Is Aggression Innate oLearned - Coursework Example

Is aggression innate or learned? Discuss evidence to support both arguments, and provide an informed conclusion. You must include evidence from twin studies. Introduction Aggression refers to all the actions that are intended to cause harm or pain. According to Anderson and Bushman, human aggression is the manifestation of a voluntary act or response with the intent to cause harm to another person (2002). It is a complex notion, since some thinkers regard it as being a destructive force, while others believe that aggression is an innate instinct that drives an individual. Aggression is multifaceted entity; it may erupt whenever a person feels displeased (Derefinko, et al., 2011). The discomfort may be brought up by different stimuli, and similarly the way in which one responds to these stimuli may vary. Aggression is among the many characteristics that man shares with other organisms. It may be a targeted response or it may be diffused. For instance, Freud’s Thanatos (death instincts) treats aggression as a degenerative force that leads to the ultimate goal of life i.e. death (Rosenfeld, 1971). On the other hand, Adler defined aggression as an instinct that urges an individual to survive. Both the ideas referred earlier are debateable. Moreover, the advancements in the field of human psychology have made the picture more multifaceted that it is not simple to draw any particular conclusion, or to support one particular approach towards life. Human beings have a confused origin, at one hand they are said to possess the highest evolutionary status, yet on the other hand they are found struggling with some of the basic continuums of life. Therefore, the study of human psychology must take all the factors that are active throughout the process of human development. A man can be a saint at one moment, and a beast at another instance, thus studying human behaviour is not as simple as separating black from white, because it possesses several shades of grey in between the two extremes. In an attempt of providing a holistic overview, most of the theorists by-pass exceptions; overlooking the anomalies actually add limitations to the studies. Therefore, as a modern thinker, an eclectic approach has become a necessity, because it is very had to justify a specific school of thought, considering, the contributions made by others (Bettencourt, et al., 2006). If a longitudinal framework is opted to study the changes that occur in an individual, one may found out that the importance of human needs vary throughout the development. This fluctuation in demands raises the importance of studying human development with respect to centuries old debate of nature versus nurture. Nature refers to the innate potentials and limitations, while nurture deals with external agencies that play crucial role in undermining and developing human behaviour. To analyse the contrast in opinion about human nature, one compare the Psychoanalytic predisposition with the Humanistic view of human nature. Abraham Maslow was a staunch believer of human potentials, perhaps he was a romanticist who said that all humans are initially good, and they have the ability to reach the stage of self-actualization. Whereas on the Freudian school observed a strict stance regarding the evil nature of man. This comparison clearly suggests the limitations of psychological theories, and the conflict between the theorists from the various schools of thought. Similarly, while dealing with the question of nurture, there is a clear contrast between the Humanist approach and the Psychoanalytical school. Thus, on the basic of theoretical conflict among the different of schools of thought generate the need of an eclectic investigation for explaining and understanding human behaviour, emotions and cognition (Anderson & Bushman, 2002). Types of Aggression There three different forms of aggression, the purpose of classifying aggression is to attain a directed approach in investigating human aggression. The three types of aggression are hostile aggression, instrumental aggression, and relational aggression. Hostile aggression is considered as an impulsive, uncontrolled act of causing harm to target organism. Instrumental aggression is usually defined as the use of force or aversion for attaining certain goals without the deliberate intention of causing harm to others. Relational aggression is a way of sabotaging social relations of an individual. To elaborate these types of aggression, one needs to analyse real life situations. For instance, consider the difference between assault and robbery. In assault the main purpose is to harm, punish or threaten the target, while in case of robbery the ultimate goal of using force is to attain some movable property. In both the scenarios aggression is being used; however, the motivation that urged the aggressors was different. For example, a person may attack another person for the purpose of security or may be just for relieving his anger (Anderson & Bushman, 2002). On the other hand robbery may be planned in order to evade poverty or paying debts. These contrasts in the motive raise the conflict of nature versus nurture. A person, who shows aggression for attaining wealth, may not commit the crime if he or she is rich or have enough to make both the ends meet. On the other hand, a person who beats another individual just because he or she is angry may tend to repeat his actions in situations that put him under mental or physical stress (Archer, 2004). Relational aggression mainly deals with relationships; the form of aggression used in this scenario is a lot different from the other two types. It is a