, and persuasive
influence: Self - fulfilling or self - defeating prophecies? . Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 367-376.

Buss, D. M., & Shackelford, T. K. (1997). Human Aggression in Evolutionary Psychology Perspective.
Clinical Psychology Review, 17(6), 605-619.

Crick, N. R., & Grotpeter, J. K. (1995). Relational aggression, gender, and social-psychological
ajustment. Child Development, 66, 710-722.

Darwin, C. (1871/1948). Origin of Species. New York: Modern Library.

Dennen, J. M. (2005). Theories of Aggression: Psychoanalytic theories of aggression. Default Journal.

DeWall, C. N., Anderson, C. A., & Bushman, B. J. (2012). Aggression. In H. Tennen, J. Suls , & I. B.
Weiner, Handbook of Social Psychology (2 ed., Vol. 5, pp. 449-466). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Eron, L. D. (1994). Theories of Aggression: From Drives to Cognitions. In L. R. Huesmann, Aggressive

Behaviour: Current Perspectives (pp. 3-11). Plenum Press.

Harding, C. (2006). Aggression and destructiveness: Psychoanalytic perspectives. Routledge.

Human Security Brief (2007). Retrieved July 29, 2009 from http://www .humansecuritybrief.info/.

Kasturirangan, A., Krishnan, S., & Riger, S. (2004). The Impact of Culture and Minority Status on
Women’s Experience of Domestic Violence. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 5, 318-332.

King, B. (2012). Psychological Theories of Violence. Journal of Human Behaviour in the Social
Environment, 22(5), 553-571. doi: 10.1080/10911359.2011.598742

Lorenz, K. (1966). On Aggression. Routledge.

Lundgren, R. (2018). Addressing the Social and Cultural Norms That Underlie the Acceptance of
Violence. National Academies Press.

Miller, N. E. (1941). The frustration-aggression hypothesis. Psychological Review, 48, 337-342.

Morris, D. (1967). The Naked Ape. McGraw-Hill.

 16

Pinker, S. (2007). A history of violence. In The New Republic (236 ed., Vol. 12).

Royston, R. (2006). Destructiveness: Revenge, dysfunction or consititutional evil? . In C. Harding,

Aggression and destructiveness: Psychoanalytic perspectives (pp. 23-37). Routledge.

Siever, L. J. (2008). Neurobiology of Aggression and Violence. American Journal of Psychiatry, 429-
442.

Singhal, V. (2014). Honour Killing in India: An Assessment. Social Science Research Network.
Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2406031

Souweidane, V., & Huesmann, L. R. (1999). The Influence of American Urban Culture on the
Development of Normative Beliefs about Aggression in Middle-Eastern Immigrants.
American Journal of Community Psychology, 239-254.

Sullivan, C. M., & Rumptz, M. H. (1994). Adjustment and needs of African-American women who
utilized a domestic violence shelter. Violence & Victims, 9(3), 275-286.

WHO. (2009). Changing cultural and social norms supportive of violent behaviour. Series of briefings
on violence prevention: The evidence. Geneva: World Health Organization.