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

From the Biological paradigm to Bandura's, there are many ways of understanding aggression.

Aggression is a phenomenon that has been studied from many different perspectives. These usually revolve around the same question: is aggression innate, is it learned, or is it both? And, given the difficulty of offering a single, clear-cut answer, the answers have been positioned in the same three dimensions: there are those who suggest that aggression 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 culture.

The following is a general overview of some of the main theories of some of the main theories of aggression and incorporate the possibility of distinguishing and incorporate the possibility of distinguishing between two phenomena that are often paired together: aggressiveness and violence.

Theories of aggression

Theories that have explained aggression have traversed different elements. For example, the intentional character of 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 Domenech and Iñiguez (2002) and Sanmartí (2006), with the intention of reviewing four of the major theoretical proposals that have explained aggression.

1. Biological determinism and instinctive theories

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

This is generally condensed under the term "instinct", understood as a necessary faculty for the survival of the species, whereby aggressiveness is defined in terms of an adaptive process, developed as a consequence of evolution. Depending on the reading 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 psychology and biology, as well as to evolutionary theories, however, the term "instinct" has also been understood in different ways according to the theory that uses it.

In the case of Freudian psychoanalysis, aggressiveness as instinct, or rather "drive" (which is the equivalent of "instinct" for the psyche), has been understood as a key to the constitution of personality. That is to say, it has important functions in the psychic structuring of each subject, as well as in sustaining the psychic structure of each subject.as well as in sustaining this structure in one way or another.

2. Environmentalist explanations

This line explains aggressiveness as a result of learning and various complex environmental factors. Here we group together a series of works 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 instinctive theories proposed, aggression is an innate phenomenon. However, it depends at all times on whether frustration is generated or not. Frustration, in turn, is generally defined as the consequence of not being able to carry out an action as anticipated, and in this sense, aggression is an innate phenomenon.In this sense, aggression serves as a calming agent for high levels of frustration.

3. Social learning

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

In other words, aggression is explained under the classic formula of operant conditioning. under the classic formula of operant conditioningIn this sense, it is possible to take into account which stimuli and which reinforcements trigger a certain type of aggressive behavior. And in this sense, it is possible to take into account which stimuli and which reinforcements trigger a certain type of aggressive behavior.

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

Aggressiveness, then, could be the consequence of behaviors learned by imitationand by having assimilated the consequences observed in other people's behaviors.

Among other things, Bandura's theories have made it possible to separate two processes: on the one hand, the mechanism by which we learn aggressive behavior; and on the other, the process by which we are able, or not, to execute it. And with the latter, it becomes possible to understand why, or under what conditions, its execution can be avoided, beyond the fact that we have already learned the logic and social function of aggressiveness.

4. Psychosocial theory

Psychosocial theory has made it possible to put in relation two dimensions of the humanwhich may be fundamental to understand aggressiveness. These dimensions are, on the one hand, individual psychological processes, and on the other, social phenomena, which, far from acting separately, interact closely, and result in the occurrence of a specific behavior, attitude, identity, etcetera.

Along the same lines, social psychology, and especially that of the socioconstructionist tradition, has paid attention to a key element in studies on aggressiveness: in order to determine which behavior is aggressive, there must first be a series of societal norms, which are not only a matter of social norms, but also of socioconstructionist norms. a series of sociocultural norms must first exist that indicate what is aggressive. that indicate what is understood as "aggression" and what is not.

And in this sense, aggressive behavior is that which transgresses the sociocultural norm. What is more: a behavior may be understood as "aggressive" when it comes from a particular person, and may not be understood as such when it comes from another.

This makes it possible to think of aggression in a context that, being social, is not neutral, but is sustained by power relations and possibilities of determined agency.

In other words, and given that aggression does not always manifest itself as an observable behavior, it is not always does not always manifest itself as an observable behaviorIt is important to analyze the forms in which it is represented, manifested and experienced. This makes it possible to consider that aggressiveness takes place only when a relationship is established, which means that it can hardly be explained in individual terms or with homogeneous nuances that apply to all relationships and experiences.

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

Aggressiveness or violence?

Aggressiveness has been translated by many theories as "aggressive behavior", which in other words is the action of aggression. And in this sense, it is often 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 both phenomena. This need leads us to to distinguish between the participation of biology and the intentionality of each process, as well as to contextualize them.as well as to contextualize them in the framework of the social institutions that participate in their production and reproduction, which implies recognizing both their human and social character. Character that the adaptive or defense response itself (aggressiveness) does not have.

For the same author, aggressiveness is a behavior that is presented automatically before certain stimuli and, therefore, is inhibited before other stimuli. In this sense, aggressiveness can be understood as an adaptive and defensive process. as an adaptive and defensive processcommon to all living beings. But it is not the same as violence. Violence is "altered aggressiveness", that is, a form of aggressiveness that is loaded with socio-cultural meanings. Such meanings cause it to be deployed no longer automatically, but intentionally and potentially harmful.

Intentionality, violence and emotions

Beyond being a biological response to stimuli that are potentially risky for survival, violence puts into action the sociocultural meanings we attribute to certain events understood in terms of danger. In this sense we can think that violence is a behavior that can only take place among human beings, while aggressiveness or aggressive behavior, are responses that can also take place in other species..

In this understanding of aggressiveness, emotions play an active and relevant role, such as fear, also understood in innate terms as an adaptive scheme and a survival mechanism. This leads us to consider that both fear and aggressiveness can be thought of as more than "good" or "bad".

Intersections of aggressiveness 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 distinct, for example, because of differences in class, race, gender, socioeconomic status, disability, etc.etc.

In this sense, the experience that provokes frustration and triggers aggressive behavior, which is perhaps later violent, may not be triggered 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 so because not all of us have been socialized in relation to the same resources to live and manifest both frustration and aggression in the same way. And for the same reason, the approach is also multidimensional and it is important to situate it in the relational context where it is generated.

Bibliographical references:

• Sanmartí, J. (2012). Keys to understanding violence in the 21st century. Ludus Vitalis, XX(32): 145-160.
• Sanmartí, J. (2006). what is this thing called violence? In Instituto de Educación de Aguascalientes. What is this thing called violence? Field Journal Bulletin Supplement. Retrieved June 22, 2018. Available at 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.