ADVERTISEMENTS:
In this article we will discuss about Aggression. After reading this article you will learn about: 1. Introduction to Aggression 2. Basis of Aggression 3. Forms 4. Development 5. Source 6. Experimental Studies on Aggression as a Reaction to Frustration 7. Utility 8. Prevention and Control.
Contents:
- Introduction to Aggression
- Basis of Aggression
- Forms of Aggression
- Development of Aggression
- Source of Aggression
- Experimental Studies on Aggression as a Reaction to Frustration
- Utility of Aggression
- Prevention and Control Aggression
1. Introduction to Aggression:
Violence and aggression are the most vital issues which modern society faces. Despite wide spread education, independence, freedom of thought and speech, freedom from deprivation, fulfilment of basic needs and wants, improvement in socio-economic conditions and style of living in many countries, aggression and violence are on the rise.
Moreover, the cold war between big and small nations, the violent conflicts between various nations on various social, economical, cultural, geographical and political issues are on the increase inspite of various world peace groups.
With the increase in atomic explosions and atomic power groups, the matter has further worsened and no one knows what will happen to human life next moment. The grave fear of succumbing to one’s aggressive impulses and starting atomic war is also on the rise.
All these ongoing circumstances have provided food for thought to psychologists, particularly social psychologists to find out why aggressive and hostile behaviour etc. are gradually increasing and how aggressiveness can be uprooted, prevented if not atleast reduced to save the mankind from violence and war.
Freud and many other psychopathologists and psychologists have considered aggression as a global instinctive, steam boiler like force. This is popularly known as the death instinct which according to Freud is basically inevitable for self preservation and reproduction.
Adler also considered ‘aggression’ as an instinct, but it is not same as the “Death instinct” of Freud. Aggression according to Adler is self protection and the affirmation of the self. Freud identified aggression with an urge to destroy, where as Adler views it as an urge to dominate and subdue.
McDougall (1908) has donated the phenomenon of aggression in the instinct of combat on the basis of the hypothesis first postulated by Freud, Miller, Dollard and others of the Yale group. He regards aggressive impulse as far from being injurious.
The Yale group views that aggression is always a consequence of frustration of some sort. Briefly, it is said to be the primary reaction to frustration. Miller and Dollard (1939) in their classic book “Frustration—Aggression” hold that it is a common assumption that aggression is always a consequence of frustration.
Further they add, although these reactions may be temporarily compressed, delayed, distinguished, displaced and otherwise defected from their immediate and logical goal, they are not destroyed. It is thus inevitable that aggression follows frustration. Sears, Hovland and Miller (1940) define aggressions an impulse to destroy, damage, torment, retaliate, blow up, humiliate, insult, threaten and intimidate.
New Comb (1943) further points out that frustration always induces motivation of some kind of aggression and if no aggression occurs it has been inhibited. But the view of the Yale group has been challenged by the later psychopathologists who have made modifications in the above view. They view that aggression is a consequence of frustration though it is not the only consequence.
Morion (1949) in “A note on the frustration—Aggression theories of Dollard and his associates, criticised the theory in the following lines.” The view of Miller, Dollard that frustration leads to some sort of aggression is equal to the fallacy which was popular 20 years back i.e. if you suppress sexual urges, a complex will set in and therefore people should let themselves go perhaps the frustration aggression is roughly equivalent in validity to this view of sex.
The term aggression is examined from a general stand point, has been used in a very broad sense by many to include all overt acts of hostility, attack, violence, assertion, intrusion, destruction etc. The covert acts of aggression includes sarcastic remarks, abuse, character assassination, scandal— mongering, mocking, taunting etc.
The second category may not physically affect anybody, causes considerable mental agony displeasure, inconvenience, anxiety and psychological pain.
Physical torture, violence, attack, destruction of property affect peace and prosperity of the society and groups of persons who live in the society and hence is of great concern for the social psychologists. But all aggressions are not negative in character. In certain forms they may also have social utility.
Symonds (1931) has attached four meanings to the term ‘Aggression’:
(1) Self assertiveness,
(2) To gain possession either of a person or an object,
(3) Hostility and attack or destruction either directly or indirectly,
(4) The act of control or sense of dominance.
Symonds holds…………… “aggression at the beginning of life is pleasurable and would always remain pleasurable were it not that we are taught otherwise.” Deutsh points out that aggression and hostility are inevitable concomitants of the process of growing up. It is required for survival, and for the good things of life.
Aggression may be overt or convert, external or internal, suppressed or transferred depending upon the nature of the frustrating situations, strength of barrier and intensity of needs.
In this context Miller and Dollard hold that sometimes aggression is directed at the frustrating agent, at other times it is transferred to some others who are quite innocent to be blamed. Some forms of aggression are vigorous and undisguised, others arc weak, subtle and round about.
2. Basis of Aggression:
That aggressive behaviour has psychological causes is well evident from observation, experience and studies. But the question whether aggression has a biological basis or it is instinctive has been a matter of debate since long. Survey of literature and existing studies in this area shows differences of opinion and divergent views.
Lorenz (1960) in his book “On Aggression” has viewed that man and other animals are instinctive killers and that the urge to fight builds up in them which impels them to seek actively an opportunity to fight. This view supports the biological basis of aggression.
Timbergen (1960) in his writing “On War and Peace in Animal and Man” has made a different view. He maintains that “Though it is difficult to believe that aggression is learned and that it is to an extent biologically determined, the correct view would be to look at aggression as a result of the interaction of both genetic and environment factors”. Montaigne (1968) on the other hand holds that the basic instinct in man and lower animals is not one of aggression but of affiliation and cooperation with others.
Some other investigators view that animals and human beings have greater ability to develop positive and healthy reactions to the stimulations of the environment. But stresses and strains of the environment make them aggressive.
Sometimes one reacts to aggressive stimulus with aggressive and hostile behaviour just to survive. When one attacks somebody, it is but natural that he has to retaliate for his safety, protection and survival. The retaliation is mostly made by human beings after the aggressive event has occurred, which suggests that this type of belated aggression is for protecting one self.
Hence it is more a learned behaviour than an instinctive response. Further studies on human aggressive behaviour is different cultures point out the fact that there are cultures in which retaliation may not occur at all, though in some other cultures the retaliation may come very quickly.
