The 4 Main Theories Of Aggression: How Is Aggression Explained?
Aggression is a phenomenon that has been studied from many different perspectives. These usually revolve around the same question: is aggression innate, is it learned, or is it both? And, given the difficulty of offering a single and definitive answer, the answers have been positioned in the same three dimensions: there are those who suggest that aggressiveness is an innate phenomenon, there are those who defend that it is a learned phenomenon and there are those who try understand it from the convergence between nature and culture.
Next we will take a general tour of some of the main theories of aggression and we incorporate the possibility of distinguishing between two phenomena that are usually paired: aggressiveness and violence.
The theories that have explained aggression have included different elements. For example, the intentional nature of the aggression, the aversive or negative consequences for those involved, the diversity of expression of the phenomenon, the individual processes that generate it, the social processes involved, among many others.
In this text we read Doménech and Iñiguez (2002) and Sanmartí (2006), with the intention of reviewing four of the great theoretical proposals that have explained aggressiveness.
1. Biological determinism and instinctive theories
This line emphasizes the distinctive character of aggressiveness. The explanation is mainly given by elements that are understood as “internal” and constitutive of the person. That is to say, the cause of aggression is explained precisely by what is “inside” each person.
The above is generally condensed under the term “instinct”, understood as a faculty necessary for the survival of the species, with which aggressiveness is defined in terms of an adaptive process, developed as a consequence of evolution. Depending on the interpretation made of the latter, there may be little or no possibility of modifying aggressive responses.
We can see that the latter corresponds to theories close to both psychology and biology, as well as evolutionary theories, however, the term “instinct” has also been understood in different ways depending on the theory that uses it.
In the case of Freudian psychoanalysis, aggressiveness as an instinct, or rather “drive” (which is the equivalent of “instinct” for the psyche), has been understood as a key in the constitution of personality. That is, it has important functions in the psychic structuring of each subject as well as in supporting said structure in one way or another.
This line explains aggression as a result of learning and various complex environmental factors. A series of works are grouped here that explain aggressiveness as a consequence of an external element that is the main trigger. In other words, before the attack, there is another experience, related to an event foreign to the person: frustration.
The latter is known as the frustration-aggression theory and explains that, as instinctive theories proposed, aggressiveness is an innate phenomenon. However, it depends at all times on whether frustration is generated or not. In turn, frustration is generally defined as the consequence of not being able to carry out an action as anticipated and in this sense, aggressiveness serves as a reliever of high levels of frustration.
3. Social learning
The basis of the theories that explain aggression through social learning is behaviorism. In these, the cause of aggressiveness is attributed to what has been associated in the presence of a specific stimulus, as well as to the reinforcement that has come after the action that follows said association.
In other words, aggressiveness is explained under the classic formula of operant conditioning: to a stimulus there is a response (a behavior), and to the latter, there is a consequence, which depending on how it is presented can generate the repetition of the behavior, or extinguish it. And in this sense, it is possible to take into account what stimuli and what reinforcements trigger certain types of aggressive behavior.
Perhaps the most representative of social learning theories has been that of Albert Bandura, who developed the “theory of vicarious learning”, where he proposes that we learn certain behaviors based on the reinforcements or punishments that we see other people receive, after carry out certain behaviors.
Aggressiveness, then, could be a consequence of behaviors learned by imitation and for having assimilated the consequences observed in the behaviors of others.
Among other things, Bandura’s theories have allowed us to separate two processes: on the one hand, the mechanism by which we learn aggressive behavior; and on the other, the process by which we are able, or not, to execute it. And with the latter it becomes possible to understand why, or under what conditions, its execution can be avoided, beyond the fact that the logic and social function of aggressiveness has already been learned.
Psychosocial theory has allowed us to relate two dimensions of the human, which may be fundamental to understanding aggression. These dimensions are, on the one hand, individual psychological processes, and on the other, social phenomena, which, far from acting separately, interact closely, and result in the occurrence of a behavior, an attitude, a specific identity, etc. .
Along the same lines, social psychology, and especially that of the socio-constructionist tradition, has paid attention to a key element in studies on aggressiveness: in order to determine what behavior is aggressive, first There must be a series of sociocultural norms that indicate what is understood as “aggression”, and what is not.
And in this sense, aggressive behavior is what transgresses the sociocultural norm. What’s more: a behavior can be understood as “aggressive” when it comes from a specific person, and it may not be understood in the same way when it comes from another.
The above allows us to think about aggression in a context that, being social, is not neutral, but is supported by power relations and specific agency possibilities.
In other words, and given that aggressiveness does not always manifest itself as observable behavior, it is important to analyze the forms that represent it, manifest it and experience it. This allows us to consider that aggressiveness takes place only when a relationship is established, which means that it can hardly be explained in individual terms or with homogeneous nuances that apply to all relationships and experiences.
From this point on, social psychology has explained aggression as a behavior located in a specific context of relationships. Likewise, the most classical traditions have understood it as a behavior that intentionally causes harm. The latter leads us to raise a next problem, which is the possibility of establishing differences between aggressiveness and violence.
Aggression or violence?
Aggressiveness has been translated by many theories as “aggressive behavior”, which in other words is the action of attacking. And in this sense, is frequently equated with the concept of “violence”. Based on this, it is common to find that aggression and violence are presented and used as synonyms.
Sanmartí (2006; 2012) tells us about the need to point out some differences between both phenomena. This need leads us to distinguish between the involvement of biology and the intentionality of each process, as well as contextualizing them in the framework of the social institutions that participate in their production and reproduction; which implies recognizing both human and social character. Character that the adaptive or defense response (aggression) itself does not have.
For the same author, aggressiveness is a behavior that occurs automatically when faced with certain stimuli, and for the same reason, is inhibited when faced with other stimuli. And in this sense, aggressiveness can be understood as an adaptive and defensive process, common to living beings. But that is not the same as violence. Violence is “altered aggressiveness,” that is, a form of aggressiveness that is loaded with sociocultural meanings. These meanings cause it to be deployed no longer automatically, but rather intentionally and potentially harmful.
Intentionality, violence and emotions
Beyond being the biological response to potentially risky stimuli for survival, violence puts into action the sociocultural meanings that we attribute to certain events understood in terms of dangerousness. In this sense we can think that violence is a behavior that can only take place between human beings, while aggression or aggressive behavior, They are responses that can also take place in other species.
In this understanding of aggressiveness, emotions play an active and relevant role, such as fear, also understood in innate terms as an adaptive scheme and a survival mechanism. Which leads us to consider that both fear and aggression can be thought of beyond being “good” or “bad.”
Intersections of aggression and violence: are there types of aggression?
If it is possible to look at aggressiveness from the point of view of the processes through which a person becomes competent for society (socialization), we can also pay attention to the different phenomena and experiences that are different, for example, due to differences in class, race, gender, socioeconomic status, disability etc.
In this sense, the experience that causes frustration and triggers aggressive behavior, which perhaps is later violent, may not be triggering in the same way in women or in men, in children or in adults, in someone from the upper class and someone from lower class. low, etc.
This is because not all people have been socialized in relation to the same resources to experience and express both frustration and aggression in the same way. And for the same reason, the approach is also multidimensional and it is important to place it in the relational context where it is generated.
