How is it that aggressive behaviour comes to be aroused? Is it innate or is it learnt?
This question has been considered by psychologists, sociologists, ethnologists, and many other groups of scientists.
A strong piece of evidence to regard aggressive behaviour or aggressive tendency as innate or essentially biological is the fact that patterns of aggressive behaviour can be seen in reptiles, birds, cats, dogs, monkeys and many lower organisms.
The only difference between the aggressive behaviour in the human being and among the lower animals is that at the human level aggression is much more enduring, can be internal and not manifest itself in external behaviour, and very often involves planning and deliberate thinking.
Unlike in the case of lower organisms where it is short-lived and arises as a reaction to certain provocative, stimulating elements in the immediate perceptual field, capacity for aggression and violence at the human level is unlimited.
Further, the human being very often tries to find reasons for being aggressive and what we may call, rationalises aggression. At the level of the lower animals aggression is generally found when the animal finds that it has to defend itself or its off-springs, or in search of a prey. But at the human level, aggression in many instances fails to be backed by any such logical and rational situations or considerations.
The classical biological approach postulated that aggressive behaviour is a part of man’s innate instinctive nature. William Mcdougall postulated an instinct of aggressiveness as being at the root of aggression or aggressive behaviour or pugnacity. However, this explanation did not find acceptance with many psychologists as the latter were opposed to the concept of instincts in general.
Psychoanalytic theory, which is highly biologically based, holds that aggression or aggressiveness is part of a large group of instinctual impulses called death instincts. According to Freud, death or aggressive instincts constitute one of the two major groups of instincts along with what is called life instincts.
Each of these groups is opposed to the other in their operation. According to this theory the instinct of aggression can accumulate over a period and find expressions in direct form or indirect socially approved form like aggressive efforts, at dealing with social evils, aggressive crusading, aggressive efforts in achieving success – an aggressive cricket player or an aggressive businessman. Further, according to Freud, aggression can express itself in fantasy and imagination and very often in art forms, thus providing an outlet which is socially approved.
This process of finding an outlet for blocked or bottled up impulses is described by Freud as cathartic. Cathartic actions, according to psychoanalysts provide a safety valve by minimising the possibilities of bottled up aggressive impulses finding expressions in direct, overt or destructive actions against external objects or even against oneself.
However, these claims of psychoanalysts have been seriously questioned. Some psychologists known as Neo-Freudians and humanistic psychologists question the very basic premise of the view that there is an innate tendency for destruction or aggressiveness in the human being.
A few others have raised the question that some of the assumptions of Freud are not borne out by actual behaviour. As claimed by Freud, the cathartic outlets of providing socially approved expression to one’s aggressive impulse should result in a decreased or diminished aggression.
If this is so, then indulging in violent activities should be followed by decreased expression of aggression and violence subsequently. But a number of studies have shown that when children are allowed to hit some dolls or break toys, instead of a decrease in aggression, the aggressive behaviour only increases on subsequent occasions.
Similarly athletes who are aggressive in their attempts to win and succeed only become more aggressive on subsequent occasions. Studies have also shown that watching aggression or violence on the television does not result in decreased aggression.
On the other hand in such instances, it has been noticed that aggression tends to be increasingly accepted as an approved form of behaviour. This is true of societies where success at any cost and through any means is valued, and it is believed that success justifies the means.
It has also been noticed that in many instances violence and crime rate increased after a war. Evidence such as the ones cited above lead us to question the concept of catharsis implying that providing outlets to bottled up aggressive behaviour results in decreased expression of aggression subsequently.
Here one may point out that these studies do not make a distinction between aggression and aggressive behaviour. This means that while aggressive behaviour may be shown to increase, internal aggression need not increase. Secondly, when a child is allowed to hit a toy or dog, the experimenters may assume that the child is actually expressing aggression.
The aggression may be in the mind of the experimenter, but the child itself may not necessarily be expressing aggression or even hitting the toy. In addition, these findings do not necessarily disprove the psychoanalytic claim that aggressiveness is innate, while its expression at the level of actual behaviour may be very much influenced by experimental factors.
