Psychological Perspectives of Aggression and Violence: A comparison of psychodynamic and behaviouris

Psychological Perspectives of Aggression and Violence:

A comparison of psychodynamic and behaviourist approaches

The study of violence and aggressive behaviour has been of immense importance to the psychological discipline. With this, have come a variety of different approaches each with varying explanations as to origins, causes and management of this behaviour. One of the fundamental problems in this area is the actual definition of the terms aggression and violence, and what behaviour can be said to be typical of these expressions. The differing factor between these two terms and the one that has commanded a great deal of debate is the notion of intent. It is with this that psychologists have been able to distinguish between the two terms and provide some universal definition for this otherwise, awkward area. Violent behaviour can be seen as one which causes harm to others, whether the intent to cause harm was present or not, while aggressive behaviour can be seen as one which causes intentional harm to others (Glassman 1979).

To understand how different approaches are able to explain aggression and violence, it is necessary to look at the origins and history of each approach. The behaviourist movement predominately came out of the work of Ivan Pavlov, who extensively researched the conditioning of reflex responses, and was later preceded by the influential studies of behaviourists such as Watson, Thorndike and Skinner. By drawing on Pavlov’s earlier work, they were able to develop major theories of learning, such as classical and operant conditioning, which were applied to the study of aggressive or violent behaviour in order to understand its origins and if possible reduce its effects. In general, the psychodynamic approach arose from Sigmund Freud’s psychoanalytic theory, but also encompasses those later theories of Jung, Alder and Erickson. This approach focuses on internal forces within the personality, and argues that conflict between the individual parts of the personality; Freud identified three, defines our behaviour and shapes our character. One of the most basic key assumptions made by the psychodynamic approach is that a great deal of our behaviour is determined by unconscious thought processes. Procedures such as free association and dream analysis became typical research methods of this approach and enabled psychologists like Freud to categorise these unconscious thoughts.

These basic yet key assumptions made by the different approaches in psychology are the foundations from which any theory is based. These assumptions govern the ways in which each perspective approaches research and details of the beliefs and values that each perspective accentuates, it is because of this reason that assumptions can be highly contrasting or share similarities.

Behaviourists put great emphasis on environmental factors to explain behaviour, seeing humans as a ‘tabula rasa’ or blank slates at birth. This major assumption that underpins the behaviourist ethos is the notion that the majority of all behaviour is learnt from the environment after birth, and so therefore aggressive or violent behaviour is not intrinsic but derived from what is learnt from the outside world. The psychodynamic approach however argues that ‘human motivation is based on biologically innate drives’ (Glassman 1979), and therefore provides an argument for the biological side of human behaviour. This nature – nurture debate runs right through the whole of psychology but is of particular prominence in the study of aggressive behaviour. All psychological perspectives have differing views on this debate, with behaviourism providing the most compelling argument for learning and experience and biopsychology and the psychodynamic approach for innate, internal drives. As well as these internal drives, Freud also recognised that early traumatic experiences had an effect on adult personality and behaviour, and this became a major topic in his research and provides great sustenance to his theories.

This is a preview of the whole essay

Behaviourists also argued that only observable behaviour should be studied. This comes from the view that operational definitions should take precedence, that is, the ability to ‘ define concepts in terms of observable events’ (Glassman 1979). Behaviourists argued that subjective experience and interpretation of events did not prove accurate enough for ‘hard’ science, so this was rejected in favour of studying observable events that could be objectively measured and recorded. It is from this notion the law of parsimony is concerned, as ‘the mechanisms proposed by a theory should be as simple as possible’ (Gross 2001) the law of parsimony, or Occam’s razor, states that the simplest explanation is often the best, and was applied by behaviourists to all aspects of their work, which led to behaviourism often being referred to as S-R psychology, namely the study of stimulus and response, (Gross 2001). The psychodynamic approach did not agree with this reductionist view of human behaviour, and instead became a founder advocate of Interactionism. This approach shows that there are many aspects to a particular behaviour, in this case aggression, which interact together to provide a complete picture. This is linked to Freud’s theory of psychic determinism, which states that ‘all behaviour has a cause, and that cause is to be found in the mind’ (Glassman 1979). Due to this, Freud argued that aggressive behaviour was the resultant outcome of the interaction of the Id, Ego and SuperEgo; the three parts that major parts that make up the human personality.

