How do environmental factors and psychological theories explain

aggressive behaviour?

Aggressive behaviour can be shown in many different forms; hostile,

instrumental, pro social and sanctioned. There are many theories that try to
explain the nature and causes of this behaviour.
The first is frustration- aggression hypothesis by Dollard et al; he
suggested that frustration always leads to aggression. Describing frustration
as an unpleasant situation for an individual to experience that is usually
present when that persons goal they are trying to accomplish is blocked. As I
said above it states that frustration always leads to aggression, and that all of
the aggressive acts are the direct result of a form of frustration. Dollard’s
theory finally claims that the aggression produced via frustration can
sometimes become displaced, and therefore the aggression is focused upon
somebody or something that hasn’t been the cause of the primary frustration.
There are however some very important criticisms to this theory. The most
significant is the statement that ‘all frustration leads to aggression’ this is not
always the case, each individual deals with aggression in their own way, and
this isn’t necessarily by aggression, some cry, become depressed, or simply
ignore it and move on. Also if all frustration leads to aggression how does this
theory explain cold-blooded acts of murder. In response to these criticisms
Miller modified the hypothesis accordingly. Stating that frustration leads to a
range of responses, with aggression being the most common. This allows for
individual responses to frustration.
The next theory is the Relative deprivation theory; this theory follows
on from the frustration- aggression hypothesis. It identifies that one other
problem of the frustration theory is identifying the initial causes of the
frustration. ‘ Deprivation leads to frustration which leads to aggression’ (Brown
1995). This proclamation forgets that what is seen, as poverty to one
individual is another individual’s realistic standard of living, this idea forms the
basis for the relative deprivation theory.
Relative deprivation is an individual or groups perception, that they
have less than what they deserve or less than they have been lead to expect.
An example of this is in USA inner city black ghettos in 1967 and 1968, where
people’s expectations of improvement had risen, however they had not been
met the outcome was relative deprivation which lead to widespread rioting.
This theory is often demonstrated when things are improving in a particular
circumstance. Relative deprivation provides the difference between actual
deprivation and relative deprivation. This is an important distinction. There is
evidence to suggest that deprivation lads to frustration, but this theory has the
same problem as he frustration aggression hypothesis in that frustration
doesn’t always lead to aggression.
Another theory, which continues to build upon the frustration
aggression hypothesis, is the cue- arousal theory (Berkowitz). It adds that
frustration leads initially to anger, and this anger may progress to make the
individual act in an aggressive form, but this isn’t inevitable. What can prevent
or produce aggressive behaviour depends on whether there is a stimulus
present or not in the situation. This stimulus then acts as a cue to aggressive
behaviour, but to act as a cue the angry individual must relate this stimulus
with aggression. The weapons effect tries to demonstrate the cue-arousal
theory. This is the cueing of aggression by the presence of a weapon. yet
there is little evidence for this effect, this is probably for a number of different
reasons, including the fact that the presence of a weapon might make the
participants think twice about acting in an aggressive manner, or fear of
themselves being harmed. Also cultural differences, in the USA, where the
study was conducted, originally guns were carried frequently compared to
other parts of the world. This makes the results difficult to generalise. There
are also issues with the experiment itself, it has low ecological validity
(laboratory based), and the task is extreme of everyday life (electric shocks).
Finally, the victim also cannot retaliate.
A third theory the Excitation- transfer model (Zillmans) has the idea that
arousal from one source can be redirected unwittingly to another situation.
The ‘arousal’ can be produced by a number of ways, for example drugs such
as caffeine or by exercise. According to this model the arousal produced
takes time to become reduced, this may lead to it being transferred to the new
situation, and as a result of this the person is more likely to become
aggressive if provoked. Zillman et al conducted a study to demonstrate this,
the participants where in the beginning provoked by verbal abuse and later
given the chance to electric shock the person who provoked them. In the time
