The Situational Causes Of Aggression: Theories And Evidence

What extent does situational causes aggression? Include theories and evidence from research studies to support your argument

Situational Effects on Aggression

Human aggression is a very basic and extremely complex social behaviour. It depends on different situation as if condition is unfavourable; some sort of guilt is there or due to frustration or anxieties.Aggression is a flexible behaviour for several of our elderly ancestors who reside in small society. Males utilized aggression to food, protection, access to females, and other resources. Females used aggression to protect their prosperity and gain funds for them. Children also deal with emotional as well as cognition effect.However; aggression is much more complicated in terms of both biological and psychological processes. It is human disaster unsurpassed in most extraordinary forms (Watson, Tay & Brien, 2004).

Situational Effects on Aggression:

• Immediate situations can encourage or prevent it.
• Frustration, excitement and the elements can affect it (Principato, 2018).

Situational factors-

• Aggressive Cues: Various aggressive cues have been found to interrelate with provocation to increase behavioural reactions, as well as intervening factors such as anger and availability of aggressive cognitions. Other factors that increase aggression, for instance exposure to vicious TV, computer games, or movies, additionally seem to do so by cognitive effect (Huesmann & Bushman, 2009).
• Provocation: Provocation is a situation or an activity that potentially instigates an aggressive reaction from the casualty. It might be conceptualized either as violation, in which the individual is physically assaulted, verbally offended, or threatened in which the individual is prevented from accomplishing a goal. Verbal or physical provocation is one of the major causes of aggression. In this, individual have a tendency to respond with slightly higher level of aggression that they get from others (Benjamin, 2016).
• Frustration: It can be defined by obstruction in goal attainment. Many provocations can be viewed as a sort of frustration in which an individual has been recognized as responsible for the inability to achieve the goal. It can provoke aggression when the basis of frustration is unjustified or unlawful.

Frustration-Aggression Theory:

This theory is developed from the effort of Dollard et al. It hypothesized that frustration was a vital antecedent of aggression, and that aggression was an unavoidable consequence of frustration. According to Miller and Berkowitz, whether or not delivers a forceful reaction depends upon several elements such as potential for discipline of aggressive behavioural reactions. It is a conceivable response to frustration, enhanced by aggressive signs.

This actually encourages a number of distinctive tendencies such as a tendency to escape or to discover a way around the obstacle to attainment of goal. A predisposition that eventually dominates is one of the most successful theories in reducing frustration (Golsharifi, 2015).

Extinction Transfer Theory:

According to Zillmann, this theory suggests that psychological excitement dissipates gradually. This theory proposes that arousal from one situation can be transferred to another situation. If two arousing events are isolated by a short measure of time, arousal from the first event might be misattributed to the second event. It also suggests that anger might be continued over a long time if an individual has deliberately attributed or uplifted arousal to anger

Social Learning Theory:

According to Bandura this theory of aggression, states that aggressive behaviour can be learned either by direct experience or seeing someone else, behave aggressively, and by following that individual’s behaviour. Aggression can be maintained if it is positively reinforced; the response is supported and may be used against it. Reinforcement in one situation can also intensify the likelihood in other situations. It clarifies the acquisition of aggressive behaviour, by means of observational learning processes, and gives a suitable set of ideas for understanding and portraying the convictions and expectations that guide social conduct (Awang, Bidin, Omar & Latif, 2018).

Social Interaction Theory:

According to Felson this theory, illuminate aggressive behaviour as social influence behaviour i.e., an actor utilizes forcible activities to deliver some changes in the target’s behaviour. An actor acquire something of value (for e.g. money, administration, products, security) to utilize coercive actions. The actor is a decision-maker whose decisions are coordinated by the costs, expected rewards and likelihoods of obtaining diverse outcomes.

It provides an excellent way to comprehend recent findings that is frequently the result of threats to high confidence

Cognitive Neoassociation Model:

Berkowitz proposes this model in 1993 which is planned to be a both a general theory of feeling and a clarification of aggressive behaviour. This model suggests that at whatever point an aversive stimulus is experienced, the individual naturally encounters negative effect. This negative influence will trigger an assortment of lower order associations and escape related inclinations. These inclinations include aggression and escape related physiological responses, memories and thoughts.

Theories of Aggression

In the event that aggression related inclinations are robust, the individual will encounter rudimentary anger with respect of conscious and preconscious responsiveness of these reactions. Thus, if escape related tendencies are powerful, preconscious and conscious awareness with these responses will lead to rudimentary fear experience. Fundamentally, it is not the familiarity of fear or anger that leads to various escape related reactions or aggression, but instead it produce outrage (Goldstein, 2012).

Depending upon the conditions, the individual may participate in higher order cognitive processing with respect to outcomes of different courses of action, the seriousness of the stimulus and the degree to which it is intentionally induced. Berkowitz highlights that these higher order perceptions are not essential for aggression to occur. An individual can become aggressive without fascinating in higher order cognitive processing. As such, aggressive behaviour does not need a deliberative choice. In many instances, people may take part in aggressive behaviour with no attention to why they are aggressing. This model is especially suited to clarify hostile aggression; however, a similar spreading and priming activation processes are also relevant to

According to Anderson and Bushman, numerous input variables can influence the probability of aggressive behaviour. Some are individual difference factors for e.g. attitude towards violence and trait hostility. Others are situational factors for e.g. other pain and weapons or the presence of guns. These inputs can influence aggressive behaviour through at least one of three routes: affect (expressive motor responses and hostile feelings), arousal (perceived, physiological), and cognition (aggressive contents and hostile thoughts) (Pen, 2016).

