aggression

- Though psychologists seem to disagree over the exact definition of aggression, what they can agree upon is that __aggression__ is a behavior or action intended to harm or destroy something, either physically or verbally. In order for me to get a sense of what my peers thought aggression was, I asked some of them to highlight the items given to them in a list that they felt were representitive of aggressive behavior. The list was as follows: 1. A spider eats a fly. 2. A soldier shoots an enemy at the front line 3. The warden of a prison executes a convicted criminal. 4. Two wolves fight for the leadership of the pack. 5. A juvenile gang attacks members of another gang. 6. Two men fight for a piece of bread. 7. A man viciously attacks a cat. 8. A man, while cleaning a window, knocks over a flower pot that, in falling, injures a pedestrian. 9. A girl kicks a wastebasket. 10. Mr. X, a notorious gossip, speaks ill of many people he knows. 11. A man mentally rehearses a murder he is about to commit. 12. An angry son purposely fails to write to his mother who is expecting a letter and will be hurt if none arrives. 13. An enraged boy tried with all his might to inflict an injury on a larger bully but is not successful in doing so. His efforts simple amuse the bigger boy. 14. A man daydreams of harming his enemy but has no hope of doing so. 15. A senator does not oppose the escalation of bombing to while he is morally opposed. 16. A farmer beheads a chicken and prepares it for dinner. 17. A hunter kills an animal and mounts it as a trophy. 18. A dog snarls at a mail carrier but does not bite. 19. A physician gives a flu shot to a screaming child 20. A boxer gives his opponent a bloody nose. 21. A Girl Scout tries to assist an elderly but trips her by accident. 22. A police officer shoots a bank robber who is trying to escape. 23. A tennis player smashed her racket after missing a volley. 24. A person commits suicide. 25. A cat kills a mouse, parades around with it, and then discards it.
 * What is agression?**

When I reviewed their answers, I found that many knew that aggression was a negative act towards another person, and that harming that other person was an aspect of it. However, many issues come to mind when I was reviewing their lists with them later. For one, many of the "subjects" I used did not know the difference between anger, frustration, and aggression. Note number 9 on the list above ("A girl kicks a wastebasket."). This statement could show many things such as anger or frustration, or perhaps even clumsiness. How is it, you may ask, that this is not considered aggression, though? The answer is simple, unless the girl was attempting to physically injure the trashbag (which doesn't have feelings, or nerve endings and as such can not feel pain) one cannot say that she was acting in an aggressive manner.

So how can we, then, differenciate between **aggression** and **anger/frustration**? There are many ways to do such, remember that aggression is an act that is meant to cause psychological or physical harm to another individual or living thing, whereas anger is simply the emotion that is used to express negative feelings towards anything. While, yes, anger can be a precursor to aggression, that is, the emotion is what makes a person act out against another, it can be stopped. Take a look up at number 18 on the list. When you do that, you will be able to notice that while the dog became angry, perhaps, with the mail carrier, it did not attack anybody or anything because of either self control or restraint by owner. Now a new question arises: if that dog had attacked that mail carrier, would it have been aggressive? Of course, that question would be answered differently depending upon whom you asked and under what circumstances. For instance, they may ask you if the mail carrier was taunting the dog or not, if the dog was being restrained or acted upon its own will, was trying to protect somebody or something. The possibilities are endless.


 * (posted by Mr. Gingrich) So, you said because the dog did not attack the mail carrier, it's not aggression....aggression is an act meant to cause psychological __or__ physical harm. Would you consider a verbal assault an act of aggression? People can use words to cause psychological harm, and, by the same virtue, I think you could argue that the dog is displaying an act of aggression, because he is attempting to intimidate the mail carrier. What do you think? **


 * (posted by Sarah Beitzel) Yeah, I thought about that too and I'm not 100% sure. The way I see it, you would have to know the circumstances under which the dog was snarling. If the dog truly was trying to intimidate that mail carrier, then by all means I would consider it aggression. That's my opinion, but if you asked somebody else, they may say something completely different. There are so many different ways to view this concept, that sometimes we may miss an interpretation or two.**

The point of view in which these events are considered can change everything. For example, take a look at numbers 7, 16, and 17. They all involve the killing of an animal, however, every animal is killed for a different purpose. The purpose of harming the cat, though unknown, is most likely not a respectable reason through anybody's eyes, as the cat was most likely unable to protect itself, and most likely was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. The farmer beheading the chicken was done in order to provide dinner, a respectable act, especially to be seen on a farm. Whether a person is an animal rights activist or just a plain ol' Joe Schmo walking down the street, a farmer that raises an animal with the intention of eating or selling for food has every right to kill the animal he is planning to prepare as a food product. However, when the hunter goes out and shoots the deer, how do we know what the intentions of shooting that deer were? Perhaps he was trying to get good meat for his family to eat, perhaps he is trying to get a huge elk to mount and be proud of, or perhaps he has other motives behind his actions. These three very similar situations exhibit how everything can be looked at through many different lights, or lenses. No matter what, in the end, an animal has been harmed or killed, but it's how they got that way and for what purpose that defines whether or not it was done via aggression.

A big question I have run into in studying aggression was how to view animal versus human aggressions. For example, in number 4, two wolves fight for the leadership of the pack. Upon reading this, some of my test subjects saw nothing wrong because they say "it's in their nature." However, can humans not also find aggression to be a part of their "nature?" If a child grows up in a house surrounded by gangs, where, as number 5 mentions, gangs fight each other on a regular basis, will that child not begin to think that fighting is normal and not know any better than to act the same way when they get older or go out alone somewhere? I believe (with my completely un-professional opinion) that the idea of Nature vs. Nuture plays a role in aggression, as elaborated on above.


 * (posted by Mr. Gingrich) If a young child grows up in a house surrounded by gangs, and the child begins to think this behavior is normal...is that nature? or nurture? I do think that humans have a violent "nature," but I don't think your example supports that. Thoughts? **

**(posted by Mr. Gingrich) I've always thought of "nature" as being something innate--so the person would have the quality the moment they were born. In this case, it would be a genetic pre-disposition to fight. Nurture is the events and environment that surround a child from the moment after they are born, constantly shaping the attitude, actions, etc, of the person. I would say that, even though it is his/her "native habitat," that it would still fall under the "nurture" category.**
 * (posted by Sarah Beitzel) Yeah... I thought about that too and I suppose it could be both. I guess that living there could make it a form of nature, because it is what they see as their home, their "native habitat." However, I can defend the case of nurture because while yes, humans have a violent nature, growing up surrounded by gangs would also have added effects on the nature of the child. If that makes sense. Thoughts?**
 * (posted by Sarah Beitzel) I mean... yeah, I guess somehow in my mind things became skewed and I always think that part of nurture is still nature. For example, it is a part of human nature to breathe and eat, however, it is a part of American nature to eat fast food all the time. I realize I'm making a generality here, but I think you get my point. However, to further this motion, if a child grows up in a house where fast food is eaten every night, it will be a part of how they were "nurtured." Quite honestly, I think I just disproved myself... but that's quite possibly a good thing.﻿ **

"Evolutionary analysis suggests that... aggressive behaviors arose so that... people could protect themselves and their offspring" (Zimbardo 785). A world without aggressive behaviors as we know them would still be a dangerous world to live in. Human nature dictates that one must do anything possible to get what one needs, such as food or shelter. Regardless of what it is called, aggression would have existed without a name, and will continue to exist, trumping the minds of some psychologists who will continue to try to get to the bottom of it all.