between the participants either exercised, or sat quietly watching slides. The
exercising group tended to give more shocks than the other group. The
exercise group had, according to this theory transferred their physical arousal
from one situation to another, supporting the theory. Nevertheless this model
has its problems, it doesn’t, as doesn’t many other theories, explain cold-
blooded aggression. It also suggests that we loose control because of our
aroused state and act without thinking. In reaction to the criticism produced
Zillman changed the model by stating that yes we can be carried away by our
aroused state, but cognition may also affect emotion. Sometimes we can
reappraise or reassess the situation. So being provoked may not inevitably
lead to aggression if they can reappraise the situation.
Bandura famously conducted an experiment using a bobo doll; he set
out to prove the social learning theory. This theory is a development of
behaviourism, where behaviour is learned. Bandura made of film of one of his
students, a young woman, essentially beating up a bobo doll. The woman
punched the clown, shouting “sockeroo!” She kicked it, sat on it, hit with a
little hammer, and so on. Bandura showed his film to groups of kindergartners
who liked it a lot. They then were let out to play. In the play room, where
there were several observers with pens and clipboards in hand, a brand new
bobo doll, and a few little hammers. They punched it and shouted “sockeroo,”
kicked it, sat on it, hit it with the little hammers, and so on, they were indeed
imitating the young lady in the film. These children changed their behaviour
without first being rewarded for that behaviour. This study. And many others
along the same lines have been heavily criticised. The experiment is not real
for example the doll is fake, so doesn’t show a good example of aggression,
the doll is designed to be hit, again indicating ti is not real aggression. The
children who reacted more aggressively tented to be rated as more
aggressive by their teachers and peers, suggesting the experiment might
have triggered already existing aggressive tendencies. Finally, many of the
children where children of Banduras colleges, not a reliable sample of the
general population, this makes the results somewhat irrelevant to everyday
life, and add to the overall experiment being low in ecological validity.
The final theory is Deindividuation; Fraser and Burchell define it as ‘ a
process by whereby normal constraints on behaviour are weakened as
persons lose their sense of individuality’. The psychological state of
Deindividuation is aroused as a result of becoming part of a group, such as an
army or mob, but also as a result of meditation. Le Bon vividly describes how
the individual in the crowd is psychologically transformed. He proposes that
the psychological mechanisms of anonymity, suggestibility and contagion
transform an assembly into a "psychological crowd." In the crowd the
collective mind takes possession of the individual. As a consequence, a crowd
member is reduced to an inferior form of evolution: irrational, fickle, and
suggestible. The individual submerged in the crowd loses self-control and
becomes a mindless puppet, possibly controlled by the crowd's leader, and
capable of performing any act, however atrocious or heroic. for example, the
violent 1992 riots that took place in LA's south central district. Deindividuated
individuals' self-awareness becomes absent and they are oblivious to outside
evaluation. This is when evaluation apprehension ceases to exist, ultimately
breaking down any inhibitions. Problems with this theory is that
Deindividuation doesn’t always lead to aggression. It also suggests that
people in crowd situations lose their inhibitions and no longer follow social
norms, but some believe the norms in crowd situations change.
As well as the theories of aggression it is also believed that
environmental factors have a role to play in the causes of aggression. There
are three main environmental factors looked at these are temperature, noise
and crowding (already looked at in Deindividuation).
Baron and Bell explained the effect of temperature as, if the
temperature rises, people experience a negative effect; this predisposes them
to aggressive behaviour, which can be triggered by a frustration stimulus. A
further increase in temperature leads to a increased rise in negative effect, but
to a decline in aggression, this is the negative affect escape model. The
problems with temperature are that it is laboratory based and the participants
can leave, where as in real life, they cannot. Also the fact violence increases
in summer may be due more to the fact more people are out and about not
necessarily the temperature.
Baron and Byrne defined noise as ‘an unwanted sound, one that brings
upon a negative response’. Sounds, which are experienced as too loud and
as unpredictable usually, produce a negative response and so on (as with
temperature).