Studies of Mead and Benedict serve powerful evidence in support of this view. People belonging to the Arapesh tribe are calm and quiet, peace loving, cooperative and submissive. Life is easy for them to pass probably because their frustrations are less and whatever frustrations they have, they have learnt to handle them in non-aggressive ways.
The Mundugamer tribe, on the other hand, is over aggressive, hostile, fierce, war like and uncooperative because they have been frustrated in their basic need for food and love and they also are taught to handle their frustrations in an aggressive manner. Kluckhonn views that aggressiveness is a matter of depending upon cultural variation and the nature of free floating aggression depends upon this.
Day to day observations also show that different cultures seem to maintain personal distance between members when they interact with one another in face to face situation. A number of research evidence also indicate that when animals or people live under scarcity of space, food, water and other comforts, they indulge in aggressive behaviour.
Thus aggressiveness may be an outcome of excessive environmental pressure and may not have any instinctive or biological basis. Thus it would be erroneous to conclude that aggressive behaviour is totally innate, instinctive and therefore unavoidable.
Rather it can be held that human beings and animals are biologically predisposed to behave in a particular manner and there may be individual differences in their aggressiveness to the same situation. But the importance of environmental factors has also to be kept in mind in elevating the aggressive responses.
It has been seen in case of human beings that though aggression is the basic reaction to frustration, it is not the only one. There are also other reactions to frustration like withdrawal behaviour, regression, rationalization etc. Thus many of the reactions to frustration are strongly determined by culture.
Even how a frustrating situation is perceived, how it is tolerated is determined by culture. Culture not only teaches one how to react to a frustrating situation, but also what amount of aggression one has to show and when for instance, if an officer, feels extreme anger towards his superior officer, culture not only teaches him how much anger he will show, but also how he will deal with anger when a situation makes him angry.
All these points lead to the conclusion that even if the genetic and biological basis of aggression cannot be ruled out completely, it is a fact that aggressive reactions are greatly learned. Thus, aggression appears to be the outcome of the interaction between the hereditary and environmental factors, genetic and cultural factors.
Psychological Basis of Aggression:
Freud (1927) tried to explain human behaviour through conflicting and opposing forces. There are forces which keep us alive and there are also tendencies which lead us to death. These are known as life instinct and death instinct. In course of psychoanalytic treatment Freud (1920) came to know of the presence of two basic urges and instincts such as Eros and Thantos.
While the aim of the first instinct is to establish greater unities and pressure them, bind them, the aim of the second instinct is to undo connections and to destroy things. The final him of the destruction instinct is to reduce living things in an organic stage. That is why it is also called death instinct.
The death instinct is otherwise known as the instinct of aggression. Brown has in this connection remarked “Freud discovered that human beings were not only basically constructive, preservative and motivated by the life instinct, but that under some circumstances, man is hated as well as loved, destroyed as well as constructed, foredown as well as build up”.
The instinct of aggression is expressed in many overt behaviours. When aggression is turned inside, it is known as covert aggression. For example the case of suicide. When aggression is directed to external situation and persons, it is called overt aggression like murder. The instinct of aggression was not much developed by Freud in the initial stage.
But subsequently Freud and his associated worked on it and attempted to explain it in detail. Brown maintained that physiologically the death instinct represents the force which tends to destroy organic life and to lead organic matter back to the inorganic state.
Psychologically the death instinct gives rise to hostile and aggressive behaviour, to self and race destruction. The death instinct is also expressed in destructive and aggressive intellectual activity such as criticism, satire and taunts.
According to Freud, when we analysis the desire for love, we also find some desire for aggression. Thus a best loved friend becomes the bitterest enemy when both fall out. Freud and his students were of opinion that aggression develops as a reaction to frustration of basic urges experienced during early childhood.
According to Alexander, “Fear of the consequences of losing love because of jealousy gives rise to aggression”. Biologists objects to the death instinct advanced by Freud. They argue that life instinct motivates an organism to live and to do whatever is possible for the sake of living.
It is due to this that we are organisms. If we wish death, then how could we be called organism? Some other psychologists also go against the aggressive instinct advanced by Freud.
They say that the death instinct is a part of life instinct and hence it is not justified to introduce it as a separate instinct. Brown is of opinion that through the neutralization of constructive urges by destructive ones we are able to exist in this world.
Death occurs when the life instinct is not able to neutralize the death instinct. The aggressive urges are generally found in erotic behaviour. Sadistic murders are said to be perversions of erotic tendency. The principles of love and hatred is just like a pendulum. In this principle also some are less loved and some are less hated.
The extreme form of love and hatred has its danger as the pendulum swings. The constructive and destructive behaviour of personality are the outcome of life and death instincts respectively. Death instinct goes on building up until it is expressed overtly or covertly i.e. outwardly or inwardly in the form of aggression, self-destruction, the extreme form of self-destruction being suicide.
Freud and his followers did not believe aggression being completely uprooted. They however viewed that the intensity of aggression can be reduced by the promotion of positive emotional attachment among people with the help of substitute outlets, such as engagement in adventures works like sports mountaineering, swimming, learning Karte, Judo etc.
Freud and his followers view that aggression is an instinct and innate drive has been rejected by later psychologists like Miller, Dollard and many others. They have proposed that it is a frustration instigated drive.
Freuds theory of basic urges was so much bitter and sometimes unfair criticism as has psychoanalysis. The frustration—aggression hypothesis proposed by Miller—Dollard and others (1939) is a significant contribution in this direction. This hypothesis states that aggression is always a consequence of frustration.
Miller applied this hypothesis to the Negroes of USA to study their reaction as a consequence to the frustration imposed by the white group. Inspite of the limitations and plenty of criticism that this hypothesis had to face, it is the starting point of all research in the area of frustration and its probable reactions.
Frustration—Aggression Hypothesis postulates the following:
(1) A thwarting of a person’s efforts to reach a goal induces an aggressive drive in him which in turn triggers off a behaviour to injure or destroy the person or object which has caused the frustration.
(2) The expression of aggression reduces the desire for it.
