The 4 main theories of aggression: how is aggression explained?

Aggression is a phenomenon that has been studied from many different perspectives. These tend to revolve around the same question: is aggressiveness innate, is it learned, or is it both? And, given the difficulty of offering a single and clear answer, the answers have been positioned in the same three dimensions: there are those who suggest that aggressiveness It is an innate phenomenon, there are those who defend that it is a learned phenomenon and there are those who try to understand it from the convergence between nature and nature. culture.

Next we will make a general tour of some of the main theories of aggression and we incorporate the possibility of distinguishing between two phenomena that tend to be paired: aggressiveness and violence.

• Related article: "The 11 types of violence (and the different types of aggression)"

Theories of aggressiveness

The theories that have explained the aggression have gone through 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 instinctual theories

This line emphasizes the distinctiveness of aggressiveness. The explanation is mainly given by elements that are understood as "interior" and constitutive of the person. In other words, the cause of the aggression is explained precisely by what is “inside” of each person.

The above is generally condensed under the term "instinct", understood as a necessary faculty for the survival of the species, with which, aggressiveness is defined in terms of process adaptive, developed as a consequence of evolution. According to the reading that is 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 psychological and biology, as well as theories evolutionists, however, the term "instinct" has also been understood in different ways according to the theory that uses.

In the case of Freudian psychoanalysis, aggressiveness as instinct, or rather "drive" (which is the equivalent to "instinct" for the psyche), has been understood as a key in the constitution of the 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.

2. Environmental explanations

This line explains aggressiveness as a result of learning and several complex environmental factors. A series of studies are grouped here that explain aggressiveness as a consequence of an external element that is the main trigger. In other words, before the aggression, there is another experience, related to an event outside the person: frustration.

The latter is known as the frustration-aggression theory and explains that, as the instinctual theories proposed, aggressiveness is an innate phenomenon. However, it depends at all times on whether the 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 from high levels of frustration.

3. Social learning

The basis of the theories that explain social learning aggressiveness is behaviorism. In these, the cause of aggressiveness is attributed to what has been associated with the presence of a given stimulus, as well as the reinforcement that has come after the action that follows that association.

In other words, aggressiveness is explained under the classical formula of operant conditioning: before a stimulus there is a response (a behavior), and before the latter, there is a consequence, which depending on how it is presented can generate the repetition of the behavior, or else, extinguish it. And in this sense, it is possible to take into account what stimuli and what reinforcements are those that trigger a certain type of aggressive behavior.

Perhaps the most representative of the social learning theories has been that of Albert bandura, who developed the "vicarious learning theory", where he proposes that we learn certain behaviors based on to the reinforcements or punishments that we see that other people receive, after carrying out certain behaviors.

Aggression, 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 through which we learn aggressive behavior; and on the other, the process by which we are capable, or not, of executing 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 have already been learned.

• You may be interested: "Operant Conditioning: Main Concepts and Techniques"

4. Psychosocial theory

Psychosocial theory has made it possible to relate two dimensions of the human, which can be essential to understand aggressiveness. These dimensions are, on the one hand, individual psychological processes, and on the other, social phenomena, which, far from acting separately, they interact closely, resulting in a specific behavior, attitude, 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: to be able to determine what behavior is aggressive, First there must be a series of sociocultural norms They indicate what is understood as "aggression", and what is not.

And in this sense, aggressive behavior is what transgresses the sociocultural norm. What is more: behavior can be understood as "aggressive" when it comes from a specific person, and it may not be understood the same when it comes from another.

The foregoing allows us to think of aggression in a context that, being social, is not neutral, but is supported by power relations and determined agency possibilities.

In other words, and since aggressiveness does not always manifest as observable behaviorIt is important to analyze the forms that represent, manifest and experience it. This allows us to consider that aggressiveness takes place only when a relationship is established, with which, hardly can be explained in individual terms or with homogeneous nuances that apply to all relationships and experiences.

From here on, social psychology has explained aggression as a behavior located in a concrete context of relationships. Likewise, the most classical traditions have understood it as a behavior that causes harm intentionally. The latter leads us to raise a following problem, which is the possibility of establishing differences between aggressiveness and violence.

Aggression or violence?

Aggression 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". From this, it is common to find that aggressiveness and violence are presented and used as synonyms.

Sanmartí (2006; 2012) talks about the need to point out some differences between the two phenomena. This need leads us to distinguish between the involvement of biology and the intentionality of each process, as well as to contextualize 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 itself (aggressiveness) does not have by itself.

For the same author, aggressiveness is a behavior that occurs automatically in the face of certain stimuli, and for the same reason, it is inhibited before 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 unfold no longer automatically, but 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 aggressiveness or aggressive behavior, are responses that can also occur in other species.

In this understanding of aggressiveness, emotions, such as fear, play an active and relevant role, also understood in innate terms as an adaptive scheme and a survival mechanism. Which leads us to consider that both fear and aggressiveness 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 by 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 is perhaps later violent, may not be a trigger in the same way in women or in men, in children or in adults, in someone from the upper class and someone from the lower class, etc.

This is because not all people have socialized in relation to the same resources to live and express both frustration and aggressiveness 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.

Bibliographic references:

• Sanmartí, J. (2012). Keys to understanding violence in the 21st century. Ludus Vitalis, XX (32): 145-160.
• Sanmartí, J. (2006). What is that thing called violence? In the Institute of Education of Aguascalientes. What is that thing called violence? Supplement to the Daily Field Bulletin. Retrieved June 22, 2018. Available in http://www.iea.gob.mx/ocse/archivos/ALUMNOS/27%20QUE%20ES%20LA%20VIOLENCIA.pdf#page=7.
• Domenech, M. & Iñiguez, L. (2002). The social construction of violence. Athenea Digital, 2: 1-10.