Category: Aggression

At some point in their lives, everyone has played a video game. Also, most people have played a game that they would consider to be ‘violent. Finally, you, like most people, have probably heard somewhere that video games cause people to be violent in the real world. According to a 2017 survey, roughly 61% of the UK residents that were asked believed that, in some cases, video games can be the cause of aggressive acts, so it is very likely that you would have heard this theory from somewhere. But is it necessarily true? I’m going to discuss my thoughts on the matter today, and the ideas and theories as to why some people think that video games cause violence.

On the eighth of October 1992, an iconic video game was released to the public. Its title was ‘Mortal Combat. It soon became recognized as the ‘first game to feature realistic and graphic violence. Indeed, as most violent games are, this game was instantly the subject of many controversies. In fact, this game’s graphic detail of injury was the reason that the Entertainment Software Rating Board and other rating boards for video games were established. Some would say there was now a moral panic of sorts over the series, which was being hammered in more and more by the outrage and possibly overreaction of the media. Mortal Kombat became an outlet for discontent, something parents could use to excuse their child’s naughty behavior. Sounds stupid, right? Of course, it comes as no surprise that some negative tendencies can be learned from video games (such as fighting in Mortal Kombat), but these effects will only come into play when the child decides to start to use these things in the real world, which in most situations is a very unlikely occurrence. Children don’t want to fight or sell drugs even if they have witnessed it in video games, so it’s unfair to make sweeping generalizations.

In 2019, a study, published by the Oxford Internet Institute and the University of Oxford, was carried out. It was one of the most comprehensive and in-depth investigations on the matter at the time. This is because it used a mix of subjective and objective data to come up with their final result about teen aggression and violence due to video games. To further its validity, the study gathered its data from parents and carers, as opposed to relying on information provided by the teenagers themselves. What’s more, the study used the age ratings on the games to indicate the level of violence, as opposed to the player’s perception. In total, 2008 subjects were involved in the experiment; the sampling consisted of British 14 – 15-year-olds and an equal number of parents or carers. The study’s results showed… with absolute certainty… no link whatsoever between violence and video games. As this is not the first study to show these kinds of patterns and results, this in-depth study proves that blaming video games for outbreaks of aggression and hatred holds very little weight whatsoever.

But wait. What about all of the other studies that seem to prove the counter-argument? Well, as it turns out It’s virtually impossible, and mostly illegal to monitor the everyday responses of players. Since they can’t see how the child would react in a real-life situation after playing video games, they are only left with one other thing to test; their changes in aggression. They have to test whether or not they are slightly more aggressive in a period of time after the child plays video games. Even if they are shown to be more aggressive in some situations, this cannot usually be translated into real-life violence and crimes. All of this means that these studies are nowhere near as accurate as of the Oxford example, due to the fact that their data is largely subjective. These tests are underdeveloped as a result, and cannot give us an answer as certain as the one that the Oxford Internet Institute and the University of Oxford have provided.

So, why are we witnessing a trend in young people becoming more aggressive and likely to commit crimes? Well, it could be due to a range of reasons, but following research, I can deduce that the main and most common reasons that young people tend to act aggressively are due to either stress from school or home life.

As a result of my research, I can conclude that video games are not the primary cause of violence in young people. In the rare case that these games may have influenced a child to act on their temper, this will not be the only factor. Notwithstanding this, I can appreciate that people are often desperate to find an explanation for their child’s aggression. This, in my opinion, is the real reason that violent and graphic video games have become somewhat of an enemy to our parents.

Media depicted violence has been around for over a century now and has evolved from literature to comics to film and finally to video games, and each stage of progression has been met with societal backlash. In the past ten years however, the rise in mass shootings has caused many politicians to point a finger at violent video games as a key factor. In the wake of these tragedies, many scholars began looking for a link between violent media consumption and violent behavior. This paper will dive into studies that look at the relationship between media violence and human aggression and determine if such a correlation exists.

To examine if a correlation exists between movie violence and human aggression a study selected ninety highest grossing films from 1920-2005 and reviewed them for violence with strict parameters. This data was then compared to homicide rates from the same time period, and found that in the middle of the 20th century movie violence appeared to coincide with societal violence, but in both the early and late 20th century, movie violence was associated with decreased societal violence, making this an ecological fallacy. (Ferguson, 2015) This does not mean that there is no link between movie violence and aggressive behavior, but it does suggest that there are many other factors that play into human aggression.

Studying the relationship between video game violence and violent behavior is vastly different than studying movies, because of how new they are and the way that media outlets sway public perception on the topic. The term violent video game itself is so broadly defined that technically even Pac Man can be classified as a violent video game because the player has the ability to kill the ghosts. (Ferguson, 2014) The weak definition of violent video games contributed to the California 2005 law prohibiting children from buying a M-rated game without an adult present to get struck down in the Supreme Court. (Ferguson, 2014). The controversy surrounding violent video games only got worse with the rise of mass shootings in the past decade.

Following the tragic 2012 shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary that left twenty children and six faculty/staff members dead, there were no simple answers to be found as to why this event took place. In the weeks that followed the tragedy, media outlets began making assertions that Adam Lanza was primarily influenced to commit this heinous act by an obsession with violent video games. Not long after these stories started circulating, policy makers began to take action by ordering studies on the effect that video game violence has on youth behavior. When the police report regarding the shooting finally came out in November 2013 it was revealed that Lanza did in fact play violent video games including a game that simulated a school shooting, though most of his time gaming was spent playing harmless games such as Dance and Dance Revolution. This makes it quite apparent that other factors were stronger in motivating Lanza to carry out this attack, but nonetheless the societal debate about violent video games was reignited by this event and may have caused more harm than good, given the degree to which they distract from more pressing issues such as mental health care, poverty, and educational disparities that may actually contribute to violence. (Ferguson, 2014)

When it comes to research looking for a correlation between violent video games and real-world violence there are an abundance of studies that claim to prove a correlation by using a questionable research methods. One such study based its assertions on the premise that pre habitualization of violent media predicts faster accessibility of aggressive cognitions. In the study 77 male college students answered a questionnaire to determine their habitual use of non-violent and violent media, after completing the questionnaire the subjects were broken up into two groups, half played a game of Counter Strike: Source on an urban city map, and the other half played on a ship map. The study concluded to have shown that the habitual use of violent media predicts faster accessibility of aggressive cognitions in a laboratory task. (Busching, Krahé, 2013) The problem with this experiment is that little evidence exists to suggest that signs of the aggression that the experimenters were testing for would even translate into real world violence outside of the laboratory setting.

In a different study a sample of 6567 8th graders participated in a straightforward survey that was trying to measure if violent video games had an effect on their behavior in general. After answering a baseline question determining what type of video games (if any) that they played, they answered several questions ranging from “Do you ever skip school?” all the way up to “Have you ever carried a gun?” The results gathered did not entirely dismiss a potential link with violence, yet they also clearly do not show the level of support that correlation-based research has shown. (Gunter, W., & Daly, K., 2012) This survey method used yielded much more reasonable results than a study that gathered data from a group of college kids playing video games for ten minutes ever could. This suggests that many of the studies that launched after the surge in mass shootings claiming to have found a direct correlation may be apart of an agenda.

In conclusion, there is a possible correlation between media violence consumption, but at best these findings suggest that assumptions made by the popular media and by policy-makers may be exaggerated at best and erroneous at worst. (Gunter, W., & Daly, K., 2012) There are far larger problems in the United States that media outlets should be covering such as mental health care, poverty, and educational disparities definitely pose much more of a threat to contributing to the nation’s next tragedy. Walmart removing violent video game displays is certainly not going to solve any problems for a person struggling with a serious mental health issue on the cusp of doing something horrible that they can never take back.

References

1. Busching, R., & Krahe, B. (2013). Charging neutral cues with aggressive meaning through violent video game play. Societies, 3(4), 445-456. doi:http://dx.doi.org.proxy.lib.odu.edu/10.3390/soc3040445
2. Ferguson, C. (2014). Violent Video Games, Mass Shootings, and the Supreme Court: Lessons for the Legal Community in the Wake of Recent Free Speech Cases and Mass Shootings. New Criminal Law Review: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal, 17(4), 553-586. doi:10.1525/nclr.2014.17.4.553
3. Ferguson, C. J. (2015). Does Movie or Video Game Violence Predict Societal Violence? It Depends on What You Look at and When. Journal of Communication, 65(1), 193–212. https://doi-org.proxy.lib.odu.edu/10.1111/jcom.12142
4. Gunter, W., & Daly, K. (2012). Causal or spurious: Using propensity score matching to detangle the relationship between violent video games and violent behavior. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(4), 1348-1355.

Video games have increasingly become a favourite activity amongst a widespread of children and adolescents providing entertainment, social interaction and relaxation. The gaming industry has become a global phenomenon with an estimated worth last reported at $134.9 billion in 2018 (Batchelor, 2018). Video games are a programmed universe, which allows humans to interact with a user interface that produces a visual feedback on a two-or-three-dimensional scale. Since the launch of the first 2D video game (e.g. Pong), technology has rapidly evolved and brought consumers 3D video games with a multitude of different genres as well as a set of skills required to put forth. The most played videogame genre is action videogames, particularly first-person shooters (FPSs, e.g., Mortal Kombat, Battlefield, Call of Duty) (Nuyens, 2018). The purpose of FPS games is based on advancing from one mission to another without the game character dying whilst simultaneously engaging in brutal mass killings of the opposite opponent as the primary strategy for winning the game. Roy Morgan, an Australian market research company, reported eight million Australians aged 14 and over have a gaming device at home (Roy Morgan, 2018). As the number of gamers increase, ongoing debates have raised a concern about the underlying effects video games promote and whether they lead to aggravated aggression like behaviours.

Video games allow players a virtual playground to experience the cognitive, motivational, emotional, and social benefits of gaming (Granic, Lobel, & Engels, 2014). For instance, first-person shooter games can promote cognitive skills and therefore be applied into real-world contexts (Granic, Lobel, & Engels, 2014). It is said that the elements of gameplay include to “…work toward meaningful goals, persevere in the face of multiple failures, and celebrate in rare moments of triumph after successfully completing challenging tasks” (Cade & Gates, 2016). Violent video games exhibit those elements and as a result have become a popular and successful game of choice to consumers and game makers. The entertainment software rating board assigns age and content ratings to every game, “M” is denoted for mature audience viewing who are ages 17+ and associated with violent video games however video games seen as holding educational value have misleadingly assigned what they consider “appropriate” violent content for age groups. Furthermore, school shootings have strongly made deterministic connections between violent video games and aggression which has constructed a concern view to the public eye. Most of the literature proposes that violent video games do place an effect on aggression, physiological arousal and prosocial behaviour (Anderson, 2004). However, some findings have shown that is not the case.

The aim of this essay is to argue that violent video games do not lead to aggressive behaviour. As supporting evidence, empirical studies by Kuhn et al., (2018) investigates violent video games as having no effect on behaviour and Gentile, Lynch, Linder and Walsh (2004) to portray the effects of aggression. Both studies will be described and analysed with positive and negative effects explored. Following on, the findings of these studies will be integrated with evidence from wider literature to explore the issues of unstandardized measures of aggression, publication bias as well as methodological issues in previous studies. Finally, conclusions will be formed from the integration of evidence, real-world implications and future research will be considered.

Kuhn et al., (2018) investigated the effect of violent video games on aggression. Subjects were 90 college students or the general community aged 18-54 years (48 females). None of the participants had ever played the game Grand Theft Auto V or Sims 3. Participants were randomly assigned to play either a violent, non-violent or no video game (passive control group). The violent game group played Grand Theft Auto V on a PlayStation 3 console over a period of 8 weeks. The non-violent game group played Sims 3 on the same console. Both training groups were instructed to play the game for at least 30 min a day. The passive control group did not play any video games but underwent the same testing procedure. No significant changes were observed, neither when comparing the group playing a violent video game to a group playing a non-violent game, nor to a passive control group. No effects were observed between baseline and post-test directly after the intervention, nor between baseline and a follow-up assessment 2 months after the intervention period had ended. However, short-term effects saw aggressiveness lasted This study supports the argument that violent video games do not lead to aggressive behaviour and was able to make connections between contemporary video games as well as the short- and long-term effects on gaming. However, using participants that had no previous experience to gaming and the games chosen could be an inaccurate representation of results reporting there were no effects associated with violence and could merely be a result of trait hostility.