The key aspect of the hypothesis is that aggression is the major reaction to frustration, though other responses like regression, withdrawal, reaction formation, rationalization etc. may occur. According to this hypothesis aggression is not inborn, but it is a learned behaviour.
Since frustration is more or less universally found to some extent in every society, it may be considered as a drive. Marke and Ervin (1970) further view that even though the presence of some genetic or biological factors, in aggression cannot be ruled out in the case of human beings, these mechanisms are under the cognitive control of man.
A person with a particular brain injury may react aggressively to situations which may not give rise to any aggressive response in case of a normal person. This indicates that a normal person has cognitive control capacity while a brain injured persons lacks this.
In normal persons the frequency with which the aggressive behaviour is expressed, the forms it takes and the situations in which it is displayed are determined greatly by learning and socio-cultural factors.
Subsequent research works in the area of frustration and aggression have given the impression that the Frustration—Aggression Hypothesis should be modified. Bandura, Berkowitz and others, the proponents of social learning theory view that an arousal which results from frustration does not necessarily lead to aggression, but only creates a condition for a readiness to cope with a threatening situation.
It can elicit different kinds of responses, depending upon the kinds of responses an individual has learned to cope with the frustrating situations in an earlier period of his life. Thus, he may become aggressive or may withdraw from the situation, may remain silent or he may seek the help of others.
That response which has been most successful in the past in relieving his frustration will be repeated. Bandura (1965) has demonstrated that aggressive responses can be learned by reinforcement or by imitation or by modelling.
In a study on nursery school children it was observed that when an adult showed various forms of aggressive responses towards a large doll, the children showed similar aggressive responses through imitation.
Thereafter they were shown film versions of aggressive modelling using dolls and cartoons. Results shoed that the children who had observed life cartoon characters exhibited greater aggressive behaviour. It was also noticed from follow up studies that children remembered these aggressive reactions even after eight months.
It is an open fact that now-a- days the reason of crime and violence on the increase is TV and Cinema. The brutal murders, rapes, crimes and violence shown in the big and small screens have ample adverse effect on others. They learn to show such aggressive and violent behaviour by imitation.
3. Forms of Aggression:
Aggressive behaviour may manifest itself in different forms or types. Aggression also may be overt or covert suppressed or repressed because of restrictions and restrains imposed by the society and some other times it may be directed towards the self, Rosenzweig (1934) has put forward a substantial classification of different types of aggressive reaction to frustration.
(a) Extrapunitive:
In some reactions and responses aggression is directed to the external environment like blaming others and this is called “Extrapunitive”.
(b) Intrapunitive:
When the frustrated person turns his aggressive feelings towards self it is known as intrapunitive response, popularly calls “Self aggression”. Here the sufferer may simply blame himself for the frustration. The most dramatic form of self-aggression is suicide.
(c) Inpunitive:
It is the last type of aggressive reaction classified by Rosenzweig where the individual tries to avoid the blame altogether and attempts to switch over the problem. He may release his tension to some extent by reasoning and rationalizing. This classification of Rosenzweig covers more or less different types of aggression as a reaction to frustration.
Aggressive behaviour may also manifest itself in two basic forms: inter-personal and inter-group forms. Murder, attack riots, looting etc. are examples of inter-personal aggression. Wars among nations, conflicts among groups of people are examples of inter-group aggression.
There are also certain forms of aggression known as Institutionalized Aggression. This is a form of aggression which has the sanction of a group or society. Punishment given to the law breakers and criminals come under this category. This punishment becomes exemplary to the law breakers. It is awarded with the purpose to give a signal or warning to others not to be engaged in anti-social or criminal acts.
This types of institutionalized aggression is looked upon as an act of retaliation on the part of the society. Tear gassing or firing by the police during a mob situation or killing enemies in war, such aggressive behaviours are glorified and even they are rewarded because they are sanctioned by law.
Between the above two forms of aggression, one form, is sanctioned by the society and law, while the other has not only no sanction of the society, but hatred and punishment. Interpersonal violence is illegal and it is fit for punishment. Secondly inter-personal violence without having the social sanction and not being accepted by human values and traditions creates strong sense of guilt and anxiety in the aggression.
4. Development of Aggression:
It is said that there is something of aggression in birth cry. Crying is never considered as a positive and pleasant response. After birth when the new born cry because of cold or hot environment, because of hunger pangs, it indicates components of anger and fear. But before six months this cannot be clearly differentiated.
At the age of 8-9 months usually the child learns to show fear to strangers and at this age he starts becoming aware of various sources of threat and expresses his aggression in crying, in throwing things here and there, in pinching, in tearing and the like.
When they grow up and hear stories of violence, they also learn to imitate it. Gradually, when they mix with the environment and find that many of their needs are not fulfilled, they show signs of aggressive behaviour.
In a study by Ames (1966) on upper middle class children it was demonstrated that the fantasy theme of violence dominated the stories they told right from the age of two and continued to be so till they were five. Violence gradually increases with the increase of age and it is found that anger, as an emotion is experienced by the child next to fear which has the highest frequency.
The more frustrating situations the child experiences in his environment, the more is the scope for violence. The child also learns a lot of aggressive behaviour from his parents, relations, neighbours and peers. The more he is frustrated the more aggressive behaviour he shows. In order to control such aggression one has to expose the child less and less to frustrating situations.
5. Source of Aggression:
Like frustration, aggression may be the outcome of physical, social and psychological environment. Emotional insecurity engendered by loss of love and affection may lead to aggression. Children who have not been loved and cared for properly, who are left alone allowed to cry for long hours, not handled and fed properly are more likely to react to punishment by retaliatory aggressiveness.
When a child senses that he is an unwelcome addition to the family, when he gets inadequate breast milk, when he does not get adequate parenting, when he is neglected and lives in an environment which is cold and indifferent towards him, inevitably reacts with aggressiveness when he grows up.
His feelings of insecurity and emotional instability is endangered by subsequent frustrations, minor or major. According to Freud “The biological factors of helplessness bring into being the first situation of danger and create the need to be loved when the human being is destined never to renounce.
The first five years of life in the development of frustration and hence aggression has been emphasized by Freud. Thus Issacs (1936) says “Knowledge is lacking, understanding has not yet begun, but wants and wishes, fears and angers, love and hate are there from the very beginning”.
