• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
 
Lissauer H 1890 Ein Fall von Seelenblindheit nebst einemBeitrage zur Theorie derselben.
Archi 
fu
 W 
r Psychiatrie und Ner
enkrankherten
21
: 222–70Pulvermuller F 1999 Words in the brain’s language.
Beha
ioral and Brain Sciences
22
: 253–336Tranel D, Damasio A R 1985 Knowledge without awareness:An autonomic index of facial recognition by prosopagnosics.
Science
228
: 1453–4Tranel D, Damasio A R 1996 The agnosias and apraxias. In:BradleyW G,DaroffR B,FenichelG M,MarsdenC D(eds.)
Neurology in Clinical Practice
, 2nd edn. Butterworth, Stone-ham, MA, pp. 119–29Tranel D, Damasio A R, Damasio H 1988 Intact recognition of facial expression, gender, and age in patients with impairedrecognition of face identity.
Neurology
38
: 690–6TranelD,DamasioH,DamasioA R1997Aneuralbasisfortheretrieval of conceptual knowledge.
Neuropsychologia
35
:1319–27Ungerleider L G, Mishkin M 1982 Two cortical visual systems.In: Ingle D J, Goodale M A, Mansfield R J W (eds.)
Analysisof Visual Beha
ior
. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 549–86Young A W, Bruce V 1991 Perceptual categories and thecomputationof ‘grandmother.’
European Journal of Cogniti 
ePsychology
3
: 5–49WarringtonE K,McCarthyR A1994Multiplemeaningsystemsinthebrain:Acaseforvisualsemantics.
Neuropsychologia
32
:1465–73Warrington E K, Shallice T 1984 Category specific semanticimpairments.
Brain
107
: 829–53
D. Tranel and A. R. Damasio
Agonistic Behavior
1. O
er
iew
Aggression and violence are serious social problems,as illustrated by acts ranging from school violence towars. From an evolutionary viewpoint, on the otherhand, aggression is often described as adaptive. Froma humanitarian point of view it is difficult to imaginewar among humans as being adaptive. The challengeto science is to resolve these contrasting views of aggression. Although research on aggression has beenextensive, it has not led to significant progress inunderstanding and preventing aggressive acts. It wasthis lack of progress which led to the introduction of the concept of agonistic behavior in the mid-twentiethcentury.Thedefinitionofagonisticbehaviorwasmoreinclusive of behaviors often not included under theumbrella of aggression. This provided a broadercontext for understanding aggression in relation toother behaviors.The purpose of this article is to review the currentstatus of aggression research as it relates to agonisticbehaviors. The focus will be primarily on classifyingand predicting human aggression. Lower animalresearch will be reviewed briefly in cases where theresultsaddtotheunderstandingofhumanaggression.(Theterm‘agonistic’hasbeenusedmorefrequentlyinresearch with lower animals than in human research.)
1.1 Definitions and Measurements
Althoughtherearenouniversallyaccepted definitionsof human aggression, it has generally been defined asbehavior which results in physical or psychologicalharm to another person and
\
or in the destruction of property. It usually includes overt physical acts (e.g.,fighting or breaking objects) or verbal abuse. Loweranimals also engage in overt physical fighting. Thecounterpart of verbal abuse among lower animals is‘aggressive displays’ in which animals vocalize and
\
orassume threatening postures (Kalin 1999). There aredatasuggestingthatamongloweranimalssizeis oftenrelated to achieving dominance, and lower animalswill often make themselves look larger when thre-atened; for example, fish will make themselves appearlarger by extending their fins (Clemente and Lindsley1967).Agonistic behavior was defined as adaptive actswhich arise out of conflicts between two members of thesamespecies(Scott1966,1973).Asnoted,agonisticbehaviorsweremoreinclusiveandprovidedabroadercontext within which to classify the more traditionalconceptsofaggression.Inadditiontoovertaggressiveacts or threats, agonistic behaviors included passiveactsofsubmission,flight,andplayfulbehaviorswhichinvolve physical contact. For example, human part-icipation in sports or playful jostling would notgenerally be included as a form of aggression butwould be included under the agonistic umbrella.Since the introduction of the term ‘agonistic,’ thedifferencesbetweenagonisticandaggressivebehaviorshave blurred and the two labels are often usedinterchangeably in the literature. Its introduction didnot result in more productive leads for understandingor preventing human aggression. Among humans itappears that developing techniques for killing haveoutstripped our knowledge of how to prevent killing.The substitution of a new term for aggression has notchanged this trend. The major challenge in aggressionresearch is to develop a model which can serve tosynthesize data across a wide range of scientificdisciplines (Barratt et al. 1997).Techniques range from qualitative observations of behavior in naturalistic settings to more quantitativemeasures of aggressive behaviors in laboratory sett-ings. Discipline-specific language has often producedconfusion when comparing the results from cross-disciplinary research. Thus, as noted the major chal-lenge to science is to view aggression from a moreneutral context: a discipline-neutral model.The focus here will be on classifying and measuring326
Agnosia
 
both aggression and risk factors for aggression underfour headings: (a) behavior, (b) biology, (c) cognitiveormentalprocesses,and(d)environmentorthesettingin which psychosocial development takes place andaggression is expressed. No attempt will be made hereto organize these four classes of descriptors andmeasurements into a model, but it should be notedthat attempts to do so have been documented in theliterature.
