AGGRESSION

• Intentional behavior aimed at causing physical harm or psychological pain to another

person. ” But true aggression involves the intent to harm another.

• The action might be physical or verbal; it might succeed in its goal or not. If someone
throws a beer bottle at your head and you duck so that the bottle misses you, it was
still an aggressive act.

• “Violence” is an extreme form of aggression, as in acts of war, murder, and assault.

Violence is physical aggression which lies at the extremely high end of the continuum
of aggression.
• Violence is aggression which has a goal of causing extreme harm. Though all violence
is aggression but much aggression may not be violence.
AGGRESSION
• Intentional efforts to harm others— aggression—has been a part of
human social behavior.
• Ancient accounts of human atrocities ranging from those committed by
Genghis Khan and his army who, during the 13th century, conquered
large parts of Asia—the Middle East, and even portions of Europe—to
German Nazis killing of about 6 million Jewish people during World War
II.
• Aggression is the delivery of an aversive stimulus from one person to
another, with intent to harm and with an expectation of causing such
harm, when the other person is motivated to escape or avoid the
stimulus.
TYPES OF AGGRESSION
• Direct vs. Indirect aggression: Direct aggression is one which is committed in
the presence of the target. In direct aggression the victim is present. For
example, kicking another person is direct physical aggression, insulting a
person to their face is direct verbal aggression .
• Indirect aggression is one which is committed outside the presence of the
target. whereas in indirect aggression the victim is absent. whereas slashing
a person’s car tires while he or she is elsewhere is indirect physical
aggression, spreading rumors behind their back is indirect verbal aggression.
• Researches demonstrate that women are more likely to engage in indirect
aggression while males are more likely to engage in acts of direct aggression.
• Example---gossiping about someone,putting threat notes in the locker.
DIRECT AGGRESSION
INDIRECT AGGRESSION
HOSTILE VS INSTRUMENTAL
AGGRESSION
• Hostile vs. Instrumental Aggression: Hostile aggression is basically
impulsive, unplanned and its ultimate motive is harming the target. It
occurs basically as a reaction to provocation. It is also known as affective
or reactive aggression. The purpose of hostile aggression is to induce
injury or pain (negative impact) upon the victim. In this case, there is little
or no advantage to the aggressor.
• On the other hand, Instrumental aggression is a planned and proactive
means of obtaining some goal other than harming the victim.
• The key difference between hostile and instrumental aggression lies in its 
goal. In hostile aggression, the goal is to cause harm or injury to another.
In instrumental aggression, the goal is to achieve something.
• Characteristics of Hostile and Instrumental Aggression:
• Goal:
• Hostile Aggression: In hostile aggression, the goal is to cause harm or injury to another.
• Instrumental Aggression: In instrumental aggression the goal is to achieve something.
• Plan:
• Hostile Aggression: Hostile aggression is impulsive and not planned.
• Instrumental Aggression: Instrumental aggression is usually planned.
• Gender:
• Hostile Aggression: Hostile aggression is mostly used by men.
• Instrumental Aggression: Instrumental aggression is mostly used by women.
• Emotion:
• Hostile Aggression: The individual is driven by emotion.
• Instrumental Aggression: The individual is not driven by emotion but by a goal.
ins tr um en tal ag gre ss ion inv olv es a p la nne d a nd goa l-o rie nte d a ct of har m ful beh av ior . H old ing a p er son ho st age w ith th e in te nti on of b ein g h an ded m on ey in e xc han ge for th eir r elea se is an exa m ple of ins tru m ent al agg re ssio n.
EXAMPLES OF INSTRUMENTAL
AGGRESSION
A runner in the state championship orders an attacker to severely injure their
largest competitor before the event so that they cannot compete. Although
the aggressor did not carry out the act of instrumental aggression themselves,
they used someone else to commit an act of instrumental violence and
ultimately achieve their goal of winning the championship through planning.
Four armed robbers walk into a bank and order everyone inside to get on the
ground. While three of the aggressors keep their firearms trained on the bank
patrons, the final aggressor instructs the bank teller to hand over all of the
money in the safe. This planned attack was goal-oriented (to gain money)
and intimidation (somewhat considered to be a form of instrumental
violence) was used to carry out the act of instrumental aggression.
EXAMPLES
• Instrumental aggression produces some positive reward or advantage
(impact) on the aggressor unrelated to the victim’s discomfort.