In the process of development, different scopes for aggression are imposed on the child because of enormous frustrating experiences, frustrations are imposed specially in the oral, anal and phallic stages by the process of feeding and elimination.
Cleaniless and toilet training is recognised as an important frustration in early childhood. Thus the first and basic source of aggression in the insecurity and biological helplessness during the childhood. Aggression also arises due to sibling zealousy.
On the contrary, if the child feels perfectly secured, he will show minimum aggression to frustrating encounters. An over indulgent and over protected child getting excessive love and shelter from the parents whose behaviour is not restricted or checked may show aggressive behaviour without inhibition.
Such a child fails to develop frustration tolerance and his aggressive reactions take violent form. Sometimes such a child becomes overtly aggressive as he wants to get punishment.
Inner feelings of unworthiness and failure may lead to anger and hostility. Aggression therefore occurs when the individual is dethroned from a dominant role with its accompanying frustration, insecurity and feelings of inferiority. And finally, a child may show aggressive behaviour because it is the only technique he has learnt to handle frustrating situations.
As indicated earlier another source of aggression is the culture and society in which the child grows. Studies of Mead and Benedict serve powerful evidence in support of this view. Some cultures are much more peaceful and do not appreciate at all any type of violence. Rather they reject it.
Several American thinkers and social scientists have raised the point that aggression and violence are dominant themes of American culture because they say, it’s short history is full of violent happenings. Several studies also indicate that violent and aggressive behaviour is typically the product of lower class culture.
Persons belonging to lower classes are more prone to authoritarian attitudes than those coming from higher classes.
In a famous study conducted by Snortum (1971) on subjects from poor, middle and high SES groups a specially constructed questionnaire was applied in which many hypothetical criminal situations of different degrees of seriousness were presented to the subjects and they were asked to indicate the punishment they would prescribe for each of them.
Results showed that by and large, the poor income groups tended to prescribe harsher punishment than the middle income and higher income groups which ultimately proved that the lower class tend to be more authoritarian in their outlook towards life. The study of Lipset (1969) further supports the above view.
He found that the lower and working class tend to prefer authoritarian rather than democratic modes of behaviour. Further, the socio-economic environment of the lower class to which a child is exposed is so harsh and impoverished that it is but natural for him to develop aggressiveness, intolerance, hostility and violence.
On the contrary, middle class people show less violence because their frustrating experiences are comparatively less and they show much more tolerant behaviour than the lower class people. The values and childhood training of middle class people teach them to condemn violence and aggressive behaviour in various ways.
The value of sobriety, decency courtsey and good interpersonal behaviour is emphasized by the middle class parents and middle class culture.
Due to such training on average middle class person is more likely to feel guilty about any act of aggression when it is committed or any thought to commit aggression.
Middle class people also deplore impulsive behaviour which may be a cause of aggression because of proper education and greater cognitive control on the contrary, the lower class people without proper educational opportunity and guidance lack human and social values and cognitive control. Impulsiveness is given greater importance by them.
Economic instability and poor environmental conditions are further causes of more violence of lower class people. Lower class people are always depressed, tensed and anxious for their financial constraints and poor economic conditions. They have to work hard and struggle for two meals a day.
So they are always on their nerves and become aggressive and violent with slightest provocation. There is also absence of discipline and self-control. The children of lower class people are very often subjected to physical punishment by their parents.
They are never explained, reasoned and convinced as to why they should not behave like this. The parents have no education, time and patience to do so. Thus the severe differences in the child rearing practices of the middle and lower class lead to differences in aggressive behaviour in their children.
That is why we normally find more violence and aggressiveness committed by the lower class people in the society. They are hardly taught by parents and neighbours to control their aggression and hostility and tolerate their frustration, which the middle class children are taught.
In a study conducted by Baxter, Learner and Miller college students from authoritarian and democratic families, were asked to learn certain tasks under rewarding, information giving and punishment conditions.
Findings indicated that students from the authoritarian background liked the instructors who punished them for the mistakes they made in learning their tasks. On the contrary, students coming from the democratic family background liked those instructors who helped them in explaining the task, pointed out their mistakes and rewarded their correct responses while learning.
Thus, it can be concluded that the authoritarian family structure in the lower class is likely to teach their children to use the same authoritarian methods in life and the consequence is reacting to every situation with greater friction and violence.
Aggression expresses itself in different degrees. When one shows hostility, it is a subdued form of aggression. When one does not take food for several days, it is a case of self-aggression. Suicide is an extreme form of self-aggression. When one suppresses his hostility and irritation, it is a case of suppressed aggression. Hostility is a State of tension which predisposes an individual to act aggressively.
Hostility may turn in to aggression, the moment it finds a scope for outlet. Social norms standards and laws set a limit to the degree of hostility one can show to another beyond which it is not allowed. One may express his displeasure to his subordinate who comes late to office.
This is permitted by social norms, but if one gives a slap on this count, his hostile behaviour will not be tolerated by society and accepted by law. Thus, most societies tolerate hostility up to a certain degree. The norm is limited. Hostile reactions are sublimated in different forms of adventures and athletics.
Hostility is also expressed very often in prejudice. Group prejudice is actually aggravated by feelings of hostility and dislikeness. Once a group develops prejudice towards another group, he is always in the readiness to show further aggression towards that out group.
The hostility and prejudiced behaviour towards the out group is usually learned during childhood when the child has not development the reasoning capacity to find out the difference between right and wrong.
Hostile and prejudiced behaviour towards the out group has also social sanctions. Prejudice aggravates aggressive and hostile behaviour, communal riots, mob behaviour, fight between two social groups, two nations or minority and majority groups are clearly due to prejudice.
The killing of Negroes in United States by the whites, the atrocities on scheduled tribes by the scheduled castes, the harassment of the high castes in India on the so called low castes like Brahmins and Thakurs, on Scheduled castes are examples of violence due to prejudice.
Findings of several studies indicate that highly authoritative, suspicious, sarcastic, bitter personalities are more prone to the strongly prejudiced and indulge in aggressive and violent behaviour against the members of the out groups.
