PSY3384 Aggression vvanbeek
TASK 1 – AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOR
HUMAN AGGRESSION
Source: Anderson & Bushman (2002)
Human aggression is any behavior directed toward another individual that is carried out with
the proximate intent to cause harm. The perpetrator must believe that the behavior will harm
the target, and the target is motivated to avoid the behavior. Violence is aggression that has
extreme harm as its goal. All violence is aggression, but many instances of aggression are not
violent.
Hostile aggression (affective, impulsive, reactive) is conceived as impulsive, thoughtless
(unplanned), driven by anger and occurring as a reaction to some perceived provocation.
Instrumental aggression (proactive) is conceived as a premediated means of obtaining some
goal other than harming the victim, and being proactive rather than reactive.
A distinction can be made between proximate and ultimate goals. The authors consider
intention to harm as a necessary feature of all aggression, but state that it is only necessary as
a proximate goal. Besides, the authors make a distinction between different types of
aggression at the level of the ultimate goal.
Thus, both robbery and physical assault are acts of aggression because both intent to
harm the victim at a proximate level. However, they typically differ in ultimate goals,
with robbery serving primarily profit-based goals and assault serving primarily harm-
based goals.
Proximate level (often harming the victim)
Goals of aggression
Ultimate level (typically different goals)
These definitions allow to discuss the commonalities in and distinctions between affective and
instrumental aggression, while including aggression that has mixed motives. The following
five main theories are domain specific theories of aggression.
Cognitive Neoassociation Theory
Negative affect produced by unpleasant experiences (e.g. frustrations, loud noises,
unpleasant odours) automatically stimulations various thoughts, memories, expressive motor
reactions and physiological responses associated with fight-flight tendencies. Furthermore,
cognitive neoassociation theory assumes that cues present during an aversive event become
associated with the event and the responses triggered by that event.
In cognitive neoassociation theory, aggressive thoughts, emotions and behavior tendencies are
linked together in memory. The figure shows a simplified associative network with aggression
concepts and a retaliation script.
1
,PSY3384 Aggression vvanbeek
Cognitive association theory also includes higher-order cognitive processes, such as
appraisal and attributions. If people are motivated to do so, they might think about how they
feel, make causal attributions for what led them to feel this way, and consider the
consequences of acting on their feelings. Such deliberate thought produces more clearly
differentiated feelings of anger or fear. This model is particularly suited to explain hostile
(reactive) aggression (but also other types).
Social learning theory
According to social learning theories, people acquire aggressive responses either by direct
experience or by observing others. It explains the acquisition of aggressive behaviors via
observational learning processes. Social learning theory is particularly useful in understanding
the acquisition of aggressive behaviors and in explaining instrumental (proactive)
aggression.
Script theory
Huesmann (1986) proposed that when children observe violence in the mass media, they learn
aggressive scripts. Scripts define situations and guide behavior; the person first selects a
script to represent the situation and then assumes a role in the script.
Scripts are sets of particularly well-rehearsed, highly associated concepts in memory, often
involving causal links, goals and action plans. When items are so strongly linked that they
form a script, they become a unitary concept in semantic memory. A frequently rehearsed
script gains accessibility strength in two ways; 1) multiple rehearsals create additional links to
other concepts in memory, thus increasing the number of paths by which it can be activated,
and 2) multiple rehearsals also increase the strength of the links themselves.
Thus, a child who has witnessed several thousand instances of using a gun to settle a
dispute on television is likely to have a very accessible script that has generalized
across many situations. In other words, the script becomes chronically accessible.
Figure 1 includes an example of a simple aggression script involving retaliation.
2
,PSY3384 Aggression vvanbeek
Excitation transfer theory
Excitation transfer theory notes that physiological arousal dissipates slowly. If two arousing
events are separated by a short amount of time, arousal from the first event may be
misattributed to the second event. If the second event is related to anger, than the additional
arousal should make the person even angrier. This suggests that anger may be extended over
long periods of time if a person has consciously attributed his or her heightened arousal to
anger.
Social interaction theory
Social interaction theory interprets aggressive behavior (coercive actions) as social
influence behavior, i.e. an actor uses coercive actions to produce some change in the target’s
behavior. Coercive actions can be used by an actor to obtain something of value, to extract
retributive justice for perceived wrongs, or to bring about desired social and self-identities
(e.g. toughness, competence). According to this theory, the actor is a decision-maker whose
choices are directed by the expected rewards, costs and probabilities of obtaining different
outcomes.
THE GENERAL AGGRESSION MODEL
The general aggression model (GAM) focuses on the ‘person in the situation’, called an
episode, consisting of one cycle of an ongoing social interaction. The figure presents a
simplified version of the main foci of the model. The three main foci concern (a) person and
situation inputs, (b) cognitive, affective and arousal routes through which these input
variables have their impact, and (c) outcomes of the underlying appraisal and decision
processes.
