Aggression_Is_Necessary_for_Survival__Discuss._Base_Your_Answer_on_Psychological_Theories_and_Models_Introduced_in_Class.

Aggression is necessary for survival: Discuss. Base your answer on psychological theories and models introduced in class. 2646 words In this essay I will discuss the considerable controversy that still exists over the origins of aggression in humans where the old issue of nature versus nature is raised again. I will look at whether aggression is the result of genetically inherited biological drives and impulses carried down from our forebears which were necessary for our survival, or whether it is a part of human nature that has come from our social and environmental situation, in other words, a behaviour that is acquired through experience and learning. The first thing is to differentiate anger from aggression. Aggression can be an expression of anger, but is not necessarily so. Aggression is the use of power or strength, either verbally or physically, against someone else in order to cause harm and is not necessarily the result of anger but can be quite calculated and intentional. Chrysalis (2010) uses the following definition for anger: “n: a strong feeling of annoyance, v: provoke anger in someone” and defines aggression as “hostile or violent behaviour or attitudes – very forceful: the action of attacking without provocation, especially in beginning a war”. Anger is part of the ‘fight or flight’ response first described by physiologist Walter Cannon who argued that this response is genetically hard-wired into our brains and designed to protect us from bodily harm. This response actually corresponds to an area of our brain called the hypothalamus and, when stimulated by a trigger, a series of nerve cells start to fire, and chemicals are released that prepare our body for running or fighting. When this fight or flight response is activated chemicals like adrenaline, noradrenaline and cortisol are released into our bloodstream and our bodies undergo a series of very dramatic changes: our respiratory rate and blood pressure increase, blood is diverted away from our vital organs and sent to our muscles and limbs, our awareness intensifies, our sight sharpens, our impulses quicken, our perception of pain lessens, our immune system mobilises and we are prepared, physically and psychologically, to run or to fight. So anger is an emotional, physiological and cognitive state, in other words we feel it as a strong emotion; it has physiological effects on our body and it is also cognitive in that it translates into thoughts which have an effect on what we choose to do, ie retaliate with anger or rationalise the action that has caused the anger and choose to be conciliatory. Therefore everyone has angry feelings from time to time because it is a normal adaptive emotion so not in itself problematic, in fact, in some situations anger gives us strength to challenge injustice or to make necessary changes in our lives. However, at other times anger becomes aggression. Aggression though is not always a response to a trigger or a threat. In Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, the basic requirements for food, shelter and safety are paramount and, even today, these needs must be met before any higher social demands such as love and companionship, self-esteem and independence can be sought. In the animal kingdom aggression is used achieve these basic needs, and humans are no exception. This is aggression used as a tool for survival of the fittest and for the protection and betterment of the group, however big or small. Obviously omnivores and carnivores must use aggression in order to eat meat, as a living thing must be killed in order for this to be achieved. Aggression is also used to obtain territory from a rival and for humans this could have been a cave that offered better protection, more productive land, better access to water etc. Therefore in order to survive, humans had to cause suffering to other humans, and this is still happening in today’s society, just on a much bigger scale. Perhaps instinctively we can only care for our own family, clan, society or country and have to dehumanise others in order to achieve this. In some ways this form of aggression can be seen as power, and it would seem that in many individuals using violence today, whether it be domestic violence, rape or murder, do so with power as the trigger or motivation. So we can see that there are two main types of aggression. 1. Hostile aggression – the desired outcome is to inflict pain, mental or physical, and which can be triggered by anger 2. Instrumental aggression – used as a method of achieving a goal, ie is reward led. Again this could be something concrete or a psychological reward. Through his psychoanalytical theory Freud first described aggression as a result of the suppression of the libido, the innate drives that he believed motivated all human behaviour. He believed that if our childhood conflicts between the id (our basic drives, especially the sexual drive) and the superego (developed as a result of learning from reward/punishment) become successfully controlled by the ego, aggression should be removed by adulthood. This ties in with M S Kerr (2012) who states that “the frequency of physical aggression peaks around 2-3 years of age. It then declines gradually. It aids in development of self-regulation.” However if, during the terrible 2s, we find that aggression and violence works, ie that if we hit our sibling and get the toy and we are not admonished by our parents or carers, then our superego may never develop and aggression becomes a way of achieving what we want with no respect for others. However, Freud found that this