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

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

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.

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.

Level of Verbal Aggression

Force Used in Hanging up

Phone

05

101520253035404550

YesNo

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.

Angry Arousal

Aggression

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 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 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