Do Juvenile Delinquency Diversion Programs Work

vixen1004

06CH_DeLisi_Criminal.pdf

Home >Law homework help >Criminal homework help >Do Juvenile Delinquency Diversion Programs Work

6Aggression and Violence

FatCamera/iStock/Getty Images Plus

Learning Outcomes

After reading this chapter, you should be able to

• Define the concept of aggression.

• Evaluate behavior to determine if it meets the criteria for aggression.

• Identify the various categories of aggression.

• Distinguish between biological and evolutionary psychological theories of aggression.

• Examine the role that social learning plays in developing and eliciting aggressive behavior.

• Analyze the developmental and situational factors that may lead to aggression.

• Understand the connection between gender and aggression.

100

Section 6.1 Introduction

Introductory Case Study: Scott Beierle Scott Beierle, a 40-year-old military veteran and former public school teacher living in Florida, lost his job for asking a female student if she was ticklish and then inappropriately touching her. Over the years, he was arrested multiple times for approaching women in public places and groping them. The charges rarely resulted in any meaningful punishment, since victims often did not pursue prosecution.

Beierle had posted multiple YouTube videos in which he expressed racist and sexist views, includ- ing bitter hatred of women. For example, in one video Beierle stated that “promiscuous women should be crucified” and that minority women, along with those who date minority men, were “disgusting.” In the videos, Beierle also compared himself to mass murderer Elliot Rodger, who killed six people near the University of California at Santa Barbara campus in 2014. It was clear to those who came in contact with Beierle and his videos that he harbored deep anger and resent- ment. However, it was unclear what precipitated these feelings. Then the unthinkable happened.

On November 2, 2018, Beierle walked into the Hot Yoga Tallahassee yoga studio with a gym bag and a yoga mat, posing as a patron. Just as class was about to begin, Beierle took a handgun out of his bag and opened fire on the other patrons in the studio, killing 21-year-old Maura Binkley and 61-year-old Nancy Van Vessem and wounding five others before turning the gun on himself. Other than Beierle’s arrest history and YouTube videos, there was no other evidence police had that could explain what led to his aggression that resulted in a shocking act of physical violence.

As you read this chapter, consider the following questions regarding this case:

1. What about Beierle’s behavior meets the criteria to be labeled aggressive? 2. Which of the categories of aggression does Beierle’s behavior fall under? 3. Which of the theories of aggression help explain Beierle’s behavior? 4. What, if anything, could have been done to prevent Beierle’s behavior?

6.1 Introduction Researchers are more interested than ever before in examining the factors related to violent and aggressive behavior, due in no small part to the increasing frequency of mass shootings. Identifying the root cause(s) of violence and aggression may help psychologists devise inter- ventions designed to prevent deadly aggression such as mass violence. However, it is impor- tant to understand that examining the problems of aggression and violence has been of great interest to philosophers, psychologists, and criminologists throughout history.

Philosophers Thomas Hobbes (in the 1500s) and Jean-Jacques Rousseau (in the 1700s) had strong views on aggression and violence. For example, Hobbes believed that aggression was biological. His view was that violence resulted because humans are evil by nature and thus must be controlled by the community to prevent aggressive behavior. Rousseau disagreed. His perspective was that humans learn aggressive behavior by interacting with others. Many early philosophical and psychological perspectives on aggression posit that this type of behav- ior is always violent and thus always criminal. However, research shows this is not the case.

101

Section 6.2 What Is Aggression?

Throughout the chapter, you will read about various theories of aggression and the support- ing research. You will learn that not all aggression is physical, and it is not always violent. In order to formally study aggressive behavior and violent behavior, psychology researchers have identified categories of aggression that help us make sense of the nature of aggression and violence and of whether the behavior rises to the level of criminality. Keep in mind as you read the chapter that not all aggressive behavior is violent but that all violent behavior is aggressive. Perhaps to aid your understanding of this, the best place to start is with precisely defining the concept of aggression.

6.2 What Is Aggression? Defining aggression is not as simple and straightforward an undertaking as it may seem. Think about how often the term aggressive is used to describe someone else’s behavior, such as yelling at someone, cutting off other drivers on the roadway, spreading cruel rumors about someone, or punching a wall when angry. These are commonly thought of as clear examples of aggression.

However, social psychologists Baron and Richardson (1994) define aggression as any form of behavior directed toward the goal of harming another living being who is motivated to avoid being harmed. According to social psychologists, the key elements required to categorize a behavior as aggressive are

1. there must be an observed behavior, 2. there must be a goal to harm, 3. that harm must be directed at another living being, and 4. that living being must be motivated to avoid the harm.

These four elements render the act aggressive in nature. When considering this definition, the example of punching a wall when angry would not be considered aggressive because there is a missing element: There is no other living being who is motivated to avoid being harmed.

According to the definition above, which of these can we classify as aggression?

• A hitman murders an unfaithful husband for $1,000. • A woman, angry with her supervisor, tells a coworker that the supervisor is cheating

on her husband with another coworker. • A teenager helps an elderly woman cross the street but accidentally trips the

woman, who falls and suffers a fractured wrist.

