Comparing and contrasting the Social learning theory of aggression with the Frustration-Aggression theory of aggression.

Filip Čabart

In order to examine the two different approaches to aggression there is a clear necessity to define aggression as a term. Aggression is described as aversive behavior, usually directed onto a specific object. The two theories elaborate upon if aggression is or is not only a product of the surrounding environment or a product of the environment combined with the innate factors.

The social learning theory is the one stating that aggression is evoked only by the environment, and therefore that it is a learned behavior. The key process in adopting aggressive behavior is the process of modeling, where the observer perceives aggression, usually in a positive manner and then tries to imitate it. All is based on the basic concept of operant and classical conditioning, where the observer is passively reinforced by the consequences of behavior of the observed aggressor and then he would be more or less likely to imitate it, depending if the consequences of observed aggression were positive (reinforcement) or negative (discouragement).

To prove the theory, Bandura, Ross, and Ross (1961) conducted an experiment where young children (average age 52 months), were to see an aggressive model hit a bobo doll, and the children were then observed to imitate that behavior. Children who were exposed to the aggressive models had shown significantly higher levels of aggression then the control group. However this experiment has been criticized for not having a completely standardized procedure, for lacking ecological validity because it has been performed in a controlled laboratory environment, and for ethical reasons for invoking aggression into the young participants. Theoretically, the experiment had only proven the theory of modeling, and imitation of observed behavior, which could be however only a result of induced demanded characteristics, where participants thought they were expected to imitate the model they saw, the implications of reinforcement upon persistence of aggressive behavior were not considered.

The theory implies that if there would be no aggression to be observed then no aggression would be imitated and therefore there would be no aggression at all. This, unlike the frustration-aggression theory has reasonably realistic practical applications within society (eg. These arguments are often us in debate to oppose TV violence, that is thought to invoke aggression in children). However, it does not give any account for possible innate causes of aggression, and therefore faces problems when explaining, for example, high levels of aggression in an individual who has not observed any extraordinarily stimulating or reinforcing aggression himself, and thus he could not be imitating it. The explanation might lie, within the aggressor being reinforced for his own aggressive behavior in a greater way that is usual, however such assumptions are realistically unfalsifiable.

Frustration-aggression theory, unlike the social learning theory not only gives account for innate causes of aggression, but clearly states that aggression is evoked by an inner drive, that is innate, and is then released as a reaction to an external stimuli which is usually to be frustrating. This theory therefore combines the Freudian theory of aggression drive with the Behaviorist stimuli-response theory. The actual aggressive behavior therefore has two causes, the social/environmental and the non-social/innate cause.

The social factors could be any negative experiences that cause frustration, however there are other social factors that can invoke aggressive behavior: Overcrowding, the ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

The social factors could be any negative experiences that cause frustration, however there are other social factors that can invoke aggressive behavior: Overcrowding, the levels of aggression in people in crowded places were observed by McCain et al. (1980) who observed more aggressive behavior among prisoners who were in higher person-per-cell ratio, then with those in lower ratio. However this only provides an insight into the behavior of prisoners and is not necessarily applicable for the society, and could be well used even within the social learning theory to prove that those prisoners who were in more crowded environment, simply imitated what they saw and therefore the aggression level rose. The other factor is Deindividuation, where people are thought to become more aggressive when their individuality is in some way suppresses, i.e. when they are within a large group, crowd etc., when they are difficult to recognize due to their clothing, uniform, disguise etc. Zimbardo (1970) conducted an experiment where a subjects were to give an electric shock to a victim, the results had shown that a subject whose face was hidden by a hood tend to give as much as twice as higher shock then if face was exposed. This could give possible account for the inner drive of aggression, when people who had no apparent reason to harm the victim gave higher shock when their identity was covered and therefore they were freed from social norms and expectations that they should not cause harm to others. This is closely linked to the last factor which is the conformity to norms. Marsh (1978) studied aggression and norms within groups of football hooligans. His research supports the claim that aggression can be produced through conformity to norms of aggression that society and environment impose onto people. Within the group of football hooligans violence and aggression were expected by the group, however only to a certain extend (eg. Bleeding of the beaten opponent), exceeding this upper limit lead to exclusion from the group and such behavior was regarded as deviant. This seems as if aggressive behavior was elicited by a pattern of logical thought, however practically this takes place rather within the unconscious.