• One student (the aggressor) verbally bullies another student (the

victim) in the cafeteria for lunch money. With the newly obtained
funds, the aggressor can buy themselves a ticket to an upcoming
concert. This act of instrumental aggression was goal-oriented and
less severe in nature. It used intimidation as a means to achieve the
goal of getting money to see a concert.
THEORIES OF AGGRESSIVE
BEHAVIOUR
• 1)INSTINCT THEORY OF AGGRESSION
• 2)DRIVE THEORY OF AGGRESSION
• 3)SOCIAL LEARNING THEORY OF AGGRESSION
• 4)GENERAL AGGRESSION MODEL
1)INSTINCT THEORY OF
AGGRESSION
• According to instinct theory,aggression represents an innnate urge.In
other words,this theory attributes human violence to built-in(or
inherited urges)to agress against each other.In other words,this theory
attributes human violence to built-in(or inherited urges)to aggress against
others.
• There has been two major proponents of instinct theories---Sigmund
Freud and Konard Lorenz.
• According to Freud,human beings have an instinct,called Thanatos or
death instinct,which acts in opposition to Eros or life instinct.The energy
of Thanatos is usually directed towards others rather than towards self or
avoiding self-destruction.
 INSTINCT THEORY OF
AGGRESSION
• LORENZ is an ethologist.Ethology is the study of animal beahaviour.According to
Lorenz,most animals share a fighting instinct,which serves as many functions.
• For example,aggressive behaviour of animals allow them to maintain their own
particular territory,which assures a steady supply of food.It also serves to weed out
weaker animals and allows only strongest animals to obtain mates and pass their genes
on to next generation.
• According to Lorenz there are two basic types of reactions to danger—fight or
flight.example—deer tend to flee during encounter by enemy,wheras (tiger,lion)tend to
fight.In case of human beings,as Lorenz argued the pattern has broken down.
• since originally human beings reacted to aggression with flight as they lacked mechanisms
to defend themselves,but due to modern technological advances human beings have
obtained greater destructive powers and have become relentless killer of each other
during aggressive encounters.
2)DRIVE THEORY:THE MOTIVE TO
HARM OTHERS
EXTERNAL CONDITIONS
DRIVE TO HARM OVERT
FRUSTATION,UNPLEASANT OR INJURE AGGRESSI
ENVIRONMENTAL OTHERS ON
CONDITIONS
DRIVE THEORY OF AGGRESSION
• Drive theories,in general suggests that external conditions particularly
frustration arises a strong motive or drive to harm others.This aggressivev
drive leads to aggressive behaviour.
• One of the best known and popular of drive theories is frustration-aggression
hypothesis.This hypothesis was put forward originally by
Dollard,Doob,Miller,Mowrer and Sears(1939).
• According to this hypothesis,frustration produces arousal of drive,whose
primary goal is to harm other person or object.This hypothesis makes two
bold assertions
• 1)frustration always leads to aggression of some sort.
• 2)aggression is always the result of some kind of frustration.
DRIVE THEORIES :THE MOTIVE TO
HARM OTHERS
• Theories suggesting that aggressions stems from external conditions
that arouse the motive to harm or injure others.
• Drive theories of aggression suggest that aggressive behavior is
pushed from within by drives to harm or injure others. These drives
are elicited by external events such as frustration.
• Such theories are no longer accepted as valid by most social
psychologists, but one such view—the famous frustration-aggression
hypothesis–continues to influence modern research, and many
people’s beliefs about the causes of aggression.
3)SOCIAL LEARNING THEORY
• The major proponents of social learning theory (Bandura and Walters
1963,Bandura 1973),suggests that aggressive behaviours are basically
learned behaviours.
• There are two main mechanisms through which social-learning takes
place---direct reinforcement/punishment and imitation or
modelling.
3)SOCIAL LEARNING PERSPECTIVE
• Social learning perspective (e.g., Bandura, 1997), begins with a very
reasonable idea: Human beings are not born with a large array of
aggressive responses at their disposal. Rather, they must acquire
these in the much the same way that they acquire other complex
forms of social behavior:
• through direct experience or by observing the behavior of others
(i.e., social models—live persons or characters on television, in
movies, or even in video games who behave aggressively; Anderson
et al., 2010; Bushman & Anderson, 2002).
SOCIAL LEARNING PERSPECTIVE
• ). Thus, depending on their past experience and the cultures in which they live,
individuals learn
• (1) various ways of seeking to harm others,
• (2) which people or groups are appropriate targets for aggression,
• (3) what actions by others justify retaliation or vengeance on their part, and
• (4) what situations or contexts are ones in which aggression is permitted or even
approved.
• In short, the social learning perspective suggests that whether a specific person will
aggress in a given situation depends on many factors, including the person’s past
experience, the current rewards associated with past or present aggression, and
attitudes and values that shape this person’s thoughts concerning the appropriateness
and potential effects of such behavior.
SOCIAL COGINITIVE THEORY
• SOCIAL COGINITIVE THEORY
• holds that we learn social behavior, from aggression to altruism, in
large part by observing others and imitating them—a process called
observational learning.
• But observational learning in human beings cannot be fully
understood without taking into account the thought processes and
perceptions of the learner; that’s the “cognitive” part of social-
cognitive learning theory (Mischel & Shoda, 1995). It’s the reason
that you and a friend can see the same vampire movie and one of you
thinks it’s stupid and the other thinks it’s funny.
EXPERIMENT BY BANDURA
• Children are especially susceptible to observational learning.
• In a classic series of experiments, Albert Bandura and his associates
demonstrated the power of social learning on children’s aggressive
behavior (Bandura, Ross, & Ross, 1961, 1963).
• Their basic procedure was to have an adult knock around a plastic,
air-filled Bobo doll, the kind that bounces back after it’s been knocked
down.
• The adult would smack the doll around with the palm of a hand, strike
it with a mallet, kick it, and yell aggressive things at it. The kids were
then allowed to play with the doll.
BOBBO DOLL EXPERMENT
BANDURA EXPERIMENT
• In these experiments, the children imitated the aggressive adults and
treated the doll in almost exactly the same ways, as you can see in
Some of them went beyond mere imitation, coming up with inventive
new forms of beating up the doll.
• Children who did not see the aggressive adult in action almost never
unleashed any aggression against the hapless doll. This research offers
strong support for the social learning of aggressive behavior—the
power of watching and imitating the behavior of others.
GENERAL AGGRESSION MODEL
• This model can be termed as one of the comprehensive theories of
aggression.
• According to this model,the components of ggressive episodes are
personal and situational inputs,internal states and outcomes.
• Example of Personal Inputs are:Gender and personality.
• Example of Situational Inputs are:Temperature,violence in
media,frustration,pain and even provocation.
GAM
• The Internal state can be termed as route or a roadway though which
the personal and situational factors have an influence on the last
component that is output.The internal state of an individual
constitutes his/her effect ,coginition and level of arousal.
• The outcome consist of appraisal &reappraisal of the situation and
also includes decision process that can lead to actions that are
thoughtful or impulsive .The outcome of an episode can then further
influence social interaction and aggressive episodes.
FOUR STAGES OF MODEL
• STAGE 1:In the first stage,there are personal as well as situational
variables.for example,the personal variable could be that an individual
has a personality that is inherentely aggressive and the situational
variable could be that the person is frustrated and has been provoked
by another individual.
• STAGE 2:Stage 1 leads to Stage 2.Where,based on the personal and
situational inputs,in stage 1,the individual will experience feelings that
are hostile(related to affect) and may have hostile
thoughts(coginition)and he/she may get aroused due to activation of
autonomic nervous system.
• STAGE 3:Stage 2 leads to Stage 3,that is the process of appraisal
where the situation is interpreted and consequences of displaying
aggression could also be considered.