First, we want to examine if any of these examples has the four elements of behavior, goal to harm, directed at another living being, and another person motivated to avoid the harm. There- fore, if you guessed that the first two are examples of aggression, you are correct. The hitman example clearly contains all four elements, including the key element of intent to cause harm. In the context of the criminal justice system, intent to cause harm is a key element in whether the behavior constitutes a crime or is merely an unfortunate accident. This is discussed in more depth in Chapter 8.

102

Section 6.3 Categories of Aggression

The second example, in which a woman spreads a malicious rumor about her boss, also con- stitutes aggressive behavior. The woman intended to harm her supervisor, and presumably her supervisor is motivated to avoid such harm. Although the elderly woman in the third example suffered an injury at the hands of the teenager, this is not aggression. The miss- ing element in our definition of aggression in this context is that the teenager’s goal was to help rather than to harm the woman. An accident is not intentional and thus does not con- stitute aggressive behavior. Unintentional harm is not without consequences, but carrying out behavior that is intended to hurt someone is considered much worse than unintentional harm (Ames & Fiske, 2013).

As you can see, there are a number of behaviors that can be categorized as aggressive when accompanied by the four elements previously described.

6.3 Categories of Aggression Social psychologists have created categories to describe the various dimensions of aggres- sion. The main categories of aggression are hostile (emotional) aggression, instrumental (cognitive) aggression, physical aggression, and nonphysical aggression (see Figure 6.1).

Figure 6.1: Categories of aggression

The main categories of aggression are hostile, instrumental, physical, and nonphysical. Verbal and relational aggression are subtypes of nonphysical aggression.

Categories of aggression

Hostile

Physical

Instrumental

Nonphysical

Verbal Relational

103

Section 6.3 Categories of Aggression

Hostile (Emotional) Aggression Hostile aggression can best be thought of as reactive, impulsive, or “hot” aggression that occurs as the result of a real or perceived threat or insult. Hostile aggression is driven by emo- tions, as in the case of Philip Wood.

In the summer of 2019, Wood, a 50-year-old man, was at a pub in Valley, Alabama, relaxing and enjoying the evening with friends when another bar patron, Sidney Harmon, began to argue with him. Witnesses were not sure what the disagreement was about, but as tempers flared, the incident escalated. Wood then produced a knife and stabbed Harmon to death. Wood immediately ran from the scene; however, there were several eyewitnesses who helped police identify him, and he was later arrested.

Wood’s aggressive behavior occurred as the result of his anger, and in an impulsive and hos- tile act, he stabbed Harmon. In hostile aggression, the intent to harm arises in response to the current situation. Because the two men were strangers to one another, there was no plan on Wood’s behalf to harm Harmon until they began to argue at the bar.

Instrumental (Cognitive) Aggression Instrumental aggression is the opposite of hostile aggression such that there is some level of planning that goes into instrumental aggression. It can be thought of as “cool” aggres- sion. Whereas the underlying motivation behind hostile aggression is emotion, instrumental aggression lacks the emotional component and is often used as a means to some end. That is, the goal in instrumental aggression is to harm someone for personal gain. See Case Study: Comparing the Cases of Serina Wolfe and Daniel Rosado to explore different cases in which two people employed instrumental aggression.

Case Study: Comparing the Cases of Serina Wolfe and Daniel Rosado

Case One

In 2019 Serina Wolfe and her boyfriend were living in Clearwater, Florida. Wolfe asked him to buy her a plane ticket to New York so that she could visit with friends and family. Her boy- friend refused to purchase the $300 plane ticket for her. Wolfe was angry with her boyfriend and wanted to get back at him. She hatched a plan to take his credit card without him notic- ing and spend thousands of dollars. Wolfe stole the card, went to a local restaurant, and used her boyfriend’s credit card to leave a $5,000 tip on a $50 restaurant bill. Wolfe was arrested for grand theft after police discovered that she was the one who took the card and made the charge.

(continued on next page)

Alife/iStock/Getty Images Plus

Instrumental or “cool” aggression involves planning and is focused on personal gain, such as Serina Wolfe stealing her boyfriend’s credit card.

104

Section 6.3 Categories of Aggression

Physical (Violent) Aggression Physical aggression is perhaps the type of behavior most frequently thought of as aggres- sive in nature. Physical aggression can include hitting, biting, scratching, kicking, stabbing, shooting, punching, or any other physical act that is intended to cause bodily harm to another living being. It is important to note that physical aggression constitutes violent behavior. That is, violence is aggressive behavior that uses physical force intended to cause bodily injury or death. It is also important to point out that physical aggression may seem to be hostile or “hot” aggression. However, as you have learned so far, the intent to harm someone does not always include causing physical harm, and the intent to cause bodily harm can fall under hos- tile aggression or instrumental aggression.

For example, Philip Wood caused fatal bodily harm to Sidney Harmon when he stabbed Har- mon. That is, Wood used physical (violent) aggression (stabbing) in the heat of a spontaneous argument. This resulted in Harmon’s grave bodily injuries and untimely death. Therefore, Wood engaged in hostile physical aggression.

Contrarily, Daniel Rosado engaged in instrumental physical aggression when he shot at police and wrestled with a bystander as he attempted to flee the bank. In Rosado’s case, the aggres- sion was part of his plan to elude capture. Both Wood and Rosado used violence to achieve their goals of harming another living being. However, Wood’s violence was motivated by emo- tion in the heat of the moment, whereas Rosado’s was motivated by his plan to obtain the desired cash from the bank even if it meant causing bodily harm to anyone who attempted to thwart him.