2. Classifying and Measuring Human Aggression
Aggression is behavior. Therefore, what is to bepredicted in human aggression research are aggressiveacts. These acts become the criterion measures forwhich risk factors or predictor measures are sought.Oneofthemoredifficulttasksinaggressionresearchisdefiningtheseactssotheycanbemeasuredandrelatedquantitatively to potential predictors. Unless the actsare quantitatively measured, the efficacy of variousinterventions for controlling aggressive acts cannot bereliably determined.The properties of human aggressive acts which canbe quantified are: (a) frequency with which the actsoccur; (b) intensity of the act or degree of physical orpsychological harm inflicted; (c) the target of the act;(d) the stimuli within the environmental setting whichtrigger the act; (e) the expressive form of the act (e.g.,overt physical acts vs. verbal assaults); (f) the type of act in terms of intent. These properties of aggressiveacts are often used singly or in combination asoutcome or criterion measures of aggression.There are three types of aggressive acts related tointent: (a) impulsive or reactive aggression or actingwithout thinking; (b) premeditated, planned or pro-active aggression; (c) medically related aggression oraggressive acts which are committed secondary to amedical disorder, such as a closed head injury orpsychiatric disorder. Classifying aggressive acts basedon intent or effect is important because differentinterventionsareeffectivewitheachtype.Ifaggressiveacts are a sign or symptom of a medical disorder,controlling the disorder should result in control of theaggression.Impulsive aggression has been shown to be relatedin part to low levels of a neurotransmitter, serotonin,whichhelpsselectedneuronsinthebraincommunicatewithoneanother.Givingamedicationwhichincreaseslevelsofserotoninhasbeenshowntocontrolimpulsiveaggression. Selected medications used to controlseizures (anticonvulsants) have also been shown tocontrol impulsive aggression.In contrast, premeditated aggression cannot becontrolled by medication but instead responds tocognitive
\
behavioral therapy which is based on sociallearning theory. This makes sense because pre-meditated or proactive aggression is learned in socialsituations. Premeditated human aggression is oftencompared with subhuman aggression which is relatedtoprotectingaterritoryforeitherfoodorreproductivepurposes. These behaviors have in part a genetic basiswhich generally is learned in a social context.
2.1 Human Agonistic Beha
iors
Not all agonistic behaviors among humans relate tosocialorclinicalproblems.Forexample,humansportsactivities are competitive and often result in physicalharm to participants. Yet these events are condonedby society. The social value of these events is oftenexplained in terms of the evolution of agonisticbehaviorsamongloweranimalsthathavebecomepartof human biological drives. It is generally agreed thatmost common agonistic behaviors among lower ani-mals relate to achieving dominance, which in turn isrelatedtoprotectingaterritoryforpurposesoffoodorreproduction as described above. Lower animals alsoengage in ‘play-like’ behaviors to learn to express andexperience dominance in a tolerant environment.These behaviors are apparently not intended to doharm. If one observes a litter of pups as they mature,this type of ‘play’ behavior is obvious. At the humanlevel, play and sports provide not only adaptive andsociallyacceptableoutletsforaggressiveimpulses,butalso an opportunity for non-participants to identifywitha‘group,’hopefullyasa‘winner.’Thisprovidesasense of belonging.
2.2 Techniques for Measuring Human Aggression
As noted, one of the more difficult tasks in aggressionresearch is quantifying the aggressive acts, especiallyat the human level. Opportunities to observe humanaggressiondirectlyinnaturalsettingsarenotcommonand are restricted primarily to institutions such asprisons or schools. The most common ways of measuring human aggressive acts are by structuredinterviews or self-report measures of aggressive acts.As emphasized earlier, aggression is behavior andshould not be confused with anger or hostility, whichare often precursors of aggressive acts. Self-reportmeasures of aggression can be reliable in someinstances but subjects may confuse their feelings of anger and hostility with aggression. Thus, in human-levelresearch,reporters(e.g.,spouse)whocanobservean individual’s behavior are also often used to docu-ment the aggressive acts of subjects. In hospitalsettings where aggressive patients are housed, ratingscalesofaggressiveactshavebeendevelopedforuseinquantifying patients’ aggressive acts on the wards.