• STAGE 4: Based on the consequences of the appraisal process that

took place in stage 3,a decision is taken with regard to whether the
behaviour will be aggressive or not.
GENERAL AGGRESSION MODEL
• Building on the social learning perspective, a newer framework known
as the General aggression model (GAM) (Anderson & Bushman, 2002)
provides an even more complete account of the foundations of human
aggression.
• According to this theory, a chain of events that may ultimately lead to
overt aggression can be initiated by two major types of input variables:
• (1) factors relating to the current situation (situational factors)
• (2) factors relating to the people involved (person factors)
 GAM
•
INPUT VARIABLES

INPU
SITUATIONAL FACTORS
Provocation,frustration,exposure to PERSONAL FACTORS
aggressive models,cues associated
with aggression,causes of
discomfort/negative affect

CURRENT INTERNAL STATE

AROUSAL
COGINITION
AFFECT

THOUGHTFUL
APPRAISAL AND DECISION ACTION
PROCESS

IMPULSIVE
VARIABLES IN FIRST
CATEGORY(SITUATIONAL)
• Variables falling into the first category include
• frustration,
• some kind of provocation from another person (e.g., an insult),
exposure to other people behaving aggressively (aggressive models,
real or in the media)
• virtually anything that causes individuals to experience discomfort—
everything from uncomfortably high temperatures to physical pain or
even disrespectful treatment.
VARIABLES IN THE SECOND
CATEGORY(PERSONAL)
• 2) Variables in the second category (individual differences across
people) include
• traits that predispose some individuals toward aggression (e.g., high
irritability),
• certain attitudes and beliefs about violence (e.g., believing that it is
acceptable and appropriate),
• a tendency to perceive hostile intentions in others’ behavior,
• and specific skills related to aggression (e.g., knowing how to fight or
how to use various weapons)
GAM
• According to the GAM, these situational and individual (personal) variables lead to
overt aggression through their impact on three basic processes:
• arousal—they may increase physiological arousal or excitement;
• affective states—they can generate hostile feelings and outward signs of these (e.g.,
angry facial expressions);
• cognitions— they can induce individuals to think hostile thoughts or can bring
beliefs and attitudes about aggression to mind.
• Depending on individuals’ interpretations (appraisals) of the current situation and
restraining factors (e.g., the presence of police or the threatening nature of the
intended target person), they then engage either in thoughtful action, which might
involve restraining their anger, or impulsive action, which can lead to overt
aggressive actions .
CAUSES OF HUMAN AGGRESSION