On the contrary, Gentile, Lynch, Linder and Walsh (2004) investigated the effects of violent video game habits on adolescent hostility. Six hundred and seven 8th-grade and 9th-grade students (52% male) were recruited from four Midwestern schools; one urban private school, two suburban public schools, and one rural public school. The mean age was 14 years and 87% of the respondents were Caucasian. Each participant completed an anonymous survey that gathered descriptive data about how frequently they played a game measured on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = “rarely”, 7 = “often”), how much violence they preferred to have in their video games measured on a 5-point scale (1=‘‘a lot less’’, 5=‘‘a lot more’’), how often their parents checked the rating on a game measured on a 5 point scale (ranging from ‘‘always’’ to ‘‘never’’), how often they would engage in arguments with their teachers measured on a 4-point scale (ranging from ‘‘Almost daily’’ to ‘‘Less than monthly’’) as well as school performance and trait hostility. Results found that adolescents who were exposed to violent video games more were regarded as hostile, reported getting into arguments with teachers, were frequently involved in physical fights, and performed poorly in school.

The study focused on a large cohort of gender-balanced children which allowed an understanding of how younger ages perceive violent video games and the potential effects that could inhibit development as children get older. The use of standardised questionnaires and a Likert scale made it efficient and easy for children however the correlational nature of this study doesn’t allow for causal relationships between aggression and violent video games to be drawn. The nature of a survey means that results were heavily reliant on the participants response which may have been bias and neglected a real gaming experience to observe how children behave in those given scenarios.

The results of the two studies combined support the argument that violent video games do not lead to aggressive behaviour although each design represented a weakness and lacked an overall definitive result. Kuhn et al., (2018) was an experimental design which generally needs a large sample size to acquire an accurate portrayal of an effect. Gentile, Lynch, Linder and Walsh (2004) was a correlational design which cannot draw any causation between variables. As a result, it cannot be claimed that neither relationship exists between violent video games and aggression but simply able to raise concerns. Due to this lack of clarity, a look into the misinterpretation of video games based on less standardised and reliable measures will be explored followed by publication bias.

Ferguson & Kilburn (2010) explored several meta-analyses that found little evidence for a relationship between violent video games and aggression by questioning the findings by C. A. Anderson et al., (2010) who claimed such a relationship between violent video games and aggression exists. C. A. Anderson et al., (2010) included many studies that did not relate to aggression, a biased sample of unpublished studies, and a “best practices” analysis that was unreliable and does not consider the impact of unstandardized aggression measures on effect size estimates. Some studies failed to report any correlation between play and behaviour, significant statistics and any variation in game violence content (Ferguson & Kilburn, 2010). Therefore, the studies present in C. A. Anderson et al., (2010) do not provide meaningful results to infer a relationship between violent video games and aggression.

Ferguson & Kilburn (2010) also went on to discuss publication bias commonly observed in violent video game research and expressed concern that these studies have become politicized, which increases the risk for bias. Ferguson & Kilburn (2010) found publication bias in previous meta-analysis by Anderson (2004). In reflection to Gentile, Lynch, Linder and Walsh (2004) study, the possibility of prosocial behaviour was not accounted for so overall the effects of violent video games have overwhelmingly been exaggerated and scrutinised in the public eye.

The last point draws attention to methodological issues of previous studies. Gentile, Lynch, Linder and Walsh (2004) suggested some studies explored personality traits such as hostility may mediate the effects of violence. The General Aggression Model is designed to accommodate these variables. This is an issue of importance because potentially people who are affected by violent video games tend to naturally be more aggressive than those who are not hence when participants who have little to no gaming experience are recruited they are at a greater risk for increased aggression. Data has not been consistent with this hypothesis nor have many studies conducted to test it. The present research by Gentile, Lynch, Linder and Walsh (2004) found no interaction between trait hostility and exposure to video game violence. Another issue by Hind (1995) reported only the different kind of games their participants liked, not their reaction to playing these games or any correlation between play and behaviour which is the same flaw apparent in Gentile, Lynch, Linder and Walsh (2004) study which raises single respondent bias.

Violent video games have torn society as the ongoing debate about the positive and negative effects prevail. The aim of this essay is to argue that violent video games do not lead to aggressive behaviour with support by empirical studies of Kuhn et al., (2018) demonstrated in favour of violent video games not leading to aggression and Gentile, Lynch, Linder and Walsh (2004) believed a relationship between violent video games and aggression exists. Both studies were primarily analysed. Secondly, the findings of these studies were integrated with evidence from wider literature to explore the issues of unstandardized measures of aggression, publication bias as well as methodological issues from previous studies. Ferguson & Kilburn (2010) found little evidence for a relationship between violent video games and aggression and claimed that C. A. Anderson et al., (2010) included studies that used less standardised and reliable measures of aggression and found strong evidence for publication bias. Lastly, Gentile, Lynch, Linder and Walsh (2004) examined methodological issues from previous violent video game research which were poorly constructed measures, unable to control variables and single respondent bias. Overview of the evidence presented confidently concludes that violent video games do not lead to aggressive behaviour.

Video games are a source of entertainment and enable children to think creatively through several stimulating facets and to allow this to continue it is crucial to address the future research and the real-world implications regarded to this area of research. The first and most important being publication bias. It distrusts the core principle of science and reliable information that gets sourced to the public, so it is imperative that future research makes modifications to their methodology. Secondly, society should be informed of this new research through outlets of the media to increase awareness of the positives and decrease parental anxiety on violent video games. Thirdly, tracking violent content and making sure it is correctly appropriate for the right age groups as well as parents taking more initiative to check video game ratings before allowing their child to play and lastly to produce significant results, future research should turn their attention to longitudinal designs to observe more prolonged effects. As the current debate stands, violent video games do not cause violence, they are simply misunderstood.

Lately, it has been perceived that addictions are not restricted to practices created by the uncontrolled utilization of substances. There are apparently harmless conduct tendencies that, in specific conditions, can get addictive and truly meddle with the daily lives of those influenced. Due to explosive development in innovation and web use over the most recent couple of years, internet gaming disorder (IGD) has showed as quickly developing general health issue for the most part influencing the teen and preteen populace around the world. It has a negative effect upon physical, mental, social, and word related working of the influenced individual, frequently prompting extreme results.

Gaming disorder as defined in the 11th Revision of the International Classification of Diseases as a pattern of gaming behavior characterized by impaired control over gaming, increasing priority given to gaming over other activities to the extent that gaming takes precedence over other interests and daily activities, and continuation or escalation of gaming despite the occurrence of negative consequences. World Health Organization describes gaming addiction — digital or video games — as “a pattern of persistent or recurrent gaming behavior that becomes so extensive that it takes precedence over other life interests.”

During the 2000s, online games got well known, while studies of Internet gaming addiction rose, sketching out the negative outcomes of over the top gaming, its prevalence, and related hazard factors. The foundation of particular treatment centers in South-East Asia, the US, and Europe mirrors the developing requirement for professional assistance. It is contended that just by understanding the intrigue of Internet gaming, its unique situation, and neurobiologic corresponds can the marvel of Internet gaming enslavement be seen thoroughly. The refered to neuroimaging studies demonstrates that Internet gaming addiction imparts likenesses to different addictions, including substance dependence and social levels.

Internet Gaming Disorder is an increasingly predominant issue, which can have serious results in influenced youngsters and in their families. There is a pressing need to improve existing treatment programs; these are right now hampered by the absence of research here. It is important to all the more cautiously characterize the symptomatic, psychosocial and character portrayal of these patients and the collaboration among treatment and significant factors. Psychologists in cities like New Delhi and Bengaluru has reported that children as young as 10 years old has been brought in by the parents to help them keep their distance from mobile phones and gaming. Extreme digital gaming is developing as a mental health issue since adolescents are losing control of their lives by burning through their time by enjoying on the web multiplayer games. The prominence of the games can be measured by the fact that India’s internet gaming business sector of US $360 million is expected to develop to $ 1 billion by 2021. Video gaming is an over the top urgent issue. The players appreciate making and building associations with other online characters, which gives a virtual network feeling to the disadvantage of coordinated social co-operations and genuine holding. At the appointed time of time, the players are distracted or ‘snared’ to the games and show state of mood swings like irritability, anxiety, and forceful conduct when they are denied the playing devices.

Aggression may be defined as harmful behavior which violates social conventions and which may include deliberate intent to harm or injure another person or object. Aggression refers to a range of behaviors that can result in both physical and psychological harm to oneself, others, or objects in the environment. This type of behavior centers on harming another person either physically or mentally. According to the General Aggression Model, there are many input variables that can influence the likelihood of aggressive behavior. Some are individual difference variables such as trait hostility and attitudes toward violence. Others are situational variables like the presence of guns or other weapons and pain. These inputs can influence aggressive behavior through one or more of three routes: cognition, affect, and arousal.

Aggression can take a variety of forms, including:

• Physical

• Verbal

• Mental

• Emotional

While we often think of aggression as purely in physical forms such as hitting or pushing, psychological aggression can also be very damaging. Intimidating or verbally berating another person, for example, are examples of verbal, mental, and emotional aggression.

Internet gaming has taken a serious toll on the influenced individuals that we have started to receive news of people getting agitated for their games. In such cases, a 15 year old boy from Maharashtra flew into a rage when his elder brother asked him to stop playing PUBG which is an online game. The boy allegedly banged the head of his elder brother against the wall and stabbed him with scissors several times which led to the dead of the elder brother. In another case, a 27-year-old man from Mumbai stabbed his sister’s fiancé after a virtual gaming clash. He had been playing PUBG game online on his mobile which ran out of charge. Not wanting to lag behind on the levels of the game, the man frantically searched for his mobile charger but found that its wire had been damaged. He also allegedly kicked the family’s dog in anger. In a fit of rage, the man then fetched a knife from the kitchen and cut the wire of his sister’s laptop charger. Seeing this, the sister’s fiancé intervened which made the man more violent and allegedly stabbed the fiancé with a knife.

In the last two decades, many educational scholars have written about nursing being an oppressed profession. Many nurses faced a lot of frustrations due to inadequate autonomy and power. Due to these frustrations, they tend to be aggressive among themselves. Horizontal aggression in nursing has been present from the onset of the nursing profession, thus becoming a prominent problem within the field. Nurses have argued that they developed the phenomena during the early stages of their careers making them question what job they had selected. Since then, more research has been done to ascertain the aspects and understanding of horizontal aggression.

Horizontal aggression is abuse or violence occurring among workers. Horizontal hostility comprises many types of inappropriate or disruptive behaviour such as intimidation, constant criticism, gossips, insults, bullying and many more. Other examples of horizontal hostility that seem passive include unfair job assignments, favouritism, instants of undermining a colleague, discrimination regarding job evaluation, sarcastic comments, holding a grudge for a long a time among others. Mainly, horizontal aggression is covertly making it difficult for a victim to seek help in the working environment. The actual figure of prevalence and incidences of horizontal aggression in nursing are difficult to know because many cases go unreported or unrecognized. However, research shows that it is widespread with about 60%-80% of the nurses said to have either witnessed or experienced it. Due to the extensiveness of the behaviour, it is essential to look at the impact it has on nurses and the future of nursing professional practice for the sake of creating awareness.

First, repeated cases of horizontal aggression to a victim cause depression, decreased self-esteem, and reduction in self-confidence. The victim may also develop symptoms of anxiety and sleeping problems. Many scholars have reported that nurses suffering from the above issues lose morale to work, and levels of empathy and connectedness become minimal. Also, physical signs may occur such as a drastic loss of weight, weight gain, or a sudden change in eating habits, and an opposing end may cause hypertension. According to Mendez, the constant exposure of horizontal aggression may cause the nurse to lose enthusiasm on the profession due to the most significant incidents of burnout. The burnout causes high levels of stress, and the above conditions will make a victim perform poorly at work. In the end, the patients will receive health care services that are below the optimal level.