theory could not account for his experiences of the First World War and he developed a new model in which he separated aggression from the libido and believed that, as well as this life instinct (Eros), humans also have an innate death instinct (Thanatos). The conflict between these two forces means that some of the negative energy of Thanatos has to be directed outwards in order to prevent the self-destruction of the individual. He argued that this energy builds up like water in a dam and has to be released, spilling over into aggressive behaviour. This release can often be aimed at a substitute target and not the original trigger. This release is known as catharsis (blowing off steam). While Freud's adapted theory concentrated on the death instinct as the cause of aggression, the ethologist, Konrad Lorenz, saw instinctual aggressiveness as a product of evolution. Essentially, Lorenz combined Freud's theory of aggression with Charles Darwin's natural selection theory. He argued that aggressiveness is necessary for the survival of the strongest animals, causing the weaker animals to die out leading to a healthier population. His Hydraulic Model of Motivation builds on Freud’s theory arguing that aggression is inevitable and that animals are hard wired to respond to a cue or trigger after which the accumulating energy must find a release. He believed that animals (including humans) actively seek fights to assuage this energy and that, after an attack will become less aggressive. In this model there must be a trigger for the aggressive behavior, but like Freud, Lorenz’ theory is that aggression is innate and that aggression is inevitable. So Freud came to believe in an aggressive instinct because he saw so much violence and war and Lorenz believed that animals and humans were helped to survive through an aggressive instinct that protected their territory, mates and young, and insured only the strongest individuals survived. This evolutionary theory of aggression is one of many biological theories, which as a whole are similar to the psychoanalytic theory in that aggression is understood to be instinctual. Common to some of the other sociobiological theories is the proposition that aggression is the manifestation of a genetic or chemical influence. Sociobiologists also suggest that we have inherited an aggressive nature, a tendency to attack anything that gets in our way, a need to dominate and control. Research has shown that stimulation of certain parts of animals' brains leads to aggression. Stimulation of other parts stops aggression. In her paper on the neurological roots of aggression, E Singer (2007) cites that “When shown images of threatening faces, the aggressive boys had, compared with controls, greater activity in the amygdala, part of the brain that has been linked to fear, and lower activity in the prefrontal cortex, part of the brain involved in reasoning and decision making. The findings seem to provide a neurobiological explanation for their aggression”. Aggression may also have a chemical, hormonal, or genetic basis too. Obviously, certain animals are more aggressive than others and this aggressive strain can be genetically developed such as with certain breeds of dogs like pit bull terriers. A large survey of adopted children found that children living with an adoptive parent who committed crimes were less likely to go on to commit crimes than those who had genes from a person who committed crimes, ie that the closer the biological relationship the higher the level of convictions found in children. Therefore a statistically significant link was found between convicted biological fathers and their adopted children. (Mednick, Gabrielli & Hutchings 1984). As more studies of genes are being done, a complex interaction is being found of specific genes with specific neurotransmitters, such as serotonin, or with enzymes, such as monoamine oxidase A, which regulate mood and aggression. Terrie Moffitt (1955) is famous for her work showing that traumatic life experiences, such as being abused, have an impact on specific genes which, in turn, increase the likelihood of anti-social behaviour and this research “in the development of antisocial behavior has stimulated a global discussion of the idea of criminal intent and responsibility, as well as raising profound questions about humane strategies for crime prevention among abused children at risk of future violence” (Wikipedia). Other hormonal factors seem to play a part in aggression, ie a high level of testosterone is associated with more aggression, competitiveness and anti-social behavior and most women report being irritable before menstruation and it is said that 50% of all crimes by women happen during their menstrual period or premenstrual period. So we have looked at some of the psychodynamic and sociobiological theories regarding aggression that seem to suggest that as humans we are in thrall to our instincts and biochemistry and that aggression is endemic in humans and cannot be altered or eradicated. However this does not explain why not everyone uses aggressive behaviour. Perhaps we do all have aggressive instincts; even the mildest person can become extremely aggressive in the privacy of their car when faced with inconsiderate or bad drivers and will shout and swear safe in the knowledge that they cannot be heard. However many people manage to use their anger positively in provoking or frustrating situations by being assertive and not aggressive whilst yet others internalise their anger, turning it inwards on themselves. This may in some part be down to personality type. Type A and type B personality theory was created In the 1950s by cardiologists Friedman and Rosenman