Are humans naturally aggressive or do we learn to be aggressive?

by jazza282 (student)

Aggression is defined by Anderson and Huesman (2003) as “behaviour directed towards another individual carried out with the proximate (immediate) intent to cause harm” (as cited in Hogg and Vaughan, 2005, pg 446). But whilst psychologists find it relatively easy to agree on a definition for aggression, they find it significantly harder to agree on the causes of aggressive behaviour in humans. This essay will describe the main theories of aggression which are opposed in the age old nature vs. nature debate - the biological approach and social approach - and also consider a third approach which combines the two known as the bio-social approach to come to a conclusion as to whether human aggression is innate or learned.

In essence, the biological approach professes that humans are naturally aggressive due to a combination of neural and hormonal mechanisms in the brain, innate instincts and evolutionary characteristics. Both the evolutionary and psychodynamic approach shares this belief, that aggression is innate and instinctive. Freud (1920), the father of the psychodynamic approach, wrote “the tendency of aggression is an innate, independent, instinctual disposition in man...” (p102). He described a ‘death instinct’, Thanatos, which according to Hogg and Vaughan (2005) “is initially directed at self-destruction, but later in development it becomes redirected at others” (p448). According to this theory Thanatos energy builds up and, to prevent self-destruction, becomes displaced towards others in aggressive acts.

There has been a criticism of Freud’s ‘death instinct’ theory however. Despite coming up with the theory, Freud did not actually run any experiments on subjects or produce any empirical evidence to back it up. According to Popper (1963) Freud’s theory was unfalsifiable and therefore pseudoscientific (as cited by Grunbaum, 1979, pg 131). It can be summed up in this quote by Chessick (1992) who says “Freud's concept of the ‘death instinct’ is probably his least generally accepted and most controversial psychoanalytic idea” (pg 6). Nevertheless it cannot be ignored that Freud’s theory was profound in the field of social psychology, especially at such an early stage of social psychology.

That aggression is instinctual is also the main belief of the ethological and evolutionary approaches; yet this interpretation relates such an instinct to a product of evolution. According to these interpretations (derived from Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution) aggression naturally occurs amongst species as it is advantageous and essential for preservation. Lorenz (1996) in his book On Aggression wrote “the aggression drive is a true, primarily species- preserving instinct...” (page 47). By acting aggressively it allows for “the most efficient use of available resources, such as sexual selection and mating, food and territory” (Hogg and Vaughan, 2005, pg 449). As a result there would be a greater availability of resources for the more aggressive animals and, through the process of evolution, the weaker animals would be eliminated leaving a stronger, healthier population to reproduce.

However, Lehrman (1953) asserted that “the gene/environment dichotomy upon which Lorenz’s notion of innateness is defined is false” (as cited by Ariew, 1996, pg 20). He believed no biological trait or behavioural capacity develops independently of environmental factors and that to say that is the case is reductionist. Also, the majority of the research has focused on animal behaviour; the majority of Lorenz’s theories were formulated from the study of animals. Therefore this raises the question as to whether we can test these theories in humans. And, as Clare (1969) says “[Lorenz] failed to take account of other studies which ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

Finally it is thought that the neurotransmitter serotonin plays a significant role in aggression. Cardwell and Flanagan wrote (2009) “Serotonin is thought to reduce aggression by inhibiting responses to emotional stimuli that might otherwise lead to an aggressive response” (pg 66). Similarly, the male hormone testosterone is thought to influence aggression from an early age. An issue with this particular approach however is that whilst the link between biological mechanisms and aggression well established, this is only the case for animal studies - the link between hormones and aggression in humans is less well established. Some studies, for example, have found that it is not testosterone level that is the best predictor of aggression, but that obesity and lower levels of "good" cholesterol tend to be the best predictors of aggressive behaviour (DeNoon, 2003). Biological theories also consider a genetic basis of aggression for “it has been fairly well established that aggression and antisocial behaviour run in families” (Miles and Karey, 2007, pg 207). Yet, whilst numerous twin and adoption studies have proven a link between genetics and aggression, other studies do not report any such link and it is still far from conclusive.

On the contrary, the social approach does not attribute aggression to internal, biological mechanisms but rather as result of interactions with others in the social environment. He believed that the individual and the social environment were linked by reciprocal determinism (one process relies on the other). To demonstrate this belief Bandura formulated the Social Learning Theory. According to Bandura (1978) “People are not born with preformed repertoires of aggressive behaviour; they must learn them” (pg 13). The main principle that underlies this interpretation is that children learn aggressive behaviour indirectly through observation of others with whom they identify. They learn first, through observation, aggressive behaviours and then through vicarious leaning they learn whether such behaviours are acceptable and ‘worth it’. According to the Social Learning Theory, if the aggressive behaviour of a model is successful and produces social and material rewards, a child will identify with the aggressor and is more likely to reproduce that behaviour whereas if the models behaviour fails to bring about rewards or the model is punished, identification with the model will not occur and the actions will not be copied (Bandura, 1963, pg 606).