Case Study: Comparing the Cases of Serina Wolfe and Daniel Rosado (continued)

In Wolfe’s case, she planned how she was going to harm her boyfriend and carried out her plan as a means of punishing him for not buying her the plane ticket. Wolfe’s instrumental aggres- sion led to a being charged with a crime.

Case Two

On May 1, 2019, Daniel Rosado went into Middlesex Savings Bank in Massachusetts armed with a gun and a plan to rob the bank. Rosado entered the bank, pulled out his gun, shot into the ceiling, and demanded that the bank teller fill his bag with cash. The robbery was foiled when a bank customer was able to sneak out and flag down a police officer, who exchanged gunfire with Rosado as he fled the scene. Another patron tackled Rosado on the street as he fled, but Rosado was able to slip away. However, Rosado was apprehended in Rhode Island 3 weeks after the attempted bank robbery.

In Rosado’s case, his intent was to harm any bank staff, customers, or police who got in the way of his attempt to steal the cash that day. Rosado’s aggressive behavior was the means to an end to rob the bank. He planned the attack such that he armed himself, shot the gun into the bank ceiling and at police who tried to stop him, and tussled with a bystander who tackled him to the ground to stop him. Rosado’s acts that day provide a clear example of instrumental aggression.

105

Section 6.3 Categories of Aggression

Nonphysical Aggression Nonphysical aggression isn’t what we usually think about when we consider aggression, but it can be just as harmful as physical aggression. The two types of nonphysical aggression are verbal and relational.

Verbal Aggression Verbal aggression is a form of nonphysical aggression that includes shouting, swear- ing, name-calling, or any other nonphysical verbal behavior that is intended to harm another living being when that individual is motivated to avoid being harmed. Ver- bal aggression often accompanies physical aggression; however, there are instances in which the aggressive behavior is limited to words expressed from one individual to another.

An example of verbal aggression occurred on January 2, 2019, when a woman board- ing a United Airlines flight from Las Vegas, Nevada, to Newark, New Jersey, began hurling insults at the two women she was seated between. The woman began telling the other two passengers that she was feeling “squished” between them but “at least they’ll keep me warm” (as cited in CBS News, 2019). She complained that the two passengers were overweight and that she did not know how she would survive the flight for the next 4 hours. One of the passengers complained to a flight attendant, and other passengers sitting nearby admonished the woman for her behavior. Flight attendants then tried to move the verbally aggressive woman to another seat, but the woman continued to yell insults at the other pas- sengers and again toward the women she was seated between. The woman was ejected from the flight as a result of her behavior.

It is clear that the verbally aggressive woman intended to hurt the other two passengers with her words, but it is less clear whether this behavior constitutes hostile or instrumental aggression. In order to make this determination, we would need more information about her ultimate motive. If she sat down and became angry upon seeing and feeling limited space at her seat and had no other motive than to shame and embarrass the women, then we can cat- egorize this as hostile aggression. However, if her ultimate goal was to cause such discomfort to the women that one or both asked to be moved to another seat, then the verbally aggressive woman engaged in instrumental aggression. This is because the verbally aggressive words would serve as a means to some other goal besides simply causing harm to the women.

See Spotlight: Exploring Criminality of Verbal Aggression to explore whether verbal aggression can be considered criminal.

fizkes/iStock/Getty Images Plus

Verbal aggression includes shouting, swearing, name-calling, and any other nonphysical verbal behaviors that are intended to harm someone; it can be accompanied by physical aggression.

106

Section 6.3 Categories of Aggression

Relational (Social) Aggression Another form of nonphysical aggression is relational (social) aggression, which occurs when the desired intent is to harm another’s relationships or social standing. In relational aggression, the behavior does not involve a direct confrontation with the intended target of the harm. It is more covert. Archer and Coyne (2005) identified certain behaviors exhibited in relational aggression, including but not limited to spreading malicious gossip, ostracizing someone from a social group, giving someone the silent treatment, turning people against one another, stealing another’s spouse or partner, and flirting with someone else to incite a jealous response from one’s partner. Relational aggression is more common among females.

Relational aggression has been studied extensively in schoolchildren, and findings show that the old adage “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me” appears to be incorrect. That is, relational aggression is often considered bullying, especially in social environments in which groups of people gather regularly, such as at school or the workplace. Social psychologists have found that young victims of relational aggression are far more likely to experience negative mental health outcomes. These include depression, anxiety, and even engaging in harmful behaviors, including attempting suicide (see Craig, 1998; Hinduja & Patchin, 2000; Olafson & Viemero, 2000; Paquette & Underwood, 1999; Sharp, 1995). See Case Study: Michelle Carter to read about a recent famous case involving relational aggression.

In theory, relational aggression could be a form of hostile aggression if, for example, the behavior was impulsive and the only goal of the behavior was to harm the target. However, if the ultimate goal of the behavior is to cause the target harm for some other purpose, such as to raise the aggressor’s social standing, and this behavior was planned, then it can be consid- ered instrumental aggression.