Another impact of horizontal aggression is a nurse quitting the job because of stress and other non-motivational workers. Nurses who are verbally or physically abused develop a high rate of vulnerability mounting a desire to stop working. More than 60% of Canadian nurses have left their jobs within six months in their first workplace environment due to horizontal violence. The remaining 40% stay in their current job environment despite the disruptive behaviour. The question revolving in people’s minds is why a victim continues to work after experiencing such unkind acts. Many of horizontal violence victims tend to break institutional guidelines due to fear and trauma. According to Goff, the aggression also adds up to chances of insecurity at the workplace. It is reported that more than half of the nurses working in various hospitals across Canada have serious vulnerabilities. Among many factors, such as low salary, incompatible working conditions, and other minimal factors, horizontal aggression is the leading cause of nurses leaving their jobs. A clear comprehension of this phenomenon may result in interventional studies that could bring a significant impact on enhancing nurse retention and improved workplace environment.

Many Canadian scholars have identified bullying and physical behaviours as a primary concern regarding retention issues. The main reason why there is a high shortage of nurses across the country is due to the low rate of retention. From a survey conducted, it shows that nurses employed in five different hospitals across the country experienced burnout and later dropped out of work. The authors argued that the primary reason for low turnover in the nursing profession is related to low satisfaction at workplace due to the high rise of incivility. The nurses failed to report any cases of horizontal violence due to inadequate empowerment, cynicism, and hostile supervisors. All these negative factors are correlated to work satisfaction, low turnover retentions and lack of organizational commitment.

Further, horizontal violence has adverse implications for students as well as fresh graduates. The students and newly graduated nurses tend to have high aggression to attain their potential fully. Because horizontal hostility occurs in co-workers who should be offering guidance and support to patients and juniors, students and fresh graduates will have a challenge in achieving their ambitions due to constant conflicts in the workplace. Besides nurses, these disruptive behaviours also have a negative impact on the whole healthcare system. Horizontal violence means constant hostile communication that widens the rift between nurses. Due to their continuous behaviours and changes of unexpected events such as irritation, high aggression, and development of other diseases, there will be less control of tasks among nurses that will have adverse effects on deliverance of quality work. Employers will eventually carry the burden of both direct and indirect cost of production loss, below average productivity, decreased efficiency, overall destruction of the facility’s image and the number of patients in the facility will drastically drop.

Lastly, every nurse has a distinct character and experience concerning horizontal violence in a specific way due to family background, cultural environment among others. Each nurse handles an incidence differently, and others may eventually develop resilience. Becoming a victim of workplace abuse may have a severe impact on the employees. The truth is that nurses who suffer from aggression have had their health and lives affected. It also changes the relationship between the healthcare facilities and work, extending to the entire society. According to Vessey, DeMarco, & DiFazio, workplace aggression will develop into a public health problem which will later jeopardize the future of the nursing profession. The general public will undermine the nursing career and the services they provide.

In conclusion, nursing professionals are an outstanding shareholder in the provision of healthcare services. Therefore, current situations like horizontal aggression should change not only in Canada but globally. Participation of all healthcare providers is essential in the search for proper working conditions and ensuring that the safety of all nurses is well guarded. Development of adequate strategies should be put in place to reduce or eradicate such incidences and prevalence of horizontal aggression. The best plans are to provide a safe academic environment where students can be taught how to respond to horizontal violence at work. Additionally, within the hospital setting, the primary approach to reduce this behaviour is to continuously offer educational programs to nurses such as excellent relationships among themselves and interpersonal skills at work. Education and support are vital tools that healthcare institutions should utilize to eliminate horizontal aggression.

According to studies, there is no rigid definition for aggression nor inter-group aggression and therefore it is defined according to the correspondent’s values. The behavior studied may differ from one researcher to another. Bandura (1973) defines aggression as behavior that results in personal injury or the injury of others in society and the destruction of property. On the other hand, Barron (1977) describes aggression as behavior that has the intention of harming or injuring other living beings who do not share the same intention, which could be referred to as intergroup aggression. Although there can be varied interpretations of aggression, Miller et al (1989) argue that all the definitions share a common ground of what aggression is; that is, they have all agreed through their findings that aggression is the intention to cause harm. This study of behavior has been looked at not only psychologically but through sources of sociology, biology, anthropology, history, and political science. Researchers have used different measures to try and operationalize aggression. Bandura et al (1967) did an experiment of the Bobo doll, and Finnema et al (1994) carried an interview in a mental hospital on how nurses characterized and perceived aggression according to the behavior of their patients. Geen (1978) did research on the verbal expression of how people were willing to use aggressive behavior and lastly Milgram’s study provided a reason to why people are aggressive. Aggression comes in a different forms, Status Aggression being one of them. The Theory of Frustration-Aggression Hypothesis Dollard et al (1939) argue that aggressive behavior occurs when there is frustration and the existence of frustration always results in aggression. This, therefore, means that personal goals involve the arousal of psychic energy. The aim of this essay is to investigate and look at the different explanations of intergroup aggression.

Anti-Semitism in Germany in the 1920s and 30s can be regarded as an outcome of such psychic energy or personal goals by Hitler. The basis of the Frustration-Aggression Hypothesis is a psychodynamic explanation of catharsis which is a release of frustration building up to create aggression. When external factors prevent individuals from achieving their goals, it may cause frustration and aggression. The psychodynamic theory argues that individuals have defense mechanisms like sublimation which is using aggression where it is thought to be acceptable for instance wrestling. There is also displacement which is when we redirect our aggression to something else, also known as scapegoating. For instance, if a person is attacked by their boss at work, they take their frustration on someone else who is weaker because they are not capable of attacking their boss due to the consequences that may follow. In intergroup, the victims of scapegoats are usually the weaker groups against the powerful groups. Erickson (2017) in her paper; Intersectionality theory and Bosnian Roma: Understanding violence and displacement found that there is intersectionality in societies which allows some groups to be more vulnerable, marginalized, discriminated, and experience more violence than others. Victims of these groups are mainly women over men. According to Crenshaw (1989), intersectionality looks at different factors that stimulate aggression and violence. This includes race, class, and sex. This, therefore, means that intergroup aggression can occur due to the different backgrounds of citizens and the group in power.

In a study, Hovland and Sears (1940) correlated the economic prices of cotton and racial aggression on Black people. The research was conducted in the USA for over 50 years and in their results, Hovland and Sears found that when economic conditions were good the rate of lynching was low and when the economy was bad the lynchings were high. This, therefore, may mean that employers got frustrated due to lack of profit and took out their frustration on Black people and making Black people the victims of intergroup aggression. The growth of the cotton industry meant an increased demand for Black slaves. Nonetheless, this led to the rise of slave rebellion. Anna Freud (1936/1966) in her book The Ego and The Mechanisms of Defense argues that every individual has a defense mechanism. These are psychological mechanisms that we unconsciously use to defend us from unpleasant feelings and thoughts. There are 8 defense mechanisms that are commonly used. For the purpose of this discussion, Reaction Formation is relevant. This is when people behave in the opposite way to which they think is right. When Black people were exploited, they became more and more resistant and, in the end, became rebellious. However, it could be argued that they were ‘labeled’ as rebellious as they went against the norms and values on White Americans although they were trying to free themselves from slavery. An example is The Anti-colonial and Anti-Slavery Haitian Revolution (1791) where slaves fought to protect their properties and they won over the French. In reaction to such revolutions, 1st world countries such as America passed different Acts that would allow them to the slave trade. For instance, the Fugitive Slave Act (1793) made it a crime to assist any Black slaves from escaping.

However, not all theorists agree to Frustration-Aggression Hypothesis. Berkowits (1960) did a revision of the Frustration-Aggression Hypothesis and established the Weapons Effect. Arguably frustration does not always result in aggression. Aggression is driven by the presence of cues such as weapons that are likely to activate aggression. Thus, it means the more intergroup are exposed to weapons the higher the likelihood of aggression occurring. For instance, The Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA) that allows Americans over 18 to purchase and sell guns could be the result of the increase in gangs and racism aggression in America.

There are different explanations to justify the presence of aggression in inter- groups in contemporary society. It could be suggested that an agent to intergroup aggression is obedience. This is seen through Milgram’s study (1963) that suggested that under instructions and in the presence of authority, individuals can portray aggressive behavior towards each other. In Milgram’s study, the individuals raised currency only when they were told to even if they felt it was wrong. These psychological explanations, therefore, explain that citizens sometimes portray aggressive behavior in order to show respect and that they are part of the group or society.

Intergroup aggression could be due to the lack of status, and status frustration. Citizens commit illegal acts or aggressive behavior towards each other in order to gain status and because they cannot take it out on the provocation. As discussed earlier, the other defense mechanism is displacement. Displacement is when someone behaves aggressively towards someone or something that had nothing to do with the conflict. Acts are also committed when the inner group may think it is beneficial and may help them gain status and respect amongst themselves and outsiders. Committing intergroup aggression is always a sign of displacement when citizens who are seen at the bottom of the graph are treated unfairly by those that hold power. Such aggression is seen in subcultures such as gangs. To explain intergroup aggression and displacement, Vásquez et al (2014) in their paper: Rumination and the Displacement of Aggression in United Kingdom Gang‐Affiliated Youth found that there is a three-way interaction between gangs, that is affiliation, gender, and rumination. Males had a high displacement of aggression towards innocent victims when there was the presence of rumination and affliction. Rumination contributed to the displacement of aggression and gang affiliation. Rumination remained the predictor of displacement aggression even after controlling trait of aggression, hostility, anger, and irritability. Miller and Bulgelski (1948) did a study on young men in a summer camp to investigate the effects of authority. Their results concluded that the attitudes of these young men deteriorated as a result of frustration toward minority groups.

At times individuals are bound to abide by orders because of power and hierarchies in the intergroup. The theory of social dominance (SDT) suggests that those with power in the society impose hierarchy-enhancing ideologies which those at the bottom must conform to. This type of aggression is mainly found in wars and the division of victims is mainly the aim. Those with power brainwash those who do not have the power to turn against each other so they can succeed. The Rwandan genocide (1994) can be used as an example of SDT. The Rwandans were all under the German colony. However, the Germans divided the Rwandans by imposing that the Hutu were better than the Tutsi. This was a success as it led to the genocide and approximately 800,000 Tutsis were killed. The Genocide is linked to SDT by that people may reject or accept discrimination and hierarchy. Those who want their social groups to be more dominant find ways to dominate outgroups. Inner groups dominate out groups by giving them less power (Duck 2006). Hiebert (2008) in their study: Theorizing Destruction: Reflections on the State of Comparative Genocide Theory looked at structures that trigger genocides, the causes, and the killings, and agrees that one of the main weapons of intergroup aggression is controlling power.

The other factor that could be used to describe intergroup aggression is the shift of gender roles. Traditionally men were seen to be more aggressive and more powerful than women. However, gender roles in mainly Western communities have shifted, women can now work and have equal rights to men. This, therefore, has also raised the number of women who are involved in crimes such as drug and alcohol abuse. Also, the empowerment of women has led to a rise in the unemployment rate. Hence, because most men are unemployed, men will experience status frustration and therefore this may lead to more criminal violence and intergroup aggression. A study carried by Borhart et al (2014); Perceptions of Aggression are Colored by Gender Roles found that there has been a rise in violence and aggression in women and also aggression seems to be mainly influenced by gender roles.

