Prognosis of Human Aggression

Despite the various descriptions that have been used to define aggression, it still remains a multifaceted trait. In fact, aggression can be perceived to be a complex and not easily definable behavioral structure. Many definitions have been forwarded by psychology researchers with regards to aggression but only a few of these descriptions seem to hold ground. For instance, Mohammed and Raad (133) offer a general description of aggression that has been used by psychologists who define it as, “Behavior that is intended to harm another person who does not intend to be hurt.” This simple definition offers an overview of what aggression entails. Mostly, violence has been purported to be an extreme type of physically aggressive behaviors.

However, identifying aggression with negative implications is not entirely true since there are many incidences where it leads to positive accomplishments. For instance, for footballers, aggression can be a good form of motivation that allows them to be proactive in the field which is a major advantage. At the same time, there is the need to assess how aggression can be predicted or measured. Prediction of aggressive behavior is helpful in enabling psychologists to establish the means that can be utilized to curb the incidence of aggression that leads to unwanted consequences. This paper provides an understanding of what aggressive behavior entails as well as reviewing the various types of this behavior that exist, and analyzing the prediction of aggression.

Forms of Aggression

Cherry (n.p) classifies aggression as either impulsive or instrumental. Impulsive aggression is also referred to as affective aggression and is often characterized by strong emotions especially anger. This kind of aggression is often unplanned and occurs spontaneously due to the occurrence of an unexpected and irritating incidence. For example, when an individual is cut off by another person in traffic and they yell, this is a form of impulsive aggression. This type of aggression often triggers the brain hypothalamus, periaqueductal grey, and amygdala parts of the brain that are referred collectively as the acute threat response system (Cherry n.p). On the other hand, instrumental aggression, also known as predatory, are actions that are perceived to allow an individual to attain a broader objective. Instrumental aggression gives precedence to the end result and as such, the aggressor has little or no concern for the person that they exert the aggression upon. For instance, when someone decides to rob a bank, they are determined to use any means necessary to ensure that they get the money. Such type of aggressive behavior is what is referred to as instrumental aggression.

Aggression, as discussed by Allen and Craig (1), takes different forms that include emotional, verbal, physical, and mental. However, often, people have associated aggression with physical confrontations while leaving out the rest of the aspects. Instances such as verbal abuse that, consequently, lead to mental and emotional hostilities are also forms of aggression. People develop aggression for a variety of reasons. These reasons for aggression development can be classified as both positive and negative. Positive aggression leads people towards acting right by being motivated or thriving to attain a certain goal. Such kind of aggression is recommendable. For instance, employees should always have this kind of aggression to ensure that they compete their duties as expected which is key to enhancing an organization’s productivity.

On the one hand, the negative rationale for the development of aggression stems from a need to inflict harm on another individual. For instance, many people become aggressive as a means of expressing their anger and frustrations, threaten or intimidate, assert their dominance, and react to pain (Cherry n.p). Besides, people also use aggression as a means of inflicting fear to other individuals. By doing so, people tend to prove their dominance which, in most cases, is not suitable since the affected individuals feel coerced or oppressed. Therefore, it becomes essential to identify the main drivers or factors that promote such actions of aggression as well as the possibility of forecasting the occurrence of this behavior.

Causes of Aggression

The comprehension of aggression necessitates understanding the various factors that trigger aggressive behaviors. The major factors that cause aggression include environmental, biological, and physical factors that have been discussed by Cherry (n.p). Environmental factors involve the way an individual was raised as well as the exposure they had while growing up. Individuals who are brought up in areas where violence and hostilities are witnessed regularly may grow up with the presumption that aggression is a socially tolerable behavior.

Bandura’s doll experimentation concluded that observation plays a vital role in learning about aggression. In this experiment, children observed as an adult became aggressive to a doll and they ended up emulating the same aggression when given the doll. As noted by Sarkar and Sandya (2), “The widespread exposures to violent virtual world or entertainment media contribute to the high level of violence and aggression in modern societies.” Thus, the continued exposure of children to these kinds of aggressive behaviors results in their emulation of the same. It is, thus, common, to find children who have been humble and nice become aggressive after being exposed to these kind of virtual or actual violent situations. Furthermore, biological factors are the predispositions that men have a higher propensity to engage in physical aggression than women. However, women tend to use other forms of aggression such as verbal and social rejection. Moreover, physical factors that affect the incidence of aggressive behaviors include alcohol and drug abuse, dementia, brain injuries, and other forms of mental disorder.