SITUATIONAL

CULTURAL CAUSES OF PERSONAL

AGGRESSION FACTORS

SOCIAL
SOCIAL DETERMINANTS OF
AGGRESSION
• 1)FRUSTRATION
• 2)PROVOCATION
• 3)HEIGHTENED AROUSAL
• 4)EXPOSURE TO MEDIA VIOLENCE
• 5)VIOLENT PORNOGRAPHY
• 6)CULTURAL FACTORS: “Cultures of honor”& sexual jealousy.
1)Frustration: Why not Getting What You
want can Sometimes Lead to Aggression
• Frustration occurs due to blockage of goal attainment.
• Suppose that you asked 20 people you know to name the single most
important cause of aggression. The chances are good that most would
reply “frustration.” And if you asked them to define frustration, many
would say: “The way I feel when something—or someone—prevents
me from getting what I want or expect to get in some situation.”
• This widespread belief in the importance of frustration as a cause of
aggression stems from the frustration-aggression hypothesis.
F-A HYPOTHESIS
• In its original form, this hypothesis made two sweeping assertions:
• (1) Frustration always leads to some form of aggression,
• (2) Aggression always stems from frustration.
• Bold statements like these are appealing, but it does not mean that
they are necessarily accurate.
• In fact, existing evidence suggests that both portions of the
frustration-aggression hypothesis assign far too much importance to
frustration as a determinant of human aggression.
F-A HYPOTHESIS
• In fact, individuals do not always respond with aggression when frustrated.
• On the contrary, they show many different reactions, ranging from sadness,
despair, and depression on the one hand, to direct attempts to overcome the
source of their frustration on the other. In short, aggression is definitely not
an automatic response to frustration.
• Furthermore, it is equally clear that not all aggression stems from
frustration. As we have already noted, people aggress for many different
reasons and in response to many different factors.
• Accordingly, few social psychologists now accept the idea that frustration is
the only, or even the most important, cause of aggression. It is simply one
of many factors that can potentially lead to aggression.
FRUSTRATION LEADS TO MANY
DIFFERENT REACTIONS ---NOT
SOLELY TO AGGRESSION.
•
• AGGRESSION
•
• FRUSTRATION DEPRESSION
•
• RESIGNATION
• FEELINGS OF HOPELESSNESS
AGGRESSION STEMS FROM MANY
FACTORS-NOT SOLELY FROM
FRUSTRATION.
•