way of hurting individuals on social grounds; a typical example is that of defamation (Baumeister, et al., 1996). The harm committed in the act of defamation is basically intended to hurt an individual’s relationships (Ostrov, 2013). Again the question of motive arises that why a person would intent to defame another person. There can be several justifications for this act of aggression; for instance, jealousy, dominance and hatred. Considering, the three types of aggression, one can deduce that aggression is innate as well as a learnt response (Archer, 2004). Theories of Aggression In this portion various theories for aggression will be discussed. The need for this discussion is that how different schools of thought explained aggression and what were the important determinants that instigated aggression in an individual. There several theories that enunciate the concept of aggression, and these theories can be broadly divided into three classes. The first class mainly deals with the biological approach and instincts. The second class deals with the studies of social psychology, and third class explains cognition and aggression (Anderson & Bushman, 2002). The proponents of the biological explanation of aggression obviously support the idea that aggression is more innate than learnt. The three approaches that are mainly used to explain aggression biologically are genetic influence; biochemical and neurotransmitter influences; and brain structure and neuroanatomical influences. The genome of an individual is the blue print of the traits that inherited by an individual (Anderson & Bushman, 2002). The expression of these traits may depend on external factors; however, they propose the potential. Several studies conducted in the 1960s found that a large number of male convicts had an extra Y chromosome, which reflected the link between aggression and genetic influence. Moreover, a lot of studies also suggest that aggression runs in the family and it is also inherited. Some argue that it’s basically the aggression in environment that induces individuals to become aggressive, but there are also some biological proofs that prove the part played by genetics. The influence of biochemistry and neurotransmission is closely related with genetics, because most of the hormones synthesized in the body are transcribed from the DNA that is the inherited information (Miles & Carey, 1997) . Similarly, the development of neurotransmission paths is also linked to genetic makeup. For instance, testosterone which is a male sexual hormone is reported to be a cause of aggression. Testosterone is also found in women. Studies suggest a direct link between aggression, frustration and the accumulation of testosterone in the body. The recent developments in the study of human brain have suggested a link between aggression and brain anatomy. Some of the evidences have been collected that show that aggression may be regulated via amygdala and the prefrontal lobe of brain (Anderson & Bushman, 2002) Hitherto, the discussion of biological explanation was concerned with the medical interventions, now consider the Freudian explanation. According to Freud, aggression is a component of Id which is impulsive part of personality. He defined aggression as a death instinct that drives an individual towards death. The term instinct clearly the reflects Freud’s agenda in treating aggression to be innate (Rosenfeld, 1971). In response to the biological or the physiological approach, there have been several attempts by cognitive- and social psychologists to defend their claim of describing aggression as a learnt behaviour. Definitely, if an organism is programmed to be aggression still there is need for it to learn its application. For instance when children observe their parents fighting over pity issues they store it in their memory, and apply the same gestures when they found themselves involved in an unpleasant situation. Social Learning Theory by Bandura, more or less offers this explanation. It suggests that people tend to learn aggression from their society as they learn other complex social behaviours (Geen & Donnerstein, 1998). The acquisition of instrumental aggression by social learning explains that how an individual develops social skills through various interactions during the process of development (Bandura, 1973). Cognitive neo-association theory derives links between unpleasant events and memory. It offers a correlation between the aversive events and the associated stimuli. Berkowitz argued that the behavioural aspects of aversive events are stored in the memory and they often connected with the cues that are offered. In this regard people form association, this is a natural way of learning (Berkowitz, 1993). Script theory is very much related to cognitive neo-association theory. It argues over well-rehearsed scripts or situations that continue to make place in one’s memory. Rehearsals reinforce an action, and also develop alternate routes for accessing a particular learnt experience (Anderson & Bushman, 2002). Excitation transfer theory tries to establish link between two incidences. It explains that when two events occur simultaneously or with a short gap of time, there are chances for false attribution (Anderson & Bushman, 2002). Moreover, if both the events are dealt as aversive, they may result in increasing the magnitude of anger. There are some other theories as well that tend to explain the prevalence of aggression among humans; however, for the purpose of answering the proposed question, the theories explained above are sufficient (Anderson & Bushman, 2002). Twin Studies and Aggression In an attempt to settle down the conflict between nature