Anderson, C. A., & Bushman, B. J. (2002). Human Aggression. Annual
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
4 Dec 2001 14:44 AR AR146-02.tex AR146-02.SGM LaTeX2e(2001/05/10) P1: GJC Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2002. 53:27–51 Copyright c 2002 by Annual Reviews. All rights reserved HUMAN AGGRESSION Craig A. Anderson and Brad J. Bushman Department of Psychology, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa 50011-3180; e-mail: [email protected], [email protected] Key Words violence, harm, theory, general aggression model ■ Abstract Research on human aggression has progressed to a point at which a unifying framework is needed. Major domain-limited theories of aggression include cognitive neoassociation, social learning, social interaction, script, and excitation trans- fer theories. Using the general aggression model (GAM), this review posits cognition, affect, and arousal to mediate the effects of situational and personological variables on aggression. The review also organizes recent theories of the development and per- sistence of aggressive personality. Personality is conceptualized as a set of stable knowledge structures that individuals use to interpret events in their social world and to guide their behavior. In addition to organizing what is already known about human aggression, this review, using the GAM framework, also serves the heuristic function of suggesting what research is needed to fill in theoretical gaps and can be used to create and test interventions for reducing aggression. CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ..................................................... 28 BASIC DEFINITIONS ................................................. 28 Aggression ......................................................... 28 Violence ........................................................... 29 Hostile vs. Instrumental Aggression ..................................... 29 by PURDUE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 02/08/05. For personal use only. DOMAIN SPECIFIC THEORIES OF AGGRESSION ........................ 29 Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2002.53:27-51. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org Cognitive Neoassociation Theory ....................................... 29 Social Learning Theory ............................................... 31 Script Theory ....................................................... 31 Excitation Transfer Theory ............................................ 32 Social Interaction Theory ............................................. 32 THE GENERAL AGGRESSION MODEL ................................. 32 A Heap of Stones is Not a House ....................................... 32 INPUTS ............................................................. 34 Person Factors ...................................................... 35 Situational Factors ................................................... 37 ROUTES ............................................................ 38 Cognition .......................................................... 38 Affect ............................................................. 39 0084-6570/02/0201-0027$14.00 27 4 Dec 2001 14:44 AR AR146-02.tex AR146-02.SGM LaTeX2e(2001/05/10) P1: GJC 28 ANDERSON BUSHMAN Arousal ............................................................ 39 Interconnections ..................................................... 40 OUTCOMES ......................................................... 40 PERSONALITY PROCESSES ........................................... 41 RELATED PHENOMENA .............................................. 43 Opportunity ........................................................ 43 Overriding Inhibitions ................................................ 43 Shared Motivations .................................................. 44 Role of Anger ...................................................... 44 Interventions ....................................................... 45 INTRODUCTION In its most extreme forms, aggression is human tragedy unsurpassed. Hopes that the horrors of World War II and the Holocaust would produce a worldwide revul- sion against killing have been dashed. Since World War II, homicide rates have actually increased rather than decreased in a number of industrialized countries, most notably the United States. Thus, in recent years there has been renewed interest in learning why humans sometimes behave aggressively. Some of the causes of increased violence have been identified. For example, the accessibility of guns (O’Donnell 1995), global warming (Anderson et al. 1997), violence against children in schools and homes (Hyman 1995, Straus 2000), and the widespread exposure to violent entertainment media (Bushman & Huesmann 2001) all contribute to the high level of violence and aggression in modern societies. Recent psychological research has yielded promising new treatments (e.g., Borduin 1999), new empirical discoveries (e.g., Baumeister et al. 1996, Bushman 1995), and new theoretical analyses (e.g., Eron et al. 1994, Geen & Donnerstein 1998, Huesmann et al. 1996). We begin by offering some basic definitions. Next we describe several domain- specific theories of aggression. Finally we describe the general aggression model, an integrative framework that will bring more order and structure to the field of ag- by PURDUE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 02/08/05. For personal use only. gression. Subsequent sections address inputs, routes, and outcomes of aggression, Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2002.53:27-51. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org illustrating recent advances in aggression research. BASIC DEFINITIONS Aggression Human aggression is any behavior directed toward another individual that is carried out with the proximate (immediate) intent to cause harm. In addition, the perpetrator must believe that the behavior will harm the target, and that the target is motivated to avoid the behavior (Bushman & Anderson 2001, Baron & Richardson 1994, Berkowitz 1993, Geen 2001). 4 Dec 2001 14:44 AR AR146-02.tex AR146-02.SGM LaTeX2e(2001/05/10) P1: GJC HUMAN AGGRESSION 29 Accidental harm is not aggressive because it is not intended. Harm that is an incidental by-product of helpful actions is also not aggressive, because the harm-doer believes that the target is not motivated to avoid the action (e.g., pain experienced during a dental procedure). Similarly, the pain administered in sexual masochism is not aggressive because the victim is not motivated to avoid it— indeed, the pain is actively solicited in service of a higher goal (Baumeister 1989). Violence Violence is aggression that has extreme harm as its goal (e.g., death). All violence is aggression, but many instances of aggression are not violent. For example, one child pushing another off a tricycle is an act of aggression but is not an act of violence. Hostile vs. Instrumental Aggression Hostile aggression has historically been conceived as being impulsive, thoughtless (i.e., unplanned), driven by anger, having the ultimate motive of harming the target, and occurring as a reaction to some perceived provocation. It is sometimes called af- fective, impulsive, or reactive aggression. Instrumental aggression is conceived as a premeditated means of obtaining some goal other than harming the victim, and being proactive rather than reactive (Berkowitz 1993, Geen 2001). Our recent anal- ysis (Bushman & Anderson 2001) modifies these definitions in two ways. First, we distinguish between proximate and ultimate goals. We view intention to harm as a necessary feature of all aggression (as in purely hostile aggression models), but it is necessary only as a proximate goal. Second, we distinguish between dif- ferent types of aggression at the level of ultimate goal. Thus, both robbery and physical assault are acts of aggression because both include intention to harm the victim at a proximate level. However, they typically differ in ultimate goals, with robbery serving primarily profit-based goals and assault serving primarily harm-based goals. In short, our definition allows us to discuss the commonalities in and distinctions between affective and instrumental aggression, while including by PURDUE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 02/08/05. For personal use only. aggression that has mixed motives. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2002.53:27-51. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org DOMAIN SPECIFIC THEORIES OF AGGRESSION Five main theories of aggression guide most current research. The theories them- selves overlap considerably, which is what instigated early attempts to integrate them into a broader framework (Anderson et al. 1995, 1996a). Cognitive Neoassociation Theory Berkowitz (1989, 1990, 1993) has proposed that aversive events such as frus- trations, provocations, loud noises, uncomfortable temperatures, and unpleasant 4 Dec 2001 14:44 AR AR146-02.tex AR146-02.SGM LaTeX2e(2001/05/10) P1: GJC 30 ANDERSON BUSHMAN odors produce negative affect. Negative affect produced by unpleasant experiences automatically stimulates various thoughts, memories, expressive motor reactions, and physiological responses associated with both fight and flight tendencies. The fight associations give rise to rudimentary feelings of anger, whereas the flight asso- ciations give rise to rudimentary feelings of fear. Furthermore, cognitive neoassoci- ation theory assumes that cues present during an aversive event become associated with the event and with the cognitive and emotional responses triggered by the event. In cognitive neoassociation theory, aggressive thoughts, emotions, and behav- ioral tendencies are linked together in memory (Collins & Loftus 1975). Figure 1 contains a simplified schematic of an associative memory structure in which the concept of “gun” is linked to a number of aggression-related