6. Experimental Studies on Aggression as a Reaction to Frustration:
Tremendous difficulties are experienced while conducting experimental investigation on clinical concepts like frustration and aggression. Inspite of these difficulties experimental studies on frustration and aggression begun rigorously in between 1930-1940 by Rosenzweig (1934), Miller, Dollard and Doob (1939) Sears (1940) and others of the Yale University as well as by Watson, Milgram and many others.
Rosenzweig (1935) made his famous Picture Frustration test for evaluating a persons characteristics models of reactions in everyday situations of frustration. This study consists of 24 cartoons representing incidents of everyday life mostly of frustrating significance to each other.
The subjects are instructed to write down or speak out the reply made by the second person. Responses were divided in two different types of aggressive reactions such a extrapunitive, intrapunitive and impunitive.
As far as the direction of aggression was concerned extrapunitive responses were found to be most frequent in adults and children of various age groups where as intrapunitive responses were the least observed. Though the differences between the boys and girls were not significant, differences between various age groups were remarkable. Extrapunitive response became less and less as children grew older.
Miller and Dollard (1939) formulated the general principle of their famous frustration-aggression hypothesis which states that aggression is always a consequence of frustration. Miller applied this hypothesis to the Negroes of USA to study their reaction as a consequence of frustration imposed by the white group. This study is a starting point of all research in the area of frustration and aggression.
Sears and Sears (1939) conducted an experiment to examine the hypothesis that the strength of instigation to aggression varies directly with the amount of frustration.
They designed an experiment to utilize variations in the strength of a 5 months old baby’s hunger instigation as an independent variable. For three weeks continuously, the feeding of the child was systematically interrupted by withdrawal of the bottle from the mouth and he experienced sucking frustration.
As the child became more nearly satiated, the strength of frustration decreased and hence immediately aggressive responses became less and less. Two questionnaire studies conducted by Doob, Sears and Miller have added additional evidence in support of the above view.
The data indicated that the proportion of aggressive responses was greater as the strength of instigation became higher. Doob and Sears (1940) in a further study found that there is progressive increase in the amount of overt aggression as the instigation to aggression becomes stronger.
Sears, Hovland and Miller (1940) conducted a study on College students to establish techniques for measuring aggression. They would have to remain awake the whole night although they were given false promises for dinner, game and cards during the sleepless period.
To add to this misery they were even prohibited to smoke. So all these led to irritation and annoyance. Consequently they expressed aggression in terms of coldness, indifference, hostility, complaints and uncooperative behaviour. They were so much annoyed that they remarked “All psychologists are mad”.
Watson (1934) made a comparative study of the behaviour of 230 college students with insecured and frustrating childhood experiences and secured, happy childhood experiences. The two comparative groups showed significant difference in their aggressive behaviour, the frustrated group showing greater aggression than the secured group.
Dembo, Keister, Updegraff found that the frequency of aggression was correlated with the degree to which the child can solve the problem. Those who could not solve showed more aggression and vice versa.
Good enough, Isanc, Green, Jersild and others have investigated aggressive behaviour in children as a consequence of frustration. Interference with the normal desire to go to sleep has produced a great variety of aggressive actions as Sears, Hovland and Miller have reported in their relevant literature.
Sears and Sears (1940) have further found that interference with eating has caused angry crying in young babies and an increase in snapping and biting behaviour in rats.
This author (1998) also found that interference with the eating of her six months old grandson in the middle of bottle feeding caused angry crying and physical displeasure like stamping both his legs repeatedly when the feeding bottle is taken away from his mouth or when the feeding bottle full of milk is shown to him but not put inside his mouth when he is extremely hungry.
Interestingly, it was further noticed that when the baby was kept in position for feeding, shown the feeding bottle, but putting the bottle inside his mouth was delayed, he cried more loudly and stamped both his legs vigorously, thus indicating greater annoyance.
Studies made by Doob and Sears (1939) Bellack, Rodrick and Kicberoff indicate that amount of aggression depends upon the strength of frustration as well as amount of interference.
A few studies have also been conducted on the displacement of aggression in support the hypothesis that strong tendency of inhibited aggression is to be displaced. Aggression towards father and brothers can be sublimated in politics as found by Laswell. Miller and Dollard, in an experiment made the rats to fight with each other.
After that a doll was kept instead of a rat and the rat started attacking the doll. Similarly, a frustrated person attacks the innocent on lookers or bystanders not connected with frustration. This happens more frequently when the real cause of frustration is unidentified.
When an employee is scolded by his boss in the office, he breaks the cups and plats at home or beats, scolds his wife unreasonable. This is a case of displacement of aggression. There are common example in our day to day life. In support of the above view, Hovland and Sears (1940) found that frustration was associated with low price of cotton in the South, but an innocent bystander, a Negro became the viction of attack.
Scape goating and cases of similar types show the displacement of aggression though the objects attacked may have nothing to do with the origin of frustration. Holmes (1972) conducted an experiment on aggression displacement and guilt with 60 male under-graduates.
The displacement of aggression has been demonstrated experimentally through some attitude studies. Males of 18-20 years age group while attending a summer camp were requested to indicate their attitude towards Mexicans and Japanese before and after situation involving frustration.
A comparison of responses in the two situations indicated that the subjects checked a smaller number of desirable traits after frustration than before. The Frustration—Aggression hypothesis was subsequently revised with the view that aggression is not the only reaction to frustration.
Mccleland and Apicella conducted a study on 28 subjects who were subjected to moderate and severe amount of frustration in the laboratory and demonstrated various types of aggressive responses, attacks, withdrawal and rationalization. Seward (1945) after conducting a series of studies on rats found that as age increased there was a drop in the number and intensity of aggressive behaviour.
There was evidence that aggression occurred due to conditional response. Hottenbuge (1951) made a study on “The effects of frustration on doll play” and found that children highly frustrated and punished at home were more aggressive in doll play and children kept only experimentally in the lab for doll play were less aggressive.
Livon and Mussen (1957) made a study on the relation of ego control to overt aggression and dependency. The study was designed to test the hypothesis that the individual differences in Ego control capacity are related to degree of inhibition of aggression and dependency behaviour. Results showed that aggressive impulses can be inhibited by ego control procedure.
