by Paul Seager
To circumvent some of these criticisms, the theory was modified to suggest that frustration is only one of a number of possible stimuli for aggression. However, aggression was still seen as a ‘dominant response tendency’ following frustration. A number of researchers investigated further as to which specific external stimuli might lead to aggression.
Berkowitz formulated the idea of the ‘weapons effect’ whereby the presence of weapons (in all their different forms, e.g. guns, knives, clubs, etc.) are more likely to cause aggression than when they are not present. This led to the coining of the phrase that ‘the finger might pull the trigger, but the trigger can also pull the finger’. Many studies show that more aggression is displayed when weapons are present (e.g. shotgun and pistol) than when neutral items are displayed (e.g. badminton racquet). However, these experiments have been criticized as they tend to use male students more often than not, and there are studies that have not replicated the effect. It may be that it isn’t the mere presence of the weapons that causes aggression, but instead how individuals interpret the weapons usage.
Key idea: The weapons effect
The notion that the mere presence of a weapon is more likely to increase the incidence of aggression.
A further social explanation suggests that arousal can lead to the triggering of aggressive tendencies. Whilst Berkowitz suggests that a very specific form of arousal – namely anger – can lead to aggression, Zillman proposed the excitation-transfer model which used the idea that any form of arousal can have the potential to make us more aggressive. We could, for example, have experienced any event which caused us to become aroused, whether it was through feelings of love, excitement, fear, or the like; however, when we remove ourselves from the event, some residual arousal (excitation) remains. According to this model, the lingering arousal can be carried over (transferred) to another (anger-eliciting) situation, and if we experience frustration or annoyance, then the remaining arousal may cause us to behave more extremely in the situation than if we had not been previously aroused. However, it is important that the attribution for the lingering arousal is not able to be linked to the previous event, but is instead misattributed to the current event which therefore strengthens the aggressive response.
The model has been supported empirically and can be used to explain aggression in a number of real-world situations, such as violence at football matches. For example, the model would suggest that the sheer excitement of watching your team play, or perhaps the disappointment at seeing them lose, may cause you to be aroused. If, at a later time, you then encounter some opposition supporters who then irritate you in some way, the remaining arousal from the previous event (watching your team) might cause you to be more aggressive towards them than if you had encountered them when you were experiencing no residual arousal (perhaps on a non-match day). Some recent research does lend credence to this theory as an explanation for football-related violence, but it does also suggest that the level of identification with your team will play a mitigating role: high identifiers will be more likely to aggress whereas low identifiers are more likely to simply feel sad and avoid any potentially violent situations.
Mediating factors in aggression
In addition to the set theories that attempt to explain aggression, there are many other factors that have been shown to play a mediating role in whether or not aggression occurs. These include individual characteristics such as personality or gender, and environmental factors such as alcohol, temperature and, of course, the media.
Personality characteristics such as a ‘Type A’ personality have been found to be linked to higher levels of aggression. Type A personalities are highly motivated, assertive and competitive compared to more controlled and laid back Type B personalities. Similarly, those individuals who score highly in measures of trait anger, irritability, emotional susceptibility, or who show a hostile attributional style, are more likely to show higher levels of aggression than individuals who show increased levels of self-control or perspective taking. The belief that there is a link between low self-esteem and aggression has been shown to be more complex than was first believed: it may be that low self-esteem leads to aggression through experiencing shame and humiliation, but many types of aggression require some form of risk-taking that wouldn’t be characteristic of individuals with low self-esteem. Similarly, high self-esteem doesn’t necessarily making an individual immune to being aggressive (see also Chapter 2).
The obvious gender differences with regards to aggression would suggest that males are more aggressive than females, and there is much evidence to support this common sense view. For example, one review of a number of studies showed that men evidenced far higher levels of aggression (both physical and verbal) compared to women in early adulthood, and the largest gender difference seems to occur between the ages of 18–30 (young adults). However, divergence in aggression levels start very early in life, and by pre-school there is a marked difference in levels of personal aggression between boys and girls, though some research claims that the difference may start to appear in toddlerhood. Boys generally show physical aggression and girls are more likely to show indirect aggression.
There have been a number of explanations proposed to account for gender differences in aggression. For example, in childhood, the quicker maturation of girls in infancy may lead to higher levels of self-regulation, or the greater prevalence of rough-and-tumble play by boys, which spills over into aggression, quickly helps to normalize the acceptance of aggressive behaviour. Equally, gender role norms, whereby boys are expected to be more aggressive, and girls are expected to refrain from such behaviour, may have an effect on the development and frequency of aggression.