• PROVOCATION FROM OTHERS

AGGRESSION
HIGH LEVEL OF AROUSAL

EXPOSURE TO MEDIA VIOLENCE

UNPLEASANT ENVIRONMENT CONDITION

ASPECTS OF PERSONALITY
2)DIRECT PROVOCATION:
• Major world religions often suggest that when provoked by another person, we
should “turn the other cheek”—in other words, the most appropriate way to
respond to being annoyed or hurt by another person is to do our best to not
retaliate.
• In fact, however, research findings indicate that this is easier to say than to do,
and that physical or verbal provocation from others is one of the strongest
causes of human aggression.
• When we are on the receiving end of some form of provocation from others—
criticism we consider unfair, sarcastic remarks, or physical assaults—we tend to
reciprocate, returning as much aggression as we have received—or perhaps
even more, especially if we are certain that the other person meant to harm us.
CONDESCENSION
• What kinds of provocation produce the strongest push toward
aggression?
• Existing evidence suggests that condescension—expressions of
arrogance or disdain on the part of others are very powerful (Harris,
1993).
• Harsh and unjustified criticism, especially criticism that attacks us
rather than our behavior, is a powerful form of provocation, and when
exposed to it, most people find it very difficult to avoid getting angry
and retaliating in some manner, either immediately or later on (Baron
& Richardson, 1994
TEASING
• Still another form of provocation to which many people respond with
annoyance is teasing—provoking statements that call attention to an
individual’s flaws and imperfections, but can be, at the same time,
somewhat playful in nature (e.g., Kowalski, 2001).
• Teasing can range from mild, humorous remarks (e.g., “Hey— you
look you’re having a bad hair day”) through nicknames or comments
that truly seem designed to hurt.
• Research findings indicate that the more individuals attribute teasing
to hostile motives—a desire to embarrass or annoy them—the more
likely they are to respond aggressively
3)DIRECT
AROUSAL:emotion,coginition,aggression.
• Suppose, for instance, that you are driving to the airport to catch a flight. You are late, so
you hurry as much as you can.
• On the way there, another driver cuts you off, and you almost have an accident. Your
heart pounds wildly and your blood pressure shoots up; but fortunately, no accident
occurs.
• Now you arrive at the airport. You park and rush to the security line. There, the
passenger in line ahead of you is very slow to open her carry-on case and also slow to
remove her shoes.
• In addition, she hasn’t placed her liquids in a separate plastic bag, so the agent sorts
through them now, while you wait. Quickly, you become very irritated by this person,
and say to yourself, “Why don’t people like that stay home! I may miss my flight because
of her . . .” You wish you could push the person out of the way and move forward to
catch your plane.
EXCITATION TRANSFER THEORY
• Now for the key question: Do you think that your recent near miss in traffic
played any role in your sudden surge of anger toward this other passenger?
Could your emotional arousal from the recent traffic incident transfer to the
present, unrelated situation and so intensify your feelings of annoyance? Research
evidence suggests that it might (Zillmann, 1988, 1994).
• Under some conditions, heightened arousal— whatever its source—can enhance
aggression in response to provocation, frustration, or other factors. In fact, in
various experiments, arousal stemming from sources such as participation in
competitive games (Christy, Gelfand, & Hartmann, 1971), exercise (Zillmann,
1979), and even some types of music (Rogers & Ketcher, 1979), have been found
to increase subsequent aggression. Why is this the case? An explanation or these
effects is provided by excitation transfer theory (Zillmann, 1988, 1994).
EXCITATION TRANSFER THEORY
• This theory claims that because physiological arousal tends to
dissipate slowly over time, a portion of such arousal may persist as a
person moves from one situation to another.
• In the earlier example, some portion of the arousal you experienced
because of the near miss in traffic may still be present as you
approach the security gate in the airport.
• That arousal, which is unrelated to the current situation, intensifies
your annoyance with the slow passenger. And this may occur even if
you are unaware of the residual arousal (Zillmann, 1994)
EXCITATION TRANSFER THEORY
• Excitation transfer theory also suggests that such effects are especially
likely to occur when the person recognizes the residual arousal but
then wrongly attributes it to the events occurring right now (Taylor,
Helgeson, Reed, & Skokan, 1991).
• In the airport incident, for instance, your anger would be intensified if
you recognized the arousal but attributed it to the other passengers’
actions rather than to the driver who nearly cut you off. Overall, it’s
clear that the relationship between emotion and aggression is more
complex than common sense suggests.
EXPOSURE TO MEDIA VIOLENCE
• Systematic surveys of the content of recent films, television shows, and other media
indicate that violence is very frequent in the popular offerings of the mass media
(Bushman & Anderson, 2002; Reiss & Roth, 1993; Waters, Block, Friday, & Gordon, 1993).
This fact raises an important question that social psychologists have studied for decades:
• Does exposure to media violence increase aggression among children and adults?
Literally hundreds of studies have been performed to test this possibility, and the results
are clear: Exposure to media violence is indeed one factor contributing to high levels of
violence in countries where such materials are viewed by large numbers of people
(e.g., Anderson et al., 2003; Bushman & Anderson, 2009; Paik & Comstock, 1994). In fact,
in a summary of research findings in this area (Anderson, Bushman, Donnerstein,
Hummer, & Warburton, 2015), leading experts on this topic who have provided
testimony in U.S. Senate hearings on media and violence offered the following basic
conclusions
MEDIA
• 1. Research on exposure to violent television, movies, video games,
and music indicates that such materials significantly increase the
likelihood of aggressive behavior by people exposed to them.
• 2. Such exposure has both short-term and cumulative long-term
effects on aggression.
• 3. The magnitude of these effects is large—at least as large as the
various medical effects considered to be important by physicians (e.g.,
the effect of aspirin on heart attacks)
ALBERT BANDURA
• For example, in short-term laboratory experiments, children or adults
exposed to violent films and television programs have been found to
show more aggression than others exposed to nonviolent content
(Bushman & Huesmann, 2001).
• The earliest research of this type was conducted by Albert Bandura
and his colleagues in the early 1960s—a time when social psychology
was still, in many respects, a new and rapidly growing science. To
address this question, the research team (Bandura, Ross, & Ross,
1963a, b) devised an ingenious approach.
ALBERT BANDURA
• Instead of using actual television programs, they constructed their
own TV shows in which an adult model was shown aggressing
against a large inflated toy clown (a Bobo doll) in unusual ways.
• For instance, the model sat on the doll, punched it repeatedly in the
nose, struck it on the head with a toy mallet, and kicked it about the
room. This “program,” or a control one in which the model showed no
aggressive actions toward the Bobo doll, was then shown to young
school-age children.
RESEARCH
• Other research on the effects of media violence, in contrast, has employed
longitudinal procedures, in which the same participants are studied for many
years (e.g., Anderson & Bushman, 2002; Huesmann & Eron, 1984, 1986). Results
of such research, too, are clear:
• The more violent films or television programs participants watched as children,
the higher their levels of aggression as teenagers or adults—for instance, This
last media source—violent video games—has become the subject of intense
study, because these games are very popular, and are played (often for hours
each day) by millions of people all over the world.
• A large number of studies have sought to determine if playing such games
produces effects similar to those produced by watching violent films or television
shows, and the results are both consistent and alarmin.
IMPACT OF VIOLENT GAME
• One more question arises concerning the impact of violent video
games: Why do so many people like to play them?
• Research by Przybylski, Ryan and Rigby (2009) indicates that in fact, it
is not. Drawing on cognitive evaluation theory (Ryan & Deci, 2000,
2007)—they suggest that it is not the violence in games such as
“Grand Theft Auto” that make them so appealing, but rather it is the
sense of autonomy and competence that the games provide.
The Effects of Media Violence:
Neuroscience Evidence for Why They
Occur
• One other factor that plays an important role in the effects of all types
of media violence involves desensitization. In other words, as a result
of exposure to large amounts of violent content in television
programs, films, and video games, individuals become less sensitive to
violence and its consequences (Anderson et al., 2015).
• Research findings suggest that such desensitization effects can
contribute to increased aggression by people exposed to media
violence
PERSONALITY AND AGGRESSION:
• 1)THE TASS MODEL:TRAIT AS SENSITIVE TO VARIOUS SITUATIONS
• 2)TYPE A BEHAVIOUR PATTERN
• 3)SENSATION SEEKING AND AGGRESSION
• 4)NARCISSISM
TASS MODEL
• Thev trait as situational sensitivity model.
• This model suggests that many aspects of personalitry function in a
threshold like manner:only when situational factors are enough strong
to trigger them,do they influence behaviour.
• When applied to aggression,the TASS model makes the following
prediction:The tendency to behave aggressively will only influence
overt behaviour when situational factors are strong enough to activate
it.For example people high in this trait ,even weak provocation will
stimulate an aggressive reaction;for people low in this trait in contrast
much stronger levels of provocation are required to trigger aggression.
TYPE A BEHAVIOUR PATTERN
• A pattern consisting primarily of high level of competitiveness,time
urgency and hostility.(extremely competitive,always in
hurry,especially irritable &aggressive.)