Inputs: personal factors
Person factors include all the characteristics a person brings to the situation, such as
personality traits, attitudes, and genetic predisposition. Stable person factors are those that
display consistency across time and/or situations. This consistency is largely the result of the
person’s consistent use of schemata, scripts and other knowledge structures. Together, person
factors comprise an individual’s preparedness to aggress.
3
, PSY3384 Aggression vvanbeek
Traits
Certain traits predispose individuals to high levels of aggression. Certain types of people who
frequently aggress against others do so in large part because of a susceptibility towards hostile
attribution, perception and expectation biases. Also a type of high self-esteem (and not low
self-esteem) produces high aggression. Specifically, individuals with inflated or unstable self-
esteem (narcissists) are prone to anger when their high self-image is threatened.
Sex
Research suggests that many of sex differences in aggression result from different
socialization experiences. Evolutionary explanations of key gender differences also have
received support. For example, males are more upset by sexual infidelity of their mates than
by emotional infidelity.
Beliefs
Many types of beliefs play a role in preparedness to aggress. Efficacy-related beliefs are
particularly important. Those who believe that they can successfully carry out a specific
aggressive act (self-efficacy) and that these acts will produce the desired outcomes (outcome
efficacy) are much more likely to select aggressive behavior.
Attitudes
Attitudes are general evaluations people hold about themselves, other people, objects and
issues. Positive attitudes towards violence in general also prepare individuals for aggression.
More specific positive attitudes about violence against specific groups (e.g. women) also
increase aggression against those people. Males prone to aggress against women are not
generally aggressive against all people in all situations.
Values
Values (beliefs what one should or ought to do) also play a role in aggression preparedness.
For many people, violence is a perfectly acceptable method of dealing with interpersonal
conflict. There is evidence that some youth gang violence results from similar codes of
honour and personal respect.
Inputs: situational factors
Situational factors include many important features of the situation, such as presence of a
provocation or an aggressive cue. Situational factors influence aggression by influencing
cognition, affect and arousal.
Aggressive cues
Aggressive cues are objects that prime aggression-related concepts in memory. For
example, the mere presence of guns increases the aggressive behavior of participants. Besides,
one study found that weapon pictures and words automatically prime aggressive thoughts.
Provocation
Perhaps the most important single cause of human aggression is interpersonal provocation,
which includes insults, slights, verbal aggression, physical aggression, interference with one’s
attempts to attain goals, and so on. Injustice is also related to workplace aggression.
4
TASK 1 – AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOR
HUMAN AGGRESSION
Source: Anderson & Bushman (2002)
Human aggression is any behavior directed toward another individual that is carried out with
the proximate intent to cause harm. The perpetrator must believe that the behavior will harm
the target, and the target is motivated to avoid the behavior. Violence is aggression that has
extreme harm as its goal. All violence is aggression, but many instances of aggression are not
violent.
Hostile aggression (affective, impulsive, reactive) is conceived as impulsive, thoughtless
(unplanned), driven by anger and occurring as a reaction to some perceived provocation.
Instrumental aggression (proactive) is conceived as a premediated means of obtaining some
goal other than harming the victim, and being proactive rather than reactive.
A distinction can be made between proximate and ultimate goals. The authors consider
intention to harm as a necessary feature of all aggression, but state that it is only necessary as
a proximate goal. Besides, the authors make a distinction between different types of
aggression at the level of the ultimate goal.
Thus, both robbery and physical assault are acts of aggression because both intent to
harm the victim at a proximate level. However, they typically differ in ultimate goals,
with robbery serving primarily profit-based goals and assault serving primarily harm-
based goals.
Proximate level (often harming the victim)
Goals of aggression
Ultimate level (typically different goals)
These definitions allow to discuss the commonalities in and distinctions between affective and
instrumental aggression, while including aggression that has mixed motives. The following
five main theories are domain specific theories of aggression.
Cognitive Neoassociation Theory
Negative affect produced by unpleasant experiences (e.g. frustrations, loud noises,
unpleasant odours) automatically stimulations various thoughts, memories, expressive motor
reactions and physiological responses associated with fight-flight tendencies. Furthermore,
cognitive neoassociation theory assumes that cues present during an aversive event become
associated with the event and the responses triggered by that event.
In cognitive neoassociation theory, aggressive thoughts, emotions and behavior tendencies are
linked together in memory. The figure shows a simplified associative network with aggression
concepts and a retaliation script.
1
,PSY3384 Aggression vvanbeek
Cognitive association theory also includes higher-order cognitive processes, such as
appraisal and attributions. If people are motivated to do so, they might think about how they
feel, make causal attributions for what led them to feel this way, and consider the
consequences of acting on their feelings. Such deliberate thought produces more clearly
differentiated feelings of anger or fear. This model is particularly suited to explain hostile
(reactive) aggression (but also other types).
