The phenomenon of aggression is widely studied in psychology and sociology - to date, the study of the problem of aggressive human behavior has become perhaps the most popular direction. research activities psychologists around the world. We will distinguish between the concepts of "aggression" and "aggression". The first (from Latin agressio - attack, threat) is the general name for all destructive, destructive actions aimed at causing harm. Aggressiveness is an intention, a state preceding an aggressive action. And the aggressive action itself is behavior that is aimed at causing harm to other people. An aggressive state is accompanied by an emotional state of anger, hostility, hatred. The action is expressed in a direct aggressive act of causing harm to another person: insults, bullying, fights, beatings.
Numerous definitions of aggression have been proposed in the literature by various authors. Aggression is understood as "strong activity, the desire for self-affirmation, acts of hostility, attacks, destruction, that is, actions that harm another person or object." Human aggressiveness is a behavioral response characterized by the manifestation of force in an attempt to harm or damage an individual or society. Many authors view aggression as a reaction of hostility to another's frustration, regardless of how hostile that frustration is.
We list some of the definitions given by Baron R. and Richardson D. in their monograph "Aggression":
aggression is any behavior that threatens or harms others - Bass;
for certain actions to be qualified as aggression, they must include the intention of insulting or insulting, and not just lead to such consequences, - Berdkowitz;
Aggression is an attempt to inflict bodily or physical harm on others, Silmann.
Despite considerable disagreement regarding the definitions of aggression, many social scientists tend to accept a definition close to the second of the above. This definition includes both the category of intent and the actual infliction of offense or harm to others.
Aggression as Behavior - The definition suggests that aggression should be viewed as a pattern of behavior rather than as an emotion, motive, or attitude. This important statement has created a lot of confusion. The term aggression is often associated with negative emotions - such as anger, motives - such as desire, insult, or harm, and even negative attitudes - such as racial or ethnic prejudice. While all of these factors undoubtedly play an important role in the behavior that results in harm, their presence is not a necessary condition for such actions.
Aggression and intent - the definition of the term aggression involves actions by which the aggressor intentionally causes harm to his victim. Unfortunately, the introduction of the criterion of deliberate infliction of damage gives rise to many serious difficulties. First, the question is what do we mean when we say that one person intends to harm another. Secondly, according to many famous scientists, intentions are personal, hidden, inaccessible to direct observation plans. They can be judged by the conditions that preceded or followed the acts of aggression in question. Such conclusions can be made both by the participants in the aggressive interaction and by outside observers, who in any case influence the explanation of this intention. The inclusion of the category of intention in the definition of aggression introduces instability and inconsistency in the understanding of whether this or that action is an act of aggression. However, sometimes the intent to harm is established quite simply - the aggressors often themselves admit to the desire to harm their victims and often regret that their attacks were ineffectual. And the social context in which aggressive behavior unfolds often clearly indicates the existence of such intentions.
From the notion that aggression implies either harm or insult to the victim, it follows that inflicting bodily harm on the recipient is not mandatory. Aggression takes place if the result of actions is any negative consequences. In view of the fact that the manifestations of aggression in humans are endless and diverse, it turns out to be very useful to limit the study of such behavior.
Consider the concept-scheme of the Bass type of aggression:
Physical - active - direct
Physical - active - indirect
Physical - passive - direct
Physical - passive - indirect
Verbal - active - direct
Verbal - active - indirect
Verbal - passive - direct
Verbal - passive - indirect
In his opinion, aggressive actions can be described on the basis of three scales: physical - verbal, active - passive and direct - indirect. Their combination gives eight possible categories under which most aggressive actions fall.
It is also necessary to distinguish between hostile and instrumental aggression: hostile aggression - manifests itself when the main goal of the aggressor is to cause suffering to the victim. People who exhibit hostile aggression simply seek to cause harm or harm to the person they are attacking.
Instrumental aggression - is characterized when the aggressors attack other people, pursuing goals that are not related to causing harm. In other words, for individuals who show instrumental aggression, harming others is not an end in itself. Rather, they use aggressive actions as a tool for the fulfillment of various desires.
Dodge and Koya's research provided empirical evidence for the existence of two distinct types of aggression. Regardless of the choice of term for these different types of aggression, it is clear that there are two types of aggression, motivated by different goals. With all the variety of conflicting theoretical foundations in the scientific literature, most of them fall into one of the following four categories. Aggression refers primarily to:
innate impulses or inclinations;
needs activated by external stimuli;
cognitive and emotional processes;
relevant social conditions in combination with previous learning.
In the course of which several different groups of theories were put forward on the origin and essence of aggression of behavior: the instinctive theory of aggression, evolutionary, frustration, the theory of social learning and the theory of excitation transfer.
Psychoanalytic direction
The psychoanalytic direction considers aggressive behavior mainly as instinctive. According to this concept, "aggression arises because human beings are genetically or constitutionally programmed for such actions." The main instinct is thanatos - the drive to death, whose energy is directed to the destruction and termination of life. Freud argued that all human behavior is the result of a complex interaction between this instinct and eros, and that there is a constant tension between them. In view of the fact that there is a sharp conflict between the preservation of life (ie eros) and its destruction (thanatos), other mechanisms (such as displacement) serve the purpose of directing the energy of thanatos outward, away from the "I".
evolutionary approach
The evolutionary approach is close to the instinctive one regarding the consideration of aggressive behavior. Representative of this theoretical direction is the famous ethologist Konrad Lorenz.
K. Lorentz believed that aggressive behavior originates from the instinct of the struggle for survival, which is present in people in the same way as in other creatures. A significant role in the formation of aggressive impulses is the presence of identification of "one's own" and "alien". In the course of the evolution of social behavior, internally consolidated and alienated from neighbors arise. social groups. Stereotypes allow you to quickly, by a few decisive criteria, recognize friend and foe, group mate and outsider, they simplify the world and instill a sense of confidence. K. Lorentz, in his work on aggression, interprets it as the driving force of the struggle for survival, and this struggle mainly takes place within one species.
frustration theory
According to the frustration theory created by Dollard, aggression is not an attraction that automatically arises in the depths of the body, but a consequence of frustration, i.e., obstacles that arise in the way of the subject's purposeful actions. This theory states that, firstly, aggression is always a consequence of frustration and, secondly, frustration always entails aggression. At the same time, frustrated individuals do not always resort to verbal or physical attacks on others. Rather, they demonstrate the full range of reactions to frustration: from humility and despondency to active attempts to overcome obstacles in their path. In their writings, Dollard and co-authors suggested that the influence of the frustrations following one after another can be cumulative and this will cause aggressive reactions of greater force than each of them separately. It follows from what has been said that the influence of frustrating events persists for a certain time - this assumption is important for some aspects of the theory.
When it became clear that individuals do not always react with aggression to frustration, they came to the conclusion that such behavior does not appear at the same time, primarily because of the threat of punishment. Miller explained this by the appearance of displaced aggression - that is, those cases when individuals show aggression not towards their frustrators, but towards completely different people. The author suggested that in such cases, the choice of the victim by the aggressor is largely due to three factors:
force of incitement to aggression,
the strength of the factors inhibiting this behavior and the stimulus similarity of each potential victim to the frustrating factor.
Social learning theory
Unlike others, this theory states that aggression is a learned behavior in the process of socialization through the observation of an appropriate course of action and social reinforcement. Those. there is a study of human behavior, oriented to the model. This theory was proposed by A. Bandura and explained the assimilation, provocation and regulation of aggressive behavior. From his point of view, the analysis of aggressive behavior requires taking into account three points:
Ways of assimilation of such actions;
Factors provoking their appearance;
The conditions under which they are fixed.
Supporters of social learning theory believe that the more often a person commits aggressive actions, the more these actions become an integral part of his behavior.
