Human aggression: theories, research, and implications for social policy

308 Pages·1998·4.167 MB·English

by  Edward I Donnerstein, Russell G Geen

CONTRIBUTORS
Numbers in parentheses indicate the pages on which the authors'contributions begin.
Craig A. Anderson (23, 247), Department of Psychology, University of Mis-
souri, Columbia, Missouri 65211
Kathryn B. Anderson (247), Department of Psychology, Our Lady of the Lake
University, San Antonio, Texas 78285
Roy .F Baumeister (111), Department of Psychology, Case Western Reserve Uni-
versity, Cleveland, Ohio 44106
Leonard Berkowitz (49), Department of Psychology, University of Wisconsinm
Madison, Madison, Wisconsin 53706
Joseph M. Boden (111), Department of Psychology, Case Western Reserve Uni-
versity, Cleveland, Ohio 44106
Brad J. Bushman (23), Department of Psychology, Iowa State University, Ames,
Iowa 50011
Edward Donnerstein (167), Department of Communication, University of Cali-
fornia, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, California 93110
Russell G. Geen (1), Department of Psychology, University of Missouri, Colum-
bia, Missouri 65211
L. Rowell Huesmann (73), Research Center for Group Dynamics, University of
Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106
Michael R. Hulsizer (139), Department of Psychology, Kent State University,
Kent, Ohio 44242
Robin M. Kowalski (203), Department of Psychology, Western Carolina Univer-
sity, Cullowhee, North Carolina 28723
Xlil
XlV CONTRIBUTORS
Neil M. Malamuth (229), Department of Communication Studies, University of
California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California 90023
Stacy L. Smith (167), Department of Communication, University of California,
Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, California 93110
Stuart .P Taylor (139), Department of Psychology, Kent State University, Kent,
Ohio 44242
Jacquelyn .W White (203), Department of Psychology, University of North Car-
olina, Greensboro, North Carolina 27412
PREFACE
We live in a violent society. As a nation, we rank first among all developed coun-
tries in the world in homicides. The statistics on violence are staggering, particularly
with regard to children and adolescents. Consider, for example, the following:
(cid:12)9 Among individuals 51 to 24 years old, homicide is the second leading cause
of death.
(cid:12)9 Adolescents account for 24% of all violent crimes leading to arrest.
(cid:12)9 Every 5 minutes a child is arrested for a violent crime.
(cid:12)9 Gun-related violence takes the life of an American child every 3 hours.
(cid:12)9 Every day over 100,000 children carry guns to schools.
(cid:12)9 In a recent survey of fifth graders in New Orleans, more than 50% of the
children reported being a victim of violence, and 70% of these kids have
seen weapons being used.
What accounts for these alarming figures? There is universal agreement that
many factors, including gangs, drugs, guns, poverty, and racism, contribute to
violent behavior in society. Many of these variables may independently or inter-
actively affect antisocial responding. We realize that there is no single cause of
violent behavior. Fifteen years ago we published a two-volume series with Acad-
emic Press aimed at addressing the causes and prevention of violence. Since that
time two things have changed. First, violence in our society has not subsided and,
in fact, in some areas has increased. Second, and perhaps more importantly, we
know much more today about the causes of violence. Because of a continuing in-
crease in research over the years, we now have more information on ways to con-
trol and mitigate aggressive behavior. This current volume, 51 years after the first,
will address this research and its implications.
XV
XVi PREFACE
This book has a number of defining characteristics. First and foremost, it is
built on contemporary theories and research evidence. Its major emphasis is on
summarizing what is currently known about the causes of aggressive behavior
from current ongoing research programs. Second, its chapters are written by psy-
chologists and present psychological viewpoints and theories on aggression. Fi-
nally, it seeks to point out from its theoretical-empirical base the possible
implications for and applications of this research to public policy. We believe that
these implications can be best addressed by those who are at the forefront of the
research and theorizing in this area, that is, the contributors to this book. We be-
lieve we have succeeded on all accounts, and this current volume will add signif-
icantly to our understanding of human aggression. Most importantly, for the
researcher and practitioner alike, the applications of this research to public policy
on aggression will have significant benefits for years to come.