In a further study on the relationship between overt and fantasy aggression as a function of maternal responses to aggression, Leser (1957) attempted to find out the effect of encouragement and discouragement on aggression. Results showed that maternal attitude atleast to some extent determines the relation between fantasy and overt aggression.
Some studies have also been conducted on sex differences in reactions to frustration. Rosenzweig (1969) studied the differences in reaction to frustration between young men and women. It was found that boys were more significantly aggressive and ego defensive than girls.
Rosenzweig and 3raun (1969) did another study on differences depending on sex in the reaction of adolscents to frustration. Male subjects were shown to be more aggressive than female subjects especially regarding competitiveness with the older generation.
The present author (1967) conducted a study on Sex differences in reaction to frustrating situations taking male and female college students as subjects for investigating the problem, a Frustration—Reaction schedule was constructed following the technique of Doob, Sears and Miller (1939).
The Frustration Reaction Schedule consisted of 10 different frustrating situations and 8 reaction patterns which is given below was administered on 110 male and 110 female college students.
Description of Situation:
1. You have heard that a friend has spread rumours against you which were unjustified and somewhat uncomplimentary.
2. You have left an article of yours in a repair shop which was urgently required by you. The repairman gave a particular time to take the repaired article and accordingly you went there for the delivery of the article in the fixed time. But the repair man informs you that he has not yet even started to work on it.
3. You have been insulted by your teacher in the College.
4. One of your intimate friends phones you at the last moment and breaks the appointment of going to picture without any adequate explanation for whom you were waiting so anxiously.
5. You have gone to a hotel to have your lunch. You have been waiting for sometimes for service and it is getting late. But the boy purposely disregards you and waits on a person who has come to the hotel after you.
6. Without asking for previous preparation, your teacher all on a sudden asks you to sit for an unexpected and difficult examination for which you are poorly prepared.
7. Your neighbours TV disturbs and constantly prevents you for falling asleep at night. When you complained, the neighbour refused to do anything about.
8. Every day you go to the Seminar for some urgent books and every time the Librarian asks you to come next day. But each time you go, the librarian refuses with the plea that the said book has not been returned.
9. You are an officer in a Department and apply for promotion which is your due. But you are denied and a promotion is given to a less qualified officer who has got pull and backing.
10. You have been waiting in the line to buy a ticket and catch the train. But someone tried to get ahead of you and by this time the train went away.
Possible Reactions:
1. You became very angry and began to scold him.
2. You became angry but remain silent.
3. You felt very uneasy.
4. You felt like crying.
5. You tried to adjust.
6. You blamed yourself.
7. You felt very sorry and tried to withdraw from the situation.
8. You thought out the matter properly and found it not worth minding at all.
The 10 situations are more or less similar frustration evoking situations and the various reactions are typical results indicated that male and female groups differed significantly on an overall basis in their reaction pattern to normal frustrating situations.
The female subjects in particular appeared to be regressive and liked withdrawal behaviour than male subjects where as males were found to be significantly more aggressive.
Among other types of reactions the frustrating situations, such as suppressed aggression, anxiety, adjustment, self-aggression and rationalization, the difference between the male and female group was not significant.
In a study on physical aggression as a function of frustration and physical attack, Taylor and Richard (1971) investigated the relationship between physical aggression, two types of frustrations and attack. They allowed twenty frustrated and twenty non-frustrated male under-graduates to compete in a task dealing with R.T. with opponents who tried to give them increasing amount of shock.
The intensities of aggression varied directly with intensity of physical attack. Neither one of the frustration manipulation significantly influenced shock setting behaviour.
Holmes conducted an experiment on Aggression Displacement and guilt with 60 male undergraduates to determine whether displaced aggression resulted in more guilt than directly expressed aggression and (b) Whether frustrated subjects displaced less aggression that they would express directly towards the source of frustration.
Thompson and Kolstoe (1974) made a study on physical aggression as a function of strength of frustration and instrumentality of aggression.
Direct physical aggression was related to three variables through a modification of the A.FI. Buss Aggression machine and Procedure (1961). Aggression was either instrumental or non-instrumental in overcoming the frustration and frustration was arbitrary and non-arbitrary. Results indicated that more aggression occurred under the instrumental condition than under the non-instrumental condition.
The stronger frustration produced more aggression than the weaker frustration, but only when aggression has previously been experienced as instrumental. Results are discussed also in relation to frustration aggression hypothesis. Trexler (1976) has discussed in “Frustration a fact, not a feeling”, the relationship between frustration and low self-acceptance.
Since it is believed that frustration is a fact not a feeling and so it can teach patients better to tolerate frustration, cases are presented to illustrate that long term frustration will be minimised in the client by teaching him to tolerate the risk of failing to achieve immediate goals through assertiveness.
In a survey on Frustration and Prejudice in South Africa made by Lever (1976) it was observed that the proponents of the Frustration—aggression theory regard prejudice as a form of aggression . In this survey three studies on the effect of frustration on prejudice in South Africa arc described.
Results show that there seems to be some evidence for a frustration sympathy relationship which may or may not be peculiar to South Africa.
Recently social psychologists have been interested in laboratory and field experiments conducted to identify the various variables of aggression. Stanley Milgram’s study is notable in this context. Two persons were selected by lottery for the experiment, one the teacher and the other, the taught.
The learner was then strapped in an electric chair which was devised in such a way that varying degrees of shock were to be administrated on him if he made mistakes in learning the task which had been given to him.
The punishment was in the nature of electric shock and he was to be given varying degrees of shock with varying types of mistakes. If the mistakes were more, greater degree of shock was to be given. It was found from the experiment that when the level of shock was increased 300 volts the subject could not make any response. After getting higher degree of shock they showed irresponsible and impulsive behaviour.
Results of several experiments conducted by Zimbardo show that aggression against a victim is facilitated if both the victim and the aggressors are deindividualized in same manner. When a person is deindividuated, when a stigma is attached to an individual, he is deindividuated or looks less human and therefore fit for aggression.
Experimental findings of this type give clues to the causes of severe aggressiveness and violent attacks on the members of the minority groups, who differs considerably in their characteristics from the majority groups.