Excitation transfer theory
The modern point of view on the origin of aggressive behavior is associated with cognitive learning theory. In it, aggressive actions are considered not only as a result of frustration, but also as a result of learning, imitation of other people. This direction is represented by Silmann, who proves that “cognition and arousal are closely interconnected; they influence each other throughout the process of experiencing, bringing suffering experience and behavior.
Aggressive behavior in this concept is interpreted as the result of the following cognitive and other processes:
Evaluation by the subject of the consequences of his aggressive behavior as positive.
The presence of frustration.
The presence of emotional overexcitation such as affect or stress, accompanied by internal tension, from which a person wants to get rid of.
The presence of a suitable object of aggressive behavior that can relieve tension and eliminate frustration.
In this section, we tried to distinguish between such concepts as aggression, aggressiveness, aggressive action, and gave a definition of the central concept of aggression. Considered the main theories on the origin and essence of aggression.
Revealing the essence of the problem of aggression, and analyzing it, we will dwell on such a question as the factors influencing the assimilation of aggressive behavior by a person. Many forms of aggression are characteristic of most teenagers. However, it is known that in a certain category of adolescents, aggression as a stable form of behavior not only persists, but also develops, transforming into a stable personality trait. Indeed, it is in adolescence that not only a radical restructuring of previously established psychological structures takes place, but new formations arise, the foundations of conscious behavior are laid, and a general direction in the formation of moral ideas and social attitudes emerges.
It seems obvious to us that at this age, knowledge about models of aggressive behavior is drawn from three main sources:
family - can simultaneously demonstrate models of aggressive behavior and provide its reinforcement. Adolescents' likelihood of aggressive behavior depends on whether they experience aggression at home;
they also learn aggression through interaction with peers, often learning about the benefits of aggressive behavior during play;
We also note the fact that adolescents learn aggressive reactions not only from real examples (behavior of peers and family members), but also from symbolic ones offered in the mass media and the media.
Consequently, the formation of aggressive behavior is a complex and multifaceted process in which many factors act; aggressive behavior is determined by the influence of the family, peers, and the media. Adolescents learn aggressive behavior through direct reinforcement as well as through observation of aggressive actions. With regard to the family, the degree of family cohesion, closeness between parents and the child, the nature of the relationship between brothers and sisters, and the style of family leadership influence the formation of aggressive behavior. Children who have a strong discord in the family, whose parents are aloof and cold, are relatively more prone to aggressive behavior. There is also a lesson learned from parental responses to aggressive sibling relationships that a child can get away with it. In fact, in trying to stop negative relationships between their children, parents may inadvertently encourage the very behavior they want to get rid of. The nature of family leadership is directly related to the formation and strengthening of aggressive behavior. Parents who use extremely harsh punishments and do not supervise their children's activities run the risk of discovering that their children are aggressive and disobedient. Although punishments are often ineffective, they can have a strong positive effect on behavior if applied correctly.
A teenager also receives information about aggression from communication with peers. Children learn to behave aggressively by observing the behavior of other children. However, those who are extremely aggressive are more likely to be rejected by the majority in their age group. On the other hand, these aggressive children are likely to find friends among other aggressive peers. Of course, this creates additional problems, since in an aggressive company there is a mutual strengthening of the aggressiveness of its members.
In adolescents, one of the main ways of learning aggressive behavior is to observe someone else's aggression. Adolescents who encounter violence in their homes and who themselves are victims of violence are prone to aggressive behavior. But one of the most controversial sources of teaching aggression is the media. After many years of research using a wide variety of methods and techniques, the degree of influence of the media on aggressive behavior has not yet been clarified. It seems that the mass media still has some influence. However, its strength remains unknown.
All of the above allows us to conclude that, when analyzing the works of foreign and domestic psychologists, there is no single interpretation of the definition, origins, causes, and manifestations of aggression. Basically, the phenomenon under study is interpreted in the context of the theories of personality development by many psychologists. Also, most authors view aggression as a reaction of hostility to the frustration created by others, regardless of how hostile the intentions of this frustration are.
Thus, the following definition is currently accepted by the majority, which we also adhere to:
Aggression is any form of behavior aimed at insulting or harming another living being who does not want such treatment. We have identified the main factors that, under certain conditions, have a direct impact on the manifestation of aggression on the part of adolescents. Consequently, negative factors on the part of the family, peers, and the media reduce the productive potential of the child, the possibilities of full-fledged communication are narrowed, and his personal development is deformed. And vice versa, the closeness between parents and the child, the nature of the relationship of respect and love between family members, the presence of a teenager in a healthy environment, in terms of moral, ethical and cultural norms, suggest the formation of a morally stable personality with a high level of empathy development. Summing up, we note that analyzing the scientific and theoretical material it is advisable to compare the basic concepts of the term paper and the factors influencing the phenomenon under study. Thus, the concept of aggressiveness should be correlated with such factors as domestic violence, hostile and negative interpersonal attitudes among peers, and examples of the media demonstrating clearly destructive patterns of behavior. And, with the concept of empathy - family cohesion, respectful, friendly relations in the surrounding society. From this we conclude that by eliminating the causes of negative moral and psychological influences on the personality of a teenager, it is possible to reduce the degree of his aggressiveness. Therefore, we theoretically confirmed our hypothesis.
Before proceeding to an experimental study of the phenomenon under study, in the next section we will consider the problem of empathy in various theoretical concepts. It seems to us promising for an effective solution of the problem to consider the development of empathy as a condition that makes it possible to reduce the level of aggression and reduce the frequency of its manifestations.
Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below
Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.
Hosted at http://www.allbest.ru/
Applied Legal Psychology
Actual problems of the study of aggressive behavior
S.N. Enikolopov
In recent decades, the problem of violent, aggressive behavior has become the object of the widest scientific, practical and everyday interest. The number of studies pertaining to this problem is growing much faster than on any issue in the social sciences. hostility personality psychology violence
Almost any work, one way or another connected with the problem of violence and aggression, begins with an attempt to define the phenomenon under study in order to at least approximately outline the range of problems with which this work deals. Thus, every time we study this or that work devoted to the problem of aggression, violence and aggressiveness, we are faced with a certain, sometimes even new understanding and definition of these concepts for us. All this is due to the extreme volume of the concepts of "violence" and "aggression", covering a huge range of behavioral reactions. The terms "aggression", "violence", "destruction" are widely used both in everyday language practice and in social and behavioral sciences. Although many researchers attempt to formulate precise definitions, the problems and differences of opinion about the terminology used are extremely wide.
One of the main shortcomings of the studies of aggression and violence is that these concepts are not sufficiently disclosed in terms of content and therefore are often mixed up and act as synonymous. Meanwhile, the breeding of these concepts is absolutely necessary to deepen the understanding of each of them.
The variety of interpretations and cases of using the concept of aggression can be associated and explained by the presence of a wide range of specialists, each of whom considers aggression as part of his subject area. The problems of aggression are widely studied outside of psychology by anthropology, sociology, criminology, pedagogy, ethics, legal sciences, and political science. Each of these disciplines has its own approach to the understanding and conceptualization of aggression, uses its own system of concepts, often not taking into account the solution of such problems in related fields of knowledge, which inevitably leads to a number of terminological differences, and often to confusion.
An analysis of the approaches to understanding aggression that exist in modern psychology allows us to distinguish three aspects - behavioral, taking into account which makes it possible to operationalize the definition of aggression (number of strokes, speech activity, number of murders, etc.), motivational and emotional (for example, hatred, anger, disgust). The latter not only plays an important role in determining aggressive actions, but also determines their duration and intensity.