Methods of Predicting Aggression

Measuring and predicting aggression are two necessary activities that need to be undertaken to address the negative impacts brought by aggressive behaviors. Over the decades, psychologists have intertwined their knowledge about aggression to try and develop methods that can be used to predict this behavior. While there have been several international recognized methods, they have been clouded by rigid questions from current psychology scholars who deem them as insufficient in the prediction of aggression (Allen and Craig 5). The main issue of contention is that it is easy for research subjects to act in a manner inclined to what the researcher expects which brings problem of ethical biasness. Thus, biased results cannot be acclaimed as a representation of the existing situation. However, some of these methods of predicting aggression have continued to be utilized by researchers since there are no other approaches that can be used in determining the susceptibility of individuals to aggression.

Given the numerous negative impacts that have been associated with aggressive behaviors, psychologists have tried to develop mitigation measures that can allow them to predict aggression. Nonetheless, these measures of prediction have not been easy to develop given the numerous challenges that psychologists face when conducting the research. Predicting the likeliness of an individual to become aggressive is difficult as a result of two major issues as discussed by Moss (n.p). First, individuals will often conceal or deny their aggressiveness which limits the capacity to identify a pattern of predicting their behavior. Furthermore, aggressive behaviors often lead to unethical consequential impacts which may be hard to avoid when conducting an aggression prediction research.

Various methods have been applied by researchers to predict aggressive behaviors among humans. Moss (n.p) establishes that the common approaches that have been applied by researchers in trying to predict human aggression are mostly punishments inflicted on another individual or aversive stimuli. Some of the methods that have been applied by past researchers include granting participants the chance to dispense electric shock, consuming hot sauce, or hit another person with a foam sword.

The Taylor paradigm has also been applied in predicting human aggression. The paradigm has been employed in many laboratories with the main aim of assessing the aggression susceptibility of research subjects. In its first application, Moss (n.p) indicates that the research subjects were first provoked by another individual. This was done by the research subject presenting a speech through a videoconference then receiving a hurtful and demeaning review from another individual. Afterwards, the subject was allowed to blast a noise to the other person in case they felt irritated. However, Moss (n.p) noted that some research subjects managed to remain composed and avoid from blasting the noise which made it hard for the researchers to predict their aggression pattern.

Furthermore, this approach was also referred to as the competitive reaction time task (CRTT). However, this method of aggression prediction and measurement has led to mixed reactions among researchers. While some psychologists support this method, the opposing side questions its validity. Other contentious issues that arise and have been identified in research by Elson et al. (420) include, “Alternative motives for high or low settings (e.g., reciprocity or deterrence), demand characteristics of the experimental situation, confusion of competition and aggression, construct validity and external validity, the (psychological) distance between participant and opponent, a lack of alternative (i.e., nonviolent) responses, and the absence of social sanctions for aggression.” With such issues being raised, it becomes questionable about the level of applicability of the CRTT method. However, since there not many other alternatives to this method, it has continued to be applied as an approach of measuring and predicting aggression.

Another approach that has been used in the prediction of aggression is the study of people’s accessibility to words related or showing aggression. Past studies, as indicated in a recent research by Allen and Craig (7) indicate that before people can show that their aggression, they tend to use particular words in their speech which predicts that they will react aggressively. Besides, the use of these words is accompanied by certain actions such as clenching fists which shows readiness of the individual to react to the situation. However, Moss (3) notes that in case an aggressed individual reacted using actions such as stabbing or punching the aggressor, they were unlikely to use these verbal words.

Conclusion

To sum up, predicting aggression has been identified as a complex thing to do despite the various methods that have been developed over the years. Besides, the prime problem of coming to an amicable definition of aggression further makes its prediction a hard task. Nonetheless, various methods have been developed over the years that are applied in predicting the incidence of aggressive behaviors among humans. These methods have been met with an array of rejections that have been presented by scholars who believe that there is no appropriate method of measuring and predicting aggression. Nevertheless, the methods that have been developed continue to be applied in predicting aggression regardless of the few limitations that they may exhibit.