who were researching the possible causes of heart disease. They believed that certain patterns of behaviour carried a higher risk, and devised a method for categorising patients as either type A, type B (or type AB for those who defied easy categorisation). They found that people with a type A personality are more likely to be quick to anger, are often workaholics and are concerned with status and achievement. Unsurprisingly, this is the personality type that Friedman and Rosenman associated with a high risk of heart disease. Type B personalities report higher levels of life satisfaction and are more likely to be patient and even-tempered. Whether or not someone is an extrovert or introvert personality may also have a bearing on how they deal with anger, extroverts possibly being quicker to lash out. However, other schools of thought argue that all aggression is learned behaviour and can therefore be changed. Social Learning Theory is part of the cognitive/behaviourist approach that denies that humans are innately aggressive or that frustration automatically leads to aggression. Instead Bandura argues that aggression can be learned by observing aggressive models. He is best known for his 1961-1963 experiments utilizing an inflatable clown known as a Bobo doll in order to test modeling behaviours in children. “Children were divided into three groups – one of which was exposed to an aggressive adult model, one which was exposed to a passive adult model, and a control group, which was not exposed to an adult model. Adults in the aggressive group were asked to verbally and physically attack the doll, while those in the passive group were asked to play peacefully. Once the children were given the opportunity to play, results showed that those exposed to the aggressive model were more likely to imitate what they had seen, and to behave aggressively toward the doll. It was found that boys were four times more likely than girls to display physical aggression, but levels of verbal aggression were about the same. Further, a later study in 1965 showed that witnessing the model being punished for the aggressive behavior decreased the likelihood that children would imitate the behaviour” (Wikipedia). Other studies have shown the influence of TV and media violence on children. Bandura also argued that aggression could be learned through a cognitive process of anticipating or actually receiving rewards following aggression. There could be several types of reward; firstly just using your own aggression to stop others may constitute a reward; it could be that you achieve some kind of status or goal by your aggression; you may simply be reinforcing your own self-belief or perhaps you experience a reduction in tension as a result of being aggressive. So the theory is that, as with other behavioural theories, what has been learned can be unlearned and aggression is therefore something that can be controlled. This kind of learning is also involved in many things we do. We learn how to socialise, to work and to play and we can see our own habits, beliefs and likes and dislikes and beliefs are often modelled on our parents’ behaviour (although, conversely, we can see how reacted against their model and tried to behave completely differently). Our peer group, our school, the media, religion and many other sources provide other models which are all there to help us decide how to behave and what kind of person we want to be. In conclusion I would argue that the tendency to aggression in humans is genetic, or instinctual, and originally developed in order to aid survival, but I would also argue that we do learn aggressive behaviour from our social environment and can therefore learn to control and use these primitive emotions in a better way. Aggression is part of our daily lives; every night on the news there are reports of violence, rapes, murders and wars and as individuals we can feel helpless and unable to change things, and yet if our country is called to war we become patriotic and our aggressive instinct seems to allow us to dehumanise the ‘enemy’, allowing such conflicts to continue. It’s even possible to see how uplifting events like the Olympic Games can foster these feelings of superiority and rightness. As individuals we also encounter aggression on a very regular basis, whether from family, work colleagues or strangers on the road, in the street or in the supermarket. As therapists clients may seek our help for management of their aggression, or may have been referred by another agency, but the important thing is to help them realise that their aggression is not the result of others’ actions or even an intrinsic part of their personality but a basic drive that all humans share. They can be helped to see that, for them, aggression has become a maladaptive behaviour that is having a detrimental effect on their life and the lives of those around them, but that it is a behaviour that can be changed. 1. Bandura, A. (1973). Aggression: A Social Learning Analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. References: 1. Aggression: A Social Learning Analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, A Bandura 1973 2. Anger Management, The Complete Treatment Guidebook for Practitioners, Kassinove & Chip Tafrate, 2002 3. Chrysalis, Phychotherapeutic Counselling, Year Two, Module 8, 2010 4. Genetic influences in criminal convictions: evidence from an adoption cohort Mednick, Gabrielli & Hutchings, 1984 5. http://www.technologyreview.com/news/409013/the-neurological-roots-of-aggression/ E Singer 2007 6. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrie_Moffitt, 2012 7. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_learning_theory/Bandura