• Type A people are truly hostile and they are engage in Hostile
aggression---aggression in which the prime objective is inflicting some
kind of harm on the victim.(child abuse,spouse abuse).
SENSATION SEEKING AND
AGGRESSION
• Do you know who gets bored easily,seeks lot of new experiences---
especially exciting ones with an element of risk.If so,this person may
be high in what social psychologists described as sensation seeking or
in the closely related impulsivity.Why would this be the case?
• General aggression model suggests some possible reasons.
• i)people high in sensation seeking or impulsiveness experience anger
and hostile feelings more often than others.Their emotions are easily
aroused,so that they may have lower threshold for becoming angry.
• ii)moreover,their tendencies to get bored and to seek exciting new
experiences may lead them to have more hostile thoughts.
NARCISSISM—EGO THREAT
&AGGRESSION
NO AGGRESSION-they
GRANDIOSITY reject any suggestion
Confidence in one that they not be as good
superiority as they thinkl they are
and do not show
increased aggression
NARCISSISM
Inflated view of oneself

VULNERABILITY doubts AGGRESSION-when

that they are not really as someone doubts their
special as they think they self inflated self image
are
NARCISSIM
• The spirit of Narcissus has been said to live in individuals who hold
extremely positive—often unjustified—views of themselves, which is
where we get the word narcissism.

• Interestingly, people’s narcissism often leads them to be aggressive

when others dare to question their overblown views of themselves. In
such instances, they experience what has been termed narcissistic
rage, in which they seek revenge against these “doubters,” while
simultaneously feeling threatened.
TWO DISTINCT PARTS
• Research reveals that narcissism has two distinct parts:
• (1) What has been termed grandiosity—which refers to the tendency
to show-off and exhibit arrogance and .
• (2) Vulnerability—which reflects the tendency to be bitter,
complaining, and defensive.
• Recent research suggests that only the second component is related
to aggression (Krizan & Johar, 2015). Only people high in the
vulnerability component experience rage when others call their
inflated views of themselves into question.
VULNERABLE
• In a series of studies, Krizan and Johar (2015) obtained support for
this prediction.
• In one study, they measured participants’ grandiose and vulnerable
narcissism, and also their tendencies to respond to conflict with
others through either direct, or displaced aggression (that is,
aggression toward another person aside from the one with whom
they were in conflict).
• As predicted, only vulnerable narcissism predicted aggression.
NARCISSIM
• Narcissism is an inflated sense of self, but it goes beyond simply
having very high selfesteem.
• Narcissists believe that they are better than others in achievement
realms such as intellectual ability and sports. However, they
acknowledge that they are not particularly friendly or moral. Perhaps
as a result, narcissism is correlated with poor relationship outcomes:
Narcissists lack empathy, are more likely to derogate their partners,
and are more likely to cheat. They are also more aggressive in
response to threat.
SITUATIONAL DETERMINANTS OF
AGGRESSION
• 1)In The Heat of Anger: Temperature and Aggression