A cultural variation could be used to explain intergroup aggression. A society is made up of different cultures, therefore, aggression and violence are bound to happen. Cultures have different norms and values, and these are not universal and not always respected by other groups. Different societies have different beliefs, and these are not universal as well. For instance, some social groups believe in homosexuality and some don’t. Severance et al (2013); The psychological structure of aggression across cultures argue that aggressive behavior within cultures is caused by intercultural conflicts. Not everyone shares the same culture, therefore, intergroup aggression within cultures could be a result of what one believes in and what the other thing is wrong. There are groups within cultures referred to as a subculture, and some of these are violence groups. Similarly, Toch (1969) looked at subcultural violence. Most societies with minority subcultures have violence as a lifestyle. Aggression and violence are usually the norms and values of these groups. Violence and aggression are rewarded when they take place and status are often achieved. These groups are labeled as gangs and sometimes even those that are not part of these groups respect those in the group as they are perceived to be more powerful. Also, Bond (2004) argues that men that are against social income equality, are nondemocratic, believe in the men warrior, and have been to war are more likely to be aggressive than those that have not. The reason for such intergroup aggression could be explained as exposure and observing. Aggression can be a learned behavior Bandura (1979), Bobo doll; when people are exposed to violence, they are likely to adopt those behaviors.

Berkowitz (1962) argues that aggression is a matter of cognitive abilities and memory caused by frustration. Memory is a collection of different stored networks that consist of nodes. These nods allow thoughts and feelings and connect them when we associate or socialize. When a thought comes to mind, it becomes active and we automatically react. This, therefore, means that these thoughts can be triggered by social agencies such as the media. For instance, if one watches violent television programs, it triggers other violent thoughts such as shooting or kicking, and this is an unconscious action. Feelings such as anger can trigger these thoughts, and this may lead to intergroup aggression. The higher the trigger the higher the level of aggression. On the other hand, Philips (1986) suggests that this could be a copy-cat-crime act suggesting that what the media portrays is what is done by society.

According to Oddone-Paolucci et al (2000), the exposure of men to pornography is linked to sexual harassment, sexual assault and deviancies, and rape myths. The effect of erotica on aggression depends on the erotica viewed. For instance, Baron (1979) and Ramirez et al (1983) suggests that if a person is exposed to mild erotica eg attractive nudes, it may result in distracting effect but lowers the chances of aggressive behavior. However, to some extent, being exposed to highly erotica such as violent pornography can result in high social aggression (Zillman 1996) and women are more likely to be the victims of aggression (Mullin and Linz, 1995). To explain this, it could be suggested that high erotica triggers the thoughts of wanting to experiment or express uncontrollable sexual desires. This may then result is intergroup aggression such as rape and sexually related crimes. Linz et al (1998) in their study found that women enjoyed violent pornography and men were willing to be aggressive against women. It could be therefore be argued that women enjoy sexual violence. Such act weakens social retrains against female violence and reinforce rape myths. On the other hand, Zillman and Bryant (1984) have argued against this view. They pointed out that pornography portrays women as socially irresponsible, careless, and hyper-promiscuous. The feminist perspective has a few concerns that are violence will lead men to become insensitive and brutal against female victims and that exposure to pornography may lead to a rise in intergroup aggression. Women have become more of sexual rewards and, rape and sexual aggression within society have become normal (Geen 1998). Leets and Giles (2016) in their book ‘Harmful Speech in Intergroup Encounters: An Organizational Framework for Communication Research’ pages 91-137 argue that the major issue with pornography is with the way it presents women. Women in pornography are presented as sex machines and it has become aggressive toward women. This has been found in several pieces of research on intergroup aggression. Not only is sexual aggression common in pornography but also verbal aggression.

By getting an insight into what intergroup aggression, there are many theories into explaining the existence of intergroup aggression. When looking at groups and aggression, the size of the groups does not matter. Aggression does not have to be only physical but also verbal. The theories of psychology argued that social aggression in society is shown in different social groups such as culture and gender. In support of these theories, theorists like Geen (1978) in his research concluded that people are willing to be aggressive under authority. This means that intergroup aggression is a result of authority. On the other hand, Dollard et al (1939) argue that intergroup aggression is a result of the frustration-aggression hypothesis that leads people to be aggressive against each other. Hovland and Sears (1940) suggested that intergroup aggression could cause by racial differences and this was more common in America during the times of slavery. When there is intergroup aggression, individuals tend to practice displacement, and this is when they put their frustrations on someone who has less power than they do. This was further explained by the theory of the defense mechanism. There are many ways in which intergroup aggression can be explained however as far as there may be some research, the field of intergroup aggression has few modern theories. Society has changed over time and the definition of aggression might have broadened. Also, there could be more research on culture and aggression. Contemporary society has a variety of cultures and the norms and values may have changed over time.

References

1. Bettencourt, B. Ann, Miller, Norman, 1996. Gender differences in aggression as a function of provocation: A meta-analysis… Psychological Bulletin, 119(3), pp. 422-447. Editors, History.com, 2018. Rwandan Genocide. [Online] Available at: https://www.history.com/topics/africa/rwandan-genocide [Accessed 14 April 2019].
2. Gustafson, R. (1989). Frustration and successful vs. Unsuccessful aggression: A test of Berkowitz’ completion hypothesis. Aggressive Behavior, 15(1), pp.5-12.
3. Hieber, M. S., 2008. Theorizing Destruction: Reflections on the State of Comparative Genocide Theory. Genocide Studies and Prevention: An International Journal, 3(3).
4. Hogg, M. and Vaughan, G. (2011). Social psychology. 6th ed. Harlow: Prentice Hall, pp.385-492.
5. Hulsizer, L. M. W. & M. R., 2005. Psychosocial roots of genocide: risk, prevention, and intervention. Journal of Genocide Research, 7(1), pp. 101-128.
6. Jane L. Wood, 2014. Understanding gang membership: The significance of group processes. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 17(6), pp. 710-729.
7. Jost, A. M. a. J. T., 2017. Frustration-aggression hypothesis. [Online] Available at: https://www.britannica.com/science/frustration-aggression-hypothesis [Accessed April 2019].
8. Laura Leets & Howard Giles, 1999. Harmful Speech in Intergroup Encounters: An Organizational Framework for Communication Research. Annals of the International Communication Association, 22(1), pp. 91-137.
9. Myers, D. and Twenge, J. (n.d.). Social psychology. 12th ed. New York: McGraw Hill Education, pp.296-332.
10. Vaughan, G. and Hogg, M. (2014). Social psychology. 7th ed. Harlow, England: Pearson, pp.388-499.
11. Wood, E. A. V. S. O. J. L., 2014. Rumination and the Displacement of Aggression in United Kingdom Gang‐Affiliated Youth. Aggressive Behavior, 38(1).

Aggression

Aggression is a term people use to describe the behavior of others that is tended to harm someone else (Aronson, Wilson, Akert, 2016). There are several different types of aggression that some might not be aware of. This paper will explain some of the different types of aggression, how aggression affects people and the situation, and ways to reduce aggressive behaviors. Aggression is not only the act of physically harming someone else, but it can be using words to hurt someone’s feelings.

Instrumental Aggression

One type of aggression is called instrumental aggression. This is the type of aggression that is intentional and planned to reach an end goal. According to Campbell and Muncer (2008), instrumental aggression is primally used by women than men in daily life. It is believed that women prefer not to use physical harm to reach a goal. Instrumental aggression represents the offensive function of aggression and is often conceptualized by social learning theory (Bandura, 1973). Social learning theory holds that a great deal of aggression is prompted by its anticipated benefits. Here, the instigator is the pull of expected success, rather than the push of aversive treatment (Bandura, 1973). Stemming from this view of aggression, instrumental aggression is defined as a goal-directed behavior controlled by external reinforcements that occur in anticipation of self-serving outcomes (Little, Jones, Henrich, & Hawley, 2003). Thus, instrumental aggression is unprovoked, premeditated behavior aimed at achieving a specific goal through the use of aggression. Some examples of instrumental aggression would be shoplifting or disciplining a child to make them behave differently.

Romantic Relationship Aggression

Romantic relational aggression occurs when one partner in a romantic relationship harms their romantic partner’s interpersonal relationships or feelings of acceptance, friendship, and group inclusion within those relationships (Crick & Grotpeter, 1995). Relationally aggressive acts are committed by individuals in order to manipulate and coerce their partners (Archer &Coyne, 2005), often to receive a specific goal or reward. Relational aggression in romantic relationships is predictive of depression (Ellis, Crooks, & Wolfe, 2009), relationship instability, and poor relationship quality. It is also associated with feelings of frustration, distrust, and jealousy within the romantic relationship (Linder, Crick, & Collins, 2002). Furthermore, romantic relational aggression is positively associated with alcohol and drug use (Bagner, Storch, & Preston, 2007) and physical aggression. An example of this would be domestic violence between a male and woman, male and male, or female and female.

Athlete Aggression

Athlete aggression is a social issue, originating from a desire to win and compromise of moral reasoning. Aggression is present in and out of competitive environments and is manifested in physical and emotional forms. It has been proven through extensive research that anger and aggression lead to injury on the field or court for victims and that family, friends, and acquaintances of aggressive athletes are at risk for bodily and psychological harm (Grange, Kerr, 2011). Much of the research on athletes’ aggressiveness and anger has been done at the high school and professional levels, especially in professional ice hockey. However, college athletics remain greatly understudied. It is suggested but not absolute what the differences between various sports are in terms of aggressive tactics. Thus, the present study is significant in that it sought to add to the growing knowledge of collegiate athlete aggression tendencies on and off the field. Zillmann (1974) proved that athletes are less aggressive than non-athletes. He said that athletics provide an outlet for natural, pent-up aggression that would otherwise be displayed at inappropriate times. Furthermore, he proposed that it was healthy for an individual to allow himself or herself to be aggressive in sport.

Gender Difference in Aggression

While men were found to report significantly more use of both proactive and reactive physical aggression than women, no gender differences emerged for relational aggression. In other words, men appeared to be more physically aggressive than women, though men and women did not differ in their degree of relational aggression. The authors theorized that males may learn during the adolescent years that relational aggression carries less risk of negative social consequences, and as a result may increase their use of this form of aggression while decreasing their use of physically aggressive behavior.

Other studies have found that men and women exhibit similar levels of relational aggression overall, though women and men may be more relationally aggressive than the opposite gender in different contexts. Murray-Close, Ostrov, Nelson, Crick, and Coccaro’s (2010) survey of 800 women and 587 men between the ages of 25 and 45 found no gender differences in respondents’ overall use of relational aggression.

However, women reported engaging in more romantic relational aggression than men, while men appeared to be more relationally aggressive toward peers as compared to women. Relational aggression also appears to relate to different sets of correlates in women versus men. In a study examining the personality and emotional correlates of relational aggression, with the goal of also clarifying gender differences, self-report data was collected from 134 undergraduate students. Participants completed measures of normal personality based on the five-factor model, depression, anxiety, physical aggression, relational aggression, and emotional comprehension and functioning (e.g., empathy, assertiveness). Results included the finding that relational aggression was related to lower agreeableness and deficient overall emotional understanding and functioning, regardless of gender. Relational aggression was also related to higher levels of neuroticism in men and lower conscientiousness, empathy, social responsibility, and interpersonal skills for women. Men reported greater use of physical aggression than women, with no gender differences on the relational aggression measure. Thus, although the use of relational aggression did not appear to differ by gender in this sample, the construct does appear to be associated with different emotional and personality correlates for men as compared to women (Burton et al., 2007).

Methods to Reduce Aggression

Stimulant Medication, Mood Stabilizers, and Typical/Atypical Antipsychotics have proven useful in limiting aggressive and destructive behaviors in children diagnosed with conduct disorder, ADHD, ODD, and co-morbid low IQ. While research supports these treatments for children who are developmentally delayed, it has not been shown to be effective in children with low IQ and co-morbid pervasive developmental disorder, autism, psychosis, head injury, or seizure disorders.

Methylphenidate – This stimulant has proven extremely effective in treating ADHD including episodes of aggression. Recent studies have also shown this medication is effective in treating acting-out behaviors in children with conduct disorder.

Mood Stabilizers and Typical/Atypical Anti-psychotics – The mood stabilizer lithium, commonly used for bipolar disorder, has been shown to be effective in decreasing aggression in children with treatment-resistant aggressive conduct disorder ages 5 to 12. The typical antipsychotics including haloperidol, thioridazine, and chlorpromazine are frequently used to treat aggression found in severe explosive disorders in children. The atypical anti-psychotic Risperidone has been used successfully to decrease or eliminate aggressive behavior in children with ADHD.