Spotlight: Exploring Criminality of Verbal Aggression Is verbal aggression considered criminal behavior? While some may believe that verbal aggres- sion cannot ever be labeled criminal due to First Amendment free-speech protections, there are in fact some jurisdictions in which an individual’s specific use of words spoken to another person can be adjudicated criminal behavior. Generally speaking, this falls under malicious harassment criminal codes that include physical aggression as well as verbal aggression. For example, in the state of Washington, individuals convicted of malicious harassment can face up to 5 years in prison and be fined up to $10,000. (Visit the following link for more information regarding the state’s legal code for this specific crime: https://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default .aspx?cite=9a.36.080.)

Visit the following link to read about some situations in which verbal aggression can legally be considered criminal: https://answers.uslegal.com/criminal/assault/23815/.

https://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9a.36.080

https://answers.uslegal.com/criminal/assault/23815/

107

Section 6.4 Psychological Theories of Aggression

6.4 Psychological Theories of Aggression Discovering where aggression originates is a topic of great debate among psychologists and other social scientists. Is aggressive behavior learned or inherited? The topic of aggression is another dimension of the nature-versus-nurture debate, and psychologists have developed various theoretical perspectives based on their own area of interest.

Aggressive behavior is also studied in disciplines outside of psychology, including from a sociological and criminological perspective. However, psychological theories of aggression inform sociological and criminological research on aggression and provide the foundation for understanding related factors. The question at the heart of examining aggression, includ- ing violence, is whether the underlying catalyst is dispositional (biological) or situational (learned). The research on the biological underpinnings of aggression shows that there is some validity to the idea that aggressive behavior is innate. In this section, we explore the major theories of aggression from biological and evolutionary perspectives.

Case Study: Michelle Carter Teenagers Michelle Carter and Conrad Roy III were in a long-distance relationship for 2 years. Roy lived in a verbally and physically abusive home and had attempted suicide previously. In July 2014 Carter sent Roy a series of text messages over a 2-week period encouraging him to “just do it already.”

Roy got into his pickup truck, drove to a local empty parking lot, and turned on the generator he brought with him to produce carbon monoxide poisoning. As the truck filled with the poi- sonous gas, Roy got scared and jumped out of the truck. He called Carter, who told him to get back into the truck and do it. Carter never called for help, nor did she admit to anyone that she had spoken to him twice while he was in the midst of carrying out his suicide.

Carter instead publicly mourned Roy’s death and seemed to revel in the attention she received as the grieving girlfriend. She even comforted Roy’s mother and seemed to enjoy the attention the Roy family gave her for being such a “caring friend” to Conrad. When the text messages were discovered on Roy’s phone, however, police arrested Carter, and she was charged with manslaughter for effectively bullying Roy into suicide.

There has never been any evidence produced to suggest that Carter was angry with Roy, and because they appeared to get along well with one another, Carter’s behavior does not fall under the category of hostile aggression. This type of relational aggression can be categorized as instrumental aggression. That is, it seems that the text message evidence supports the state’s position that Carter’s goal was to gain attention and sympathy as the grieving girlfriend. The harm Carter caused Roy was a means to an end, with the end being basking in expressions of sympathy from friends, family, and the community.

108

Section 6.4 Psychological Theories of Aggression

Psychoanalytic/Freudian Theory of Aggression Sigmund Freud created psychoanalysis, and thus this perspective is often referred to as Freud- ian theory (used interchangeably with the phrase psychoanalytic theory). The psychoanalytic view of aggression is that it is biological in nature. That is, Freud’s position was that humans are born with two distinct drives: “life instinct” and “death instinct.” Freud hypothesized that these two drives often compete against one another in our subconscious minds and that aggression occurs as a result of the conflict between the two opposing innate desires to either live or die. Therefore, Freud believed that aggression represents the deflection of the death instinct onto others. It is an interesting idea, but it has not been validated because psycholo- gists have yet to determine a way to verify the existence of an unconscious mind.

From a criminal behavior perspective, Freud’s colleague Josef Breuer believed that cathar- sis was required to relieve the unconscious internal conflict between the desire to live and

the desire to die. Catharsis is the process of releasing or purging repressed emotions. For example, a psychologist may advise a cli- ent to find a constructive outlet to release pent-up aggression. This release can occur in a direct manner, or it can be accomplished indirectly by engaging in psychotherapy and/ or enjoyable activities that provide a release of the stress and anxiety that are thought to be triggers to aggression. (Zillmann, Katcher, and Milavsky [1972] found that engaging in physical exercise as a constructive outlet may actually increase aggression in some situ- ations, thereby contradicting the idea that catharsis via physical exercise may be effec- tive at reducing aggression.)

Frustration–Aggression Hypothesis Dollard, Doob, Miller, Mowrer, and Sears (1939) carried on the psychoanalytic tradition after Freud’s death and asserted that aggression will always occur as a result of experiencing frus- tration. Dollard et al. called this perspective the frustration–aggression hypothesis. Psy- chologists were challenged to provide this hypothesis using the scientific method because there seemed to be a significant level of disagreement among the relevant scientific commu- nity regarding the concepts of frustration and aggression.