Russell G. Geen
Edward Donnerstein
1
PROCESSES AND PERSONAL
VARIABLES ! N AFFECTIVE
AGGRESSION
RUSSELL G. GEEN
University of Missouri
The literature in human aggression has become so large that truly comprehen-
sive overviews are no longer feasible. Some of it is theory-driven, but much is ad-
dressed more to solving social problems than to building general models and
research paradigms. It is too diverse to permit easy generalizations. However, a
review of this literature reveals some convergences among research programs and
theoretical emphases, and these provide a base on which we may eventually build
a unified theory of human aggression. This chapter consists of a few observations
on some of the directions being taken in the contemporary study of aggression,
along with a brief introduction to the chapters that follow. A few preliminary
points must be made regarding the definition of aggression.
.1 "Aggression" is not a scientific term. It is taken from everyday English and
used to describe a number of functionally different behaviors that have in com-
mon the infliction of harm upon another person. 1 In the animal kingdom, several
kinds of aggression have been observed, e.g., predatory, maternal, and territorial.
Although such distinctions do not characterize most social psychological or clini-
cal research on human subjects, 2 certain varieties of aggression have been identi-
fied, such as angry retaliation, self-defense, and violence carried out for purposes
A1 lufesu gnikrow noitinifed of noissergga :si noisserggA" si yna form of roivaheb detcerid drawot
eht goal of harming rehtona living being ohw si detavitom ot avoid such treatment" noraB( & -drahciR
,nos ,4991 .p .)5
ehT2 emerging yranoituloveohcysp hcaorppa ot roivaheb (e.g., ,snriaC )6891 yam etalumits a erom
deifisrevid search rof determinants of human aggression than eht eno usually taken yb social
.stsigolohcysp
Human Aggression: Theories, Research, and Copyright (cid:14)9 1998 by Academic Press.
Implications for Social Policy All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
2 RUSSELL G. GEEN
of coercion, punishment, and profit. It is customary among those who study ag-
gression in humans to observe two broad distinctions: (a) angry, or affective, ag-
gression in which harming the victim is the main motive of the aggressor, and
(b) instrumental aggression, which may involve strong emotions but is motivated
primarily by concerns other than the harmdoing itself. Because affective aggres-
sion has received more attention from researchers than instrumental, it will be the
subject of this chapter.
2. Affective aggression is a response to some event or change in the environ-
ment, or to the mental representation of such an event (e.g., a memory of having
been insulted). Most social psychologists consider aggression to be not sponta-
neous, but reactive. Some studies have reported apparently spontaneous "seizure-
like" rage related to underlying brain pathology (e.g., Pontius, 1984). These are
certainly intriguing investigations, but they involve intensive case studies of rela-
tively small numbers of people and must be considered preliminary. Furthermore,
even some of the research reported in this literature suggests that brain pathology
may serve more as a predisposing variable than as a determinant of aggression
and that situational events are the proximal cause of actual aggressive behavior
(Lewis, Moy, Jackson, Aaronson, Restifo, Serra, & Simos, 1985). The same may
be true of research on hormonal antecedents of aggression, such as testosterone
levels (e.g., Van Goozen, Frijda, & Van de Poll, 1994, 1995). This treats biologi-
cal factors in aggression as contributors to a disposition to aggress, given suitable
provocation, or, as called elsewhere (Geen, 1990), part of a group of "background
variables."
For purposes of explication, this chapter is organized along the lines of a dia-
gram (Figure 1.1) in which some of the variables currently generating interesting
and important research on human aggression are spelled out. This diagram is not
a formal theoretical model but only a device that may be useful in organizing in-
formation. Two assumptions underlie this diagram. The first is that human ag-
gression is a joint product of both instigating conditions and variables related to a
disposition to behave aggressively. The second is that the aggressive act occurs
within a sequence of events beginning with the provocation and terminating in
some condition that follows the act and can be understood only with reference to
this sequence. In other words, explanations for aggression must be built on con-
siderations of intervening processes that connect the instigating condition to the
aggressive response.
PROCESSES IN AGGRESSION
Let us begin by considering the instigators, or eliciting conditions, of aggres-
sion. Several instigators have been identified in research begun in the 1960s. Frus-
tration, insult, and interpersonal attack were among the first to be studied. Later, a
number of investigations identified environmental stressors such as noise, heat, and
PROCESSES AND PERSONAL VARIABLES IN AFFECTIVE AGGRESSION 3
Eliciting Condition
noitacovorP
latnemnorivnE rossertS
niaP I
.cte
Negative Affect
Immediate Response
Previous
noitingoC evissergga(
Experiences
)sthguoht
Biological noitomE ,.g.e( )regna
Factors rotoM roivaheB
,.g.e( )gnittih
Social
Learning Aggressiveness
Potential
I
Cognitive
Background
Variables Processing
e.g.~
Socialization
xeS secnereffiD
I Aggression
ytilanosreP
El G 31 R E 1.1 Overview of processes ni affective aggression.