Behavior therapy has been shown to help control aggression in children and adolescents with ODD, ADHD, and CD. These techniques are based on learning principles and parents are taught different techniques such as reinforcement, ignoring, and alternate disciplinary strategies to help the child learn to control their anger. Parents are also provided with strategies to manage their own frustration.

References

1. Archer, J., & Coyne, S. M. (2005). An integrated review of indirect, relational, and social aggression. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 9 (3), 212-230.10.1207/s15327957pspr0903_2
2. Aronson, E., Wilson, T., Akert, R., & Sommers, S.R. (2016). Social psychology (9th ed). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
3. Bagner, D. M., Storch, E. A., & Preston, A. S. (2007). Romantic relational aggression: What about gender? Journal of Family Violence, 22(1), 19-24.
4. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10896-006-9055-x
5. Bandura, A. (1973). Aggression: A social learning analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
6. Burton, L.A., Hafetz, J., & Henninger, D. (2007). Gender differences in relational and physical aggression. Social Behavior and Personality, 35, 41-50.
7. Campbell, A., Muncer, S., (2008). Aggressive Behavior. May/Jun2008, Vol. 34 Issue 3, p282-293. 12p. 6 Charts. DOI: 10.1002/ab.20228.
8. Crick, N. R., & Grotpeter, J. K. (1995). Relational aggression, gender, and social-psychological adjustment. Child Development, 66(3), 710-722. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1131945
9. Ellis, W. E., Crooks, C.V., & Wolfe, D. A. (2009). Relational aggression in peer and dating relationships: Links to psychological and behavioral adjustment. Social Development, 18(2), 253-269. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9507.2008.00468.x
10. Grange, P., Kerr, J. (2011) Research on Aggression: Do Elite Athletes Renowned for their Aggressive Play Transfer Aggression to Nonsport Settings? A Qualitative Exploratory Study, Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment, and Trauma, 20: 359-375
11. Linder, J. R., Crick, N. R., & Collins, W. A. (2002). Relational aggression and victimization in young adults’ romantic relationships: Associations with perceptions of parent, peer, and romantic relationship quality. Social Development, 11(1), 69-86.
12. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-9507.00187
13. Little, T. D., Jones, S. M., Henrich, C. C., & Hawley, P. H. (2003). Disentangling the “whys” from the “whats” of aggressive behavior. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 27(2), 122-133. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1080/01650250244000128
14. Murray-Close, D., Ostrov, J.M., Nelson, D.A., Crick, N.R., & Coccaro, E.F. (2010).
15. Proactive, reactive, and romantic relational aggression in adulthood: Measurement, predictive validity, gender differences, and association with Intermittent Explosive Disorder. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 44, 393-404.
16. Zillmann (1974) Provoked and Unprovoked Aggressiveness in Athletes, Journal of Research in Personality, 8 (2): 139-152

Abstract

Aggression is something that psychologists all over are fascinated with. Will anyone ever have the same answer? Is aggression caused by nature or nurture? Are we made with aggression in us from the time we are born, or is this something that we learn as survival mechanisms? How do we eliminate aggressive outbursts, as they have become a huge part of the society that we live in?

Aggression is a long-time topic in psychology. The question remains: Is aggression biological or is aggression a learned behavior? For starters, aggression is defined as a psychological behavior that people use to cause harm. Aggression includes kicking, slapping, insults, rude gestures, lying, destroying property, and all other behaviors that are solely intended to hurt. However, aggressive acts that are not intended to cause pain, but do, are not considered aggression. For example, a doctor giving a shot may cause hurt, but it is not intended to cause pain, but to help, therefor this is not considered aggression. There are two different types of aggression. Hostile aggression is something that derives from anger and intends to injure someone. Most murders are considered hostile aggression. Nearly half of all murders are caused by arguments and the other half are caused from the result of romantic issues. Murders can also be caused from a brawl and some murders will also be closely linked with the consumption of alcohol and/or involve being under the influence of drugs. Murders, such as the ones listed, are considered impulsive outbursts of hostile aggression. The other type of aggression includes “instrumental aggression”. Instrumental aggression also aims to injure but is committed as something that is in regard to a bigger goal. A form of instrumental aggression would be terrorism. A terrorist would be someone who seeks personal significance or becomes someone “important”. Terrorism is considered a tool to use in conflict. Wars would also be considered instrumental aggression, as they are aimed to injure, however, serves a bigger purpose. The way instrumental aggression looks in children would be bullying. This bullying can occur physically or verbally. The children who exhibit bullying behavior often seek to insert dominance or to obtain a higher status from their peers. The goal of a psychologist is to dig deeper into the cause of aggression. In order to minimize aggression and aggressive outbursts, one must first identify the cause of aggression. There are three possible influences one can look at biological influences, frustrations, and learned behaviors. Is it all three? Jean Jaques Rousseau, a French Philosopher, says the problem is society! Rousseau states that society is responsible for social evils and it is not just human nature. In contrast, the English Philosopher Thomas Hobbes states that society is responsible for “restraining the human brute”. Hobbes says the “brutish view” is a view that states that aggression is born inside of us and is inevitable. This philosophy of “brutish view” is argued by Sigmund Freud. Freud’s argument is that human aggression is a self-destructive impulse. Lorenz, an animal behavior expert, agrees with Freud that aggression should be considered instinctive. Instinctive would mean that aggression is unlearned and universal. Although human aggression can be influenced by biological factors, aggression should not be qualified as instinctive because instinctive does not compensate for the variations of aggression. I believe that aggression is affected both by nature and nurture. Aggression is affected by biology and social influences from the moment you are born. Both biological components and social influence play a huge role and how are brains and bodies react to conflict. A study was conducted in Sweden with siblings. The study resulted in those with a sibling who shares genes convicted of a violent crime, were four times more likely to be convicted themselves. On the contrary, rates were significantly lower for siblings of adoption. This research shows that genes are significant, but so is the social aspect in which one is raised. Aggression can vary in severity among several different people can look different in every person. A person’s temperament typically endures from childhood, which is why it is important to teach children from a young age how to handle their emotions. Children cannot simply be affected by “bad genes” or a “bad” environment. However, “bad” genes, can predispose children for behavior that would be considered anti-social rather than children who have genes that could make them more social. Nature and nurture interact with each other to help create temperaments. Alcohol, testosterone, and poor diet can all affect biology and therefore affect behavior. Higher levels of testosterone are known for increasing aggressive behavior. However, aggression can cause high testosterone as well. Therefore, high testosterone can become environmental. The social learning theory of aggression says that we learn aggression by observing others. Children who exhibit physically aggressive behavior tend to have physically aggressive parents who use screaming, slapping, or beating as punishment. These parents, more often than not, also had parents with the same punishment style. Aggression often includes an adverse experience such as pain, attack, overcrowding, or even uncomfortable heat.

So, if aggression can be caused by nature and nurture, can it also be purged by nature and nurture as well? Scientist feels that in order to eliminate explosive aggression episodes, we should be allowed to vent our anger safely. The Hydraulic model would suggest that accumulated aggressive energy would not to be released, similar to dammed-up water. Aristotle stated that we can rid of emotions by experiencing them. Assuming that it is correct that aggressive action drains the pent-up aggression, therapists occasionally suggest acting out aggression by hitting each other with foam bats, hitting a punching bag, or screaming. Some therapists encourage parents to release tension by letting children exhibit aggressive play. This strategy is assuming that catharsis is therapeutic. However, the results of the study showed that doing nothing at all effectively reduced aggression more than those who actively attempted to reduce it by aggressive acts. Venting anger caused more anger rather than reducing it. Expressing hostility typically will bread more hostility and decreased happiness. If you look at this from a nurture perspective, you will find it effective to reinforce cooperative, non-aggressive behavior, as studies show that children become less aggressive when caretakers ignore their aggressive behavior and only reinforce their positive behaviors. Punishing the aggressor tends to be less effective. I have come to the conclusion that aggression is a factor of both nature and nurture. Healing aggression seems to also come from biological standpoints and social standpoints. So, the question is, how do we eliminate aggression? Do we look biologically, or do we look socially? We will need to look socially. We must prevent aggression before it happens. We must educate. We must teach nonaggressive behaviors and self-conflict resolution strategies. If we can effectively teach problem-solving skills, emotion control strategies, and conflict resolution techniques, we can reduce aggression in adolescents. As parents, educators, or caretakers, we could model and reward sensitive behavior and cooperation beginning at a young age. We could train parents, educators, and caretakers to discipline without anger or violence. The likelihood that a behavior will increase if you reinforce it is high. Therefore, when you reinforce positive behaviors, they will increase and the undesirable behaviors will, in turn, decrease. Also, if observing aggression increases aggression, we should undoubtedly lower the aggression reporting in the widespread media. If we do this, would reduce brutal and dehumanizing behaviors. We might could even reduce racist and sexist behaviors. The answer to aggression is not a cookie-cutter answer. There are several components of identifying the cause, effect and eliminated of aggression. It is important to study aggression to better understand it for ourselves, others, and our children. Aggression is caused by nature and nurture and most also be healed through nature and nurture.

Citations

1. Rief, A. (2019). Nature and Nurture Predispose To Violent Behavior. [online] Nature.com. Available at: https://www.nature.com/articles/1301359.pdf [Accessed 22 Sep. 2019].
2. Myers, D. and Twenge, J. (2016). Social Psychology. 12th ed. p.296-329
3. Opotow, S. (2006). Aggression and violence. In M. Deutsch, P. T. Coleman, & E. C. Marcus (Eds.), The handbook of conflict resolution: Theory and practice (pp. 509-532). Hoboken, NJ, US: Wiley Publishing.
4. Montagu, A. (1976). The nature of human aggression. Oxford, England: Oxford U Press.
5. Berkowitz, L. (1962). Aggression: A social psychological analysis. New York, NY, US: McGraw-Hill.

Abstract

There is no doubt that every human being has expressed some form of aggression even once in their lifetime. Often times we are able to correct our actions and learn from our mistakes to ensure that our spur-of-the-moment display of anger never occurs again. Some individuals, however, seem to express anger and aggression in the simplest situations. There are others who somehow appear to lack control of how extreme they can retaliate to someone or something that offends or affects them negatively. This behavior is widely seen in men in service, namely police officers and soldiers. While we are fully aware of the studies done on police brutality not much study has been done on aggression in the military. This study seeks to focus on aggression in the military and what causes individuals to develop this behavior. A number of individuals would argue that aggression is a behavior that is developed after being exposed to combat, however, my hypothesis “Aggression is not a behavior that is developed within the military but is a behavior that pre-existed prior to enlisting” seeks to refute such claims. It is obvious that military service can have a long-lasting effect on people. But, on the other hand, this research also underscores that it’s really difficult to change a person’s personality. This will be done by conducting research that will involve the issuing of self-administered surveys to a total of 600 individuals from the North Georgia region as well as the review of other studies previously done on the same topic.

Aggression in The Military Pre and Post Deployment

Introduction

In today’s advanced technological society, we are plagued with constant reports of violence. every day we turn our televisions on there is another report of an individual being harmed because some service member decided to abuse his or her authority or an innocent citizen is harmed by another civilian. Many of these cases involve individuals in the military. “Media coverage of violence and assaults committed by ex-servicemen has focused attention on whether serving in combat makes soldiers less stable and more prone to violent outbursts” (Kelland, 2013, para.1). There are however a number of cases that are not as highlighted as the ones we see or hear in the media that is associated with intimate partner violence, mass shootings and or homicides. This has become an issue especially when the perpetrator belongs to the military. These behaviors lead to certain studies trying to determine if the military creates aggressive individuals or was aggression a characteristic of the individual before they enlisted. On November 5th, 2009, Major Nidal Malik Hasan killed a total of 13 individuals after committing a shooting spree at Fort Hood Texas. 2 years later an Individual by the name of Estaban Santiago executed a mass shooting at the Fort- Lauderdale Hollywood International Airport killing a total of 5 individuals and injuring 6. After Esteban Santiago killed five people at the Fort Lauderdale airport on Jan. 6, reports trickled out that the Iraq War veteran had returned from his 2011 combat tour a “changed man” (Steele, 2017). These two incidences are not the only mass shootings or violent activity that has involved military personnel who were deployed. This research is conducted to determine what might be the underlying cause of aggression in these individuals and whether or not the military should be blamed for creating violent individuals. This topic is important because if findings should suggest that there is a correlation between the military and aggressive behavior then a lot needs to be done to correct the problem. The research is aimed at determining whether or not there is a correlation between deployment exposure and aggressive criminal behavior in reserved and active duty military personnel. The topic has been studied by several individuals, but the issue is not discussed as it should be to bring awareness. Another reason for conducting this research is to determine if more needs to be done to evaluate individuals on a psychological level before they enlist. The research is also intended to determine what deterrence methods should be in place to prevent an individual from succumbing to aggression after they have enlisted or been discharged from their duties.