• 2) Alcohol and Aggression: A Dangerous Combination

• 3) Gun Availability: How Weapons Enable Violence

IN THE HEAT OF ANGER
• There is, in fact, evidence that people report feeling especially irritable
and short-tempered on hot and steamy days .So, is there a systematic
link between climate and human aggression?
• The earliest studies on this topic were experiments conducted under
controlled laboratory conditions, in which temperature was
systematically varied as the independent variable.
• For instance, participants were exposed either to comfortably pleasant
conditions (temperatures of 70–72° Fahrenheit) or to uncomfortably
hot conditions (temperatures of 94–98° Fahrenheit), and were then
given an opportunity to aggress against another person.
RESULTS
• Results were surprising: High temperature reduced aggression for both
provoked and unprovoked people.
• The initial explanation of these findings was that the high temperatures were so
uncomfortable that participants focused on getting away from them—and this
caused them to reduce their aggression (Baron & Richardson, 1994).
• In sum, research on the effects of heat on aggression suggests that there is
indeed a link between heat and aggression:
• When people get hot, they become irritable and may be more likely to lash out
at others. However, there may be limits to this relationship, stemming from the
fact that after prolonged exposure to high temperatures, people become so
uncomfortable that they focus on reducing their discomfort—not on attacking
others. Short of these extreme conditions, however, there is a big grain of truth in
the metaphor “the heat of anger,” and when temperatures rise, tempers may, too
— with serious social consequences.
ALCOHOL AND AGGRESSION
• It is widely assumed that people become more aggressive when they
consume alcohol. This idea is supported by the fact that bars and
nightclubs are often the scene of violence.
•
• However, while alcohol is certainly consumed in these settings, other
factors might be responsible for the fights—or worse— that often
erupt: competition for desirable partners, crowding, and even
cigarette smoke which irritates many people (Zillmann, Baron, &
Tamborini, 1981).
EFFECT OF ALCOHOL
• but recent findings suggest that the effects of alcohol on aggression may
stem, at least in part, from reduced cognitive functioning and what this
does, in turn, to social perception. Specifically, the findings of several studies
(e.g., Bartholow, Pearson, Gratton, & Fabiani, 2003) indicate that alcohol
impairs higher-order cognitive functions such as evaluation of stimuli and
memory.
• This may make it harder for individuals to evaluate others’ intentions (hostile
or non-hostile), and to evaluate the effects that various forms of behavior on
their part, including aggression, may produce (e.g., Hoaken, Giancola, & Pihl,
1998). For instance, people who have consumed alcohol show reductions in
their capacity to process positive information about someone they initially
dislike.
GUN AVAILABILITY
• instances of mass killings in the United States almost always involve high
powered weapons. Would Adam Lanza have killed so many people at Sandy
Hook Elementary School in 2012, if he had not had access to his mother’s
high capacity weapons?
• How has social psychological research addressed these questions concerning
gun availability?
• As Stroebe (2015) argues, there are two routes by which gun availability
might affect homicide rates.
• First, such weapon availability could affect the intention to commit such
acts, and second, it could affect the likelihood that an intention to kill is
actually successful, or results in homicide.
AGGRESSION IN THE CLASSROOM
AND BULLYING
• BULLYING
• A pattern of behaviour in which one individual is chosen as the
target of the repeated aggression by one or more others;the target
person(the victim) generally has less power than those who engage in
aggression(the bullies).
• WHY DO PEOPLE ENGAGE IN BULLYING
• 1)THE MOTIVE TO HOLD POWER OVER OTHERS.
• 2)TO BE A PART OF THE GROUP.
WHY BULLYING OCCURS
• So why does bullying occur, and why is it focused on specific victims? These
and related questions have been the focus of a growing amount of research
and results indicate that the answers are complex.
• Bullying arises from many different factors including several personal
characteristics that predispose individuals to become bullies.
• Among these personality factors are being callous toward the suffering of
others (Muñoz, Qualter, & Padgett, 2011), endorsement of masculine traits
(Navarro, Yubero, Larrañaga, & Martinez, 2011), and anxiety (Craig, 1998).
• Surprisingly, bullies also tend to be high in social intelligence— that is, they
perceive others accurately, and are skilled at getting along with them. Yet,
despite this, they seek to harm people who are unable to defend themselves.
CHARACTERISTICS OF BULLIES AND
VICTIMS
1)LACK OF SUPERVISION BY PARENTS
2)SCHOOL ATMOSPHERE
3)UNSAFE COMMUNITIES

CALLOUS ATTITUDES TOWARDS

OTHERS,HIGH
BULLIES BULLYING
STATUS,ANXIETY,DEPRESSION,HIGH
SOCIAL INTELLIGENCE

VICTIMS
LONELY,WITHDRAWN,FEW FRIENDS
UNHAPPY
VICTIMS
• Victims of bullying tend to be individuals who feel unhappy and
unsafe, and their academic performance suffers as a result (Konishi,
Hymel, Zumbo, & Li, 2010).
• They also tend to be lonely, withdrawn, and socially isolated—they
have few friends and are awkward in interacting with their peers.
Consequently, they are less well liked by their peers, and have no
friends to rush to their aid when they are attacked by bullies.
CYBERBULLYING:ELECTRONICS
MEANS OF HARM DOING
• Cyberbullying is often defined as the use of information and
communication technologies such as e-mail, cell phones, instant
messaging, and social media as means of engaging in deliberate,
repeated, and hostile behavior that is intended to harm others. A
WORKPLACE AGGRESSION
• Any form of behaviour through which individual seeks to harm others
in their workplace.What is such aggression like(largely
COVERT:HIDDEN).

