What determines how angry we get?
Deterioration of mental retention is only a part of it. Your eyes misread a sudden urge of violence...not being able to hold it together...A mutiny is on...the crew no longer obeys the captain. It’s sheer anarchy.
Aggression is defined as: “the first act of hostility or injury.” But why do people become aggressive? It is the thirst for power, money, authority, or simply the desire to intimidate others?
The root of aggression lies in the spirit of the suppressed when intimidated for long, when stripped of basic rights, when denied liberty, when made to feel unheard.
Intolerance is another reason for harbouring resentment. We, as a society are very emotional. Take for instance, our common method of conducting protest rallies. They are all about burning tires, pelting stones, breaking glass of shops and restaurants. Scaring others into compliance is an achievement rather then convincing people by reason, logic and facts.
Throughout the world social psychologists have attempted to figure out what makes a man go, with savagery unmatched by even the fiercest predators. Scientists and scholars from countless diversified fields have pondered over these moot points for centuries, and have submitted contrasting explanations for the enigma of human violence.
One of the earliest explanations of aggression says that mortals aggress because it is in their nature to do so. Sigmund Freud held that aggression stems mainly from an indomitable death wish or instinct possessed by all humans.
Konrad Lorenz proposed that aggression springs mainly from an inherited fighting instinct that human beings share with many species. However, social psychologists have been inclined to repudiate the view that aggression stems from inherent tendencies.
BIOLOGICAL THEORIES: Growing evidence points to the conclusion that biological factors do predispose some individuals towards aggression. Still, existing evidence suggests that biological processes exert their impact only against a rich backdrop of social and cognitive factors.
SOCIAL LEARNING THEORY: This approach emphasizes the idea that aggression is largely learned. Studies have proven that through direct and vicarious experience, even as early as six years of age, individuals also learn (a) which persons or groups are appropriate targets for aggression, (b) what actions by others either justify or actually require aggressive retaliation, and (c) what situations or contexts are ones in which aggression is appropriate or inappropriate.
COGNITIVE THEORIES OF AGGRESSION: Imagine being stuck in a traffic jam. A motorcyclist suddenly rams into the bumper of your car. How do you react? Certainly with surprise and a feeling of agitation. But do you retaliate in kind; reversing your car and bumping into the motorbike? Or do you swallow your annoyance and proceed? Obviously, this depends on numerous factors; how big a dent your car received etc.
According to several theories of aggression, cognitive factors play a crucial role in determining how you react. One cognitive factor that will influence your behaviour is your interpretation of the situation — your appraisal of why the motorcyclist bumped into your car. Did he do it on purpose? Was it totally an accident? Finally, it’s important to consider your current mood. Aversive experiences produce negative effects.
In sum, cognitive theories of aggression suggest that such behaviour is the result of a complex interplay between our prevailing moods and experiences, the deliberation and memories these elicit and our cognitive appraisals of the current state of affairs.
SOCIAL DETERMINANTS: Reflect back to the last time you found yourself in a state of pique. What made you lose your cool? Chances are that your ire grew from the deeds of another. In fact, when asked to recount situations that made them vexed, most people refer to something another person said or did. Dollard proposed the famous aggression hypothesis on the eve of World War-II (1939). In its original form, the hypothens stated: (a) frustration always leads to some form of aggression, (b) aggression always stems from frustration.
Although, these points are appealing, existing evidence suggests that this hypothesis goes too far with respect to the importance assigned to frustration. Social psychologists believe that frustration is simply one of the many factors that can lead to aggression. Aggression is often a direct result of physical or verbal provocation from others.
And then there are classes of aggression.
INDIVIDUAL AGGRESSION: A spouse beating up his wife; a boss intimidating his employee.
SOCIAL AGGRESSION: A certain sect of a community holding a prejudice against and acting out on it towards a different sect.
STATE AGGRESSION: A powerful state, aggressing through the use of its armed forces against the sovereignty, territorial or political independence of another not-so-powerful state.
Now, one should even consider the difference between being competitively aggressive and destructively aggressive. Being aggressive in ones attitude towards grooming creative or positive instincts results in higher achievements. It is therefore, believed that the distinction is crucial.
Since, there is a tendency for the line of distinction between the two to blur — we should be clear. Major difficulty still remains with respect to the question: how far does the spirit of competitive aggression extends before it reaches the threshold of destructive aggression?
Social Psychologists state that there are two types of aggression.
HOSTILE: In this, the prime objective is inflicting some kind of harm on the victim.
INSTRUMENTAL: A person performs this sort of aggression not to harm someone but to attain other goals, such as control of valued resources or praise from others for behaving in a tough manner.
PREVENTING AGGRESSION: Several ideas have been proposed. Firstly removing all iniquity from the scene; reducing the feelings of isolation, recognizing others rights.
Then in different situations punishment may need to be implemented as an effective deterrent to aggression. Punishment administered should be in accordance with the basic principals. It should at least appear to be justified. Depending upon the circumstances, the punishment must be prompt. It should also be certain and strong. The resulting unpleasantness should have a sufficient magnitude with which it affects the potential recipient.
When pugnacity thrives, senses lose acuity. One becomes shortsighted and deaf. Logic feels its comfortable identity lurching and swaying under the impact of aggression. Targeting others with aggression may bestow one with sensation of delegation. But aggression culminates in retaliation. And when retaliation takes the form of belligerence, then one can only cogitate how well the aggressor resolves is to deal with consequences of his actions!
