Critically evaluate two theories of Aggression. Which do you think most successfully explains behaviour?

Use relevant research to support your answer. Defining aggression has proved to be a very difficult task for researchers to do. Some dont see behaviour to be aggressive unless they are inflicting physical harm on another person, whilst others penalize insults or certain facial expressions as aggressive behaviour. This is mainly down to the social and cultural norms of the researcher. The two predominant explanations of aggression are the Biological approach and the Behaviourist approach. The argument boils down to whether our levels of aggression are formed by our interactions with the environment, or is it an innate process? Biological explanations dictate that aggression is an innate behaviour encoded in our DNA and any aggressive behaviour shown is predetermined at birth which we act instinctively on. Maxon (1998), found that genes in mice affected their aggression and explained how this could be applied to humans. Reduced levels of serotonin in humans have been found to contribute to difficulties in controlling ones temper and aggression. Freuds Psychodynamic approach expresses aggression as a stem from a death instinct. He believed that aggression built up naturally and needs to be expressed and released. The Evolutionary approach is another branch off the biological tree. It states that aggression promotes survival and thus increases the chances of genes being passed on. A strong example of this could be found in most species in the world. A mother who sees a threat to her children will immediately show heightened levels of aggression in an attempt to protect their offspring. Showing higher levels of aggression can also prove helpful in the acquisition of resources. The biological approach can be seen as a relief in a sense to those who suffer from heightened levels of aggression. The idea that their aggression is predisposed in a sense takes blame off of them as they know its not their fault. This can prove to be beneficial; as with any condition (if you can call abnormal levels of aggression a condition) someone suffers from they need all the support they can get. On the flip side, a sense of relinquished responsibility on the aggressors mind may cause them to adopt the view its just the way I am and they mightnt feel as strong an urge to better themselves. A lot of the research on this topic was performed on animals; Maxons experiment on mice being an example. One has to consider the ethical issues involved when experimenting on animals. Many cases involve having animals locked up and concealed for prolonged periods of time and constant probing of them. On top of that, you have to wonder if findings on animals can really be applied to humans. Humans are a far more complex species than mice and many different variables may contribute to our aggression that wouldnt to other animals. The Biological approach is also reductionist and deterministic. It attempts to explain aggression with such a narrow point of view and dismisses the possibilities of social interactions playing a role in the development of aggression. However, to its credit, this approach has led to the development of physiological treatments for aggression in the form of drugs so in that regard it can be seen as taking a major step forward. Behaviourist emphasise the role of social learning and conditioning in the attainment of aggression. They stress that aggression isnt an inherent trait, but

one that is learnt through observation and experience. Bandura applied specific learning theories to the formation of aggression. Operant Conditioning was first proposed by Skinner. It is the theory that behaviour is learnt and maintained based on rewards and punishments received for exhibiting certain behaviour. Applying these principles to aggression is relatively straightforward. Children learn aggression by being rewarded and not punished for aggressive behaviour, the fact that their behaviour is being positively reinforced causes them to repeat that behaviour in the future. For example, if a Tom wanted to play with a toy that was already being used by his brother Peter he might use forceful and aggressive behaviour like snatching and hitting to get the toy off of Peter. If he isnt directly punished for doing this and obtains the toy, he is in fact being positively reinforced for this behaviour (the positive reinforcement being the toy Tom now possesses) and is likely to repeat this behaviour in the future due to the desirable results it gained from being used in this instance. However, if Tom had been punished by one of his parents for doing this, the negative reinforcement of that would likely see him avoid using similar behaviour in the future. A longitudinal study performed by Straus, Sugarman and Giles-Sims found that the amount of time children were spanked by their parents was strongly associated with the amount of anti-social behaviour displayed by the children. Those who werent punished as much by their parents turned out to be less aggressive when they were older. It would seem that despite the negative reinforcement for bad behaviour in the form of spanking, the aggressive act of spanking performed by the parent, which went unpunished, was observed and imitated by the children. This ironic twist is thought to be a result of the Social Learning Theory. Based on the Social Learning Theory, behaviourists believe that aggression can be obtained through vicarious experience by imitating models. Models include parents, siblings, peers and media. If a model is seen to be rewarded for aggressive behaviour, through vicarious learning, a child will take note of that reward, the behaviour used to obtain that reward and look to copy that behaviour in an attempt to be rewarded themselves. Think of a child watching batman. In the eyes of the child, batman is hailed a hero for using violent behaviour to beat his enemies. Now that child may see aggressive behaviour to be the right way of dealing with things because of the ideal model batman is supposed to be; this is just an example of the influence media can have. Like all theories, the behaviourist approach to explaining aggression doesnt come without its pros and cons. The Straus, Sugarman and Giles-Sims chose a longitudinal study as their method of assessing the development of aggression in young children. A longitudinal study is the long-term observation of naturally occurring events as they unfold. Longitudinal studies are a real-life observation of real people. It isnt an experiment artificially constructed in a laboratory and in that sense it has very high validity and the results can be applied to the real world. Furthermore, the long-term study of an individuals development provides qualitative results as the experimenter has the chance to see them grow over time, taking in every little detail about their growth. However, longitudinal studies are a naturally occurring event which means there is no manipulation of any variables which makes it tough to fairly measure progression of participants against each other. On top of that, its relatively difficult for researchers to come across relevant opportunities, as already mentioned opportunities for

longitudinal studies occur organically and they dont come around very often. The behaviourist explanation is very encouraging because if aggression can be learnt through conditioning and SLT, it can surely be unlearnt. This idea has been put into practise therapeutically with anger management being a rapidly growing treatment. So which explanation makes the stronger argument for the development of aggression? Personally, I would have to say the behaviourist just edges it. However, this doesnt mean to say the Biological approach doesnt have a role at all. In fact I believe that it is a combination of the two that contribute to the development of aggression. This idea has caused another approach to aggression to be developed: the Biosocial approach. The Biosocial approach takes the best of both worlds and factors in Biological and Social influences and is probably the most convincing theory to be proposed thus far.