Currently, many domestic psychologists use the definition proposed by R. Baron and D. Richardson: "...aggression is any form of behavior aimed at insulting or harming another living being who does not want such treatment." This definition limits the scope of the study of aggression, because it leaves many phenomena outside it, primarily all manifestations of auto-aggression.
A common shortcoming of most definitions is that they lack a description of the social context of aggressive behavior, usually associated to some extent with the violation of social norms.
Nowadays, the idea of aggression as motivated external actions that violate the norms and rules of coexistence, causing harm, causing pain and suffering to people is increasingly asserted. We believe that aggression can be called purposeful destructive behavior that violates the norms and rules of coexistence of people in society, harming the objects of attack (animate or inanimate), causing physical damage to people or causing them psychological discomfort (negative experiences, states of tension, fear, depression and etc.).
Many researchers separate the concepts of aggression as a specific form of behavior and aggressiveness as a mental property of a person. Aggression is interpreted as a process that has a specific function and organization, while aggressiveness is seen as a structure that is a component of a more complex structure of the human psyche.
Traditionally, aggressiveness as a personality trait is attributed to people in whose behavior aggressive actions are relatively often observed. Thus, the presence of this property is derived not from an analysis of the structure of the personality, the characteristics of its orientation and other psychological components of the need-motivational complex, but from the observed behavior of a person. An unambiguous relationship between personality traits and behavior is established, as a result of which aggression and aggressiveness are explained from the standpoint of a one-factor theoretical model.
Attempts to overcome this one-sidedness lead to the identification of an increasing number of factors influencing the manifestation of aggression. Great difficulties also arise when answering the question why people with the same level of aggressiveness (revealed during testing) differ greatly in the frequency and intensity of manifestations of aggression in real behavior.
Analysis psychological literature shows that aggressive behavior is most often considered by researchers as one of the forms of a person's response to various physically and mentally unfavorable life situations that cause stress, frustration and other similar conditions, expressed in an attack on a direct source of tension or an object that replaces it. In any of these cases, the purpose of the attack psychologically is to seek a release of internal mental tension caused by stress.
Depending on the degree of awareness of the situation of mental tension, three main forms of aggressive behavior are possible: 1) the subject is aware of the source of tension and directly attacks him; 2) the subject is aware of what caused his tension, but, not being able to attack him directly for one reason or another, he looks for an object, an attack on which would give relaxation; 3) the subject does not realize where the source of tension is, and attacks the object available to him.
At the same time, aggression can act as one of the forms of protecting the “I” and be the main way to solve problems related to control and maintaining a sense of self-worth (often distorted, misunderstood, overestimated), as it is an action that can bring immediate results. . The ability, through the use of force, to force the enemy to perform actions that are undesirable for him confirms control over the environment, and also maintains or increases a sense of one's own value. Considering that the assessment of one's own value depends on comparing one's own position with the position of other people on the subjective scale of values, it can be concluded that even symbolic aggression, not to mention its other types, can protect against troubles associated with a comparative decrease in one's own status.
Aggression, in contrast to its traditional understanding as a personal property, is considered by us as some complex psychological formation that determines, directs and ensures the implementation of aggressive behavior. The proposed approach to understanding aggressiveness as a special psychological formation allows, in our opinion, to identify the role, significance and limits of influence of its various components in the variety of forms and manifestations of aggression, since aggressive behavior, apparently, is an integral result of the interaction of various aspects of human individuality.
Aggression is considered by us as a complex personal education, which includes interrelated elements of both the emotional-volitional and value-normative spheres. The role and influence on aggressive behavior of such properties and states of the emotional-volitional sphere as anxiety, emotional lability, self-control and others is beyond doubt and is the object of numerous studies. To date, little attention has been paid to the study of the relationship between the value-normative sphere and aggressive behavior; in fact, it is just beginning.
Although the predominant meaning of violence is "coercion", the scope of this concept includes such terms as "management", "bosses", "authority", "authority". Up to the present day, the concept of violence has been assigned opposite meanings, which can be found in various attempts to legitimize violence. Some find it acceptable only as retaliatory violence, others do not consider violence unfair.
Violence as coercion is the actualization of possibilities, but those that are contrary to the one who suffers. In this sense, violence is destructive.
With this understanding of violence, it ceases to be simply identified with power and force and acquires a more specific and strict meaning. This makes it possible to distinguish violence as a certain form of social relations: a) from such human properties as aggressiveness, dominance; b) from other forms of coercion that exist in society, in particular paternalistic and legal.
Thus, the central content element in the interpretation of the concept of violence is coercion, always carried out through the impact on the human psyche by means that encroach on his physical or spiritual well-being. In almost all of these definitions, violence is understood as the use of force, resulting in damage to basic human needs or even life in general, lowering the level of their satisfaction below the potential. However, the threat of violence is also violence.
J. Galtung singled out three forms of violence: direct, structural and cultural. The most obvious and accessible for empirical observation is direct violence with all kinds of cruelty shown by people to each other, other forms of life and nature in general. Direct violence manifests itself in the following forms: a) murder; b) bodily injury, blockade, sanctions, poverty;
c) desocialization from one's own culture and resocialization into another culture (for example, prohibition mother tongue and the imposition of another), treating people as second-class citizens;
d) repression, detention, exile.
Structural violence, according to J. Galtung, can be: a) exploitation of type A, when subordinates can be so disadvantaged that they die of hunger and disease; b) Type B exploitation, where subordinates may find themselves in a state of permanent poverty characterized by malnutrition and disease; c) penetration into consciousness, limitation of information; d) marginalization, disunity. The concept of structural violence does not include actors who cause damage by acting by force. It is equivalent to social injustice.
Under cultural violence, J. Galtung proposes to consider those aspects of culture, the symbolic sphere of our existence, represented by religion and ideology, language and art, empirical and formal science (logic and mathematics), which can be used to justify and legitimize direct and structural violence. Cultural violence leads to the fact that direct and structural violence begin to look and be perceived as a fair or, in any case, not a bad thing. The study of cultural violence sheds light on how the act of direct violence and the fact of structural violence are legitimized and thus made acceptable in society.
The analysis and study of the manifestations of various forms of violence primarily concerns two problems: the use of violence and the legitimization of this use.
Most of the values that function in modern society contribute to the fact that aggression and violence are actively manifested and reproduced in society. This primarily has to do with values relating to status, property, age relations, and creating the basis for strong social tensions experienced by a large number of members of society. This is especially noticeable in modernizing countries, where a large number of people, explicitly or implicitly, are involved in the process of redistribution of resources and statuses. Such a state of society contributes to the fact that direct and structural violence manifests itself either as an attempt by the subordinates to break out, equalize the situation, redistribute wealth, take revenge, achieve revenge, or as the actions of people who want to maintain or improve their status. People who feel humiliated, squeezed, suppressed and lost, begin to use direct violence to free themselves, change their situation and, accordingly, counter-violence to maintain the existing situation, that is, violence breeds violence.
Numerous studies have shown that the increase in violent actions in society is closely related to large and abrupt social changes (for example, the modernization of the country) and the resulting disruption of the traditional organization of society, which force people to pay attention to their individual problems.
The feeling (not always conscious and objective) of the impossibility of satisfying one's needs increases the likelihood that various forms of direct violence become the most likely reaction. But this is not the only reaction, as feelings of hopelessness, frustrations, deprivation syndromes can arise, which manifest themselves as inward-directed aggression, and outwardly as apathy and withdrawal.
In many studies that do not take into account the specific historical roots of social phenomena, the concepts of aggression and “violence” are confused, aggressive, violent actions of an individual nature, including criminal ones, are identified with manifestations of socio-political violence, despite the fact that they have a different nature. and determined by completely different causes and conditions. A significant drawback of a number of theoretical concepts of violence is that any manifestations of violence are considered as phenomena of the same order.