• Although aggression in workplaces can take many different forms—

ranging from verbal insults, through more subtle actions such as
blocking another person’s promotion or pet project—it is instances
of workplace violence that have most often captured public and
media attention.
COST-BENEFIT RULE
• In fact, research findings (Barclay & Aquino, 2010) suggest that in aggressing
against others at work, most people follow a “cost–benefit” rule:
• They attempt to do the most harm to the victim while at the same time,
assuring that they cannot be identified as the source of this harm.
• In fact, in most instances, workplace aggression involves quite subtle behavior,
such as spreading negative rumors about their targets, reporting that they are
getting ready to move to another company and taking important “secrets” with
them or that they have engaged in unethical, if not illegal actions.
• Other forms of workplace aggression include removing equipment or resources
the target people need to complete their work, expressing disapproval of
projects these people favor, and even destroying their personal property
COST BENEFIT RULE
• Most instances of workplace aggression do not involve overt physical
attacks.
• Rather, they are rather subtle and designed to harm the victim
without person being able to identify who caused the harm.
• This involves the kind of cost-benefit calculation shown here:
Aggressors want to do the most harm at the least cost (or danger) to
themselves.
THREE TYPES OF EXPRESSIONS OF
HOSTILITY
• 1)OBSTRUCTIONISM-behaviours designed to obstruct or impede the target’s
performance .(failure to return phone calls or respond to memos,failure to transmit
needed information,interferring with activities important to target.)

• 2)INCIVILITY-low intensity deviant behaviour with ambiguous intent to harm the

target,in violation of workplace norms for mutual respect(sending a rude
email,excluding someone from a meeting,give a hostile look or stares or addressing a
co worker inappropriately)

• 3 OVERT-AGGRESSION-behaviours that have typically been included under the

heading workplace violence(physical assault,theft or destruction of property,threats
of physical violence)
CATHARSIS
• THE VIEW THAT IF INDIVIDUALS VENT THEIR ANGER AND HOSTILITY
IN NON-HARMFUL WAYS,THEIR TENDENCIES TO ENGAGE IN MORE
DANGEROUS TYPES OF AGGRESSIONS WILL BE REDUCED.
• Does engaging in aggression at one time reduce the likelihood of
subsequent aggression? Research findings indicate that it does not.
Engaging in even nonharmful aggressive actions such as shouting
angrily at other people who can’t see or hear the person doing so can
make the angry person feel better, at least temporarily. But this
“reward” for expressing anger may actually strengthen the link
between anger and aggression.
CAUSES OF WORKPLACE
AGGRESSION
• Reduction in staff so that everyone has to do more work
• Unexpected layofffs
• increased use of part-time employees which generates feeling of
insecurity among regular employees who begin to fear for their own
jobs ..
• Abusive supervision
THE PREVENTION AND CONTROL OF
AGGRESSION
• 1)PUNISHMENT
• In most societies throughout the world, punishment—delivery of aversive consequences—is a major
technique for reducing aggression.
• People who engage in prohibited aggressive behavior receive large fines, are put in prison, and in
some countries are placed in solitary confinement or receive physical punishment for their
actions.Another important question relating to punishment concerns its effectiveness:
• Does it work? Can it reduce the tendency of specific people to engage in later harmful acts of
aggression? Here, existing evidence is relatively clear. Punishment can reduce aggression, but only if
it meets four basic requirements:
• (1) It must be prompt—it must follow aggressive actions as quickly as possible;
• (2) it must be certain to occur—the probability that it will follow aggression must be very high;
• (3) it must be strong—strong enough to be highly unpleasant to potential recipients; and
• (4) it must be perceived by recipients as justified or deserved.
• Unfortunately these conditions are typically not met in criminal justice system.
SELF-REGULATION
• From an evolutionary perspective, aggression can be viewed as adaptive behavior, at
• least in some situations. For instance, competition for desirable mates is often intense,
• and one way to “win” in such contests is through aggression against potential rivals.
• So, especially for males, strong tendencies to aggress against others can yield
ben_x0002_eficial outcomes.
• On the other hand, living together in human society often requires
• restraining aggressive behavior. Lashing out at others in response to every provocation is
definitely not adaptive, and can greatly disrupt social life. For this reason, it is
• clear that we possess effective internal mechanisms for restraining anger and overt
aggression (Baumeister, 2005). Such mechanisms are described by the term self-regulation
• (or self-control), and refer to our capacity to regulate many aspects of own behavior,
• including aggression.