Another set of studies mainly undertaken by anthropologists addressed themselves exactly to this latter question of innateness of aggression. Their studies have shown that in certain tribal communities like the Arapash, aggressive behaviour is rare and that the interactions are almost based on co-operation and harmony.
Such observations have led to questioning the view of innateness of aggression. But whether innate or acquired, aggression and aggressive behaviour appear to be universal realities and cannot be wished away just by proving that they are not innate.
In fact, even a great apostle of peace like the Father of our Nation had to talk in terms of militant non-violence. Secondly, it may be appreciated that aggression within limits and directed towards proven enemies of mankind is beneficial and is not always an evil.
Ethologists like Lorenz, who specialised in the study of animal behaviour in their natural habitat held the view that all animals including human beings have an innate tendency of aggression. But according to them, aggressive behaviour, characteristic of such an innate instinct of aggression appears only under specific environmental situations when appropriate stimulating conditions or provocations bring out its aggressiveness.
According to Lorenz and others such provocations or situations are called releasers. The presence of such ‘releasers’ triggers off a prefixed ritualistic form of aggressive behaviour. In an interesting study, Lapperspetz continuously inbred a group of mice which were found to be very aggressive and another group found to be low in aggressiveness.
This inbreeding was continued for 25 generations. At the end, it was found that the off springs of the 25th generation of the highly aggressive groups were displaying more aggression than those of the low aggressive groups. In the meantime, no opportunity was provided for them to observe or learn aggression.
These findings are advanced as a proof for the innate nature and genetic base of aggression. Ethological theory, like the Freudian theory has been opposed on the grounds that while it may be applicable to animals, it cannot be applicable to human beings. This argument is based on many grounds including that such a view cannot explain varying forms of aggressive behaviour and the ingenuity and scale human aggression.
The weakness of this objection is too obvious. If forms of aggression vary from time to time and society to society this may prove that the manner and expression of aggression can vary. The savage used a stone, while the modern man uses nuclear bombs. People thus adopt ways of being aggressive depending on their “scientific sophistication”. Thus most of these arguments do not go to disprove effectively the view that aggression is innate.
If there is not enough proof to accept the innate basis of aggression, equally so the evidence against it is also weak. Thus, as far as the postulate of an innate basis for aggression is concerned, we may come to the conclusion that this position is neither proved nor disproved.
One also wonders why certain scientists who are willing to admit that aggression is innate in animals are not willing to admit the same about human behaviour. They are prepared to admit of similarities between animals and humans in other instances.
Aggression as a Learned Behaviour:
Cognitive and behaviour theories while discussing the view that aggression is innate, have sought to produce extensive evidence to support the view that aggressive behaviour (if not aggression) is learnt as a result of learning from interaction mostly with other human beings. One of the pioneers in this line of research is Bandura. Another researcher is Zillderman.
Researchers of these investigations have emphasised that aggressive behaviour is acquired by watching others and imitating them. Further, it has also been demonstrated that actual indulgence in aggressive behaviour is influenced by the rewards and punishments accompanying such acts.
Studies by Enon on the impact of watching aggressive and violent scenes on the small screen have shown that children repeat these acts modelling themselves after the “heroes” performing such acts. Evidence is also available to show that such learning of aggressive behaviour is enduring and that their occurrences are capable of being predicted after a lapse of ten years.
Some studies by Singer and Singer have demonstrated an increase in aggression immediately after watching violent scenes on the TV. Aggressiveness is also strengthened by rewards and punishments. Presenting a toy gun as a birthday gift to a young child certainly tends to increase curiosity about aggressive behaviour, if not aggressive behaviour.
Basically the experiments based on the learning theory, while not saying anything about whether there is innate “aggression” or “aggressiveness”, have shown that those who have had greater exposure to scenes of aggression, or are rewarded on exhibiting such behaviour are more likely to acquire and express aggressive behaviour.