Variables

Upon conducting this research, the following variables will be studied along with other factors to better understand the topic:

1. Combat Exposure- Describes the duration of time an individual has experienced war, or any traumatic situations related to but not excluding combat. How does their combat exposure affect their level of aggression?
2. Age- The length of time the individual has lived for. Does an individual’s age determine how well they are able to control their aggression?
3. Rank- Refers to the position held in the hierarchy of the armed forces. Like age does the rank an individual hold determines how well they are able to control how they display their aggression?
4. Marital status- The state of being single, married or domestically involved. Can being in a relationship be a trigger for aggression?
5. Mental Health- Refers to the psychological and emotional well-being of an individual. Do individuals display certain levels of anger because they are suffering from a mental illness?
6. Social Interactions- Refers to the communal relationship between two or more individuals. How does the social learning theory contribute to the cycle of aggression and does it really apply?
7. Reserved Veteran- a former member of the Armed Forces that was released under conditions other than dishonorable. Has there been a clear indication that aggression was a behavior that was developed in the military?
8. Enlisted Veteran- Refers to an individual who currently serves in the military. Since enlisting has there been an obvious display of aggression?
9. Arrest record- A report of an individual’s criminal history relating to both felony and misdemeanor charges. Does having a record indicate that being aggressive has a negative correlation to serving in the military?
10. Substance abuse-Using a drug for purposes other than its prescribed solution. Are individuals who abuse drugs more prone to displaying aggression?

Hypothesis and Research Questions

The hypothesis for this paper is “Aggression is not a behavior that is developed within the military but is a behavior that pre-existed prior to enlisting”. While conducting this research the following questions will be considered by the researcher:

• What percentage of U.S soldiers are involved in violent crimes?
• How are individuals who face trauma via the military being assisted?
• What demographic factors contribute to the levels of aggression in military personnel?
• Are there any programs that are currently focused on assisting military men struggling with aggression and how effective are they? Should more focus be placed on an individual and his level of aggression pre or post-deployment?

Methodology

The research will be completed using a sample size of 600 North Georgia Military personnel including veterans and reserved individuals. Participants will be selected from the North Georgia region, specifically the Georgia Army National Guard, Camp Frank D Merrill Army base, and Dobbins Air Reserve Base. It is the intention of the researcher to contact the Center for Army Analysis (CAA) so that participants can be identified. Questionnaires will be issued to each military base on the same day between the hours of 8:00 AM to 10:00 PM eastern time. A total of 200 participants will be selected from each military base using a systematic random sampling technique where every fourth individual that participates is selected for use in the research. The intended sample frame for this research will be military personnel who were either still active or had been deployed, veterans, and those with little or no combat exposure.

Data Gathering Procedures

To gather enough information to initiate the research the researcher integrated various literary sources using the technique, of data mapping. This allowed the researcher to identify specific themes related to the topic being researched and narrow down the sources obtained to the ones that were most relevant.

The research will be completed using a sample size of 600 self-completion questionnaires with a total of 10 questions. A copy of this questionnaire can be found in the appendices of this research. Questions will be closed-ended to allow for easy replication and fewer irrelevant answers to questions asked. This also ensures that the information can be easily gathered from a large population. To ensure that everyone has access to the survey and can complete it at any given time, the online survey generator, survey monkey will be used. Questionnaires will collect a range of information on deployment history, pre-military behavior, acts of violence, and experiences since joining the military.

The research was conducted in compliance with the American Sociological Association (ASA) and the International Review Board (IRB) with regard to protection for all human subjects participating in the research. A participant list is expected to be gathered from the Center for Army Analysis (CAA) after which a consent form will be sent via email informing individuals that participation is voluntary and confidential and they can choose to quit at any given time.

Data Analyses

Analyses of the data are expected to be fairly easy but time-consuming. There will be a total of 600 questionnaires to gather information from and a total of 200 will be from each military base. Each question will be analyzed individually, and responses presented in a statistical method. The information received during this study will not be generalizable to the entire population but only to the North Georgia region. To improve the generalizability the study can be replicated in a different region to test the hypothesis.

Literature Review

In recent years reports of high-profile cases of violence committed by veterans have intensified (MacManus et al., 2013). In this study, various aspects of aggression among military personnel that is, active duty and veterans are explored. Having military personnel displaying high levels of aggression has become a widespread societal problem. Aggression is an emotional state that generates hostility and violence and a veteran who displays such behavior are at risk for coming in contact with the law and severing relationships such as work and personal ones. Many researchers have suggested that exposure to combat leads to increasing levels of aggression. An outbreak of serious crime in the United Kingdom in 1919 was attributed to the returned of “callous” and “battle-hardened” servicemen (MacManus et al., 2015). But, is the military really to be blamed or held accountable for creating violent individuals? The question that needs to be asked is whether or not this behavior of aggression and undoubtedly low levels of self-control existed before or after enlisting. The researcher believes that the military does not create aggression, but this behavior was present before an individual decided to enlist. While Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) is widely studied and in most instances is held accountable for aggression there has to be other underlying factors that contribute to this behavior. Some of these factors include combat exposure, Substance abuse, social ties, and pre- enlisting interactions.

It is no doubt that combat exposure can have certain psychological effects on deployed individuals. According to Kwan (2017) the greater prevalence of violence among deployed US reservist troops may be explained by a number of factors, such as the difference in length of deployment (p. 277). Although being deployed contributes somehow to the display of violence it cannot be entirely blamed. The stress of deployment only allows a certain individual to display characteristics that they already had possessed. “The military attracts certain personality types in the first place, including people who tend to be lower in agreeableness” (Badger, 2012). This is why often times when military personnel expresses anger it is referred to as a “military personality”. Many individuals believe that a soldier needs to be aggressive for them to be effective at their job. In further support of these findings, Kelland (2012) stated that “Some people with aggressive dispositions make very good soldiers, that’s the nature of the game” Agreeableness is in many ways associated with aggression which depends on how an individual can self-regulate. Self-regulation allows an individual to have stronger self-control. According to Badger (2012) once a soldier is back into the real world they won’t automatically go back to their original personality. This all depends on how grounded the individual was before enlisting. While the military wants you to become more organized, and this goal will definitely be achieved it is highly unlikely that an individual will change completely. The author further stated that he believed that the military does create violent individuals because it is their job to change the individual’s perspective upon enlisting (Badger, 2012). This I suppose is a way to make them into better individuals who are alert and can make quick and informed decisions. Contrary to Badger’s research, however, another research conducted in August 2006 and August of 2007 indicated that considerably higher levels of risky behavior were more prevalent during an individual’s civilian life (Thomsen, Stander, McWhorter, Rabenhorst &Milner, 2011). While some researchers conclude that being deployed causes aggression one article refuted this theory by stating “that it is not solely the fact of deployment that is associated with severe aggression, but the longer the deployment, the more likely severe aggression becomes” (McCarroll et al, 2000, p. 355).

Some scientist have done research that suggests that a particular defective gene is responsible for aggression. Unfortunately, there isn’t enough research on this but the social learning theory does indicate that social interactions can lead to a child learning aggressive behaviors.

There is no doubt that aggression is in part genetically determined and children who are aggressive as infants also are aggressive when they are adults (Stangor, 2014). This theory also ties in with the social interaction theory that would indicate that an adult displaying high levels of aggression is based upon what they experienced as a child. During previous research, it was indicated that risky behaviors were more common at younger ages. (Thomsen et al.,2011). This may be indicative of an individual gaining more social ties such as becoming married, having a higher rank, or just simply joining the military. In a study of 1,710 military individuals, of the reservist who was of officer rank, only one reported violent behavior (Kwan et. al, 2017). These social ties are ones that no individual wishes to put at risk with any form of violent behavior that may cause them to have a run-in with the law. Having more social ties also indicates that they can eliminate certain life stressors such as unemployment issues and mental problems. This is not only seen with individuals in the military but anyone in society that has climbed the social ladder is expected to age out of crime. The study conducted by Jamie Kwan and his colleagues further stated that when violence was indicated it was related to a number of socio-demographic, pre-enlistment factors (Kwan et al., 2017). We have to remember that a child lives what they learn and viewing violence increases the cognitive accessibility of violence. If a child is corrected when they behave aggressively they may subsequently curve their aggression. “Individual differences in aggressiveness are presumably largely due to environmental influences arising from both the general culture and personal experiences from families and their neighborhood” (Clark, 1946, p. 423). Modeling these behaviors is fairly easy for children who grew up seeing violence with their parents. When we see violence, violence is activated in our memories and becomes ready to guide our subsequent thinking and behavior in more aggressive ways (Stangor, 2014). According to the American Journal of sociology, most military personnel were maladjusted before the army, and enlisting just simply brought to the surface a personality disorder that was already present for years (Kwan et al, 2017). With these indications from the various research done it became easy for analysts to conclude that aggression resulted from the loss of control and could be in relation to alcohol use or other drugs. “Several studies and data from the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics show no evidence that military veterans including those who witnessed or waged combat in Iraq and Afghanistan are more prone to lethal violence than the general population” (Steele, 2017, p.).

Another cause of aggression in some individuals is substance abuse. Many researchers believe that this correlates to PTSD and other mental illnesses. “Although PTSD is perhaps the most researched diagnosis when considering violence in combat veterans, there is literature suggesting that other psychopathologies can be linked with violence” (MacManus et al., 2015, p. 1968). Some individuals abuse alcohol and other drugs to cope with the effects of PTSD and so they can be related to aggressive behavior. Unfortunately, the majority of the study revealed that pre-enlisting interactions were the number one influence on aggression. Because the military cannot be blamed for this behavior we as a society are now faced with the issue of trying to determine how this can be corrected before an individual chooses to enlist. “Since neither psychiatric histories nor projective psychological studies on every soldier are practicable, general policies will have to be made on how these individuals are selected (Clark, 1946, p. 423). This is a complicated task, but something has to be done to protect the number of lives that are being lost each year. Some military personnel have indicated that they are expected to return to normal life and adjust but this is difficult. They are then faced with individuals who cannot fully understand them and according to Kwan and his colleagues, this lack of support and the greater transitional difficulties are thought to increase the risk of developing post-deployment mental health issues alcohol and drug misuse (Kwan et al., 2017). Although we have developed a good understanding of the causes of aggression what exactly to do about it is an even more difficult question. Further studies have also indicated that reserves displayed extremely high levels of aggression after being deployed than frequent deployers. “It is possible that the higher levels of violent behavior among deployed reservists may be influenced by a lack of preparation for homecoming” (Kwan et al., 2017,p. 277). It is this difficulty to transition that may possibly lead to post-deployment mental issues and alcohol issues which are all factors for violence.

Conclusions and Limitations

The involvement of military personnel in extreme violent behaviors has been increasing over the past years. The aim of this research was to determine the underlying cause of this increase in violence and whether or not the military and being deployed was the main causative factor. The research is intended to bring to the forefront an issue that is rarely spoken about. This should allow individuals to become aware of the topic so that more care and thought are practiced before and after an individual enlists.