In adulthood, explanations for gender differences in aggression have included hormonal differences (e.g. testosterone), an evolutionary perspective and socialization pressures. Whilst there is some evidence for a link between an increase in testosterone in males and the greater likelihood of aggression, overall the link is quite weak and tends to rely more on animal studies. Strong evidence would show a variation in male aggression as levels of testosterone fluctuated within the individual and this type of evidence has not been found in a number of studies that have looked for it.
The evolutionary perspective argues that in order to procure a prime female mate, males are required to show more aggression to do so. Evidence from experimental studies (as well as crime statistics) to support this idea has shown that it is primarily young males who show higher levels of physical aggression. Linked to this perspective is the idea that male aggression also occurs to demonstrate their status and power, and to protect it when it is under threat. Accordingly, research shows that males whose status is under threat are far more likely to show aggression than those whose status is not under threat; however, such studies tend to be correlational and not causal in nature. Females, on the other hand, tend to show more indirect aggression than men. The evolutionary perspective suggests that this is because it carries less risk of harm to self than physical aggression, and females cannot afford to jeopardize their traditional nurturing role in bringing up offspring.
Finally, gender differences in aggression can be explained by socialization. It is likely that males learn that it is acceptable for them to be aggressive (‘boys will be boys’) whereas females learn that it is not acceptable to be aggressive (‘it is very unladylike’). The stereotypes will be reinforced by parental reinforcement, such as praise for boys who stand up for themselves and girls who avoid aggressive situations. They are also reinforced by the toys that they are given and the role models to whom they are exposed on television and in real life (there are more aggressive male role models than female, and more nurturing female role models than male). Learning is a very powerful factor in explaining why males are likely to be more aggressive than females.
Whilst individual characteristics go a long way to explaining why aggression occurs, environmental factors should not be dismissed lightly. For instance, it
is believed that increased alcohol consumption leads to higher levels of aggression, and this is indeed supported by many studies. However, other research has shown that there is no apparent link between the two. The most likely explanation for the apparent contradiction in research findings suggests that alcohol hinders our normal cognitive functioning, and changes the extent to which we allow situational and contextual cues to influence our behaviour. Thus when we are drunk, we might be more influenced by those around us chanting ‘fight, fight, fight’, than if we were sober in the same situation; in the former situation, we may find ourselves engaging in a brawl that we would have avoided when we were sober by simply ignoring the chants of those around us.
Overall, it seems that whilst a large body of evidence supports the idea that alcohol plays a strong role in aggressive behaviour, given that not all intoxicated individuals act aggressively, we should perhaps be cautious in concluding that it has an unmediated role in leading to aggressive behaviour.
Temperature has also been investigated as a factor in the occurrence of aggression. Many studies have shown that as temperature increases, so the likelihood of aggression also increases. Crime statistics suggest that more violence is perpetrated during hot weather. However, when the temperature gets too hot, violence decreases. Studies investigating the geographic effects seem to show that aggression is more prevalent in hotter regions (e.g. southern states of America) than in cooler regions (e.g. northern states of America). Of course, these kinds of findings are correlational and should be treated with caution, and other regional explanations for the increase in aggression may exist. Other research has looked at the temporal effect of temperature: that is, they have mapped aggression within a stable population over a longer period of time as temperature fluctuates. Findings here suggest that violent crimes peak in the summer months (hotter periods) rather than in winter months (cooler periods). Again, other explanations for this pattern of aggression are possible, such as aggression being due to a change in people’s routines across the seasons rather than to temperature fluctuation. More controlled experimental research also suggests that an increase in temperature leads to more aggression, though, as previously mentioned, when the temperature was too high, aggression decreased. Overall, there is a strong link between increased temperature and aggression, which may have worrying implications for the future (see Spotlight below).
Spotlight: Aggression and global warming
Krahe (2013) suggests that maybe we should be concerned regarding the findings of links between temperature and aggression:
‘The implications of studies that support the heat hypothesis are worrying in the face of global warming. If increases in temperature are systematically related to increases in violent crime, then the continuous rise in global temperature will represent a risk factor for the rise in violent crime.’ (p. 113).
There are other environmental factors that have also been linked to an increase in aggression and these include noise, crowding and air pollution. However, no discussion of environmental factors would be complete without looking at the often-debated effect of media on violent behaviour.
The role of the media
Whether or not the media has an effect on aggressive behaviour has been discussed for many years. Generally, research has looked at the effect that violent TV programmes (and films) and computer games may have; however, other research also suggests further media effects, such as violent lyrics in songs, may also have an exacerbating effect.