Despite a lack of scientific validity in the frustration–aggression hypothesis, psychologists continued to try to perfect the theory. Berkowitz (1969) later revised the frustration– aggression hypothesis by asserting that although frustration may precede aggression, there are other factors that may also precede aggressive behavior, such as pain, a heightened state of arousal, and more.

dislentev/iStock/Getty Images Plus

Pent-up aggression requires some form of release or outlet. A healthy way to release aggression is by practicing a relaxing, enjoyable activity such as yoga at sunset.

109

Section 6.4 Psychological Theories of Aggression

Excitation Transfer Theory Social psychology researchers have found that arousal can lead to increased aggression as well. For example, Zillmann et al. (1972) examined whether instigating physiological arousal would lead to aggression. The researchers hypothesized that when one individual believes he or she is receiving an electric shock by another and then assigned to engage in either high- or low-intensity exercise, the target would experience a heightened state of physiologi- cal arousal that would later lead to aggression.

These findings were confirmed in a later study by Zillmann (1988) when he examined whether physiological arousal had the potential to elicit aggression in any context. Zillmann found that even without being instigated, simply exercising would induce a heightened state of physiological arousal that could lead to later aggressive behavior. For example, if a partici- pant engaged in high-intensity exercise and then a short period later was exposed to some minor annoyance that might otherwise be ignored, the heightened physiological arousal from exercising may lead the person (no matter what gender) to behave aggressively toward the source of the annoyance. Zillmann referred to this phenomenon as excitation transfer the- ory, which is the theory that regardless of how physiological arousal is produced, the height- ened state of arousal dissipates slowly, is not situation specific, and thus can generalize to other situations, resulting in aggression.

For example, imagine a salesperson who goes out for a run prior to work and thus becomes physiologically aroused from the exercise. When she arrives at work, she is called into her manager’s office, where she is asked to work a little harder to increase sales productivity for that month. The salesperson becomes verbally aggressive and lashes out at her manager. This occurs despite the fact that the sales manager typically asks staff to increase productivity to meet certain sales goals. In this case the salesperson’s physiological arousal was still high by the time she arrived at work; this arousal generalized to the sales manager when a simple request was made.

Evolutionary Theory of Aggression Evolutionary psychologists hypothesize that aggression developed as a means of helping our species survive and thrive; thus, it is biological in nature. Buss and Shackelford (1997) attempted to account for aggression from an evolutionary perspective and identified vari- ous adaptive issues that may explain the historical development of aggressive behavior in humans.

One issue the researchers proposed was taking others’ resources when resources were scarce. For example, there was a time when humans had to hunt for food in order to survive. Resources may have been limited, leading to competition among other humans; aggression resulted as a means of scaring off or even eliminating competition in order to keep oneself and one’s family nourished. In addition to securing necessary survival resources, aggression was useful to bolster one’s social status by demonstrating strength that was perceived as power.

110

Section 6.5 Learning Theories of Aggression

Buss and Shackelford (1997) further suggested that aggression may also have evolved as the result of attempting to prevent infidelity, thereby reducing the likelihood that resources may be depleted by unrelated offspring. This particular adaptive problem of raising another’s off- spring has found some support in statistics that suggest that in homes where there is a step- parent, stepchildren are anywhere from 40 to 100 times more likely to be killed or maimed by that stepparent (Daly & Wilson, 2001). This is referred to as the Cinderella effect, based on the fairy tale in which the ugly stepmother treats Cinderella, her stepdaughter, horribly compared to her own daughters. The Cinderella effect is the evolutionary psychology phe- nomenon that posits that the prevalence of child abuse perpetrated by stepparents on their stepchildren is significantly higher than that perpetrated by biological parents on their own children (Daly & Wilson, 2001). This type of aggression may represent criminal behavior, especially if violence (physical aggression) is involved. In fact, Daly and Wilson’s data come from criminal child abuse statistics records in which the injury or death of the child was per- petrated by a stepparent.

6.5 Learning Theories of Aggression Social psychologists are likely to subscribe to the perspective that aggressive behavior devel- ops through observational learning. That is, people are influenced to behave aggressively because they see others doing so. This section will explore aggression from a social psychol- ogy perspective (e.g., mimicry of behaviors) and also from a behavioral/learning psychology perspective (e.g., behavior reinforcement).

Social Learning Theory of Aggression According to Albert Bandura (1978), “People are not born with preformed repertoires of aggressive behavior; they must learn them” (p. 14). Recall the discussion in Chapter 4 regard- ing Bandura’s social learning theory. Bandura (1977) coined the term social learning theory to describe his finding that social behavior, including aggression, is learned by observation of others as well as through rewards and punishments. In his model, observational learning, reinforced performance, and structural determinants—such as socioeconomic status, family background, cultural features, and other sociological factors—are the origins of aggression.

In the early 1960s Bandura conducted a study with the goal of determining the importance of imitation and learned behavior. Specifically, he sought to understand how children would behave after they watched an adult act aggressively toward a Bobo doll. In the famous Bobo doll experiment, Bandura, Ross, and Ross (1961) had a total sample of 72 children (36 boys and 36 girls) ages 3 to 6 years. There were three experimental groups in which 24 children observed an adult model aggressive behavior toward the Bobo doll, 24 observed the adult model nonaggressive behavior, and 24 had no model. The children were then placed in the room with the doll. The findings showed that children tended to mimic the behavior of the model they had observed when the model left the room and they were alone with the Bobo doll. That is, those in the aggressive model condition were significantly more likely to behave aggressively with the doll than those in the no-model and nonaggressive-model groups.