It should be noted that in domestic practice, violence is most often considered from a legal point of view, therefore, the legal definition of violence is based on its illegality and public danger. The definitions of violence in the criminal law literature reflect only a part of the manifestations of violence considered by criminology.
For many years, such concepts as "aggression", "aggressiveness", "anger", "hostility" did not have a clear differentiation. At the same time, the very concept of hostility was not differentiated from emotional and behavioral states. In addition, the studies were not clear on the definition of the hostility construct, and as a result, methods were used that were often inadequate for the purpose of measuring hostility.
A. Bass (1961) tried to differentiate the concepts of "aggression", "hostility" and "anger", which marked the beginning of a new direction in the study of hostility, which modern psychologists and clinicians rely on. Hostility was understood by him as a long-term, stable negative attitude or rating system applied to surrounding people, objects and phenomena. Thus, according to A. Bass, hostility corresponds to the cognitive component of the psyche along with anger and aggression, which are emotional and behavioral components, respectively. Attributing hostility to the number of cognitive variables is not entirely fair, since hostility and hostility also imply an emotional assessment.
Another understanding of hostility was given by J. Berifut (1992), who considered hostility as an antagonistic attitude towards people, including cognitive, affective and behavioral components. The affective component is made up of interrelated emotions: anger, irritation, resentment, contempt, indignation, disgust, etc. The cognitive component is represented by negative beliefs about human nature in general (cynicism) and beliefs in the hostility of other people towards the subject himself (hostile attributions). distrust, suspicion). Finally, the behavioral component combines various forms of manifestation of hostility in behavior, often disguised: aggression, negativism, unwillingness to cooperate, avoidance of communication, etc. Thus, J. Berifut considers hostility as a complex formation that includes anger and aggression as behavioral and emotional correlates of hostility, which act as its external indicators. The most valuable thing in the scientist's approach is that he went beyond the triad "hostility-anger-aggression" and described a fairly wide range of behavioral and emotional correlates of hostility. Understanding that hostility does not always lead to aggression, but instead of anger, it can be accompanied by other emotional experiences, opens up the possibility of an independent, to a certain extent, isolated study of hostility.
V.N. Myasishchev, developing the category of "attitude", notes that hostility is formed in the process of interaction with its object and then sets the bias in the perception of new objects. Thus, he refers hostility to emotional relationships, delimiting it from emotions proper and other forms of relationships, such as interests, moral and aesthetic convictions.
Hostility can be generalized to varying degrees. Separate selective negative attitudes towards someone or something are characteristic of most people. Moreover, a person's complete absence of hostile relationships seems to reflect a certain personality dysfunction or personality immaturity and is not conducive to adaptation. On the other hand, a hostile attitude can be inadequately generalized, to the extent that a person perceives any objects or external influences as negative, unpleasant, undesirable, etc. In such cases of generalization of a hostile attitude, it makes sense to talk about a hostile picture of the world, which, when under certain circumstances, it can acquire the character of a pathology (for example, paranoid delusions). With a high level of hostility, a person tends to attribute negative qualities to other objects and phenomena. Characterizing a person as hostile, we mean the following: a) hostility prevails in his system of already established relations; b) the probability of forming a negative attitude towards new objects is generally higher than the probability of forming a positive one, that is, there is a certain bias. Hostility is characterized by a number of properties: the degree of awareness, qualitative specifics, the degree of stability. It should be emphasized that these properties are closely related to the level of hostility generalization. For example, the more specific the hostile attitude, the less stable it is. On the contrary, generalized hostility (a hostile picture of the world) is resistant to change.
Hostility as a psychological attitude is not actually observed directly in the behavior of the individual, although it finds numerous manifestations in various mental processes and phenomena. The study of the sphere of personality relations, and in particular of hostility, thus presents a methodological problem.
Therefore, it is necessary to pay attention to mental phenomena through which hostility can manifest itself, especially those whose connection with hostility is not obvious. As J. Burifut notes, in addition to anger, the range of “hostile emotions” includes irritation, resentment, contempt, disgust, disappointment, etc. One or another form of emotional manifestations of hostility also strongly depends on the qualitative specifics of hostility and its other parameters. So, contempt involves devaluing the object and attributing to it some "unworthy" qualities, such as cowardice (these qualities in each case depend on the person's value system). Fear, as a rule, is associated with an assessment of the object as strong, dangerous, aggressive, etc. It is obvious that anxiety can also become a consequence of hostility.
The connection between anxiety and hostility is indicated by the data of a number of studies conducted on patients with anxiety-phobic disorders. Hostility in the structure of depressive disorders has a certain specificity, since the question remains of what or who is the object of hostility of depressive patients. According to a common belief, in depressive patients, hostility is directed primarily at oneself, which is expressed in ideas of self-blame. Suicidal tendencies in depression are also explained by a hostile attitude towards oneself, considering them as auto-aggression. Within the framework of this approach, it is assumed that hostility towards other people is not typical for depressed patients.
At the same time, according to clinical observations, depressed patients, among other things, are irritable, touchy, and often verbally aggressive, on the basis of which some researchers conclude that they have hostile attitudes towards people around them. This, however, does not contradict the approach described above. On the contrary, it was found that the hostile attitude towards oneself and others has a single nature. Apparently, in depression, hostility towards one's own Self, other people, as well as generalized impersonal hostility in the form of a sense of injustice, hostility of the surrounding world, and a negative assessment of the subjective future are intertwined in a complex way.
Hostility is most clearly manifested in interpersonal interactions. At the same time, the specific form of manifestations of hostility in the process of communication depends on many factors. For example, a negative attitude towards others can be expressed in unwillingness to compromise, inability to cooperate, avoidance of close interpersonal relationships or social contacts in general, and even in the desire to do independently work that would be better entrusted to others. A striking example is racial, ethnic and other prejudices. Being inherently a form of hostility, they do not always become the cause of aggressive actions against the corresponding objects. In this sense, physical or verbal aggression are only particular variants of the manifestation of hostility in social behavior.
As already noted, for a long time in psychology the view was preserved, according to which the categories of anger and aggression were not separated and were sometimes used as synonyms, without a clear operationalization.
The term "anger" in psychology usually refers to an emotional state characterized by varying intensity - from mild irritation to rage. The term "anger" is used to describe emotional state which is intrapersonal in nature. Anger in modern research is considered in different ways: within the framework of the triad "hostility - anger - aggression", in the dichotomy "anger as a character trait - anger as a state".
Given the role of cognitive processing in the emergence of anger and its connection with motivation, it is apparently impossible to speak with full right about the exclusively emotional nature of this experience.
Carried out by K. Izard, the analysis of anger as one of the basic emotions allowed him to identify the following reasons for it: restriction or interruption of purposeful activity, unpleasant stimulation, being deluded or experiencing unfair resentment, as well as indignation at the inconsistency of the behavior of others with their own moral ideals. He sees anger as an adaptive emotion that interacts with feelings such as disgust and contempt. Anger mobilizes energy, and its presence can be justified if viewed as an appropriate defense against arrogance.
R. Lazarus's approach to anger is much more complete than other theorists of emotions, and is presented in his cognitive-motivational theory. He characterizes anger (as well as other negative emotions) as the result of resentment, loss, or threat, while the source (features of the situation, another person, etc.) is external to the subject. For an angry person, the main point is that, regardless of who caused the negative experiences, the subject himself, depending on his own desires, could maintain control over anger or not.
The issue of primary importance for a person, according to R. Lazarus, is the safety of his self-identity, and any attack on it can induce anger, the severity of which will depend on personal characteristics and recent experience of humiliation. Anger arises when self-esteem or the evaluation of others is threatened. However, anger can be easily changed under the influence of cognitive coping processes.
