1

To what extent is human aggression innate and to what extent is it learned?

Aggression has become almost omnipresent in today society with aggressive contents

made more accessible due to the advancement in media. It is crucial to understand the biologi

cal and social factors behind human aggression in order to formulate treatment and preventio

n that aid in minimising the negative impacts of aggression on public health. Human aggressi

on is defined as the intentional harm inflicted on another individual, given that the perpetrator

is aware of the actions and the victim is motivated to avoid the behaviour (Anderson & Bush

man 2002; Baron & Byrne, 2000). Numerous theories that attempted to explain the origin of

human aggression are all embedded in the long-standing debate of nature versus nurture (Gee

n, 2001). The nativist believed that aggression is an innate action tendency while the empirici

st regarded aggression as the product of environmental observation and experience. This essa

y aimed to critically evaluate the biological and social approaches that explain human aggress

ion and to discuss to what extent aggression is learned and innate.

The biological approach stated that aggression is an innate instinct that humans have i

n common with the other animals and aggression has an adaptive value that aids in the surviv

al of the species. The psychodynamic theory by Freud (1920) proposed that human aggressio

n stems from an innate ‘Death Instinct’, Thanatos, that is destructive by nature and makes the

organism seek an inorganic state. The death instinct is initially self-destructive and if satisfied

internally will lead to the destruction of the individual. Therefore, humans learnt to channel th

e destructive force outward to other people as aggression to avoid self-destruction. Lorenz (1

950) suggested another similar model, the hydraulic model of instinct described the suppresse

d aggressive urge is like hydraulic pressure inside a closed environment. If the accumulated i

nstinctive pressure is not released in some other way, it will eventually erupt in the form of ag

1
 2

gressive behaviours towards others. Both the psychodynamic theory and the hydraulic model

emphasized on the need of catharsis, which refers to the process of releasing pent-up feelings

by acting aggressively towards a substitute to reduce aggression. Next, the ethological approa

ch by Lorenz (1950) claimed aggression as an innate and heritable trait that is useful in huma

n survival throughout the course of evolution. Lorenz (1950) explained that aggression is uni

versal among the human species, thus, it must be an innate instinct. The theory suggested that

the onset of aggression is conditional, while the instinct is innate, its actual expression is cond

itionally elicited by environmental releaser. However, the theories mentioned above faced a l

ot of criticisms because they were based solely on the concept of instinct. The instinct theorie

s failed to explain the variation of aggression that existed in different individuals and cultures

(Myers, 1995). Secondly, it is highly unlikely that humans evolved to have an innate drive tha

t directed at self-destruction. Thirdly, the extent to which a behaviour can be considered as in

stinct is unclear, for illustration, an infant is able to walk before showing aggressive behaviou

r but walking is not considered an instinct (Buss, 1961). Compared to instinct theory, evolutio

nary psychology provides a more detailed and complex interactionist model in explaining the

origins of aggression (Buss, 1997). From the perspective of evolutionary psychology, aggress

ion is not just a singular behaviour, but more of a collection of schemes that are exhibited und

er specific contextual conditions. Aggression served as the solutions for adaptive problems su

ch as intrasexual competition, fighting over resource and mate, and hierarchy negotiation (Bu

ss, 1997). Aggression allowed a higher chance of survival and the trait is able to pass on to th

e offspring. The perspective of evolutionary psychology predicted the variability in aggressio

n theoretically which contrasts the view of instinct theories, in which aggression is exhibited i

nvariantly.

The social approach claimed that human aggression is not an innate instinct but is lear

2
 3

ned through the observation of the environment and the accumulation of experience. Bandura

et al. (1961)’s Social learning theory (SLT) suggested people acquire aggressive behaviours t

hrough social observations and modelling. Although SLT agreed with the psychodynamic the

ory on the importance of childhood experience in behavioural development, the theory’s emp

hasis is on the role of experience, which can be direct or vicarious (Bandura, 1977). Learning

by direct experience suggested aggression in children is shaped through conditioning by both

positive and negative reinforcement directly experienced by the child (Cowan & Walters, 196

3). Learning by vicarious experience suggested aggression is learned through modelling and i

mitation of other people. In the Bobo doll experiments by Bandura et al. (1963), it is shown t

hat children who saw the aggressive model will imitate the aggressive behaviour, whereas tho

se who saw the non-aggressive model did not act aggressively towards the bobo doll at all. E

xtensive exposure to aggressive behaviours portrayed by the adults and media might increase

imitative aggression in children and desensitize the viewer towards aggression (Geen, 2001).

The cognitive neoassociation theory proposed by Berkowitz (1969) further supported the idea

that exposure to aggression can translate into anti-social acts, the theory advocates that mere

exposure to violent behaviour can prime the viewer to behave in a similar way. However, SL

T failed to explain why some individuals continue to behave aggressively without continuous

exposure to violent media. Besides, it is unclear how did the first act of aggression ever occur

if aggression is mainly an imitation of others. The children’s aggressive behaviours observed

in the Bobo doll experiments discord with Anderson & Bushman’s (2002) theory of aggressio

n mentioned in the beginning, in which the victim of aggression is motivated to avoid the beh

aviour, which the bobo doll used in the experiments is unable to. Huesmann (1986) proposed

the Script theory which can be considered as a more specific and precise version of SLT, a sc

ript is defined as a schema about an event. Children can learn aggressive script by observing

violent conducts from their environment such as television programmes. The children will fir

3
 4

st formulate a script to represent a frustrating situation and might associate it with negative re

sponses such as anger and violence. Once a script is established in childhood, its effect is pers

istent and will be retrieved as a guide in the future.