Interestingly, Bandura et al. (1961) also found that female participants engaged in more physically aggressive play with the doll when their model was male and engaged in more

111

Section 6.5 Learning Theories of Aggression

verbally aggressive behavior if their model was female. Boys were more likely to imi- tate the model’s physical aggression when their model was male rather than female. That is, both boys and girls were more likely to imitate physical aggression when they observed that behavior modeled by an adult male.

Moreover, the researchers found that aggressive behavior was reinforced when the aggressor was rewarded for that behav- ior and reduced when the aggressor was punished for such behavior. For example, if the child received accolades for behav- ing aggressively, he or she was likely to behave more aggressively in the future. On the other hand, if the child was admonished and suffered negative consequences for

behaving aggressively, he or she was likely to behave less aggressively in the future. These findings provide strong empirical support for aggression as a learned set of behaviors.

Bandura and other social psychologists have tested the validity of social learning theory as it applies to prosocial helping behaviors. That is, social psychologists have found that when the modeled behaviors included helping and kindness, children were likely to model those behaviors (see Bandura, 1977; Rushton, 1980). This is especially true when caretakers rein- force the behavior. For example, if a child shares her lunch with a classmate who forgot his lunchbox that day and the teacher tells her how kind she is to share, that positive reinforce- ment is likely to elicit future prosocial behavior.

Social Contagion Theory Similar to social learning theory, social contagion theory is a type of social influence that occurs when a modeled behavior spreads from one crowd participant to another after observ- ing the behavior or by media coverage of the behavior. It has traditionally been researched in the context of consumer behavior (Rogers, 1995), rule breaking (Ritter & Holmes, 1969), suicides (Marsden, 1998; Phillips, 1974), criminal behavior (Jones & Jones, 1995), and more recently, mass shootings. That is, social contagion is generally studied in the context of indi- viduals being exposed to certain behaviors and attitudes either directly by firsthand experi- ence or indirectly through stories of these occurrences. Researchers then measure the pro- pensity for those behaviors to be mimicked by others, which creates what can be thought of as a “cultural infection.”

Although social learning theory could apply in this context, Bandura’s social learning the- ory was tested on children and did not measure the spread of the learned behaviors to the masses. Bandura also used a hybrid of social learning through modeling and behavioral learning through conditioning with rewards and punishments to measure the impact of the learned behaviors. Social contagion research focuses solely on mimicking the behaviors after exposure.

Rawpixel/iStock/Getty Images Plus

The well-known Bobo doll experiment demonstrated social learning theory by illustrating how children mimicked the behavior of the adult they had observed when the adult left the room and they were alone with the doll.

112

Section 6.5 Learning Theories of Aggression

To evaluate the magnitude of social contagion of mass shootings, Towers, Gomez-Lievano, Khan, Mubayi, and Castillo-Chavez (2015) noted that mass shootings appeared to occur in clusters. The researchers analyzed news reports of mass shootings from 1997 to 2013, defin- ing mass shooting as any in which there were at least four victims murdered during the event. Towers et al. found that following such shootings, a “contagion” period occurred for up to approximately 2 weeks, during which there was a 20% to 30% increase in similarly violent incidents. The researchers concluded that media coverage publicizing these acts of violence contributed to social contagion of mass violence. It is important to understand that these data are merely correlational (a related but not necessarily a causal relationship) but are compel- ling enough to warrant attention, especially if less media coverage sensationalizing such vio- lent events might contribute to saving lives.

See Figure 6.2 for an example of how social contagion may lead to more active shooter incidents.

Figure 6.2: 250 active shooter incidents in United States, 2000–2017

This figure serves as an example of how social contagion may lead to more active shooter incidents. The number of incidents generally increases from 2000 to 2016, with a spike in incidents in 2017. Although this graph does not directly indicate the cause of the increase, it is worth considering the effect of media coverage of aggression and violence on behavior.

From “Quick Look: 250 Active Shooter Incidents in the United States Between 2000–2017, Casualty Breakdown Per Year,” by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, n.d. (https://www.fbi.gov/about/partnerships/office-of-partner-engagement/active-shooter -incidents-graphic).

Ye ar

Number of incidents

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

50 10 15 20 25 30 35

https://www.fbi.gov/about/partnerships/office-of-partner-engagement/active-shooter-incidents-graphic

113

Section 6.6 Factors Related to Aggression

6.6 Factors Related to Aggression Some developmental psychologists believe that there is a biological basis for aggression and that individuals are genetically predisposed to it, but others believe that aggression develops as a result of exposure to others’ aggressive behavior. Many have conducted research on the implications of aggression regardless of where it originates. The research on developmental and situational factors related to aggression lends validity to the psychological and social learning perspectives.