The key assumptions provided by each approach enable advocates of that perspective to present adequate theories and concepts to explain the chosen area of research. Due to this, each approach has put forward several theories of aggression in relation to their given assumptions. These theories tend to focus on the origins of behaviour, and due to this, generally see aggression as either a learnt or innate behaviour. Behaviourism and the psychodynamic approach provide arguments for both sides of this debate. The behaviourist approach argues that aggression is a form of learnt behaviour, with personality being the sum of all past experiences; yet the psychodynamic approach argues that aggression stems from innate drives that must, at some point, be satisfied by behavioural expression. This debate between the approaches has great implications for society. This is due to the fact that identifying the origins of aggressive or violent behaviour would also lead psychologists to developing strategies that could reduce or limit at least some forms of aggression and violence.

The behaviourist approach has produced several key theories from which their stance on aggressive behaviour can be applied. One of these key theories is the concept of reinforcement and can be applied to this area in the theory of instrumental aggression. This states that aggressive or violent behaviour is maintained due to the expression being positively reinforced in some way. This is usually explained by the resultant outcome of aggressive behaviour. When one person is aggressive towards another, behaviourists argue that it is because a favourable outcome can be reached by the aggressor; for instance, winning an argument or obtaining an item they wish to possess. This favourable outcome is the positive reinforcer, encouraging the display of aggressive behaviour. As the favourable outcome is likely to be the most immediate response to the behaviour, any reprimand or punishment is not regarded as highly. The resulting consequence is that the aggressor learns to use this behaviour in order to achieve such favourable outcomes in the future. Behaviourists use this theory to explain a great deal of anti-social behaviour, with the positive reinforcer being the key to the reoccurring behaviour.

‘Aggression, like all other behaviour, is purely learnt on the basis of seeking one’s optimal advantage’

(Fromm 1974)

As this has been described as a form of learnt behaviour, the behaviourist approach also offers ways in which aggression of this form can be controlled and prevented. They argue that it is necessary to change the situation so that the behaviour is no longer rewarded but in fact punished to a much greater degree. This is obviously very problematic, as it is difficult to remove the benefit of the primary reinforcer, and as can be seen in today’s society, the judicial system does punish serious offenders but not to a degree where this behaviour is fully extinguished.

A second major theory put forward by the behaviourist approach is the frustration – aggression theory. This was suggested to combat the limitations of the instrumental aggression theory, whereby aggressive behaviour that has no positive reinforcer still exists, so the answer put forward by behaviourists was the idea of frustration in aggression. The theory was proposed by Dollard et al (1939) and defines frustration as ‘any interference with a person’s goal directed behaviour’ (Phares 1991). This theory originally stated that frustration was the sole cause of aggression and was put forward as an attempt to integrate some of Freud’s theories into behaviourist works. However, major criticisms of this theory became apparent. It was shown that different people react to frustrating situations in different ways, such as depression, regression and lethargy, not just aggression as the theory had stated (Seligman 1975). Due to this, Berkowitz (1966) developed the theory further. He proposed the aggressive – cue theory, stating that ‘frustration produces anger, rather than aggression’ (Gross 2001) and certain environmental cues were required to convert this anger into aggression. These cues are generally subject to the aggressor’s own views and require them to associate environmental stimuli with aggressive behaviour.

By combining these two theories, the behaviourist approach provided an adequate base from which they could explain most forms of aggressive behaviour. The two concepts do provide explanations for two major areas within aggression and also provide a compelling argument for the notion of learnt aggressive behaviour. This stance also provides direct opposition for the biological and psychodynamic views of aggression being an innate drive and is therefore ‘an unavoidable reality of human life’ (Glassman 1979).

