Description of Aggression and Characteristic

1. Introduction
 On Sunday, November 26, 1995,
Harvey Kaufman was at work in a
subway token booth in New York
City. Two men ran up to the booth,
squirred a flamable liquid through
the coin change slot in the window
of the booth, and set fire to the
liquid. The booth exploded, and
kaufman suffered third-degree
burns over 80% of his body.
 Denise Farmer, a 40 year old
mother of two living in Chicago,
got up and dressed for work. At 7
a.m., she left her appartment and
walked down the stairs. According
to police, one or more attackers
were waiting of the foot of the
stairs. The assailants stabbed her
more than 20 times; four of the
thrusts penetrated her heart and
killed. Another resident of the
building found farmer, her pockets
turned out and empty.
 On Tuesday, december 7, 1993,
Colin Pergusson, 35, boarded a
Long Island RailRoad commuter
train in New York City. As the
rush-hour train sped toward the
long island Suburbs, Fergusson
stood up, walked down the aisle of
the crowded car, and repeatedly
fired a semiautomatic pistol at
passenger. By the times 3
passenger wrestled him to the
floor, he had killed 4 persons and
wounded 19 others.
These incidents portray in stark relief a
person’s ability to inflict pain and death on
other human beings. How can we account
for such incidents and for the much
common and less extreme form of
aggression – harassment, abuse, assault-
that occur several times each minute in the
united states? These phenomena are the
foccus of this chapter.
Because intentions are clearly
important in defining an act as aggression
(Krebs;1982) we use the following
definition; Aggression is any beaviour
intended to harm another person, which
that person wants to avoid. According to
this definition, a bungled assassination is
an act of aggression; it involves intended
harm that target surely would wish to
avoid. Heart surgery approved by the
patient and intended to improve his or her
health is clearly not aggression, even if the
patient dies. Intended harm may be
physical, phsycologycal, or socia (for
example, harm to the target reputation).
Drawing on the research and theory,
this chapter addresses the following
questions:
1. What motivates people to aggress
against other?
2. How do the characteristic of the
target influences aggression?
3. How do the characteristics of the
situation influence aggression?
4. How can we reduce the frequency
of aggressive behaviour?
5. What influence the incidence of
interpersonal aggression—abuse,
assault,sexual assault, an murder-in
our society

2. What is Aggression?
Defining aggression seems a simple
enough task: Aggression is any behaviour
that hurt another. But this definitions
considers only the observable
consequences of behaviour, and ignores
the actor’s intentions. Hence it often leads
to absurds conclusion. Under this
definitions, for instances, we would
consider a surgeon an aggressor if a heart
transplant patient died on the operating
table despite heroic effort to preserve the
patient’s life.
Aggression and the motivation to Harm
As the examples in the introduction show,
human being have a remarkable capacity
to harm others. Our first question concerns
the motivation for human aggression: Why
do people turns against others? There are
at least four possible answer: (1) people
are instinctively aggressive (2) people
become aggressive in response to event
that are frustating. (3) people aggress
against others as a result of aversive
emotion. (4) people learns to use
aggression as an effective means of
obtaining what they want. We consider
each of these answers in turns.
Aggresion as Instinct
The best known proponent of the theory
that aggression is instinct was Sigmund
Freud (1930,1950). In Feud’s view, from
the moment of conception we carry withn
us both an urge to create and an urge to
destroy. The innate urge to destroy, or
death instinct, is as natural as our need to
breathe. This instinct constantly generates
hostile impulses by aggressing against
others, by turning violently against
ourselves (Suicides), or by suffering
internal distress (physical or mental
illness).
Many studies of animal behaviour
provide evidence that aggression is
instinctive. According to Lorenz
(19966,1974), the aggressive instinct has
evolved because it contributed to an
animal’s survival. Animal motivated to
fight succeed better in protecting their
territory, obtaining desirable mates, and
deffending their young. Through
evolution, animal have also developed an
instinct to inhibit their aggression once
their opponents signal submission. Human
have no such instinct, however, so in the
sense, human are more dangerous and
destructive than animals.
Instinct theories postulate that the
urge to harm others is part of our genetic
inheritance. As a results, proponents of
such theories are pessimistic about the
possibility of controlling human
aggression. At best they believe,
aggression can be partly channeled in to
approved competitive activities such as
athletics, academics, or bussiness. Social
rules that governs the expression of
aggression are designed to prevent
competition from degenerating into
destructiveness. Quite often, however,
socially approved competition stimulates
aggression: football players start throwing
punches, soccer fan riot violently, and
bussinessman destroy competitors through
ruthless practices. If aggression is
instinctive, we should not be surprised that
it is always with us.
Despite the popularity of instinct
theories of aggression, most social
phsychologists find them neither
persuasive nor particularly useful.
Generalizing findings about animal