and nurture, the scientists attempted to study aggression via twin study. The main purpose of this technique was to compare aggression between monozygotic and dizygotic twins. The success in this study would have further enunciated the influence of genes on aggression in human beings (Torgersen, et al., 2000). The results of the twin studies showed that the correlation in aggressive behaviour is higher in monozygotic twins than dizygotic twins. McGuffin and Gottesmann (1985) found a concordance rate of 87% for aggressive and antisocial behaviour for monozygotic twins compared with72% for dizygotic twins (McGuffin & Gottesman, 1985). The correlation between twins and aggression may be treated as a comprehensive proof for supporting the influence of genetics in human behaviour. However, these results did not dealt with environment in which the twins were brought up (Hudziak, et al., 2000). Moreover, a meta-analysis of twin studies on aggression has reported that the role genetics in determining human aggression is only 40% (Rhee & Waldman, 2002). The main limitation with this approach is that twin studies do not take in account the similarity of conditions in which the twins have been brought up. To overcome, this hurdle some scientists recommended an adoption study, for comparing the twins. In this approach, twins are separated at an early stage, and their behaviour is monitored in response to the environment in which they are brought up. The results of adoption studies enunciated the importance of nurture in the development of human behaviour. Conclusion The evidences offered regarding aggression by the biological approaches cannot be overlooked, and similarly the theories postulated by cognitive psychologists and the psychosocial theorists are worth examining. There is a major overlap between all these approaches; however, their differences must not be ignored in deducing hasty conclusions. The conflict of nature versus nurture is a never ending one, though it offers a great deal of information. It will be a wrong if one sides by one of the approaches that explain aggression. Rather, a thorough analysis of all the perspectives is essential. Declaring aggression as totally innate will be a crime. Similarly, sticking to psychosocial perspective will be a mistake. Aggression is innate as well as learnt. It is innate when one analyses human beings as beasts, and it becomes a learnt response when man is treated as a social animal. It must be kept in mind that all aggression is not violence, but all violence roots from aggression. The scale and the nature of aggression also recommend the fact that it is a complex phenomenon which is partially learnt, and is partially natural. Moreover, the debate of deciding the origin of aggression can also be analysed by a thorough investigation of all the perspective mentioned earlier. Aggression is defined simply as an aversive act with the intent to cause harm. However, it is very difficult to explain its true nature and the factors that promote it. Therefore, the best approach to study aggression is an eclectic view point that deals with all the elements that play crucial role in the development of an individual’s personality. Thus, after analysing various perspectives regarding aggression, one can conclude that aggression is an innate phenomenon that is learnt through interaction and association. References Anderson, C. A. & Bushman, B. J., 2002. Human aggression.. Psychology, 53(1), p. 27. Archer, J., 2004. Sex differences in aggression in real-world settings: A meta-analytic review. Review of general Psychology, 8(4), p. 291. Bandura, A., 1973. Aggression: A social learning analysis.. s.l.:Pretice-Hall. Baumeister, R. F., Smart, L. & Boden, J. M., 1996. Relation of threatened egotism to violence and aggression: the dark side of high self-esteem. Psychological review, 103(1), p. 5. Berkowitz, L., 1993. Aggression: Its causes, consequences, and control.. s.l.:Mcgraw-Hill Book Company. Bettencourt, B., Talley, A., Benjamin, A. J. & Valentine, J., 2006. Personality and aggressive behavior under provoking and neutral conditions: a meta-analytic review.. Psychological bulletin, 132(2), p. 751. Derefinko, K. et al., 2011. Do different facets of impulsivity predict different types of aggression?. Aggressive behavior, 37(3), pp. 223-233. Geen, R. G. & Donnerstein, E. D. eds., 1998. Human aggression: Theories, research, and implications for social policy.. s.l.:Elsevier.. Hudziak, J. J. et al., 2000. A twin study of inattentive, aggressive, and anxious/depressed behaviours. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 39(4), pp. 469-476. McGuffin, P. & Gottesman, I., 1985. Genetic influences on normal and abnormal development. In M. Rutter & L. Hersov (Eds.),. In: M. Rutter & L. Hersov, eds. Child and adolescent psychiatry: Modern approaches. 2 ed. Oxford, England: Blackwell Scientific, pp. 17-25. Miles, D. R. & Carey, G., 1997. Genetic and environmental architecture on human aggression... Journal of personality and social psychology, 72(1), p. 207. Ostrov, J. M., 2013. Psychological Science Agenda. Psychological Science, Issue August. Rhee, S. H. & Waldman, I. D., 2002. Genetic and environmental influences on antisocial behavior: a meta-analysis of twin and adoption studies. Psychological bulletin, 128(3), p. 490. Rosenfeld, H., 1971. A clinical approach to the psychoanalytic theory of the life and death instincts: an investigation into the aggressive aspects of narcissism.. In: Rosenfeld in retrospect: Essays on his clinical influence. s.l.:s.n., pp. 116-130. Torgersen, S. et al., 2000. A twin study of personality disorders.. Comprehensive psychiatry, 41(6), pp. 416-425. Read More