Factors crossing these routes can affect an individual’s immediate appraisal of the circumstance. This quick examination occurs automatically and incorporates an interpretation of the situation (for e.g. malicious expectations of target person and the potential for harm) and experience of affect and an interpretation (for e.g. outrage at target individual). Once a quick appraisal of the situation has been made, reappraisal may happen. Reappraisal is a conscious, effortful and an attentive process in which the individual considers additional information concerning the circumstance, alternative social reactions to the situation, practicality of the various alternatives, and results of carrying out the various alternative social reactions. Since reappraisal is a rigorous procedure, it is attempted just when the individual has adequate cognitive resources accessible. At the last stage in the model, the individual settles on a decision to aggress or not to aggress (Bushman, Anderson & Allen, 2018).

This general model has four advantages over smaller area speculations. Firstly, it is more economical than the set of existing normal speculations. Secondly, it better clarifies aggressive acts that depend on multiple intentions, for e.g. both influence based and hostility aggression. Thirdly, it will help in advancement of more comprehensive mediations designed to treat who are constantly aggressive (Anderson & Bushman, 2018). GAM draws intensely on recent work on the utilization of learning structures and improvement for decision-making, perception, action, and interpretation.

In society, you will discover some individual more aggressive as compared to others, with the levels varying in various social situations. Some situations provoke aggression in individuals significantly more routinely, than others do. However, such situations do not give rise to a similar level of aggressive behaviour in each individual.  There are two main theories that are critically evaluated i.e. Social learning theory and Frustration-Aggression theory.

Aggression Models

The Social Learning theory of Bandura indicates the significance of modelling and observing the state of mind, behaviour and emotional responses of others. This theory recommends that for an individual to learn practices, which can only happen through direct experience. The author argued that people, most probably children, learn aggressive reactions from noticing others in various social influences, i.e. role models in their environment. Siegel recommended that these reinforcements could be increased financial rewards, an ascent in self-esteem or accepting recognition from other people assist this. Skinner suggested that learning occurs through reinforcement, for e.g. an individual accomplishing what they want through aggressive behaviour (Nydegger, 2018).

Frustration-Aggression theory does not generally prompt aggression, especially when we deliberately suppress it on the grounds that it is not right or fear of social consequences, for e.g. feedback from others, losing the friendship. Subsequently, it often displaces aggression into other action, such as driving fast, sports etc. Zillmann argued that frustration is not an adequate, but a necessary state for aggression and hostility. Since this theory decline to stimulate different mechanisms for the decrease of such dissatisfaction and instigation that drive the life for an uncertain period, until the point when forceful and hostile acts are performed (Mummendey, 2012).

Conclusion:

In some ways, people are far more aggressive than other creatures depending upon the various situations. All theories or models of aggression recommend that it is an important part of human behaviour and experience. This relates to whether aggression is viewed as an adaptive drive or as a versatile intuition that can facilitate survival of a person or social group. There are certain threatening and provocative situations where many people will probably respond aggressively. It does not generally reflect a hidden pathology and in few circumstances, violent acts can be remunerated by positive societal recognition.

Consequently, other individual are likely to respond differently to people engaging in similar kinds of behaviour, contingent on their perceived level of ability. Therefore, the ideal way to reduce aggression is to dismiss revenge and striking back and to embrace love and forgiveness.

References:

Allen, J., Anderson, C. & Bushman, B. (2018) The General Aggression Model. Current opinion in psychology, 19, 75-80

Anderson, C. A. & Bushman, B. J. (2018). Media Violence and the General Aggression Model. Journal of Social Issues, 74(2), 386-413

Anderson, C., & Bushman, B. (2002) Human Aggression. Department of Psychology, 5, 27-51

Benjamin, AJ. (2016) Aggression. Retrieved from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264084403_Aggression#pf6

Brien, S., Tay, R. & Watson, B. (2004).Situational factors contributing to the expression of aggression on the roads. IATSS Research, 28(1), 101-107

Bushman, B. & Huesmann, R. (2009) Aggression. Retrieved from: https://www.rcgd.isr.umich.edu/aggr/articles/Huesmann/2010.Bushman&Huesmann.Aggression.HandbookSocial.pdf

Goldstein, A. (2012) The Ecology of Aggression. New York: Springer Science & Business Media.

Golsharifi, M. (2015) Is human aggression an instinct or something, which we learn. Retrieved from: https://www.projmed.com/2015/05/is-human-aggression-an-instinct-or-something-which-we-learn/

Krahé, B. (2013). The Social Psychology of Aggression (2nd Ed.). New York: Psychology Press.

Latif, S. A., Omar, M. S., Bidin, Y. H. & Awang, Z. (2018).  Analysing the effect of situational factor on recycling behaviour in determining the quality of life. Journal of Asian Behavioural Studies, 3(6), 11-17

Mummendey, A.(2012) Social Psychology of Aggression: From Individual Behaviour to Social Interaction. New York: Springer Science & Business Media.

Nydegger, R.  (2018) Violence, Aggression and Passive-Aggression in the Workplace Remedies. Retrieved from: https://www8.esc.edu/ESConline/Across_ESC/forumjournal.nsf/3cc42a422514347a8525671d0049f395/29b0b2d84f5b2ca7852569e5000b6de7?OpenDocument

Pen, M. (2016) Causes of Aggression: A Psychological Perspective. Retrieved from: https://owlcation.com/social-sciences/Causes-Of-Aggression-What-Causes-Aggression-A-Psychological-perspective

Principato, L. (2018). Factors and Behaviours Affecting Food Waste at Consumption Level: The Household Food Waste Journey Model. In Food Waste at Consumer Level, 15-34