Biosocial theories acknowledge both the innate basis of aggression and social influenc

e on the occurrence of aggression. Based on the psychodynamic theory, Dollard (1939) propo

sed the frustration-aggression hypothesis which also suggested that aggression has an instinct

ive basis. The hypothesis suggested aggression is always caused by frustration that stems fro

m the failure of achieving the desired goal. The hypothesis has been applied to explain aggres

sion relating to job loss (Catalano et al., 1997), ethnic cleansing (Staub, 2000), and terrorism

(Hogg & Vaughan, 2014). The major flaw of the hypothesis is that the definition of frustratio

n is very loose and not properly described, it is uncertain what kinds of frustrating events can

lead to aggression. Berkowitz (1969) proposed the aggressive cue theory which is the revised

version of the frustration-aggression theory. The theory suggested that frustration will first re

sult in anger, the anger will then initiate aggression in the presence of socially learnt cues or e

nvironmental situations. Nonetheless, frustration and anger do not always directly result in ag

gression, the emotions only lead to arousal and the actual response can be predicted through s

ocial learning theory. Another biosocial approach is the excitation transfer theory proposed b

y Zillmann (1979) which used the concept of drive. Zillmann suggested that physiological aro

usal dissipates slowly, the residual arousal from the first event can transfer to the second even

t provided the two events are separated by a short amount of time. The misattribution of the r

esidual arousal can increase the probability of an aggressive response, the effect is more obvi

ous if the second event is related to anger. For instance, the heightened arousal caused by the

excitement of football matches can result in a fight between fans of rival teams (Kerr, 2005).

The theories outlined above both suggested arousal is a precondition for aggression, only diff

4
 5

er in the interaction between internal and external factors that trigger aggressive behaviours.

In conclusion, the biological approach emphasizes aggression to be an innate instinct

and the product of evolution, whilst social approach claims aggression is learned through envi

ronmental observation and an act of imitation. Both approaches account for distinct aspects of

human aggression, but each alone cannot fully explain the origin of aggression. The biologica

l approach failed to consider the impact of social influence and the complexity of the environ

ment, whilst the social approach neglects the fact that aggression remains a physiological resp

onse and the role of biological aspects. To an extent, aggression is not entirely innate or learn

ed, but a combination of both and involves a complex interaction between the two aspects. H

umans have the capacity to be aggressive, but the expression greatly depends on the environ

ment.

5
 6

References

Anderson, C. A., & Bushman, B. J. (2002). Human Aggression. Annual Review of Psycholog
y, 53(1), 27–51.

Baron, R. A & Byrne, D. (2000). Social Psychology: understanding human interaction. Ninth
edition. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Bandura, A. (1961). “Transmission of aggression through imitation of aggressive models”

Journal of abnormal and social psychology, 63, 575-582.

Bandura, A. (1963). The Journal of Nursery Education, Vol. 18, pp. 205–215.

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psy

chological Review, 84(2), 191–215.

Berkowitz, L. (1966). Aggression: A Social Psychological Analysis. New York. McGraw-

Hill Book Company

Buss, A. (1961). The Psychology of Aggression. New York. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Bandura, A. (1963). The Journal of Nursery Education, Vol. 18, pp. 205–215.

Catalano, R., Navaco, R. and McConnell, W. (1997). A model of the net effect of job loss on
violence. Journal of Personality and Social psychology, 72, 1440-1447.

Cowan, P. A. and Walters, R. H., (1963). Child Development, Vol. 34, No. 3, pp. 543-551

Dollard, J., Doob, L., Miller, N., Mowrer O. and Sears, R. (1939) Frustration and Ag
gression. New haven, CT:Yale University Press, in Glassman, Hadad (2006), Approache
s to psychology. 4th edition. Norfolk: Open University Press.

Freud, S. (1920) Beyond the pleasure principle, in Glassman, Hadad (2006), Approaches to
psychology. 4th edition. Norfolk: Open University Press.

Geen, RG. (2001). Human Aggression, 2nd ed. Taylor & Francis.

Huesmann LR. (1986). Psychological processes promoting the relation between exposure to
media violence and aggressive behavior by the viewer. J. Soc. Issues 42:125–40

Hogg, M. A. and Vaughan, G. M. (2014). Social Psychology, 7th edition, pp. 456-481. Lo
ndon: Pearson.

Kerr, J. h. (2005). Rethinking aggression and violence in sport. London: Routledge.

6
 7

Lorenz, K. Z. (1950). The comparative method in studying innate behavior patterns. In Soc
iety for Experimental Biology, Physiological mechanisms in animal behavior. (Society's
Symposium IV.) (p. 221–268). Academic Press.

Myers, D. G. (1995). Social psychology (5th ed.). New York McGraw-Hill.

Staub, E. (2000). Genocide and mass killing: Origins: prevention, healing, and reconciliation.
Political Psychology, 21, 367-382.

Zillmann, D. (1979). Hostility and aggression. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, in Hogg, M, A. and
Vaughan, G, M. (2005) 4th edition. Social psychology. UK: Pearson Prentice Hall.