In view of this, the psychodynamic approach fields theories that emphasise ‘innate aggressive urges that constantly seek expression and are a fundamental part of human life’ (Phares 1991). This can be seen in Freud’s work on drives or instincts that shape the pattern of our behaviour. Freud identified two basic drives, that of sexuality and that of aggression. These were labelled as Eros, after the Greek god of love, and thantos the Greek representation of death. Freud argued that ‘every living creature was in a sense instinctively driven towards death, since death is the state in which the organism has totally rid itself of tension’ (Storr 1968). Thus, thantos or a death instinct is the inborn desire for self-destruction, which ‘is directed outwards towards others in order to satisfy this need’ (Malim and Birch 1998). This theory has come under a great deal of criticism, Phares (1991) argues that ‘modern psychologists tend to pay scant piratical attention to the death instinct, not finding the concept useful in their day-to-day encounters with patients. Freud began to recognise the shortcomings of this original theory and set about developing an all-encompassing concept. This came in the form of Freud’s theory on the mind. In this, he argued that the mind could be divided into three main components, the Id, Ego and SuperEgo. The id can be seen as the most primitive part of the personality, being in isolation from the external world and therefore can be seen as the true psychic reality. The id operates on the pleasure principal, whereby it seeks to gain gratification of all our needs, and is ‘the source of all our basic drives’ (Glassman 1979). The id is in particular connection with instinctual urges, namely sexual and aggression, and is the generator for our behaviour. The ego, operates on the reality principle in that ‘it defers gratification of instinctual urges until a suitable object or method are found’ (Phares 1991). Its main objective is to satisfy the id, but can only gratify this when it is deemed socially acceptable. The superego operates on the moral principal, in that is represents our moral self. Freud linked this three dimensional view of personality and behaviour to aggression. He argued that the ego and superego constantly opposed the needs of the id, which result in ‘creating conflict within the psyche’ (Glassman 1979). From this conflict came another key theory on aggression from the psychodynamic approach, this was the role of displacement. The displacement theory stated that in order to relinquish the needs of the id and to satisfy the impulses of a death instinct, aggressive urges could be displaced onto an inanimate object, for example venting aggression by a hard game of rugby. Alternatively, by releasing aggression through sublimation, in a socially acceptable activity such as a humour, arts or craft, sexual or aggressive energy can be expressed and gratified without the harmful effects of aggression itself. Both these defence mechanisms proposed by Freud advocate the use of the catharsis. This is the symbolic release of aggressive or sexual urges by expressing these formerly repressed feelings indirectly. This process of catharsis is both used by the psychodynamic and behaviourist approach, Freud’s defence mechanisms have catharsis undertones while Dollard’s frustration – aggression hypothesise also suggested the release of energy in socially acceptable ways.

In conclusion, the psychodynamic and the behaviourist approach would appear to be particularly contrasting. Due to their stance on innate or learnt behaviour acquisition, their relative assumptions, theories and concepts have all been in direct opposition to one another. The psychodynamic approach argues that behaviour is innate and thus biologically determined. Due to this, their theories emphasise a hereditary normality that is intrinsic to all, this has repercussions on views to controlling aggression. Since this behaviour is instinctive, it cannot be resolved but merely exercised in ‘safe’, socially acceptable ways. Behaviourists however, provide the counter argument for this dispute, stating that all behaviour is learnt, and thus a product of the environment. If this really is the case, then no amount of catharsis will solve the problem, but instead amplify it by teaching ways of aggression of violence (Glassman 1979). Despite the contrasting views, both perspectives do provide plausible explanations for aggression and violence and therefore contribute to the overall understanding of this behaviour. However, they are not without their shortcomings. The psychodynamic approaches reasoning behind aggression being innate can be questioned and a lack of experimental research in this area also proves problematic. The behaviourist view also has it weaknesses, the frustration – aggression theory has been discounted by many psychologists due to its over use of frustration as the only reason behind aggression. With other perspectives providing various theories on the origins, cause and control of aggression, it is very difficult to say who has the definitive answer to this problem, and only more research into this area can possibly provide that answer.

Word Count: 2098

Bibliography

Berkowitz, L. & Green, R.G. (1966) Film violence and the cue properties of available targets.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. -: -

Dollard, J. Doob, L.W. Mowrer, O.H. & Sears, R.R (1939) Frustration and Aggression. New

Haven, CT: Harvard University Press

Fromm, E. (1974) The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness. Penguin Books: Reading
Glassman, W. (1979) Approaches to Psychology. Open University Press: Buckingham
Gross, R. (2001) Psychology – The Science of Mind and Behaviour. Greengate Publishing:

Kent

Malim, T. Birch, A. (1998) Introductory Psychology. Palgrave: Hampshire
Phares, E. (1991) Introduction to Personality. Harper Collins: New York
Seligman, M.E.P. (1975) Helplessness: On Depression, Development and Death. San Francisco:

W. H. Freeman