air pollution as effective antecedents of aggression, even when the target person
was not responsible for the subject's stress in any way. Zillmann (1988) later de-
fined aggression as a response to any condition that poses a threat to the well-being
of the person. More recently, aggression has been linked to depressed mood states
(Capaldi, 1991) and to physical pain (Berkowitz & Heimer, 1989). This is certainly
an odd assortment of variables, leading one to wonder whether they share any char-
acteristics that may account for their common potential for evoking aggression. To
answer that question we must go beyond the mere identification of antecedents and
attempt to discover those intervening processes referred to earlier.
COGNITIVE NEOASSOCIATIONISM
In what ways are threat, pain, insult, stress, and negative mood states similar?
One possibility is that all produce highly unpleasant experiences or, in correct psy-
chological terminology, lead to increased levels of a negative affect. The theory of
cognitive neoassociationism developed by Berkowitz (1993) explains a person's
4 RUSSELL G. GEEN
initial reaction to any of the conditions noted earlier, including interpersonal con-
flict and provocation, as a function of such negative affect. At this level cognition
is required only to recognize the stimulus. Even at this initial stage, however, neg-
ative affect does not automatically evoke aggression. It may engender instead an
impulse to flee from the unpleasant situation. The immediate first reaction to a con-
dition of negative affect is therefore either "fight or flight." Berkowitz (1993) ar-
gues that both tendencies are elicited simultaneously but that one usually tends to
prevail, depending on (a) the person's genetic endowment, (b) prior conditioning
and learning, and (c) recognition of aspects of the situation that either facilitate or
inhibit aggression.
Biological factors in aggression therefore make an important contribution at
this point by contributing to the probability of a person's reacting to increased
negative affect with impulsive aggression. Several studies have established a link
between hormone levels and aggression (e.g., Berman, Gladue, & Taylor, 1993;
Gladue, 1991; Van Goozen et al., 1995). Moreover, behavior genetic studies that
have revealed a heritability component in aggressive behavior (Ghodsian-Carpey
& Baker, 1987; Miles & Carey, 1997) are probably best understood as reflecting
an immediate, preconscious response tendency to aversive stimulation.
The heart of the cognitive-neoassociationist theory deals with the larger syn-
dromes of cognition, affect, and motor behaviors that are activated by negative af-
fect. Following associationist models of memory, Berkowitz asserts that negative
affect elicits associated cognitive and emotional states and expressive motor pat-
terns linked to it along directional pathways. The theory has a number of implica-
tions for the study of aggression. As Berkowitz observes in his chapter, it explains
certain phenomena that have previously been explained in terms of other con-
structs, such as frustration. Work by Anderson and colleagues has also built upon,
and extended, the theory in isolating the effects of temperature on aggression (An-
derson, Anderson, & Deuser, 1996). The theory also provides an explanation for
individual differences in aggressiveness as a function of the depth and extent of
associative networks that underlie aggressive behavior (Bushman & Geen, 1989;
Bushman, 1996). Finally, it can explain the often-reported connection between ag-
gressive behavior and prior exposure to violence in the mass media (Berkowitz,
1984).
COGNITIVE PROCESSES IN AGGRESSION
It must be emphasized that the theory of cognitive neoassociationism describes
reactions that antedate cognitive processing. Berkowitz has stated clearly that the
initial impulsive reaction to negative affect is only a potential first stage in ag-
gression. The anger, hostile thoughts, and aggressive motor patterns evoked at this
stage are only "rudimentary." Beyond this point, cognitive processes play an im-
portant role in what happens. We must now turn our attention to the processes
involved in cognitively controlled aggression, and when we do we begin by not-
ing a truism: aggressive acts, like any others, have consequences. These conse-
PROCESSES AND PERSONAL VARIABLES IN AFFECTIVE AGGRESSION 5
yrotsiH fo evitisoP Outcome
tnemecrofnieR seicnatcepxE
for noisserggA for noisserggA
ssenevisserggA
laitnetoP
/
evisserggA
hgiH ytilitU )eulaV( ~
noitavitoM
fo noisserggA
J__ weF snoituloS rof
~ tcilfnoC noituloseR
elitsoH noitubirttA
I saiB
evitingoC
evitcejbO
noitcurtsnoC fo
noitautiS noitautiS sfeileB gnitroppuS ~
I noisserggA
rooP noitapicitnA fo
7-- secneuqesnoC
FIGURE 1.2 lareneG yrammus efovitingoc-laicos sessecorp ni .noissergga
quencesmthe rewarding or punishing outcomes of aggressionmconstitute the
basis for the social learning process (Figure 1.2).