For the media to have a significant effect on aggression it must first be shown that viewers are exposed to violent and aggressive content in television programmes and films; and research shows that this is indeed the case. In fact, one recent study suggested that UK audiences were exposed to 42.5 violent acts per hour, though it was restricted to just ten television programmes. It was also found that in many cases, violent actions were shown to have a beneficial effect (any readers of my age who were avid watchers of The ‘A’ Team television programme will know exactly what I mean). Similarly, violent content was found to be prevalent in video games and even in music videos (though this did vary considerably by genre: rap videos – 29 per cent; R&B – 9 per cent).
With regards to the effect of media violence, some cross-sectional studies suggest that individual self-report of watching programmes with violent content correlates positively to the ratings of others in terms of their aggressive behaviour. Experimental studies that used computer games with violent content found that violence that is rewarded with some form of positive consequence leads to the promotion of more aggressive thoughts and aggressive behaviour. A vast literature exists that has attempted to address this question, and the finding does tend to suggest that there is anywhere from a weak to a strong positive effect for media violence affecting aggressive tendencies (but the effect is definitely there). Generally, media violence has the greatest effect if it is shown to be either rewarded or to go unpunished, or to be justified in some way. Likewise, if the violence is perpetrated by a respected media figure (role model), then this is also more likely to lead to aggressive behaviour by the viewer. These tendencies have been found to have both short-term and long-term effects.
Of course, there are critics who suggest that the role of media violence is over-played, and evidence certainly exists that has shown very little (if any) effect of media violence on aggressive tendencies. They point to studies such as Bandura’s (see Case study above), and add the common sense view that not everyone who is exposed to media violence necessarily becomes more aggressive (there was even a thought for a number of years that watching violence on TV had a cathartic effect – see ‘Reducing aggression’ below). There are certainly some moderator variables that can affect whether or not an individual is likely to become more aggressive in the face of media violence; these include personality variables such as trait aggression, past experience with media violence, the way in which the violence is presented, and passive vs. active exposure. Nevertheless, the preponderance of evidence does suggest that media violence leads to increased levels of aggression, and thus ways to reduce aggression in society would certainly be welcomed.
Reducing aggression
For many years it was thought that the controlled release of pent-up aggressive feelings was a successful way to reduce aggression. Thus it was believed that watching violence on TV or in films might dissipate aggressive tendencies. Similarly, participating in physical activity, such as taking up boxing classes, might help to release steam. Referred to as catharsis, this method of aggression reduction relied on biological theories, such as those of Freud and Lorenz (see above). However, this idea was quickly refuted and shown to be counterproductive. For example, one study showed that people who hit a punch bag believing that it reduced stress were later more likely to punish someone who had transgressed against them compared to individuals who had not used a punch bag. As Bushman (2002) remarked, ‘venting to reduce anger is like using gasoline to put out a fire – it only feeds the flame’.
One of the main approaches to understanding aggression has also been used in its reduction. The learning approach suggests that we are more likely to aggress by watching others be aggressive (imitation) or by being rewarded, or at least not punished, for being aggressive. Consequently, these methods have been used reasonably successfully to reduce aggression.
The use of punishment in preventing aggression has been shown to be effective but it has a number of stipulations attached to it. These include:
• The punishment must be sufficiently adverse.
• The punishment must have a high probability of being imposed.
• Its effectiveness is increased if other, more attractive, behavioural alternatives are available.
• The offender must be rational enough to be able to calculate the costs of the punishment against the perceived rewards of the aggression.
• The punishment must follow immediately after the transgression in order for it to be perceived as being contingent
upon the aggressive behaviour
Only if these conditions are fulfilled is punishment likely to be effective. It is more likely that for many forms of aggression these conditions will not co-occur, and therefore a more effective intervention will be required.
One such intervention is observational learning. Built on the principle of Bandura’s social learning theory, exposure to a non-violent role model has been found to be an effective way of reducing aggression. This will allow the observer to acquire an alternative behaviour to reduce aggression. It is, however, more likely that observation in combination with learning strategies for implementing the observed behaviour will be more effective than observation on its own.
Whilst learning theory has been shown to be an effective intervention for reducing aggression, other methods have also been shown to have an effect. At an individual level, these include anger management techniques, and training individuals to elicit behaviour incompatible with aggression (for example, studies found that using calming music helped to reduce frustration and stress levels on a stressful commute to work by car). At a societal level, these include the use of legislation, and the removal of violent stimuli from the environment (such as the restriction of access to firearms).