Developmental Factors Given its important role in explaining antisocial conduct, psychologists have focused on early childhood aggression as a potential precursor of aggression in adolescence and adulthood. Raine and his colleagues (1998) observed, “Because aggression in early childhood is capable of predicting aggression in adulthood, some of the foundations for later aggressive and vio- lent behavior are probably set in the first few years of life” (p. 745). Aggression is central to antisocial behavior and has been observed across data sources. For example, Daniel Nagin and Richard Tremblay (2001) found that kindergarten boys who are oppositional and hyper- active are about 3 times more likely than other children to be highly aggressive in high school.

In a classic study, Caspi, Elder, and Bem (1987) examined longitudinal data spanning 30 years on boys and girls ages 8 to 10 who had frequent temper tantrums. Were temper tantrums merely a passing phase of late childhood, or did they have enduring meaning? The results were alarming. Caspi and colleagues found that the explosive, poorly tempered outbursts of childhood similarly emerged in adult contexts when people had to subordinate themselves, such as in work and school settings. Having a bad temper as a child predicted middle adult- hood occupational mobility (i.e., frequent job changes due to quitting or firing), lower educational attainment, and divorce. These effects were similar for males and females.

Pediatric psychology researchers have found that infant persistence, or how often an infant seeks parental attention and then continues to fuss when his or her mother is unresponsive, has been linked to aggres- sion at age 2 and conduct problems dur- ing the preschool years (Shaw, Bell, & Gilliom, 2000). Moreover, in their longitu- dinal research, Benjamin Lahey and his col- leagues (2008) found that infant fussiness during the first year of life predicted con- duct problems through age 13.

Kate Keenan and Lauren Wakschlag (2000) reported that preschoolers as young as 30 months present symptoms that are consistent with serious behavioral disorders, such as ADHD, ODD, and conduct disorder. In their study of 79 preschool children ages 2.5 to 5.5 years who were referred based on troubling behavior, nearly 50% met the criteria for conduct disorder, and 75% met the criteria for ODD. Nearly 27% met the diagnostic criteria for all three disorders.

Ktmoffitt/iStock/Getty Images Plus

Caspi, Elder, and Bem (1987) found that the explosive, poorly tempered outbursts of childhood similarly emerged in adult contexts when people had to subordinate themselves.

114

Section 6.7 Gender and Aggression

Some of these children were so aggressive and uncontrollable that they were expelled from preschool.

Furthermore, Susan Campbell and Linda Ewing (1990) found that 67% of children who were rated as hard to manage at age 3 met diagnostic criteria for externalizing disorders at age 9, and the diagnostic data were validated by maternal and teacher reports. Hard-to-manage pre- schoolers display a troubling set of characteristics that lend themselves to prolonged antiso- cial conduct and compromised prosocial development. Mothers, fathers, and teachers report that hard-to-manage children as young as age 3 are noteworthy for their poor impulse con- trol, oppositional tendencies, poorly developed social skills, inattention, and school problems (Campbell, 1994).

Situational Factors Situational factors are those that occur externally in our environment, rather than internally as biological factors, and they often have a powerful influence on human behavior. Commonly encountered situational factors that may have an effect on aggression include but are not limited to socioeconomic status, level of educational attainment, the people we encounter and socialize with, our neighborhood environment, and other adverse childhood experiences such as abuse and neglect. Situational factors that influence aggressive behavior are generally studied by social psychologists, and some of their findings are shared in this section.

Using data from an all-male, high-risk sample in Montreal, Canada, Nagin and Tremblay (2001) found that persistently aggressive kindergarteners often came from homes character- ized by teenage mothers, family dissolution, and poverty. For the purpose of the study, the researchers operationalized “high risk” as children who were born into low socioeconomic status and whose parents had also been born into poverty, had attained a poor education, and often had been teenagers when they became parents. The boys in the study also had low IQs, few prosocial skills, and attention difficulties—risk factors that would be enduringly predic- tive of aggression nearly a decade later.

Based on data from a sample of low-income boys and their families, Shaw, Lacourse, and Nagin (2004) found that a small group consisting of less than 7% of the sample of 284 boys demonstrated high levels of overt conduct problems such as aggressive acts from ages 2 to 10. During this span, their use of aggression was several times that of other trajectories of children. Moreover, about 20% of the sample displayed chronic hyperactivity and attention problems from ages 2 to 10. And in a study of 10 Canadian cohorts including nearly 11,000 children (mostly males from impoverished families) followed over 6 years, Côté, Vaillancourt, LeBlanc, Nagin, and Tremblay (2006) found that about 17% of children demonstrated high levels of aggression from ages 2 to 11. Unlike their peers, they were unable to inhibit the use of force against others.

6.7 Gender and Aggression Traditional wisdom holds that males are more prone to aggressive behavior than females. However, this concrete dichotomy is not supported by research, particularly when consid- ering the many types of aggression covered in this chapter. Although women and men are

115

Summary and Conclusion

equally capable of aggressive behavior, the type of aggression does seem to be significantly different based on gender. For example, research shows that men are significantly more likely to engage in physical aggression than women are (Shaver & Mikulincer, 2011).

It should be noted that toddlers exhibit equally aggressive behaviors regardless of gender until they reach elementary school. This is the stage at which boys and girls are socialized differentially. That is, aggressive behavior is discouraged in girls, whereas boys are encour- aged to be “tough” and defend themselves. This means that girls learn to express aggression in more covert ways (e.g., relational aggression). Research supports the hypothesis that girls are significantly more likely to engage in relational and verbal aggression than they are to engage in physical aggression (see Casey-Cannon, Haward, & Gowen, 2001; Crick & Grotpeter, 1995; Garside & Klimes-Dougan, 2002).