This particular theory is the most well documented and supported theory. Bandura himself ran numerous experiments; most famously his ‘Bobo Doll’ studies in the 60’s, in which his theory was affirmed. As a result it has been generally accepted, however he was criticised by Bandura and Walters (1963) who pointed out “Bandura...tells us that children acquire aggressive responses as a result of watching others, but does not tell us much about why a child would be motivated to perform the same behaviour...” (as cited in Cardwell and Flanagan, 2009, pg 61). Nonetheless “this work had a considerable impact on the acceptance of social factors... [and] it had a long-term wider effect on wider thinking about the origins of aggression” (Hogg and Vaughan, 2005, pg 445). This theory also has positive implications in that if aggression is a learned process, then we should be able to ‘unlearn’ it and develop ways in which aggression in individuals could be reduced.

A final approach to aggression is one that considers both biological and social factors equally. Known as the bio-social approach, it believes that “we should conceptualize human behaviour... as the product of a complex interplay of bio-genetical and environmental factors” (Van Den Berghe, 1974, pg 778). The frustration-aggression hypothesis is based on this principle. It states that “Frustration produces instigations to a number of different types of response, one of which is instigation to some form of aggression” (Miller et al, 1941, pg 338). According to this interpretation frustration builds internally due to high levels of arousal, yet this frustration will only result in aggressive behaviour if a person is provoked by a cue in the environment. As with the diathesis-stress model in psychopathology, the bio-social approach to aggression believes that genes may generally predispose an individual to aggressive behaviours however it is as a result of interactions with others in our social environment that actually causes these behaviours to emerge.

Although Berkowitz (1989) points out that, “Frustrations are not a very common or important antecedent of aggression” (pg 60) the biosocial approach in general appears to me to be the most reasonable approach to explaining aggression as, unlike the biological and social approaches, it does not, in a reductionist way, rule out one half of the debate but rather believes that both nature and nurture are equally important; this essay has shown that aggressive behaviours can be generated from both internal and external causes. I believe it is not possible therefore to examine the problem from just one angle, but rather one must consider psychodynamic, evolutionary, chemical, environmental, social and biosocial factors to come to a full understanding of whether humans are naturally aggressive or whether it is learned. As Rosenzweig (1986) says as of yet “there is no consensus on whether aggression in innate or learned” (pg 75) and, as this essay has shown, there are strengths and weaknesses found for each approach and so to conclude, aggression should be considered as a result of the interaction of the above factors and further research is needed to give a more conclusive answer to the question ‘are humans naturally aggressive or do we learn to be aggressive?’

References

Ariew, A.(1996) Innateness and Canalization.Philosophy of Science. (63) 19-26 http://www.jstor.org/stable/188507

Lehrman (1953)

Bandura, A. (1978) Social Learning Theory of Aggression. Journal of Communication. 28 (3) 12-29 DOI: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.1978.tb01621.x

Bandura, A.,Ross,D., Ross, A D. (1963) Vicarious Reinforcement and Imitative Learning. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology.67 (6) 601-607 http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/abn/67/6/601.pdf

Berkowitz, L. (1989) Roots of aggression: A re-examination of the frustration-aggression hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin. 106(1)59-73. DOI:

Cardwell, M., Flanagan, C., (2009) Psychology A2: The Complete Companion (2nd ed.) Oxford. Oxford University Press

Walters (1963)

Chessick, D R. (2002). Psychoanalytic Peregrinations II: Psychoanalysis as Science and Art. Journal of the American Academy of Psychoanalysis: 30 (2) 259-276.

Clare, A W. (1969) Is Aggression Instinctive? Konrad Lorenz’s Theories Reassessed. Studies: An Irish Quarterly Review.58 (230)153-156 http://www.jstor.org/stable/30088674

DeNoon, Daniel. (2003, November 11) Don't Blame Testosterone for Aggression: Angry, Hostile Men Don't Have Extra Sex Hormone. WebMD Medical News.

Freud, S.,Todd, D.,Richter, G C., (2011). Beyond The Pleasure Principle. London: Broadview Press

Grunbaum, A. (1979) Is Freudian Psychoanalytic Theory Pseudo-Scientific by Karl Popper's Criterion of Demarcation? American Philosophical Quarterly.16 (2) 131-141.

Popper (1963)

Hogg, M A., Vaughan, G M. (2005) Social Psychology (4th ed.) Essex: Pearson Education Limited

Anderson and Huesman (2003)

Lorenz, K. (1996) On Aggression. London. Methuen & Co Ltd.

Miller, E N. Dollard, J., Miller, N E., Doob, L W., Mowrer, O. H., Sears, R R. (1941) The Frustration-Aggression Hypothesis. New Haven, CT, US: Yale University Press.

Miles, D R., Carey, G. (2007) Genetic and environmental architecture on human aggression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.72 (1)207-217. DOI:

Rosenzweig, S. (1986) Aggression: An Interdisciplinary Approach. Aggressive Behavior.12 (1) 73-75. DOI: 10.1002/1098-2337

Van Den Berghe, P L. (1974) Bringing Beasts Back In: Toward a Biosocial Theory of Aggression.

American Sociological Review. 39 (6) 777-788 http://www.jstor.org/stable/2094152 .