From the position of R. Lazarus, anger includes such an assessment of the situation, which suggests that the best resolution of the attack situation is an attack. Moreover, if the person expects the attack to provide a successful resolution, then the likelihood of anger arising increases.
R. Lazarus argues that there is often a ban on anger, especially in cases where strong retribution can follow its expression. He believes that manifest anger can be both beneficial and dangerous, but uncontrolled anger is equally unproductive and detrimental to physical health.
The most complete consideration of anger and aggression was J. Everill, who views anger as an antisocial, negative and very common phenomenon. He argues that at an interpersonal level, consideration of the problem of anger involves the inclusion of the fact of violation of socially accepted norms of behavior and the presence of a goal to take revenge, or at least punish the person who committed it. Typically, biological factors are characterized by a lack or lack of control over anger. The purpose of society is to try to create rules for experiencing and expressing anger in accordance with maximizing its benefits and minimizing its losses.
J. Everill argues that anger is a common phenomenon, and its main target is a friend, acquaintance or loved one. Very rarely the target is an unfamiliar or disliked acquaintance. The purpose of anger is to change the conditions that led to it. The cause of anger may be unjustified actions or an avoidable event. Interpretation of external influence and internal state is carried out by an individual on the basis of social norms and roles that are relevant in a given situation. Emotions are the possibilities of diverse actions that are adequate to the social context, expressing an individual's assessment of the significance of the situation that is relevant to him. However, one of the features of role-playing behavior included in emotional expression is the possibility of breaking the generally accepted norms of rational behavior. Thus, the experience of strong emotions allows the individual to relieve himself of responsibility for actions committed in such an “uncontrollable” state, that is, the experience of emotion allows the individual to move away from an undesirable social norm, for example, when angry or aggressive.
The problem of anger was considered in the light of the problem of the functionality of emotional phenomena in the framework of the discussion about such functions of emotions as motivating and disorganizing. Most models assume a two-way connection of emotional phenomena with a system of ideas and beliefs. According to the syndrome model, the presence of an associative network (including emotional and cognitive processes, motivation and corresponding activation of the organism) leads to the fact that unpleasant experiences can cause anger or actualize the image of the enemy, regardless of their cause. At the same time, the presence of a feeling of anger only strengthens the tendency to act, and aggressive behavior can be blocked. In the model of cognitive adjustment, the main factor modulating emotional phenomena is the approach (removal) from the goal, and negative emotions, revealing the unfavorable situation, contribute to the necessary mobilization.
The disorganizing function of emotions is manifested in the violation of the expediency and social mediation of the individual's behavior. Insufficient attention to the issues of anger is due to the fact that it is an emotion focused on overcoming, and is experienced when confronted with obstacles that prevent the implementation of a feasible human activity. However, due to the fact that anger and rage (considered as the extreme manifestation of anger) can translate into purposeful actions, the attention of clinicians is shifted from emotions to behavioral manifestations.
Hosted on Allbest.ru
...Similar Documents
The main characteristics of aggressive behavior, its features. An empirical study of the relationship between aggressive behavior and sociometric status in a group using methods for diagnosing interpersonal and intergroup relationships and a tendency to aggression.
thesis, added 08/13/2011
The relevance of the problem of child aggressiveness. The concept of "aggressive behavior". The specificity of the manifestation of aggressive behavior in the middle preschool age. Analysis of existing programs aimed at correcting the aggressive behavior of a preschooler.
term paper, added 03/09/2011
Theories of the emergence of aggressive behavior. Definition of aggression and aggressiveness, classification of types of aggressive behavior. Causes of aggression in childhood. The role of the family in the occurrence of aggressive behavior of the child, prevention of its manifestation.
term paper, added 08/16/2011
The concept and types of aggression. Causes of aggressive behavior and the influence of education on its formation. Empirical study of gender characteristics of aggressive behavior of students in conflict situations: features of the sample, plan and methods of research.
term paper, added 01/30/2013
Theoretical aspects of studying the characteristics of aggressive behavior of adolescents in domestic and foreign psychology. Definition and essence of aggressive behavior. Formation and assimilation of aggressive behavior by a person. Analysis of the obtained results.
term paper, added 08/01/2010
The phenomenon of aggression in psychology. The role of the family in shaping the aggressive behavior of children. Characteristics of children from incomplete families. The study of aggressive behavior of younger students. Theory of social learning. Cognitive models of aggressive behavior.
term paper, added 08/31/2010
The concept of socio-psychological status, aggression and aggressive behavior. Psychological features of aggressive behavior in adolescence and its causes. The meaning of status for a teenager and its impact on relationships with peers.
term paper, added 02/18/2011
The essence of human aggression from the point of view of philosophy, psychology, biology, religion. Factors contributing to aggression. Psychological features of aggressive behavior of adolescents. Types of aggression according to Fromm and Bass. Spontaneous manifestations of aggressiveness.
term paper, added 11/27/2010
Basic theoretical approaches to understanding aggression as a socio-psychological phenomenon. Age and gender features of aggressive behavior. Anxiety as a socio-psychological mechanism. Organization of the study and analysis of the results.
term paper, added 02/08/2013
Definition of the concept and emotional component of an aggressive state. Ethological, psychoanalytic, frustration and behavioral approaches to the study of aggression. Specificity of hostility in adolescence, forms and methods of its prevention.
Introduction
The increased aggressiveness of children is today one of the most acute problems not only for teachers and psychologists, but also for society as a whole. The growing wave of juvenile delinquency and the increase in the number of children prone to aggressive forms of behavior bring to the fore the task of studying the phenomenon of juvenile aggressiveness.
Teachers at school note that there are more and more aggressive children every year, it is difficult to work with them, and often teachers simply do not know how to cope with their behavior. The only pedagogical influence that temporarily saves is punishment or reprimand, after which the children become more restrained for a while, and their behavior begins to meet the requirements of adults. But this kind of pedagogical influence rather enhances the characteristics of such children and in no way contributes to their re-education or a lasting change in behavior for the better.
The topic of aggression has always aroused the interest of psychologists. The problem of aggression and aggressiveness is one of the most urgent in modern psychology today. It is considered in general, social, pedagogical and developmental psychology. A number of aspects of the emergence, course, direction and control of aggression have been studied quite deeply in the works of domestic and foreign psychologists. Fundamental works of 3. Freud, E. Fromm, K. Lorentz, J. Dollard, L. Berkowitz, A. Bandura, R. Baron, D. Richardson, A.A. Reana, N.D. Levitova, L.V. Semenyuk, I.A. Furmanova and others, age-related features of aggressive behavior in the work of A. Bandura, N.A. Dubinko, E.O. Smirnova, G.R. Khuzeeva, T.P. Smirnova, I.A. Furmanova, L.V. Semenyuk, L.M. Shipitsyna and others. Personal and situational determinants of aggression are considered in detail in the works of R. Baron, D. Richardson, I.A. Furmanova, L.M. Shipitsyna and others.
An analysis of the scientific literature allows us to conclude that the psychological aspects of aggressive behavior in primary school age are insufficiently studied. In the psychological literature, more attention is paid to the features of the aggressive behavior of adolescents and slightly less to the features of the aggressive behavior of preschoolers. This is due to the fact that most researchers have traditionally believed that children of primary school age are not characterized by the manifestation of aggressive forms of behavior to the extent that adolescents and preschoolers demonstrate them. But a number of conditions prevailing in modern society (the growth of terror, the high crime situation in the country, numerous scenes of violence on television, the popularity of computer games with aggressive content) contribute to the growth of aggressive forms of behavior in children of primary school age.