3. behaviour to human behaviour is
hazardous. Moreover, cross-cultural
studies suggest that human aggression lack
two characteristics typical of instinctive
behaviour in animal universality and
periodicity. The need to eat and breathe,
for example are universal to all member of
a species. They are also periodic, for they
rise after deprivation, and fall when
satisfied. Aggession, in contrast, are not
universal in humans. It pervades some
individuals and societies but is virtually
absent in others. Moreover, human
aggression is not periodic. The occurrence
in human aggression is largerly governed
by specifics social circumtances.
Aggressive behaviour does not increase
when people have not aggressed for a long
time or decreased after they have recently
aggressed. Thus our biological makeup
provides only the capacity for aggression,
not an inevitable urge to aggress. We must
look elsewhere to explain why particular
people harm others in particular
circumtances.
Frustration-Aggression Hyphothesis
The second possible explanation of
aggresssive behaviour is that aggression is
an internal state elicited by certain events.
The most famous view of aggression as an
elicited drive is the Frustration-Aggression
Hypothesis (Dollard, et al, 1939). This
hyphothesis make two bold assertions.
First, every frustration leads to some form
of aggression. Second, every frustration
act is due to some prior frustration. In
contrast to instinct theories, this theories
state that aggression is instigated by
external environment events.
In early experiment (Barker,
Dembo, & Lewin, 1941), researches
showed children a room full of attractive
toys. They allowed several children to play
with the toys immediatelly. They made
other children wait about 20 minutes,
looking at the toys, before they allowed
them into he room. The children who
waited behaved much more destructively
when gien a chance to play, smashing the
toys on the floor and against the wall.
Here, aggression is a direct response to
frustration, that is, to the blocking of goal-
directed activity. By blocking the
children’s acces to the tempting toys, the
researches frustrated them. This in turn
elicited an aggressive drive that children
expressed by destroying the researches’s
toys.
Several decades of research have
led to modifications of the original
hypothesis (Berkowitz, 1978). First,
studies have shown that frustration does
not always produce aggressive response
(Zillman, 1979). Although motivated to
behave aggressively, individuals may
restrain themselves because of fear of
punishment. Being laid off is a frustrating
experience. Researchers predicted that
small increases in layoffs would lead to
violence by those laid off. Large increase,
however, would lead to reduced violence
because those still working are afraid of
being laid off (Catalano, Novaco,&
McConell,1997). Data from San Francisco
Supported the predictions. Also frustration
sometimes leads to different responses,
such as despair, depression, or withdrawal.
Second, research indicated that aggression
can occur without prior frustration
(Berkowitz, 1989). Even though
competitors have not blocked his or her
goal-directed activity, the ruthless
bussinessperson or scientist may attempt to
destroy rivals out of a desire for wealth
and fame.