Because of the increase in the issue of aggression in the military we need to invest in more individual treatment and anger management programs. So, while we can all agree that aggression can be caused or triggered by several outside factors such as PTSD, and alcohol and drug abuse there is no doubt that the majority of individuals that display such characteristics did so before enlisting. This was established through the major findings of the research that confirmed that deployment did not introduce new aggressive behaviors among those who had not engaged in them previously. It is important to note and be aware of these facts because individuals at times are misinformed.

This research was not possible without a few strengths and weaknesses. Because the researcher relied entirely on self-reporting of violent activities from offenders, it is possible that they would avoid being honest or underreporting because they simply couldn’t remember details. Individuals who suffer from conditions such as PTSD may easily remember traumatic events and may over-report, (i.e. saying an event was more violent than it actually was). There is however a benefit to using self-reporting methods. Some Participants might be more likely to report incidences of aggression and violence that were never reported to law enforcement. One strength of the research was that, unlike all other literature, PTSD was not the only mental illness that was taken into consideration. Another setback in the study is that it was specific to the North Georgia region of the United States and so was not generalizable to all military personnel. To improve the generalizability of this research replication of the study in different regions to test the same hypothesis would be necessary. The majority of the literature used focused mainly on men and excluded females entirely. Although the majority of service individuals are men there is a large part of the population that includes female service members. Limitations also existed on the combat exposure of the studied population. This was obvious when at least two of the literature used for the study focused entirely on individuals who experience combat in Afghanistan and Iran.

in order to gain a full understanding of how widespread aggression is among military personnel a more in-depth evaluation of servicemen is needed. This should include observations, interviews, and a wider studied population. The findings from the overall research could also assist the military official in improving or developing a risk assessment of violence among serving and ex-military personnel. The research did not include a lot of statistics and any future report of the same topic should focus on including statistical data. A greater understanding is also needed for what type of training and support military personnel need, more specifically reservists, in order for them to transition effectively into society.

All in all, it can be concluded that aggression is definitely a learned behavior. However, this behavior is not learned through the military as it was a behavior that preexisted before enlisting. This behavior normally develops from simply observing the interaction of our parents and at times the community in which these individuals grew up.

References

1. Badger, E. (2012, February 24). How the Military Can Change Personalities, Slightly., https://psmag.com/social-justice/how-the-military-can-change-personalities-slightly-40069
2. Clark, A. R. (1946). Aggressiveness and Military Training. American Journal of Sociology, 51(5),423. http://search.ebscohost.com.libproxy.ung.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edsjsr&AN=edsjsr.2771106&site=eds-live&scope=site
3. Kelland, K. (2013, March 15). Combat soldiers more likely to commit violent crimes: Study. https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-military-violence/combat-soldiers-more-likely-to-commit-violent-crimes-study-idUKBRE92E00220130315
4. Kwan, J., Jones, M., Hull, L., Wessely, S., Fear, N., & MacManus, D. (2017). Violent behavior among military reservists. Aggressive Behavior, 43(3), 273–280. https://doi-org.libproxy.ung.edu/10.1002/ab.21687
5. McCarroll, J. E., Ursano, R. J., Xian Liu, Thayer, L. E., Newby, J. H., Norwood, A. E., Liu, X. (2010). Deployment and the probability of spousal aggression by U.S. Army soldiers. Military Medicine, 175(5), 352–356. https://doi-org.libproxy.ung.edu/10.7205/MILMED-D-10-00048
6. MacManus, D., Dean, K., Jones, M., Rona, R. J., Greenberg, N., Hull, L., Fear, N. T. (2013). Articles: Violent offending by UK military personnel deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan: a data linkage cohort study. The Lancet, 381, 907–917. https://doi-org.libproxy.ung.edu/10.1016/S0140-6736(13)60354-2
7. MacManus, D., Rona, R., Dickson, H., Somaini, G., Fear, N., & Wessely, S. (2015). Aggressive and violent behavior among military personnel deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan: prevalence and link with deployment and combat exposure. Epidemiologic Reviews, 37, 196–212. https://doi-org.libproxy.ung.edu/10.1093/epirev/mxu006
8. [bookmark: _Hlk5994400]Stangor, C. (2014, September 26). The Biological and Emotional Causes of Aggression. https://opentextbc.ca/socialpsychology/chapter/the-biological-and-emotional-causes-of-aggression/
9. Steele, J. (2017). Focus: Are military veterans more likely for shooting sprees? Retrieved from https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/military/veterans/sd-me-veterans-violence-20170109-story.html
10. Thomsen, C. J., Stander, V. A., McWhorter, S. K., Rabenhorst, M. M., & Milner, J. S. (2011). Effects of combat deployment on risky and self-destructive behavior among active duty military personnel. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 45, 1321–1331. https://doi-org.libproxy.ung.edu/10.1016/j.jpsychires.2011.04.003

Appendices

Questionnaire:

1. What is your age?
   1. 16-20 ☐ 21-25 ☐ 26-30 ☐ 31 and older ☐
2. Please indicate your relationship status below
   1. Married ☐ Single ☐ Divorced ☐ Domestic Partnership ☐
3. Please indicate your current status
   1. Enlisted ☐ veteran ☐
4. What is your current rank?
5. How long have you been enlisted in the army?
   1. Less than a year ☐ between 1-3 years ☐ 4-6 years ☐ over 6 years ☐
6. I may hit someone if I feel threatened or I am annoyed.
   1. Yes ☐ No ☐
   2. If your answer above was “No” move on to question 7.
   3. If yes, how often do you get into fights?
      1. None at all ☐ 1-2 per month ☐ 3-4 times ☐ 5-6 times ☐ more than 6 times per month ☐
7. I have had encounters with the law prior to enlisting in the military
   1. Yes ☐ No ☐
8. Have you ever been diagnosed with any of the following? If yes, please indicate
   1. PTSD ☐ Depression ☐ Bipolar Disorder ☐ mood disorder ☐ anxiety disorder ☐ Other ☐
9. How often do you spend time with friends?
   1. None at all ☐ once weekly ☐ at least 1-4 times per week ☐ more than 4 times weekly ☐
10. Have you used drugs other than those required for medical use?
    1. Yes ☐ No ☐
11. Where you involved in more fights before or after the military?
    1. Before ☐ After ☐

Abstract

Abstract Research on human aggression has advanced to a time when a binding framework structure is required. Major domain-constrained hypotheses of aggression incorporate cognitive neo-association, social learning, social connection, script, and excitation exchange theories. Utilizing the general aggression model (GAM), this audit places cognizance, influence, and excitement to intercede the impacts of situational and phonological factors on aggression. The review likewise arranges ongoing theories of the improvement and industriousness of aggression personality. Personality is conceptualized as a lot of stable learning structures that people use to translate occasions in their social world and to direct their conduct. Notwithstanding sorting out what is as of now thought about human aggression, this survey, utilizing the GAM structure, likewise serves the heuristic function of recommending what explore is expected to fill in hypothetical gaps and can be utilized to make and test intercessions for diminishing aggression.

Introduction

In its most extraordinary structures, aggression is a human catastrophe unparalleled. Expectations that the repulsions of World War II and the Holocaust would deliver an overall aversion against executing have been dashed. Since World War II, manslaughter rates have majorly expanded as opposed to diminished in various industrialized nations, most outstandingly the United States. Along these lines, lately, there has been recharged enthusiasm for knowing why people in some cases carry on aggressively. A portion of the reasons for expanded violence has been identified. For instance, the availability of weapons (O’Donnell 1995), global warming (Anderson et al. 1997), violence against youngsters in schools and homes (Hyman 1995, Straus 2000), and the widespread introduction to brutal stimulation media (Bushman and Huesmann 2001) all add to the abnormal state of violence and aggression in current social orders. Later mental research has yielded promising new medicines (e.g., Borduin 1999), new experimental disclosures (e.g., Baumeister et al. 1996, Bushman 1995), and new hypothetical investigations (e.g., Eron et al. 1994, Geen and Donnerstein 1998, Huesmann et al. 1996). I started by offering some essential definitions. Next, I portray a few domain-specific theories of aggression. Lastly, depict the general aggression model, an integrative system that will convey more requests and structure to the field of aggression. Ensuing domains address Inputs, courses, and results of aggression, outlining ongoing advances in aggression review.

Essential definitions

Aggression

Human aggression is any conduct coordinated toward another person that is completed with the proximate (quick) aim to cause hurt. Moreover, the culprit must trust that the conduct will hurt the objective and that the objective is persuaded to maintain a strategic distance from the conduct (Bushman and Anderson 2001, Baron and Richardson 1994, Berkowitz 1993, Geen 2001).

Inadvertent damage isn’t aggression in light of the fact that it isn’t planned. The harm that is an accidental result of accommodating activities is additionally not aggression, on the grounds that the damage practitioner trusts that the objective isn’t roused to dodge the activity (e.g., torment experienced amid a dental strategy). Also, the pain controlled in sexual masochism isn’t aggression in light of the fact that the unfortunate casualty isn’t spurred to stay away from it—to be sure; the torment is effectively requested in the administration of a higher objective (Baumeister 1989).

Violence

Violence is aggression that has outrageous harm as its objective (e.g., death). All violence is aggression; however numerous examples of aggression are not violent. For instance, one kid pushing another off a tricycle is a demonstration of aggression yet isn’t a demonstration of violence.

Hostile versus Instrumental Aggression

Hostile aggression has truly been imagined as being rash, negligent (i.e., impromptu), determined by annoyance, having a definitive rationale of hurting the objective, and happening as a response to some apparent provocation. It is now and then called effective, indiscreet, or responsive aggression. Instrumental aggression is imagined as a planned method for acquiring some objective other than hurting the person in question, and being proactive as opposed to responsive (Berkowitz 1993, Geen 2001). Ongoing examination (Bushman and Anderson 2001) changes these definitions in two different ways. To start with, we recognize proximate and extreme objectives. We see expectation to hurt as a vital element of all aggression (as in absolutely unfriendly aggression models), however, it is important just as a proximate objective. Second, we recognize distinctive sorts of aggression at the dimension of an extreme objective. In this way, both theft and physical strike are demonstrations of aggression on the grounds that both incorporate aim to hurt the injured person at a proximate dimension. In any case, they commonly contrast in extreme objectives, with theft serving basically benefit-based objectives and attack serving principally hurt-based objectives. So, our definition enables us to talk about the shared characteristics in and refinements among emotional and instrumental aggression, while including aggression that has blended intentions.

Domain-specific theories of aggression

Three primary hypotheses of aggression manage most current research on this issue. The theories themselves cover impressively, which is the thing that actuated early endeavors to coordinate them into a more extensive structure (Anderson et al. 1995, 1996a).

Cognitive Neo-association Theory Berkowitz (1989, 1990, and 1993) has recommended that aversive occasions, for example, disappointments, provocations, uproarious clamors, awkward temperatures, and terrible smells produce a negative impact. Negative influence created by unsavory encounters consequently animates different considerations, recollections, expressive engine responses, and physiological reactions related to both battle and flight inclinations. The battle affiliations offer ascent to simple sentiments of annoyance, while the flight affiliations offer ascent to simple sentiments of dread. Moreover, the cognitive neo-association hypothesis accepts that prompts present amid an aversive occasion become related to the occasion and with the cognitive and enthusiastic reactions activated by the occasion. In the psychological neo-association hypothesis, aggression contemplations, feelings, and conduct inclinations are connected together in memory (Collins and Loftus 1975).

The cognitive neo-association hypothesis likewise incorporates higher-request cognitive procedures, for example, evaluations and attributions. On the off chance that persons are persuaded to do as such, they may consider how they feel, make causal attributions for what drove them to feel along these lines, and think about the outcomes of following up on their emotions. Such an intentional idea creates all the more obviously separated sentiments of indignation, dread, or both. It can likewise stifle or improve the activity inclinations related to these sentiments.

The cognitive neo-association hypothesis not just subsumes the prior disappointment aggression speculation (Dollard et al. 1939), however it likewise gives a causal component to clarifying why aversive occasions increment aggression tendencies, i.e., by means of a negative effect (Berkowitz 1989). This model is especially fit to clarify threatening aggression, yet similar preparing and spreading actuation forms are additionally pertinent to different kinds of aggression.

