Unmasking aggression: a result of personal or social triggers?

Introduction

Anderson & Bushman (2002) define aggression as behaviour aimed at causing harm to another individual. Aggression can be measured by observing a signal of intention or aggression rating by self or others. The social theories of aggression include Dollard's frustration-aggression theory and Bandura's Social Learning Theory, while the individual factors theories account for personality traits and the influence of alcohol. However, there is no definite answer to whether social or individual factors are most important in explaining human behaviour. The interaction between social and individual factors will be explored to gain a deeper understanding of aggression. 

Social theories

The frustration-aggression hypothesis proposed by Dollard et al. (1939) defines frustration as the emotion that follows when the occurrence of an instigated goal-response is interfered with, in turn leading to anger and aggression. According to this hypothesis, a person’s aggressive tendencies will be more intense the closer the individual is to achieving a goal before an obstacle appears. Many support this hypothesis, including Dill and Anderson (1995), who found that levels of aggression resulting from unjustified frustration were higher than justified frustration because they were caused by situational constraints rather than dispositional qualities. However, Berkowitz (1989) criticises Dollard et al.'s hypothesis, saying that frustration can only produce aggressive behaviour if it causes adverse effects. Due to the wide variety of negative and positive effects of frustration, it is important to revisit and clarify the frustration-aggression hypothesis.

Additionally, aggression is often explained by the Social Learning Theory (SLT), proposed by Bandura et al. (1963), which states that aggressive behaviour is a learned behaviour reinforced by imitation and rewards or punishment. Bandura conducted the renowned Bobo Doll Study in 1961, in which children mimicked adult behaviour and attacked the doll after watching the researchers physically and verbally abuse a clown-faced inflatable toy in front of them, making this study extremely influential in understanding the role that families and household dynamics play in human behaviour. Based on this theory, exposure to TV violence can teach aggressive conduct and provide a model of behaviour to base actions upon. In SLT, rather than frustration generating an aggressive drive that can only be reduced by injurious behaviour, aversive stimulation creates general emotional arousal that can result in aggressive behaviour. Therefore, social theories encompass a broad range of disinhibitory factors and provide a broad theory explaining both impulsive and principled aggressive conduct.

Individual factors theories

Individual differences and variables, like personality traits, have also contributed to the study of aggressive behaviour. Hyatt et al. (2019) stated that certain personality traits such as narcissism and sadism have been meta-analytically linked to aggression shown in a lab setting. The lab paradigm captures aggression as it manifests whilst controlling for confounding variables, such as different types of aggression. However, the lab paradigm lacks construct validity because researchers don’t interpret the subjects’ intentions and motives when operationalising aggression. Further evaluation comes from Bettencourt et al. (2006), who meta-analysed personality dimensions and stated that provocation can cause aggression. They note that individuals with Type A personalities often exhibit impulsivity and emotional reactivity, which are positively associated with aggression. Thus, situational circumstances such as provocation and aggressive cues interact with these personality factors, together shaping the likelihood and intensity of aggressive behaviour.

Additionally, the interplay between personality and alcohol can explain aggression. Alcohol reduces inhibitions that regulate 'normal' behaviour and increases aggression. Miller et al. (2009) concluded that alcohol may facilitate aggression in high-trait individuals specifically, those who score high on traits associated with aggression, such as impulsivity, hostility, or a predisposition toward anger—by impairing the drinker’s inhibition. Moreover, further research indicates a strong relationship between alcohol consumption and antisocial personality. Therefore, any discussion of personal factors and personality in aggression would be incomplete without considering the influence of alcohol.

The interplay between social and individual trait theories

Allen et al. (2018) created a model that encompasses both the social and the individual trait theories. The General Aggression Model (GAM) considers social, biological, and individual factors in aggression. This model consists of three stages: input, appraisal, and action. The input stage determines the likelihood of personal and situational factors causing aggression. For instance, individual differences, such as personality, social rejection, and provocation, are identified as risk factors for aggression. During the appraisal stage, the individual decides how to respond. Their response can be aggressive or non-aggressive, depending on the resources, time, and event. The action then influences the social encounter, which can alter personal and situational factors, leading to those factors restarting the cycle. Hence, this model proposes that individuals learn situations that lead to aggressive outcomes. To reduce aggression and offer treatment, the GAM has been applied to intergroup violence and therefore can be applied to a wide range of situations in real life.

Conclusion

In conclusion, aggression has the confluence of individual predisposition and maintenance via social context. For instance, as discussed previously, socialisation experiences may contribute to aggressive behaviour in individuals with certain personality traits. Thus, it is difficult to distinguish social and individual factors when explaining aggression, as most human behaviour is a multifaceted phenomenon with multiple determinants. Therefore, future research should be more holistic in the explanations of aggression, encompassing both social and individual factors.

Written by Pranavi Rastogi

Related articles: Emotional chemistry / Psychology of embarrassment 

REFERENCES

Allen, J. J., Anderson, C. A., & Bushman, B. J. (2018). The general aggression model. Current Opinion in Psychology,19, 75-80. doi:10.1016/j.copsyc.2017.03.034

Anderson, C. A., & Bushman, B. J. (2002). Human aggression. Annual Review of Psychology, 53(1), 27-51. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135231

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

Berkowitz, L. (1989). Frustration-aggression hypothesis: Examination and reformulation. Psychological Bulletin, 106(1), 59-73. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.106.1.59

Bettencourt, B.A. et al. (2006) ‘Personality and aggressive behavior under provoking and neutral conditions: A meta-analytic review.’, Psychological Bulletin, 132(5), pp. 751–777. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.132.5.751.

Dill, J. C., & Anderson, C. A. (1995). Effects of frustration justification on hostile aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 21(5), 359-369. doi:10.1002/1098-2337(1995)21:5<359::aid-ab2480210505>3.0.co;2-6

Dollard, J., Miller, N. E., Doob, L. W., Mowrer, O. H., & Sears, R. R. (1939). Frustration and aggression. doi:10.1037/10022-000

Hyatt, C. S., Chester, D. S., Zeichner, A., & Miller, J. D. (2019). Analytic flexibility in laboratory aggression paradigms: Relations with personality traits vary (slightly) by operationalization of Aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 45(4), 377-388. doi:10.1002/ab.21830

Miller, C.A., Parrott, D.J. and Giancola, P.R. (2009) ‘Agreeableness and -related aggression: The mediating effect of trait aggressivity.’, Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology, 17(6), pp. 445–455. doi:10.1037/a0017727.