Intergroup conflicts arise out of threat that one receives from another group, In other words, when a group feels threatened on faces a danger, from another group, there is conflict. Aggression is further aggravated by previous histories of conflict or the presence of other groups which may be hostile to the interests of the threatened group.
7. Utility of Aggressiveness:
Aggression always carries an overtone, of violence, hostility and excessive dominancy and so is condemned in every society. But these aggressive behaviours are tolerated only when they are justified. For instance, a sexual pervert wants to rape a women. In defense if the victim kills the antisocial person, her aggressive behaviour may not be condemned by the society.
A certain amount of admiration with a little disapproval is expressed for the aggressive person, because such a person is said to have self confidence, courage and strength of character. Thus, the common man shows an ambivalent attitude towards aggressive behaviour ranging from strong condemnation to mild disapproval at one end and from reluctant admiration to powerful fascination at the other end.
Aggression is inevitable and it is more or less universally experienced. Even children from happy homes show a lot of spontaneous aggression. Also nobody can deny that some amount of aggression is required to struggle for existence. Hence one cannot and need not make himself totally immune from aggressive experience.
After Miller and Dollard’s Frustration—Aggression Hypothesis a number of studies have also been done in the hypothesis that aggression reduces tension. In the studies by Appel and Jones the subjects showed external signs of nervousness, twitching, stuttering and often cursing themselves for the shocks they were administering on the learner. Inspite of these reactions, the experiments did not stop administering the shocks.
When the shock reached 300 volt only five out of forty subjected opted out saying that they were unable to continue any further. Another nine subjects dropped out when the shock level reached 360 volts. However 65 per cent of the subjects continued till the last shock of 450 volts was administered.
This experiment clearly brought out the social class differences in the perception of the experimental situation. Most subjects who complied with the suggestion of the experiments accomplices were lower class persons who had been educated only up to school level.
Those who had received higher education were much less complaint. This experiment has some similarity with real life situations in which lower status persons are prejudiced and show aggressive feeling towards higher status people.
The target of prejudice and aggression are usually low status people like poor people, minority and disadvantages classes in the real life situations. They are punished because of their deviant behaviour from the norms of the high status prejudiced groups.
The results of this study also owed that when the subjects are alone his behaviour is influenced by the social norm that no one should willfully inflict injury on others or be aggressive. Further all the subjects in the experiment did not submit to group pressure or norms. This proves that there are individual differences not only in the conforming behaviour but also in aggressive behaviour.
Another experiment conducted by Hartman (1969) supports the research work of Milgram. In this experiment it was showed that when delinquents with highly aggressive life history were placed in Milgram’s situation, they usually tended to give more intense shocks to the subjects than did the delinquents who had no such history.
It was also observed from several other investigations that those with low need for aggression would not agree to comply with such instructions and even when they do so, they are never as rude enforcing them.
It is also said that when a person looses his identity as a person, or when he is deindividuated, he is likely to show a more irrational support of the view that aggression reduces tension and hence people should vent their worst feelings instead of suppressing them.
Loren (1971) in a study on a constructive approach to frustration views frustration as the feeling which results when the goal is not attained or not attainable at a desired time. It is also argued that frustration leads to creativity.
Extreme forms of aggression however becomes pathological. It undoubtedly ruins the personality of the individual when aggression becomes a trait in the personality of such people, it becomes a sort of character disorder and stands in the way of normal and integrated personality development.
Inspite of the negative values of aggression it has some biological importance. Mc Dougall has emphasized the positive value of aggression with the belief that the custom of going to war among primitive tribes also has its social usefulness.
In the view of Jackson and Brown (1954) by stressing the destructive, antisocial aspects of aggression, writers like Freud, Adler and Bovet and in a lesser degree even Karen Horney and Suttie had unduly narrowed its meaning. This has been realized lately by some Freudian writers.
Joan Riviere (1937) thus comments aggression which is closely allied to hate, is by no means entirely destructive or painful, either in its aims or functioning and love can be aggressive or even destructive in its operation It seems that aggressive impulses are a radical and basic element in human psychology.
We can say in fact that both the self preservative and love instincts need a certain amount of aggression if they arc to attain satisfaction, that is an aggressive element is an essential part of both these instincts in actual functioning.
8. Prevention and Control of Aggressive Behaviour:
The Frustration-Aggression hypothesis formulated by Miller Dollard and others hailed that aggression accumulates in an individual as a result of his frustrating experiences and outbursts at a particular point where it becomes severe. In order to avoid aggressive outbursts accumulation of frustrating experience should be discouraged.
This can be done by allowing the individual to express his tension and pent up emotion in between. If the anger, hostility and tension etc. are not released and suppressed, aggressive act and violence becomes unmanagable.
That is why Freud has recommended catharsis or outlet of pent up emotions as the most suitable way of releasing tension. In psychotherapy this principles of cathersis is very much used even now a days. It is every body’s experience that the principles of cathersis minimises aggressive experience. Everyone in day to day life must have found that when mild anger and anguish feeling are expressed one feels relieved.
Even if there is no one to whom one’s angry feelings can be expressed, one may write-down his hostile feelings and ideas in a piece of paper and throw it to dust bean afterwards. In this way also the hostile feeling can be relieved without making anybody the target of aggression.
The sorrow, frustration anger, hostility and aggression of a person can be reduced and lightened by telling others about it. When others share the frustrating experiences of the victim, the victim gets relaxed.
Children are given toys and dolls to express their aggression on these articles, instead of suppressing and repressing it. Various observations and experimental studies do indicate that when children are given the chance to express their anger and hostility in course of their growth, they become less hostile afterwards.
Thus, in order control one’s aggression which is dangerous for the society, one has to learn to express the point up emotions in small degrees as and when the occasion so demands. Studies also support the hypothesis that catharsis does reduce hostility and aggression.
Fishback conducted an experiment in which some college students were subjected to derogatory remarks and insults relating to their limited interest in the college and their immaturity. The control group however was treated in a friendly manner.
Thereafter, one of the groups (insulted) was given to perform on a number of aptitude tests. Another group (thud group) was given to write stories on four selected cards of the T.A.T.