3. Risk Factors for Human Aggression
Risk factors or predictor measures of human ag-gression will be discussed briefly under the fourheadings listed in Sect. 1.1 above. Examples will be327
Agonistic Beha
ior
 
presented in each category since lack of space pre-cludes an indepth discussion.
3.1 Biological Predictors of Aggression3.1.1 Neurotransmitters and hormones.
The bio-logical processes of the brain are controlled andmaintainedinlargepartbybiochemicalscalledneuro-transmitters and
\
or hormones. One of the most com-monly quoted findings in psychopharmacology isthat the serotonergic system of the brain is related toimpulsive aggression, as noted above. Low levels of the neurotransmitter serotonin have been shown tobe related in both lower animal and human studiesto impulsive aggression, but not to other forms of aggression. Serotonin is involved primarily withbrain systems which regulate behavioral inhibition(FerrisandDevil1994).Otherneurotransmitters(e.g.,norepinephrine) have been shown to relate to creat-ing the drive or impulse to be aggressive. As withmost scientific findings, the results often become lessclear as research progresses and it has been suggestedthat serotonin is not an exclusive or possibly even thebest neurochemical marker for impulsive aggression.It is probable that in the long run a profile of neuro-chemical markers will be related to impulsive aggres-sion rather than one or two neurotransmitters.Hormoneshavealsobeenrelatedtoaggression.Forexample, testosterone levels among males have beenshown to be related to aggressive behaviors (Archer1991).
3.1.2 Genetics.
Although there is evidence of heri-table aggressive behaviors in lower animals, especial-ly mice and rats, there is no creditable evidence atthis time for a genetic predisposition for aggressionamong humans. This is especially true for moleculargenetic markers. There has been suggestive evidencein behavioral genetic studies for the inheritance of aggression, but these findings have been difficult toreplicate.
3.1.3 Neuroanatomy.
A number of brain areas havebeen related to aggression in lower animals but therelevance of these findings for understanding humanaggression is limited because of differences in brainfunction and structure. One of the main problems inrelating brain structures to aggression among hu-mans is the hierarchical nature of the brain’s struc-ture, involving neurons which carry informationacross different parts of the brain. Implying that onearea of the brain is responsible for aggressive actsignores the interdependence of brain structures. Evenparts of the same brain nucleus (e.g., the amygdala)can affect aggression differently because of their re-lationship with different brain systems. Neuroana-tomical explanations of human aggression are limitedbut imaging techniques (e.g., PET scans) offer prom-ise for the future.
3.2 Cogniti 
e Precursors of Aggression
Research has shown that verbal skills including read-ing are related to impulsive aggression. It has beenproposed that the reason for this relationship is thathumans often covertly verbalize control of theirbehaviors. Among persons with verbal skill deficitsthis control would be diminished, hence they wouldmore likely be aggressive if an impulse to aggress waspresent.Another important cognitive process relates toconscious
feelings
of anger and hostility which areprecursors of aggression. Measures of these two traitsare often mistakenly used as measures of aggression.These traits are best classified as biological stateswhich can be verbalized and cognitively experienced.One ‘feels angry’ but one acts aggressively.
3.3 En
ironmental Precursors of Aggression
It has been demonstrated among lower animals thatdifferent rearing environments can lead to changes inbiological functions which are purportedly related toaggression (Kramer and Clarke 1996). For example,not having a mother in a rearing environment atcritical developmental periods can lead to decreasedlevels of serotonin, which as noted above has beensuggestedasa majorbiological precursor ofimpulsiveaggression.Amonghumansaggressionisoftenrelatedto living conditions (Wilson 1975). For example,persons in lower socioeconomic neighborhoods aremore likely to be involved in fights than persons inhigher socioeconomic neighborhoods. Again, theseare complex interactions and caution is warranted ingeneralizing the results as ‘causes’ of aggression.
3.4 Beha
ioral Precursors and Laboratory Modelsof Aggression
Asisgenerallytrueformostbehaviors,oneofthebestpredictors of aggression is a past history of aggressiveacts. This is true for both impulsive and premeditatedaggression.Another way of studying human aggressive behav-ior is to generate it in laboratory situations. Anexample is a computer-simulated betting procedure.Individuals sit in front of a TV screen and attempt toaccumulate money by pressing a button under dif-ferent conditions. They think that they are competingwithsomeone inanotherroomforthemoneybut theyare not. Persons with tendencies toward impulsiveaggression will display aggression in this well-con-trolled laboratory setting. This procedure can be used328
Agonistic Beha
ior
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...