4. The frustration-aggression
hypothesis implies that the nature of
frustration influences the intensity of the
resulting aggression. Two factors is a
situation that intensify aggression are the
strenght of frustration and arbitrariness of
frustration.
Strenght of Frustration the more we
desire a goal and the closer we are to
achieving it, the more frustrated and
aroused we become if blocked. If someone
cut ahead of us as we reach the front of a
long line, for example, our frustration will
be especially strong. According to theory,
this strong frustration should lead to
aggressiveness.
A fields Experiment based on this
idea demonstrated that stronger frustration
elicits more aggression (Harris, 1974).
Researchers directed a confederate to cut
ahead of people in line at theaters,
restaurants, and grocery checkout counters.
The confederate to cut in front of either the
2nd or 12th person in line responded more
aggresively. They made more than twice
as many abusive remarks to the intruder
than people at the back of the line.
Arbitrariness of Frustration people’s
perceptions of the reason of frustraton
markedly influences the degree of hostility
they feel. People are apt to feel more
hostile when they believe the frustration is
arbitrary, unprovoked, or illegitimate than
when they attribute it to a reasonable,
accidental, or legitimate cause. As a result,
arbitrary or illegitimate frustration elicits
more aggression.
In a study demonstrating this
principle, researchers asked students to
make appeals for a charity over the
telephone (Kulik & Brown, 1979). The
students were frustrated by refusal for all
the potentials donors (in reality,
confederates). In the legitimate frustration
condition, potential donors offer good
reasons for refusing (Such as “I just lost
my job”). In the illegitimate frustration
conditions they offered weak, arbitrary
reasons (such as “charities are a rip-off”).
As shown in figure 11.1, individuals
exposed to illegitimate frustration were
more aroused than those exposed to
legitimate frustration. They also directed
more verbal aggression against the
potential donors.
FIGURE 11.1 Effect of Legitimacy of
Frustration on Aggressive Response
Aversvie Emotional Arousal
In the six decades since the original
statement of the frustration-aggression
hypothesis, researchers has identified
several other cause of aggression. In one
study, community residents and university
students were asked what events upset or
angered them (Averill,1982). Some replied
that legitimate actions y others and
unavoidable accidents triggered aggressive
reactions. What make you aggressive?
Chances are that insults, especially those
inoling traits you alue, perhaps your
intelligence, honesty, ethnicity, or
attractiveness, would be on your list.
Phisical pain also can produce aggression.
0
10
20
30
40
50
Level of
Verbal
Aggression
Force Used in
Hanging up
Phone
Yes
No
Aggression
Angry Arousal

5. Direct attacks often provoke
agressie reactions. We may react sharply
to the impatient beeping of an other
driver’s horn. On occasion, driver hae shot
and killed other drier who honked at them.
Erbal and physical attack may arouse us
and elicit aggressive response.
Accidents, insults, and attack all
arouse aversive affect, negative affect that
people seek to reduce or eliminate
(Berkowitz, 1989). Often this affect is in
the form of anger, but it can be pain or
other types of discomforts. (For Example,
later in the chapter we will discuss the
evidence that high temperatures and loud
noise produce discomfort and aggression).
The resulting aggression is often
instrumental, that is intended to reduce or
eliminate the cause of the affect. Turning
on an air conditioner, slapping someone
who insult you, or shooting an attacker are
instrumental actions.
Aggression resulting from aversive
affect is called affective aggression, in
contrast to aggression due to hostile
thought/cognition. In one experiment,
participant either experienced extreme
temperatures or viewed pictures of weapon
(Anderson, Anderson & Denser, 1996).
The former increased anger and hostile
attitudes; the latter did not.
Social Learning and Aggression
Social learning theories provide a fourth
explanation for aggressive behavior. Two
processes by which aggression can be
learned are modeling and reinforcement.
Modeling Some people, perhaps many,
learn aggressive behavior by observing
others commite aggressive acts and then
imitating them. An experiment conducted
by Bandura and his colleagues (1961)
illustrates such learning. Children
observed an adult played with toys. In one
conditions, the man played with tinkertoys
for 1 minute. Then he played with a 5 foot-
tall inflated rubber Bobo doll. He engaged
in aggressive behaior toward the doll,
including punching and kicking it and
sitting on it. These actions, accompanied
by shouted aggressive words and phrases,
continued for 9 minutes. In the other
condition, the man played with the
tinkertoys for entire 10 minutes. Later,
each child was intentionally frustrated.
Then the child was left alone in a room
with various toys, including a smaller
Bobo doll. The children who had observed
the aggressive model were much more
aggressie toward the doll than those who
had observed the nonaggressive model.
They engaged in aggressive behavior such
as kicking the doll and made comments
similar to those they had observed.
Aggressive behaior within the
family-child abuse, spouse abuse, or
sibling abuse can be explained by social
learning theory. People who abuses their
spouses or children often themseles grew
up in families in which they either
witnessed or were the targets of abuse
(Gelles & Cornell, 1990). Growing up in a
family in which some members abuse
others teaches the child it is acceptable to
engage in physical aggression. It also
teaches that occupants of certain roles such
as husbands or children are appropriate
target for aggression.
Reinforcement Often people behae
aggressively because they anticipate that
the aggressive act will be rewarding to
them. Muggers may attack a woman to
take her money. One childs knock down