Deterioration of mental retention is only a part of it. Your eyes misread a sudden urge of violence...not being able to hold it together...A mutiny is on...the crew no longer obeys the captain. It’s sheer anarchy.
Aggression is defined as: “the first act of hostility or injury.” But why do people become aggressive? It is the thirst for power, money, authority, or simply the desire to intimidate others?
The root of aggression lies in the spirit of the suppressed when intimidated for long, when stripped of basic rights, when denied liberty, when made to feel unheard.
Intolerance is another reason for harbouring resentment. We, as a society are very emotional. Take for instance, our common method of conducting protest rallies. They are all about burning tires, pelting stones, breaking glass of shops and restaurants. Scaring others into compliance is an achievement rather then convincing people by reason, logic and facts.
Throughout the world social psychologists have attempted to figure out what makes a man go, with savagery unmatched by even the fiercest predators. Scientists and scholars from countless diversified fields have pondered over these moot points for centuries, and have submitted contrasting explanations for the enigma of human violence.
One of the earliest explanations of aggression says that mortals aggress because it is in their nature to do so. Sigmund Freud held that aggression stems mainly from an indomitable death wish or instinct possessed by all humans.
Konrad Lorenz proposed that aggression springs mainly from an inherited fighting instinct that human beings share with many species. However, social psychologists have been inclined to repudiate the view that aggression stems from inherent tendencies.
BIOLOGICAL THEORIES: Growing evidence points to the conclusion that biological factors do predispose some individuals towards aggression. Still, existing evidence suggests that biological processes exert their impact only against a rich backdrop of social and cognitive factors.
SOCIAL LEARNING THEORY: This approach emphasizes the idea that aggression is largely learned. Studies have proven that through direct and vicarious experience, even as early as six years of age, individuals also learn (a) which persons or groups are appropriate targets for aggression, (b) what actions by others either justify or actually require aggressive retaliation, and (c) what situations or contexts are ones in which aggression is appropriate or inappropriate.
COGNITIVE THEORIES OF AGGRESSION: Imagine being stuck in a traffic jam. A motorcyclist suddenly rams into the bumper of your car. How do you react? Certainly with surprise and a feeling of agitation. But do you retaliate in kind; reversing your car and bumping into the motorbike? Or do you swallow your annoyance and proceed? Obviously, this depends on numerous factors; how big a dent your car received etc.
According to several theories of aggression, cognitive factors play a crucial role in determining how you react. One cognitive factor that will influence your behaviour is your interpretation of the situation — your appraisal of why the motorcyclist bumped into your car. Did he do it on purpose? Was it totally an accident? Finally, it’s important to consider your current mood. Aversive experiences produce negative effects.
In sum, cognitive theories of aggression suggest that such behaviour is the result of a complex interplay between our prevailing moods and experiences, the deliberation and memories these elicit and our cognitive appraisals of the current state of affairs.
SOCIAL DETERMINANTS: Reflect back to the last time you found yourself in a state of pique. What made you lose your cool? Chances are that your ire grew from the deeds of another. In fact, when asked to recount situations that made them vexed, most people refer to something another person said or did. Dollard proposed the famous aggression hypothesis on the eve of World War-II (1939). In its original form, the hypothens stated: (a) frustration always leads to some form of aggression, (b) aggression always stems from frustration.
Although, these points are appealing, existing evidence suggests that this hypothesis goes too far with respect to the importance assigned to frustration. Social psychologists believe that frustration is simply one of the many factors that can lead to aggression. Aggression is often a direct result of physical or verbal provocation from others.
And then there are classes of aggression.
INDIVIDUAL AGGRESSION: A spouse beating up his wife; a boss intimidating his employee.
SOCIAL AGGRESSION: A certain sect of a community holding a prejudice against and acting out on it towards a different sect.
STATE AGGRESSION: A powerful state, aggressing through the use of its armed forces against the sovereignty, territorial or political independence of another not-so-powerful state.
Now, one should even consider the difference between being competitively aggressive and destructively aggressive. Being aggressive in ones attitude towards grooming creative or positive instincts results in higher achievements. It is therefore, believed that the distinction is crucial.
Since, there is a tendency for the line of distinction between the two to blur — we should be clear. Major difficulty still remains with respect to the question: how far does the spirit of competitive aggression extends before it reaches the threshold of destructive aggression?
Social Psychologists state that there are two types of aggression.
HOSTILE: In this, the prime objective is inflicting some kind of harm on the victim.
INSTRUMENTAL: A person performs this sort of aggression not to harm someone but to attain other goals, such as control of valued resources or praise from others for behaving in a tough manner.
PREVENTING AGGRESSION: Several ideas have been proposed. Firstly removing all iniquity from the scene; reducing the feelings of isolation, recognizing others rights.
Then in different situations punishment may need to be implemented as an effective deterrent to aggression. Punishment administered should be in accordance with the basic principals. It should at least appear to be justified. Depending upon the circumstances, the punishment must be prompt. It should also be certain and strong. The resulting unpleasantness should have a sufficient magnitude with which it affects the potential recipient.
When pugnacity thrives, senses lose acuity. One becomes shortsighted and deaf. Logic feels its comfortable identity lurching and swaying under the impact of aggression. Targeting others with aggression may bestow one with sensation of delegation. But aggression culminates in retaliation. And when retaliation takes the form of belligerence, then one can only cogitate how well the aggressor resolves is to deal with consequences of his actions!