In addition, there is not enough psychological literature containing practical recommendations for correcting the aggressive behavior of children of primary school age. Arsenal of psychological techniques that he owns school psychologist, is also very limited and does not solve this problem comprehensively. As a rule, the psychologist works within the test material (Rosenzweig, Rochach spots, non-existent animal, etc.). In muscle relaxation, the aggressive child is most often asked to regularly “beat a punching bag” or tear paper. But these techniques are often ineffective in correcting the aggressive behavior of children.
Target work - to study the psychological aspects of the aggressive behavior of children of primary school age.
An object studies - manifestation of aggressive forms of behavior in children of primary school age.
Subject research - psychological aspects of aggressive behavior of children of primary school age.
Hypothesis: aggressive behavior is expressed to a lesser extent in younger schoolchildren attending institutions of additional education than in children who do not attend institutions of this type.
In accordance with the purpose, problem, object and subject of the study, the following tasks are set:
Study, analysis and generalization of psychological literature on the problem of aggressive behavior of children in primary school age;
Identification of factors influencing the formation of aggressive behavior in children;
The study of the psychological aspects of the aggressive behavior of children of primary school age;
Development of a program for the correction of aggressive behavior in children of primary school age.
The following research methods were used:
1. Observation.
2. Testing.
4. Study of products of activity.
In particular, the following methods were used:
A version of the Bass-Darky questionnaire adapted for younger students;
A version of the Leonhard-Schmishek questionnaire adapted for younger students;
A variant of the questionnaire adapted for younger students by Ch.D. Spielberger;
Test "Unfinished sentences" adapted for younger students;
Projective technique "Drawing of a non-existent animal".
The course work consists of an introduction, two chapters, a conclusion, an appendix and a list of references.
Chapter 1. The problem of aggression and aggressive behavior in psychology
Basic concepts and concepts of aggression
Aggression (from the Latin "agressio") - an attack, an attack. Different authors invest in the term "aggression" completely different content. According to A. Base, aggression is any behavior that threatens or harms others. The second definition proposed by Berkowitz contains the following provision: for certain actions to be qualified as aggression, they must include the intention of insulting or insulting, and not just lead to such consequences. The third point of view, expressed by D. Silmann, limits the use of the term aggression to an attempt to inflict bodily or physical harm on others. Currently, the following definition is accepted by most experts: aggression is any form of behavior aimed at insulting or harming another living being who does not want such treatment (Beron, Richardson, 2000) .
This definition suggests that "aggression" should be seen as a pattern of behavior and not as an emotion, motive, or attitude. The term "aggression" is often associated with negative emotions such as anger; with motives - such as the desire to offend or harm; with negative attitudes” [Beron, Richardson 2000: 328]. While all of these factors undoubtedly play an important role in the behavior that results in harm, their presence is not a necessary condition for such actions. Thus, anger is not at all a necessary condition for attacking others; aggression unfolds both in a state of complete composure and extreme emotional excitement. It is also not at all necessary that the aggressors hate those who are targeted by their actions.
A.A. Rean proposes not to identify the concepts of "aggression" and "aggressiveness". Giving a definition to these terms, he draws attention to the fact that aggression is intentional actions aimed “at causing damage to another person, group of people or animal. Aggressiveness is a personality trait, expressed in readiness for aggression. Thus, if aggression is an action, then aggressiveness is a willingness to commit such actions.
Aggression, as a rule, does not arise unexpectedly. It can appear as a result of various interpersonal interactions, provocations. Moreover, both verbal and non-verbal provocations can in response cause physical actions (attack, violence, etc.)
Various features of the environment in which a person is located also increase or decrease the likelihood of aggressive actions. In addition, individual characteristics of a person play an important role in the appearance of aggressive reactions. Among “normal” personalities, the more aggressive are irritable people, with a biased attribution of hostility, with a high level of locus of control (Shipitsyna 2004).
Noteworthy is the version of the dichotomous division of aggression proposed by Bass into hostile and instrumental aggression.
Term hostile aggression refers to those cases of manifestation of aggression, when the main goal of the aggressor is to cause suffering to the victim. The concept of instrumental aggression, on the contrary, characterizes cases when aggressors pursue goals that are not related to causing harm. Although many psychologists recognize the existence of different types of aggression, this provision is controversial. So, according to L. Bandura (1989), despite the differences in goals, both instrumental and hostile aggression are aimed at solving specific problems, and therefore both types can be considered instrumental aggression.
D. Silmann (1970) replaced "hostile" and "instrumental" aggression with "stimulus-driven" and "drive-driven" aggression. Aggression caused by a stimulus , refers to actions that are taken primarily to eliminate an unpleasant situation or reduce its harmful effects. Motivation-driven aggression refers to actions that are taken primarily to achieve various external benefits.
Dodge and Koyi suggested using the terms reactive and proactive aggression. Reactive aggression involves retaliation in response to a perceived threat. Proactive aggression, like instrumental, generates behavior aimed at obtaining a certain positive result.
Regardless of the choice of term for these different types of aggression, it is clear that there are two types of aggression, motivated by different goals.
In view of the fact that manifestations of aggression in people are endlessly diverse, such behavior should be considered within the framework of the conceptual categories of aggression proposed by A. Bass (Beron, Richardson 2000). In his opinion, aggressive actions can be described on the basis of three scales: physical - verbal, active - passive and direct - indirect (indirect). Their combination yields eight possible categories under which most aggressive actions fall (Table 1).
Table 1
| Type of aggression | Examples |
| Physical - active - direct | Hitting another person with a cold weapon, beating or injuring |
| Physical - active - indirect | Laying booby traps, conspiring with a hired killer to destroy the enemy. |
| Physical - passive - direct | The desire to physically prevent another person from achieving a desired goal or engaging in a desired activity. |
| Physical - passive - indirect | Refusal to perform necessary tasks. |
| Verbal - active - direct | Verbal abuse or humiliation of another person. |
| Verbal - active - indirect | Spreading malicious slander or gossip about another person. |
| Verbal - passive - direct | Refusal to talk to another person, answer his questions, etc. |
| Verbal - passive - indirect | Refusing to give certain verbal explanations or explanations (for example, refusing to speak up in defense of a person who is being unfairly criticized). |
There are several different approaches to the study and explanation of the phenomenon of aggression. A.A. Rean identifies 4 basic areas: the instinctivist theory of aggression; frustration theory; social learning theory; cognitive models of aggressive behavior.
aggression behavior sociometric interpersonal
Introduction
Chapter 1. The concept of "aggression"
2.2 Ethological approach - the theory of K. Lorenz
2.3 Theory of aggression A. Basse
2.8 Cognitive theories
Chapter 3. Aggression in human life
3.1.1 Family relationships
3.5 Individual determinants of aggression
Chapter 4 Empirical Research
4.1 Research methods
4.1.1 "Diagnosis of tendency to aggression (BPAQ-24)" A. Bass, M. Perry
4.1.2 "Diagnostics of interpersonal and intergroup relations ("Sociometry") J. Moreno
4.2 Findings of the study
4.3 Analysis and discussion of the study
Conclusion
Bibliography
INTRODUCTION
aggression psychology research
In this work, I would like to show state of the art and methodology for researching the problem of aggressive human behavior. This problem is already long time attracts the attention of many scientists in many countries of the world. A lot of works have already been written on this topic, and with the growth of human aggressiveness in the world, the study of this problem becomes more global.
Due to the current unstable situation in the country and the economic crisis, the standard of living of the population has dropped sharply. People have many troubles related to work: salaries are not paid, they are cut sharply, there is no incentive to work. Many do not have the opportunity to earn money for a living, and prices are going up and up. People simply have nothing to exist.
All this naturally affects the population and their relationship. People have become irritable and aggressive. Due to troubles at work, they “tear off evil” on their loved ones, which leads to scandals in the family, to strained relationships, to divorces.