6. another to obtain a desired toys. Students
destroy library materials to improve their
own chances and worsen other’s chances
of doing well on exams. These and other
aggressive act provide rewards to their
perpetrators. According to social learning
theory, the expectations of reward is a
major motive for aggression
(Bandura,1973). Social learning theory
holds that aggressive response are acquired
and maintained, like any other social
behavior, through experience of reward.
If the expectation of a reward
motivates a person to aggress, which
aggressive response, if any, will he or she
perform in a particular situation? The
answer depends on two factors: the range
of aggressive response the person has
acquired and the cost/reward consequences
the person anticipates for performing these
responses. A person may be skilled, for
example, in using a switchblade knife, a
Molotov cocktail, or a sarcastic comment
to harm others. People also consider the
likely consequences of enacting particular
aggressive behavior in a particular
situation. They try to calculate which
actions will produce the rewards they seek,
and at what cost. These considerations
largely determine which aggressive acts, if
any, people perform.
Characteristics of Targets That Affect
Aggression
In the preceding section we discused four
potential sources of the motiation to
aggress. Once aroused, such motive incline
us toward aggressie behavior. Whether
aggression occurs, however, depends on
characteristics of the target, the person
toward whom the aggressive behavior is
directed. In this section, we discuss three
targets characteristics: (1) Gender and race
(2) attribution for an aggressor’s attack,
and (3) retaliatory capacity.
Gender and Race
Aggression does not occurs at random. If it
did, we would observe aggressive behavior
by all kinds of people directed at targets of
both genders, all ethnic groups, and all
ages. In fact, aggression is patterned. First,
aggressive behaior usually involves two
people of the same race or ethnicity. This
is obviously true of aggression within the
family, whether it involves childs, sibling,
spouse, or elder abuse, because most
families are ethnically homogeneous. It is
also true of iolent crime, that is, assault,
sexual assault, and murder.
The realationship between
aggression and gender depends on the type
of aggressive behavior. In cases of abuse
within the family, males and females are
about equally likely to be abused by a
parent. Wives abuses their husbands are
often as husbands abuses their wives (see
table 11.1)(Gelles & Cornell, 1990).
Violence outside the family, in
contrast, involves primarily targets of one
gender or the other. More than 95% of
reported cases of rape or sexual assault
involve a male offender and a female
victim. Sexual assault conprise about 6%
of the violent crime reported in the United
States. More than 80% of such crime
involves aggravated assault, an attack by
one person on another with the intent of
causing bodily injury. These assault
overwhelmingly involves males as both
offender and victim. Most murders also
involve two males.
These patterns indicate that the
display of aggression is channeled by

7. social beliefs and norms. Observing
violence within one family teaches a child
that violence directed at children or spouse
is acceptable. Similarly, certain beliefs and
norms in American society encourage men
to direct sexual aggression toward women.
Males in our society frequently compete
with each other for various rewards, such
as influence over each other, status in
group, the companionship of a woman, or
other symbol of success. These