Social learning theory
According to social learning theories, people acquire aggressive responses either by direct
experience or by observing others. It explains the acquisition of aggressive behaviors via
observational learning processes. Social learning theory is particularly useful in understanding
the acquisition of aggressive behaviors and in explaining instrumental (proactive)
aggression.
Script theory
Huesmann (1986) proposed that when children observe violence in the mass media, they learn
aggressive scripts. Scripts define situations and guide behavior; the person first selects a
script to represent the situation and then assumes a role in the script.
Scripts are sets of particularly well-rehearsed, highly associated concepts in memory, often
involving causal links, goals and action plans. When items are so strongly linked that they
form a script, they become a unitary concept in semantic memory. A frequently rehearsed
script gains accessibility strength in two ways; 1) multiple rehearsals create additional links to
other concepts in memory, thus increasing the number of paths by which it can be activated,
and 2) multiple rehearsals also increase the strength of the links themselves.
Thus, a child who has witnessed several thousand instances of using a gun to settle a
dispute on television is likely to have a very accessible script that has generalized
across many situations. In other words, the script becomes chronically accessible.
Figure 1 includes an example of a simple aggression script involving retaliation.
2
,PSY3384 Aggression vvanbeek
Excitation transfer theory
Excitation transfer theory notes that physiological arousal dissipates slowly. If two arousing
events are separated by a short amount of time, arousal from the first event may be
misattributed to the second event. If the second event is related to anger, than the additional
arousal should make the person even angrier. This suggests that anger may be extended over
long periods of time if a person has consciously attributed his or her heightened arousal to
anger.
Social interaction theory
Social interaction theory interprets aggressive behavior (coercive actions) as social
influence behavior, i.e. an actor uses coercive actions to produce some change in the target’s
behavior. Coercive actions can be used by an actor to obtain something of value, to extract
retributive justice for perceived wrongs, or to bring about desired social and self-identities
(e.g. toughness, competence). According to this theory, the actor is a decision-maker whose
choices are directed by the expected rewards, costs and probabilities of obtaining different
outcomes.
THE GENERAL AGGRESSION MODEL
The general aggression model (GAM) focuses on the ‘person in the situation’, called an
episode, consisting of one cycle of an ongoing social interaction. The figure presents a
simplified version of the main foci of the model. The three main foci concern (a) person and
situation inputs, (b) cognitive, affective and arousal routes through which these input
variables have their impact, and (c) outcomes of the underlying appraisal and decision
processes.
Inputs: personal factors
Person factors include all the characteristics a person brings to the situation, such as
personality traits, attitudes, and genetic predisposition. Stable person factors are those that
display consistency across time and/or situations. This consistency is largely the result of the
person’s consistent use of schemata, scripts and other knowledge structures. Together, person
factors comprise an individual’s preparedness to aggress.
3
, PSY3384 Aggression vvanbeek
Traits
Certain traits predispose individuals to high levels of aggression. Certain types of people who
frequently aggress against others do so in large part because of a susceptibility towards hostile
attribution, perception and expectation biases. Also a type of high self-esteem (and not low
self-esteem) produces high aggression. Specifically, individuals with inflated or unstable self-
esteem (narcissists) are prone to anger when their high self-image is threatened.
Sex
Research suggests that many of sex differences in aggression result from different
socialization experiences. Evolutionary explanations of key gender differences also have
received support. For example, males are more upset by sexual infidelity of their mates than
by emotional infidelity.
Beliefs
Many types of beliefs play a role in preparedness to aggress. Efficacy-related beliefs are
particularly important. Those who believe that they can successfully carry out a specific
aggressive act (self-efficacy) and that these acts will produce the desired outcomes (outcome
efficacy) are much more likely to select aggressive behavior.
Attitudes
Attitudes are general evaluations people hold about themselves, other people, objects and
issues. Positive attitudes towards violence in general also prepare individuals for aggression.
More specific positive attitudes about violence against specific groups (e.g. women) also
increase aggression against those people. Males prone to aggress against women are not
generally aggressive against all people in all situations.
Values
Values (beliefs what one should or ought to do) also play a role in aggression preparedness.
For many people, violence is a perfectly acceptable method of dealing with interpersonal
conflict. There is evidence that some youth gang violence results from similar codes of
honour and personal respect.
Inputs: situational factors
Situational factors include many important features of the situation, such as presence of a
provocation or an aggressive cue. Situational factors influence aggression by influencing
cognition, affect and arousal.
Aggressive cues
Aggressive cues are objects that prime aggression-related concepts in memory. For
example, the mere presence of guns increases the aggressive behavior of participants. Besides,
one study found that weapon pictures and words automatically prime aggressive thoughts.
Provocation
Perhaps the most important single cause of human aggression is interpersonal provocation,
which includes insults, slights, verbal aggression, physical aggression, interference with one’s
attempts to attain goals, and so on. Injustice is also related to workplace aggression.
4