Various acts of aggression or violence are constantly reported in all media sources. Statistics show that violence in the world is rampant. Every year the number of terrorists around the world increases. Wars break out in various countries. Currently, many states have various types of weapons with which it is possible to wipe out all life from the face of the Earth. All this can lead to a global catastrophe.
In the light of these trends, it is impossible not to recognize that violence and conflict are among the most serious problems facing humanity today.
Object of study: aggressive human behavior
Subject of study: study of patterns and mechanisms of aggressive human behavior
The purpose of the study: to identify the general patterns and mechanisms of aggressive human behavior.
In this study, a hypothesis is put forward - the general aggressiveness in the group is directly dependent on the level of sociometric statuses in the group. The higher the level of sociometric statuses in the group, the more positive relationships, the less the manifestation of aggressiveness in this group.
Research objectives:
1) Theoretical study of the problem based on the literary works of Z. Freud, K. Lorenz, D. Dollard, A. Bandura, L. Berkowitz and others.
2) Identify the main characteristics of aggressive behavior
3) Consider the features of aggressive behavior
4) Analyze the relationship of students in the group
5) To study the relationship between aggressive behavior and sociometric status in the group
Research methods:
Study and analysis of scientific literature on the research problem;
Diagnosis of propensity to aggression (BPAQ-24) method A. Bass, M. Perry;
Methodology for diagnosing interpersonal and intergroup relations ("Sociometry") J. Moreno.
Characteristics of the study sample: an empirical study was conducted in Moscow in 2009, the study involved 11 full-time students of the 4th year of the Faculty of Aerospace of the Moscow Aviation Institute, aged 22 to 26 years.
As well as 15 full-time 4th year students of the Faculty of Food Biotechnology of the Moscow State University of Applied Biotechnology, aged 22 to 26 years.
Chapter 1. The concept of "aggression"
Aggression translated from Latin("aggressio") means "attack". Currently, the term "aggression" is used extremely widely. This phenomenon has been associated with both negative emotions (eg, anger) and negative motives (eg, the desire to harm), as well as negative attitudes (eg, racial prejudice) and destructive actions.
In psychology, aggression is understood as a tendency (desire) that manifests itself in real behavior or fantasy, with the aim of subjugating others or dominating them. Aggression can be both positive, serving vital interests and survival, and negative, focused on satisfying the aggressive drive itself.
The purpose of aggression can be both the actual infliction of suffering (harm) to the victim (hostile aggression), and the use of aggression as a way to achieve a different goal (instrumental aggression). Aggression can be directed at external objects (people or objects) or at oneself (body or personality). Aggression directed at other people is a particular danger to society.
There are four main forms of aggression - reactive aggression, hostile aggression, instrumental aggression and auto-aggression.
The first form of aggression - reactive - arises as a reaction to frustration and is accompanied by emotional states of anger, hostility, hatred, etc. This form of aggression also includes affective, impulsive and expressive aggression.
Expressive aggression is intimidatingly aggressive behavior, the main purpose of which is to express and designate one's potentially aggressive intentions, to intimidate opponents. This is not always and not necessarily expressed in destructive actions. Classical examples of expressive aggression are ritual dances, military parades, various kinds of mass processions.
Impulsive aggression - usually provoked as a result of the action of some factor, instantly arising and rather quickly passing aggressive behavior. Such aggression can be intermittent (“impulsive”) in nature, appearing as if in “waves”, in the form of a kind of “ebb and flow” of aggressive behavior.
Affective aggression is an emotional phenomenon, almost completely devoid of an effective component. Affective aggression, as a rule, is the most impressive, but also the most senseless type of aggression. For example, in a state of affective aggression, crowds of attacking insurgents can break into a well-organized defense of the authorities and will be doomed to defeat. This is what is sometimes called "aggressive hype" - a special condition that requires immediate, at any cost, sacrifice and destruction. As a rule, the victims in such cases just exceed the results achieved.
The second form of aggression is hostile - aggressive behavior of a deliberate nature, with a clear demonstration of the position of the enemy and the desire to cause deliberate harm.
The third form of aggression is instrumental - aggressive behavior is not an expression of emotional states; the purpose of the manifestation of this aggression is neutral and aggression is used only as a means to achieve this goal. Sometimes instrumental aggression is interpreted as aggressive behavior, the purpose of which is to achieve a positive result.
The fourth form of aggression - auto-aggression or auto-aggression - aggressive behavior and actions are directed at oneself. It manifests itself in self-accusations, self-humiliation, self-inflicted bodily harm, suicidal behavior.
The usual manifestations of aggression are conflict, slander, pressure, coercion, negative assessment, threats or the use of physical force. Hidden forms of aggression are expressed in avoiding contact, inaction with the aim of harming someone, harming oneself and suicide.
One of the most intense and complex aggressive affects is undoubtedly hatred. The most important goal of a person captured by hatred is the destruction of the object of aggression. Under certain conditions, hatred and the desire for revenge may be inadequately increased.
Let's try to clarify the nature of the relationship between aggression and aggressive behavior. Obviously, the experience of aggression by a person does not unambiguously lead to destructive actions. On the other hand, when committing violence, a person can be both in a state of extreme emotional excitement and complete composure. In addition, it is not at all necessary for the aggressor to hate his victim. Many people cause suffering to their loved ones - those to whom they are attached and whom they sincerely love.
The leading signs of aggressive behavior can be considered such manifestations as:
Expressed desire to dominate people and use them for their own purposes;
The tendency to destruction;
Focus on causing harm to others;
Tendency to violence (inflicting pain).
Summarizing all the listed signs, we can say that the aggressive behavior of a person implies any actions with a pronounced dominance motive. And violence (physical, emotional) is the most serious manifestation and undesirable consequence of aggressive behavior.
Chapter 2. Main theoretical approaches to the problem of aggression
The man was, is and, perhaps, will be aggressive for a long time. This seems clear and undeniable. But why is he aggressive? What makes it so? This question has always been tried to find an answer. Opposite, sometimes mutually exclusive opinions were expressed regarding the causes of its occurrence, its nature, factors contributing to its formation and manifestation. Today, both theories of aggressive behavior and the identified forms of behavioral activity of animals and humans are diverse. Among the theories, of course, one should point out the theories of Z. Freud, K. Lorentz, E. Fromm, J.. Dollard, L. Berkowitz, A. Bandura, A. Bass and others.
All currently existing theories of aggression, with all their diversity, can be divided into four main categories, considering aggression as:
· innate motivation or deposit - the theory of attraction (Z. Freud, K. Lorentz);
Need activated by external stimuli - frustration theories (J. Dollard, L. Berkowitz);
· cognitive and emotional processes - cognitive theories (L. Berkowitz, Silmann);
· Actual manifestation of the social - the theory of social learning (A. Bandura).
The first category of theories, despite the variety of approaches, proceeds from the fact that aggressiveness is considered by its supporters as an innate instinctive form of behavior. In other words, aggression manifests itself because it is genetically programmed. Consequently, any, even the most positive, changes in the social environment are not able to prevent its manifestation. At most, perhaps, weaken it. And there is certainly some truth in this.
The second category of theories is aggression as a need activated by external stimuli, aggression as a motive. Supporters of these theories attribute aggression itself to manifestations of the influence and impact of the external environment and conditions (frustration, exciting and aversive events). Thus, they believe that not only weakening, but also the complete eradication of aggression is possible.
The third group of theories takes into account such aspects of human experience as cognitive and emotional activity. Proponents of these theories argue that it is possible to control aggression, control behavior by “simple” teaching people to really imagine potential dangers, to adequately assess threatening situations.
Finally, according to the fourth group of theories (social learning theory), aggression is a model of social behavior acquired in the process of learning. Aggressive reactions are acquired and maintained through direct participation in situations of manifestation of aggression, as well as through passive observation of aggressive manifestations.