The first two groups served as the experimental group as it was provided with the scope to relieve his pent up emotions through the T.A.T. cards. The third group which was given to write stories was the experimental group. The group which was given aptitude tests to perform had however no scope to release its pent up emotions and hostility caused by the insults.
So it was hypothesized that the group in which the aptitude tests were administered was expected to show greater hostility and aggression. Results also supported the above hypothesis in general.
The group which was administered with aptitude tests showed remarkable amount of aggressive impulses. Similar evidence are found from many other studies which indicate that catharsis can be very useful in reducing the feelings of hostility and aggression.
But contrary to the above views some other psychologists hold that catharsis may not always be helpful in reducing aggressive behaviour to a great extent. By talking about one’s aggressive feelings and impulses one may become more angry.
Some of them also argue that many violent and hostile actions are induced by instigation of others. Keeping in view data of further researches, it can be concluded that though catharsis has a tremendous role in releasing one’s aggressive feelings and pent up emotions, it is not the only factor of preventing aggressive and hostile behaviour.
Aggressive behaviour can be prevented to some extent by judicious early childhood training, proper parental care and by trying to fulfil the basic needs of the child as far as practicable.
Aggressive behaviour can also be reduced or controlled by proper control of TV and video shows, pictures and movies. Now a days it is found that by viewing aggression and violence in various electronic medias, the aggressive behaviour of children and young persons are aggravated.
Delinquency is in the rise day by day. In several experimental studies children viewing of commercial TV was controlled. The experimental group watched violent cartons for a specified period of time each day during the study.
Another group watched the non-violent cartoons for the same period of time. Also the aggressive drive which the children showed in their daily activities were recorded. Results showed that repeated exposure to aggressive cartoons increased the children’s aggressiveness in their interactions with their peers while exposure to non-violent cartoons produced no change in inter personal aggressive behaviour.
Several other investigations and studies have revealed a positive relationship between the amount of exposure to televised violence and the degree to which children use aggressive behaviour as a means of solving interpersonal conflicts. In a longitudinal study conducted by Eron and others (1972) TV viewing habits of more than 800 children were studied when they were eight to nine years of age.
Information was collected about each Childs viewing time, the types of programmes viewed, family characteristics and aggressive qualities of the viewers noted by classmates and peers.
One of the major findings was that boys who preferred TV programmes with a fair amount of violence were much more aggressive in their interpersonal relationship than those who preferred programmes which exhibited little or no evidence. This indicates that perhaps children who are more aggressive prefer to watch violent TV programmes.
Ten years after a follow up study of the above was done on more than 400 subjects of the first study. They were interviewed about their preferred TV programmes. Also a test was administered on them which measured delinquent tendencies.
Thirdly their peers were also asked to rate the aggressiveness in their behaviour. Findings indicated that high exposure to violence on TV at the age of nine was positively correlated with aggressiveness in boys at nineteen years of age.
Thus scope to increase aggressiveness during childhood has a tremendous positive impact on the aggressiveness at a later age. Aggressiveness thus accumulates with the growth of age provided the child gets scope to visualize aggressive behaviour and imitate it continuously and repeatedly. However, the study also revealed that girls imitate aggressive behaviour less than boys. This is supported by the findings of several other studies.
In view of these facts, enough efforts should be made to reorganise and censor the TV programmes, violence and hostility should not be shown so nakedly in public through electronic medias.
Social learning theory also holds that state of arousal or anger can be reduced by behaviour which is non-reinforcive than the aggressive and hostile actions.
Aggression can also be reduced effectively in highly aggressive boys by allowing them to observe models who behave in a restrained and non-aggressive manner in the face of provocation. This can be effectively done by the Television and move industries.
If they can be shown that obstacles can be overcome successfully by non-violent manner, they can learn the same. Moreover, aggression in the society can be removed by careful management of needs and frustrations of every person.
A lot of aggressive behaviour and hostility is imitated from various social situations. Particularly during the formative period of one’s personality this is imitated more quickly. It is said by social psychologists that if the aggressive behaviour of children go unchecked or unrestricted in the early formative years, they are more probable to be reinforced and continue in his adult life.
When tension due to frustration is released by some other ways than hostile behaviour, one feels relaxed and this is obviously reinforced in similar situations in future.
If aggressive behaviour is mildly penalized, it will be non-reinforced, the child will learn not to repeat it in future. But on the contrary, if aggressive behaviour is rewarded in real situation, it may reinforce the aggressive act.
When the child is beating his playmate and parents do not object to this, the child is reinforced increase his aggressive act in future. But if children are constantly punished for their aggressive acts, they were more likely to be aggressive than becoming submissive.
Children usually consider their parents and teachers as models in all their behaviours. If the parents or the teachers show more and more aggression in their day to day activities, the children feel encouraged and justified to indulge in violent acts.
The life histories of several convicts and criminals in jails have shown that those who have been jailed for their aggressive acts most of them were severely punished during childhood and punished very often.
That is why, there is a saying that a woman who has been severely punished by her mother-in-low, when she becomes a mother-in-low also likes to punish her daughter-in-laws. A child can only learn to control his aggressive behaviour when non-aggressive, amiable and socially suitable models are presented to him.
It is very often said that angry parents have angry children. Parents can teach their children to react to various problems, situations and frustrations in day to day life through non-aggressive ways. There are also other reactions to frustration, like sublimation, rationalization etc., which can be used while reacting to a frustrating situation.
Children coming from broken homes foster parents, from parents with marital discords, frequent quarrels, parents having no time to spare for their children, react to various social situations in an inadequate and hostile manner. These circumstances and parental models do not inspire them for positive values of human life like love, respect, amiability, sociability etc.
They in turn develops negative values like hatred, suspicion, sarcasm, destructive tendency etc. which are allied to aggression. So the parents must try to be good models for their children, so as to breed contentment and happiness in them. If every parent can try to develop the personality of their children in socially acceptable manner, aggressiveness can be controlled to a remarkable degree.
The social health of people can be improved and the social climate of any country can be enriched, tension and violence, can be minimised, international tension and cold war can be reduced to a great extent if the content of aggressive reactions can be minimised in the bahaviour of every social being.
Though aggression cannot be totally abolished from society, which also should not be it can be controlled and prevented to a great extent to bring social peace, happiness and amity.