Social Learning Theory

As indicated by social learning hypotheses (Bandura 1983, 2001; Mischel 1973, 1999; Mischel and Shoda 1995), persons gain aggression reactions a similar way they secure other complex types of social conduct—either by direct understanding or by watching others. The social learning hypothesis clarifies the procurement of aggression practices, through observational learning forms, and gives a helpful arrangement of ideas for comprehension and portraying the beliefs and desires that control social conduct. The social learning hypothesis—particularly key ideas with respect to the advancement and change of desires and how one translates the social world—is especially valuable in understanding the procurement of aggression practices and in clarifying instrumental aggression. For instance, Patterson’s work on family connections and the improvement of reserved personal conduct standards depends intensely on this methodology (Patterson et al. 1989, 1992).

Social Interaction Theory

The social interaction hypothesis (Tedeschi and Felson 1994) translates aggression conduct (or coercive activities) as social impact conduct, i.e., an entertainer utilizes coercive activities to create some adjustment in the objective’s conduct. Coercive activities can be utilized by an entertainer to acquire something of significant worth (e.g., data, cash, merchandise, sex, administrations, security), to correct retributive equity for saw wrongs, or to achieve wanted social and self characters (e.g., strength, skill). As indicated by this hypothesis, the entertainer is a chief whose decisions are coordinated by the normal prizes, expenses, and probabilities of acquiring distinctive results. The social collaboration hypothesis gives a clarification of aggression acts persuaded by more elevated amount (or extreme) objectives. Indeed, even unfriendly aggression may have some sound objective behind it, for example, rebuffing the provocateur so as to lessen the probability of future provocations. This hypothesis gives a magnificent method to comprehend ongoing discoveries that aggression is frequently the aftereffect of dangers to high confidence, particularly to baseless high confidence (i.e., narcissism) (Baumeister et al. 1996, Bushman and Baumeister 1998).

The general aggression model

This hypothetical structure was intended to coordinate existing small-scale theories of aggression into a bound-together entirety. We have productively utilized different types of this model for quite a while (e.g., Anderson 1997; K.B. Anderson et al. 1998; Anderson et al. 1995, 1996a; Anderson and Dill 2000; Bushman and Anderson 2001; Lindsay and Anderson 2000). This general model has something like four favorable circumstances over littler domain hypotheses. Initially, it is more miserly than the arrangement of existing little theories. Second, it better clarifies aggression acts that depend on various thought processes, e.g., both instrumental and influence-based aggression (Bushman and Anderson 2001). Third, it will help in the improvement of progressively extensive mediations intended to treat people who are incessantly aggression; numerous present treatment endeavors come up short since they center around just a single explicit kind of aggression or utilize just a single smaller than expected hypothetical way to deal with treatment (Tate et al. 1995). Fourth, it gives more extensive bits of knowledge about kid rising and improvement issues, in this way empowering guardians, educators, and open arrangement creators to settle on better choices about youngster raising practices (Zigler et al. 1992).

GAM centers around the ‘person in the circumstance,’ called a scene, comprising of one cycle of a progressing social connection. The three primary foci concern (an) person and circumstance inputs; (b) psychological, full of feeling, and excitement courses through which these information factors have their effect; and (c) results of the hidden examination and choice procedures.

Inputs

Aggression research spotlights on finding what natural, ecological, mental, and social elements impact aggression conduct, and on the most proficient method to utilize these revelations to diminish ridiculous aggression. These variables can be sorted as highlights of the circumstance or as highlights of the person in the circumstance. The accompanying rundown of personological and situational input factors is illustrative of key causal elements. Despite the fact that this rundown is to some degree one-sided towards ongoing examination and isn’t thorough, talking about it in a GAM structure prompts a more straightforward and more exhaustive comprehension of human aggression than is conceivable utilizing the scaled-down hypothesis approach so normally utilized all throughout contemporary psychology. In particular, GAM shows the kinds of fundamental procedures to analyze to perceive how different information sources lead to aggression (or nonaggressive) conduct.

Person factors

Person elements incorporate every one of the values a person conveys to the circumstance, for example, personality attributes, attitudes, and hereditary inclinations. Stable person elements are those that show consistency crosswise over time, crosswise over circumstances, or crosswise over both. This consistency is to a great extent the consequence of the person’s reliable utilization of schemata, scripts, and other information structures (Mischel 1999, Mischel and Shoda 1995). Undeniably, personality is the aggregate of a person’s information structures. Learning structures additionally impact what circumstances a person will specifically search out and what circumstances will be stayed away from, further adding to a characteristic like consistency. Together, person elements include a person’s readiness to aggress.

Characteristics/ Traits

Certain characteristics incline people to elevated amounts of aggression. One late leap forward, for instance, was the revelation that particular kinds of persons who much of the time aggress against others do as such in huge part as a result of weakness towards threatening attribution, recognition, and desire predispositions (e.g., Crick and Dodge 1994, Dill et al. 1997). Another ongoing achievement negates the longstanding beliefs of numerous theoreticians and the lay open alike: A sort of high confidence (and not low confidence) creates high aggression. In particular, people with swelled or flimsy confidence (narcissists) are inclined to outrage and are exceedingly aggressive when their high mental self-view is undermined (Baumeister et al. 1996, Bushman and Baumeister 1998, Kernis et al. 1989). The two disclosures fit the GAM information structure approach great.

Sex

Males and females vary in aggression propensities, particularly in the most vicious practices of manslaughter and bothered ambush. The proportion of male to female killers in the United States is about 10:1 (FBI 1951– 1999). Lab considers frequently demonstrate a similar sort of sex impact, yet provocation significantly decreases sex contrasts in physical aggression, and explicit kinds of provocation differentially influence male and female aggression (Bettencourt and Miller 1996). The favored sorts of aggression additionally contrast for males and females. Males incline toward direct aggression, while females favor backhanded aggression (e.g., Oesterman et al. 1998). Formative research recommends that a large number of these distinctions result from various socialization encounters (White 2001). Be that as it may, transformative clarifications of some key sexual orientation contrasts likewise have gotten experimental help (Buss and Shackelford 1997, Campbell 1999, Geary 1998). For instance, males are progressively more irritated with a sexual betrayal of their mates than by passionate unfaithfulness, though the contrary example happens for females (Geary et al. 1995). In these precedents, our comprehension of sex contrasts in aggression is enormously upgraded by the disclosure of differential emotional responses.

Beliefs

Numerous kinds of beliefs assume a job in readiness to aggress. Adequacy-related beliefs are especially significant (e.g., Bandura 1977). The persons who trust that they can effectively do explicit aggression acts (self-viability) and that these demonstrations will deliver the ideal results (result adequacy) are substantially more prone to choose aggression practices than the persons who are not all that certain of the adequacy of aggression acts. Aggression-related beliefs fundamentally foresee future dimensions of aggression conduct (Huesmann and Guerra 1997). The wellspring of such beliefs in youngsters is regularly the family (Patterson et al. 1989, 1992).

Attitudes

Attitudes are general assessments persons hold about themselves, other persons, items, and issues (Petty and Cacioppo 1986, p. 4). Uplifting dispositions towards violence as a rule additionally set up specific people for aggression. Progressively explicit inspirational attitudes about brutality against explicit gatherings of persons additionally increment aggression against those persons. For instance, dispositions about brutality against ladies are decidedly identified with sexual aggressiveness against ladies (e.g., Malamuth et al. 1995). Males inclined to aggress against ladies are not commonly aggressive against all persons in all circumstances; rather, they explicitly target ladies (however not men) who have incited them (Anderson 1996).

Values

Values—beliefs about what one ought to or should do—likewise assume a job in aggression readiness. For some persons, violence is an impeccably worthy strategy for managing relational clashes, maybe even a favored technique. For instance, the esteem framework in parts of the southern and western districts of the United States manages that insults to a person’s respect must be replied to, ideally with violence (Nisbett and Cohen 1996). There is proof that some young pack brutality results from comparable codes of respect and person regard (Baumeister and Boden 1998).3 LONG-TERM GOALS Long-term, conceptual objectives likewise impact the readiness of the person for aggression. For instance, the superseding objective of some posse persons is to be regarded and dreaded (Horowitz and Schwartz 1974, Klein and Maxson 1989). Such an objective clearly hues one’s impression of scenes, values, and beliefs about the propriety of different courses of action. Essentially, the personal labor of love of acquiring riches can build one’s readiness for instrumental aggression.

Scripts

The interpretational and conduct script a person conveys to social circumstances impacts that person’s readiness for aggression (Huesmann 1988, 1998). Scripts are made out of a considerable lot of the former components.

Situational factors

Situational factors incorporate any significant highlights of the circumstance, for example, the nearness of a provocation or an aggression prompt. Like the person components, situational factors impact aggression by impacting comprehension, influence, and excitement.

Aggression Cues

Aggression prompts are objects that prime aggression-related ideas in memory. For example, Berkowitz and LePage (1967) found that the minor nearness of firearms (versus badminton racquets and shuttlecocks) expanded the aggression conduct of incensed research members (see Carlson et al. 1990 for a meta-explanatory affirmation of this wonder). All the more as of late, our comprehension of the impact of the weapon has been upgraded by the disclosure that weapon pictures and words naturally prime aggression musings (CA Anderson et al. 1998). Other situational factors that expansion aggression, for example, introduction to vicious TV, motion pictures, or computer games, likewise seem to do as such by means of cognitive signaling impacts (Anderson and Dill 2000, Bushman 1998).

Provocation

Maybe the most significant single reason for human aggression is relational provocation (Berkowitz 1993, Geen 2001). Provocations incorporate abuse, insults, and different types of verbal aggression, physical aggression, and obstruction with one’s endeavors to accomplish a significant objective, etc. One rising line of research concerns working environment violence, aggression, and harassment (Cowie et al. 2001, Folger and Baron 1996). One investigation (Baron 1999) found that apparent unfairness was decidedly identified with work environment aggression.

Frustration

Frustration can be characterized as the blockage of objective accomplishment. Most provocations can be viewed as a sort of disappointment in which a person has been recognized as the specialist in charge of the inability to achieve the objective. Indeed, even dissatisfactions that are completely advocated have appeared to build aggression against the disappointing specialist (e.g., Dill and Anderson 1995) and against a person who was not in charge of the inability to accomplish the objective (e.g., Geen 1968). Later work has demonstrated that dislodged aggression, wherein the objective of aggression isn’t the person who caused the underlying disappointment, is a vigorous wonder (Marcus-Newhall et al. 2000, Pedersen et al. 2000). Regardless of whether such dissatisfaction impacts work basically by affecting perceptions, influence, or excitement is misty.

Pain and Discomfort

Other research has appeared even nonsocial aversive conditions (e.g., hot temperatures, noisy clamors, and upsetting scents) increment aggression (Berkowitz 1993). Intense aversive conditions, for example, torment delivered by submerging a turn in a basin of ice water, increment aggression (e.g., Berkowitz et al. 1981). General distress, for example, that created by sitting in a hot room, can likewise expand aggression; this impact has all the earmarks of being interceded fundamentally by expanding negative impact, however, there might be cognitive and excitement forms at work as well (Anderson et al. 2000).

Drugs

Different drugs, for example, liquor and caffeine can likewise expand aggression (Bushman 1993). These impacts give off an impression of being aberrant as opposed to coordinate; Bushman (1997) found that aggression encouraging variables (e.g., provocation, dissatisfaction, aggression prompts) have a lot more grounded impact on persons who are affected by medications than on persons who are definitely not.

Incentives

The kinds of motivators that can expand aggression are as various as the number of items that persons need or want. In fact, the entire ad industry lays on the objective of making persons need more things (e.g., Kilbourne 1999). By expanding the estimation of an item, one changes the certain or unequivocal saw cost/advantage proportions, in this manner expanding planned, instrumental aggression. The transient appearance of a motivating force, for example, cash left on a table, can likewise impact aggression in a less planned manner.