This is a very strong hint for parents, teachers and other elders. It is for them to provide the right “model” experiences. They should show that conflicts and differences can be better solved by cooperation, accommodation, compromise and reasoning, rather than by confrontation, violence or aggression.
But this is easily said than done, when parents themselves watch such scenes of aggression and violence and are delighted, often more than the children. Further, they also express their appreciation when the young children imitate the violent acts of heroes on the screen.
In fact, the shameful fact is that very often it is the parents who train the children to appreciate or even admire aggression and violence, so callously exhibited in our television programmes. In our movies, there can be no hero who does not beat up a score of hooligans under the watchful eyes of his admiring heroine.
Frustration-Aggression Theory:
One of the most famous explanations of aggressive behaviour was postulated by two psychologists, Dollard and Miller. According to their view, aggressive behaviour is a direct consequence of frustration, failure and disappointment, which tend to accumulate and at appropriate occasions result in aggression.
On the reverse, the hypothesis also proposes that occurrence of aggressive behaviour is an indication of the existence of frustration. In the initial stages, this theory or hypothesis generated a lot of research. Subsequently, however, research evidence began to indicate that this hypothesis is too simple.
Studies by Berkowitz showed that while frustration could make an individual ready or prone to be aggressive, the actual occurrence of aggression takes place only if the environment provides some cue for the release of the aggressive tendency.
Some studies have also shown that frustration need not always result in aggression, but can lead to withdrawal or regression to a less mature and childish form of behaviour. Thus it may be seen that though the frustration, aggression theory was initially widely acclaimed, nevertheless, subsequent evidence has not gone very far to support such a systematic view, as a comprehensive explanation of all forms of aggression.
Rozensweig while developing his famous tests to study the relations between frustration and aggression, also held the view that aggression results from frustrations.
According to him, aggression resulting from frustration can proceed in two directions – extra-punitive directed towards outside objects or intra-punitive being directed at oneself. In addition to these two, he also postulated another type called impunitive where there is no aggression in evidence.
Physiological View on Aggression:
A few researchers like Zillderman, held the view that a general state of physiological arousal like those following heavy physical activity can result in aggression, even in response to very slight provocation through transfer of excitation.
But here again one can see that mere high arousal by itself cannot result in aggressive behaviour and that there has to be some cue or factor in the situation. High general arousal can result in an intensified aggressiveness, but cannot result in aggressive behaviour on its own unless there are appropriate elements in the environment.
In conclusion one may say that while psychologists are not in a position to take a categorical position on whether there is innate aggressiveness in the human being or not, it may be said that there is enough evidence to show that the manner and degree of aggressive behaviour, its intensity, frequency and consistency are all very much influenced by imitative learning and learning by modelling.
Further, it is fairly well established that patterns of reward and punishment also play a crucial role. Cultural norms and views on aggression are also important. Apart from this, other factors like early childhood, socialisation, personality factors, educational level and a number of other factors also play a role in leading to individual differences in the expression of aggression.
This fact of individual variations in a way appears to be a blessing. If all members of the society are “gun happy” one need not be at a loss to guess what would happen to society. Further the evidence available from various channels has also indicated that aggressiveness can be diverted along desirable and constructive channels and for socially useful purposes.
If these strategies of diverting aggressive tendencies to more constructive choice can be carefully employed in behavioural engineering, then aggressiveness can be converted into an asset or a resource, which can be utilised for socially productive and righteous activities. Secondly, there is a definite need and place for righteous indignation and aggression.
In our society, given the rate and types of crime, injustice and unfairness, there is a definite need for righteous anger to avoid social evils like corruption in high places. Such social evils cannot always be met by the so called non-violent methods. In such instances aggression definitely can be used as a useful force.
It is only recently that psychologists have been able to carry out researches in these areas. The difficulties involved in carrying out researches on adult human subjects in relation to these forms of behaviour are pretty obvious. But conditions are improving and in the near future it will be hopefully possible to generate more scientific knowledge about these forms of behaviour.