These factors are only to give an account of the social factors effecting behavior, there are however two other branches that consider the non-social approach to aggression. These are the physiological approach and the drive theory approach. The physiological consists of the Genetic causes theory, that claims that the responsibility for aggression lies on a ‘violent gene’. Johnson et al.(1972) conducted an experiment on rats to prove a ‘genetic timer’ for aggression, however whole of the theory can be criticized for being incomplete, reductionist and over simplistic. The genetic timer in rats could be hardly generalized to humans. Also the recent mapping of the human genome project, did not prove an existence of a separate ‘violent gene’. Biochemical causes , as a part of the physiological approach, claims that aggression (in males) is caused by the levels of testosterone or by hormonal changes (females during menstruation). However it is intricate to link these directly to execution of violent behavior, there might be numerous other effecting factors. The last of the physiological approaches is the neuropsychological causes theory. This theory links violent (aggressive) behavior with the temporal lobe and the limbic system within the brain. Bard (1928) and Moyer (1976) conducted experiments with the brain (‘sham rage’ with cats – Bard, predatory aggression – Moyer). This theory is like the genetic one criticized for reductionism, trying to reduce aggression to cause into few brain structures.

The Drive theory approaches consist of the Psychoanalytic (Freudian) and the Ethological approach. Freudian psychology regards aggression as an inner drive, that together with the sex drive rule the whole of human life. Human attempts to control and suppress aggression which then builds up in them may (and according to Freud) eventually will result in an uncontrollable outburst of violence. As whole of the psychoanalytic approach this has been criticized for not being provable in any rather ‘scientific’ way. The last of the non social factors is the ethological approach, that claims evolutionary reasons to be responsible for aggression. These are to result from animal instincts of competition for resources. Aggressive and threatening behavior could be very often observed on animals, Lorenz claims that it also inflicts itself in human society. The relation between human aggressive behavior and evolution is however as hard to prove as the Freudian perspective, where observation (or case study) is the only way of finding supportive evidence.

Unlike in the Social learning theory of aggression the frustration-Aggression theory proposes numerous implications for reducing and controlling aggression, each of which is linked with the specific factor. This as a whole provides much rational scheme for controlling aggression the social learning theory proposes. These include: greater living space to avoid overcrowding, increase individualization measures such as in ID cards, provide a long term tendency of decreasing violence as a new social norm, genetic therapy, chemical therapy, brain operations, catharsis to release aggressive tendencies, ritualized ways of releasing aggression. All of these are very solid and tangible implications that could be used (if the particular approach is concerned correct). The social learning theory only mentions very vague and unrealistic proposition, such as reduce observable violence, do not reinforce violent behavior. The only substantial proposition is reduction of TV violence. The major flaw in the social learning theory is thought to be the absence of account of the innate factors which are greatly emphasized within the frustration-aggression theory. The evidence stated with the numerous approaches to the non social factors is in my opinion sufficient to prove the involvement of inborn factors in aggressive behavior. The frustration-aggression theory, on the other hand, lacks the unity and consistency of the social learning approach. It is rather separated (mainly within the non-social factors) into numerous branches and different approaches. This does not necessarily mean to be demerit of the theory, however it gives it a fractionated appearance. The main difference in between the theories in means of implications for reducing aggression is that the frustration-aggression theory regards aggression is inevitable part of life an is looking for constructive ways to release it (very much Freudian catharsis) because the process of reducing frustration is unrealistic, but the social learning theory is looking for ways to avoid learning aggressive behavior. The frustration-aggression theory however faces the criticism that frustration does not always lead to aggressive behavior, and vice versa, that aggressive behavior does not necessarily have to be triggered by frustration. This could be countered by stating that the unobservable ‘mental aggression’ such as aggressive fantasy does not have to be physically manifested and therefore remains unobserved, and that frustration is very hard to define and even harder to determine whether or not it took place.

To fully answer whether there are innate factors leading to aggressive behavior or not, there is a need to rely on further, mainly physiological research, because this is the only area in which clear evidence for innate causes of aggression could be provided, and therefore the only area where there could be the main difference between the two theories clearly evaluated.