The processes involved in social learning are familiar from motivation theory,
involving the variables of expectancy and value. Aggression that is rewarded pro-
duces an increased expectancy that such behavior will be useful in the future
under similar conditions. The expectancy-value analysis of aggression has re-
ceived some empirical support. Perry, Perry, and Rasmussen (1986) asked chil-
dren to express their level of confidence that various types of outcome would
follow aggressive behavior. Children who had been classified on the basis of peer
ratings as highly aggressive were more confident than their less aggressive coun-
terparts that aggression would produce tangible rewards and would also cause
other people to stop behaving in aversive ways. High expectancies of desired out-
comes following aggression were therefore shown to be correlated with levels of
general aggressiveness. In a subsequent study, Boldizar, Perry, and Perry (1989)
found that peer-rated aggressiveness also predicted the values that children asso-
ciated with the outcomes of aggression. Children rated as high in aggressiveness
attached greater positive value than did less aggressive children to "control of the
victim" resulting from aggression against the latter. In addition, highly aggressive
children placed less negative value on such outcomes as the victim's suffering,
threat of retaliation, rejection by peers, and negative feelings about themselves. In
short, children who were highly aggressive saw more good outcomes arising from
aggression, and fewer bad ones, than less aggressive children.
Expectancy and value are the determinants of an immediate incentive or moti-
vational state. Eventually, children use information regarding the consequences of
6 RUSSELL G. GEEN
aggression in developing internal standards of right and wrong and in regulating
their behavior according to such standards (Perry, Perry, & Boldizar, 1990). Over
time, the standards, the situational stimuli that activate them, and the behaviors
that result become encoded in cognitive scripts that prescribe behavior under ap-
propriate conditions (Huesmann, 1988). Frequent enaction of aggressive behav-
iors under conditions of conflict or provocation increase the probability of similar
enactments under those conditions in the future, and each enactment results in a
more elaborated script. The end result is a child described by teachers, peers, and
other observers as "aggressive," meaning that the child manifests a high potential
for behaving aggressively under provocative conditions.
SOCIAL INFORMATION PROCESSING
Among the consequences of this acquired potential for aggression are several
that have to do with how people understand and interpret social interactions. Be-
cause behavior in situations of interpersonal conflict is guided by one's cognitive
representations of events, whether aggression occurs depends on how social in-
formation is processed. A person who is deficient in the ability to receive and
respond to social cues may manifest reactions to social information that are inap-
propriate and possibly maladaptive. Such behavior may cause other people to
reject the person, and this outcome may in turn have several undesirable conse-
quences, including further rejection by peers, depression, and chronic and char-
acteristic aggressiveness. Dodge and colleagues have developed a model that
identifies several stages, at any one of which faulty processing may be predicted
by the person's level of maladjustment. In the most recent version of the model
(Crick & Dodge, 1994), six stages are described: (1) encoding of cues arising
from the actions of oneself and others; (2) interpretation of those cues; (3) clarifi-
cation of the goals of the interaction after the relevant information has been as-
similated; (4) the search for, and gaining of access to, responses to the situation as
defined; (5) the decision to select one of the available responses for the present sit-
uation; and (6) behavior enactment of the chosen response. Finally, feedback from
the person's behavior at stage 6 contributes to the encoding of stimulus input at
the beginning of a new round of processing. The model therefore describes the
basis for an ongoing interactive process.
When social information is generated by a provocative interpersonal exchange,
any bias that the person brings to the situation can influence the cognitive con-
struction of the exchange and the response that one makes to it (i.e., stages 1 and
2). Studies have shown that boys classified as highly aggressive (e.g., through peer
nominations and teacher ratings) react more aggressively to the frustrating actions
of other boys than their less aggressive peers when the intentions of the frustrator
were ambiguous (Dodge, 1980) or even benign (Nasby, Hayden, & DePaulo,
1979). This tendency of aggressive children to misread the intentions of others has
been called the hostile attribution bias. It may be the product of some of the pro-
cessing deficiencies described by Dodge and associates, such as inefficient encod-