To provide context about the differences in women versus men in the criminal justice sys- tem, consider the Florida Department of Corrections, which has 74 total major prisons and annexes, including privately run facilities, of which only 5 are women’s facilities. Nationwide, women make up just 10% of the total prison population. When looking at prison population by type of crime, 57% of incarcerated men and just 38% of incarcerated women are serving time for committing violent crime (Sentencing Project, 2019). (Gender differences in violent crimes are discussed in more depth in Chapter 8.) These data support psychology research findings showing that women engage in more covert, nonviolent forms of aggression. The data also provide support for the perspective that gender differences in aggressive behavior are not attributable only to biological differences in men and women but also to stark differ- ences in how girls and boys are socialized.

Summary and Conclusion

Psychology researchers and criminologists continue to study aggression and the factors that influence the likelihood of engaging in aggressive behavior—particularly criminally aggres- sive behavior. In order for a behavior to be considered aggressive, it must be accompanied by an intent to harm another living being who is motivated to avoid being harmed. In this chapter, we discussed the major categories of aggression—hostile or instrumental, physical or nonphysical—and some of the seminal research findings in these areas.

Psychologists have theories about whether aggression is biological (e.g., excitation transfer theory or psychoanalytic/Freudian theory) or learned (e.g., social learning theory or social contagion theory), and there is credible research in support of both perspectives. Each perspective makes a valuable contribution to our ability to comprehend foundations and potential triggers of aggressive behavior.

Perhaps the most troubling aspect of aggression research is the recent finding that social contagion may lead to increased mass violence due to sensational media coverage of these events. However, the most encouraging finding may lie in Bandura’s social learning theory, which shows that when prosocial helping behavior is modeled for children, they are as likely to imitate the helping behavior as they are to mimic aggressive behavior. It may be that social contagion theory can be employed to elicit more prosocial behaviors via focusing media coverage on acts of kindness designed to reduce incidents of violence and aggression.

116

Summary and Conclusion

The research on aggressive behavior shows that there are observable gender differences in the type of aggressive behavior perpetrated. Specifically, males tend to be more physically aggressive, and females are more likely to engage in relational aggression. However, toddler research shows that this is not attributable solely to biological differences between genders, as evidenced by equal engagement in physical aggression up until elementary school. Much of the research shows that there are remarkable differences in how boys and girls are social- ized in school that have a direct influence on the type of aggressive behavior they engage in.

Finally, the chapter covered some of the seminal research on developmental and situational causes of aggression, bringing to light some of the complexities involved in predicting fac- tors that may contribute to aggressive behavior. The research appears to show that low socioeconomic status, having parents with low educational attainment, and environmental factors such as living conditions—including child abuse, neglect, and abject poverty—can have a negative influence on behavior. It is important to remember that there are many people who live in less-than-desirable conditions but who do not behave aggressively. These individual differences are a major reason why continuing research is necessary to further identify which factors may contribute to aggression and under what conditions.

Critical Thinking Questions

1. What are the elements of an act that help distinguish it as aggressive behavior? 2. What are some of the factors that may be associated with aggressive behavior? 3. Explain social contagion theory and how it relates to mass violence. 4. Propose your own hybrid theory of aggression composed of a combination of bio-

logical, evolutionary, and/or learned perspectives. 5. Design an intervention to prevent physical (violent) aggression.

Key Terms aggression Any form of behavior directed toward the goal of harming another living being who is motivated to avoid being harmed.

catharsis The process of releasing or purging repressed emotions.

Cinderella effect An evolutionary psychology phenomenon that posits that the prevalence of child abuse perpetrated by stepparents on their stepchildren is significantly higher than that perpetrated by biological parents on their own children.

excitation transfer theory A theory that regardless of how physiological arousal is produced, the heightened state of arousal dissipates slowly, is not situation specific, and thus can generalize to other situations, resulting in aggression.

frustration–aggression hypothesis The theory that aggression will always occur as a result of experiencing frustration. Later revised to note that although frustration may occur before aggression, there are other factors that may produce aggressive behavior.

117

Summary and Conclusion

hostile aggression Reactive, impulsive, or “hot” aggression that occurs as the result of a real or perceived threat or insult. Driven by emotions.

instrumental aggression Planned or “cool” aggression that occurs as a means to some end. Lacks an emotional component.

physical aggression A form of aggression that can include hitting, biting, scratching, kicking, stabbing, shooting, punching, or any other physical act that is intended to cause bodily harm to another living being.

relational aggression A covert type of aggression that occurs when the desired intent is to harm another’s relationships or social standing.

social contagion theory A type of social influence that occurs when a modeled behavior spreads from one crowd participant to another after observing the behavior or by media coverage of the behavior.

verbal aggression A form of nonphysical aggression that includes shouting, swearing, name-calling, or any other nonphysical verbal behavior that is intended to harm another living being when that individual is motivated to avoid being harmed.

violence Aggressive behavior that uses physical force intended to cause bodily injury or death.