2.1 Aggression as an expedient instinct - the theory of Z. Freud
Freud paid relatively little attention to the phenomenon of aggression, considering sexuality (libido) and the instinct of self-preservation to be the main and predominant forces in man. In this context, aggression was seen simply as a reaction to the blocking or destruction of libidinal impulses. Aggression as such was not treated either as an integral, or as a constant and inevitable part of life.
However, in the 20s. he completely abandons this notion. Already in the work "I and It", as well as in all subsequent works, he puts forward a new dichotomous pair: the drive to life (eros) and the drive to death (thanatos). He argued that all human behavior is the result of a complex interaction of this instinct with eros and that there is a constant tension between them.
The death instinct is directed against the living organism itself and therefore is an instinct of either self-destruction or the destruction of another individual (in the case of outward direction). If the death instinct turns out to be connected with sexuality, then it finds expression in the forms of sadism or masochism. And although Freud repeatedly emphasized that the intensity of this instinct can be reduced, his main theoretical premise is that a person is obsessed with only one passion - a thirst to destroy either himself or other people, and he is unlikely to be able to avoid this tragic alternative.
From the hypothesis of the death drive, the conclusion follows that aggressiveness is essentially not a reaction to irritation, but is a kind of mobile impulse constantly present in the body, due to the very constitution of the human being, the very nature of man. one
Freud took a very important step forward from mechanical physiology to a biological view of the organism as a whole and to an analysis of the biological premises of the phenomena of love and hate. However, his theory suffers from a serious shortcoming: it relies on purely abstract speculative reasoning and lacks convincing empirical evidence. Therefore, it is one of the most controversial theories of psychoanalysis. It was in fact rejected by many of Freud's students who shared his views on other issues. Nevertheless, the statement about Z. Freud, "I and It", Publishing House "FOLIO" Kharkiv, 2003, that aggression originates from innate, instinctive forces, was generally supported even by these critics.
2.2. Ethological approach - the theory of K. Lorenz
The evolutionary approach to the development of human aggressiveness is based primarily on the theory of K. Lorenz, developed as a result of studying the behavior of animals. The views of K. Lorentz are quite close to the views of Z. Freud. According to the concept of K. Lorenz, aggression originates from the innate instinct of the struggle for survival. This instinct has developed in the course of evolution and performs three important functions:
Struggle disperses representatives of species over a wide geographic area,
Aggression helps to improve the genetic fund of the species due to the fact that only the strongest and most energetic leave offspring,
Strong animals defend themselves better and ensure the survival of their offspring. K. Lorenz Aggression / M., "Progress", 1994
The energy of aggression is generated in the body spontaneously, continuously, at a constant pace, regularly accumulating over time. The greater the amount of aggressive energy available at a given moment, the less force the stimulus is needed in order for aggression to "splash" outward. This is the so-called "psycho-hydraulic model" of aggression, created on the basis of the study of animal aggression. People and animals usually find a source of irritation in order to unleash evil on it and thereby free themselves from energy tension. They do not need to passively wait for the right stimulus, they themselves look for it and even create appropriate situations.
K. Lorenz's theory explains the fact that people, unlike most other living beings, have widespread violence against members of their own species. All living beings, especially predatory animals, have the ability to suppress their desires. This prevents attacks on members of their own species. Humans, being less dangerous from a biological point of view, have a much weaker deterrent. In the early stages of the formation of mankind, this was not very dangerous, since the possibility of causing serious damage was quite low. However, technological progress has led to an incredible increase in the ability of mankind to inflict “serious damage” and has threatened the very fact of the survival of man as a species and of all mankind as such.
For Lorenz, aggression is not a reaction to external stimuli, but is its own internal tension, which requires discharge and finds expression, regardless of whether there is a suitable external stimulus for this or not.
It can also be said that Lorentz's theory rests on two fundamental assumptions: the first is the hydraulic model of aggression, which indicates the mechanism for the emergence of aggression. The second is the idea that aggressiveness serves the cause of life itself, contributes to the survival of the individual and the whole species. In general, Lorentz proceeds from the assumption that intraspecific aggression (aggression towards members of its own species) is a function that serves the survival of the species itself. Lorenz argues that aggressiveness plays just such a role, distributing individuals of the same species in the appropriate living space, ensuring the selection of "best producers" and protecting mothers, and also establishing a certain social hierarchy. Moreover, aggressiveness can perform the function of preserving the species much more successfully than intimidating the enemy, which in the process of evolution has turned into a kind of behavior consisting of “symbolic and ritual” threats that do not frighten anyone and do not cause the slightest damage to the mind. K. Lorenz Aggression / M., "Progress", 1994
2.3 Theory of aggression A. Basse
According to the theory of A. Bass, aggression is any behavior that threatens or harms others.
From the notion that aggression implies either harm or insult to the victim, it follows that inflicting bodily harm on the recipient is not mandatory. Aggression takes place if the result of actions are some negative consequences. Thus, in addition to insults by action, such manifestations as exposing someone in a disadvantageous light, slandering or public ridicule, deprivation of something necessary, and even the refusal of love and tenderness can, under certain circumstances, be called aggressive.
According to A. Bass, aggressive actions can be described on the basis of three scales: physical - verbal, active - passive, direct - indirect.
Their combination gives eight possible categories under which most aggressive actions fall.
· Physical - active - direct.
Striking another person with a cold weapon, beating or injuring with a firearm.
· Physical - active - indirect.
Conspiracy with a hired killer to destroy the enemy.
· Physical - passive - direct.
The desire to physically prevent another person from achieving a desired goal or engaging in a desired activity.
· Physical - passive - indirect.
Refusal to perform necessary tasks.
Verbal - active - direct.
Verbal abuse or humiliation of another person.
Verbal - active - indirect.
Spreading malicious slander or gossip about another person.
Verbal - passive - direct.
Refusal to talk to another person.
Verbal - passive - indirect.
Refusal to give certain verbal explanations or explanations. Baron R., Richardson D. Aggression. -- St. Petersburg: Peter, 2001
People often strike various inanimate objects, such as furniture, dishes, such behavior cannot be considered as aggressive until harm is done to a living being. We can speak of aggression only if the recipient or victim seeks to avoid such treatment. Sometimes victims of abuse or painful acts do not seek to avoid unpleasant consequences for themselves (certain forms of love play that are sadomasochistic in nature). Suicide is also not aggression, since here the aggressor acts as his own victim. Therefore, such actions cannot be classified as aggression. Even if the goal of suicide is not death, but a desperate call for help, the suicide still seeks to harm himself.
2.4 Aggression as evil - E. Fromm's theory
In his seminal work Anatomy of Human Destructiveness, Erich Fromm (1994) presented a generalized analysis of various studies of human aggressiveness. Everything destructive in man is rethought by him phylogenetically and ontogenetically as the fundamental problem of evil at the level of the individual and society.
The phenomenon of aggression, from the point of view of E. Fromm, is a human reaction to the destruction of the normal conditions of existence. Aggression is an "acquired property" and man is not by nature a destroyer. He is a victim of his history, a victim of his freedom, by which he means "a measure of responsibility." Erich Fromm “Anatomy of human destructiveness”, M., Respubl., 1994.
E. Fromm does not reduce human behavior entirely to innate neuropsychological mechanisms - incentives. Man's behavior is the realization of his freedom. But freedom is for the few. The vast majority of people are not capable of action, that is, they cannot realize the power of their spirit and will, due to their facelessness. Most people live exclusively by patterns and standards. The realization of human freedom is accompanied by destructiveness. At the same time, E. Fromm always proceeds from the thesis about the primacy of mental processes, which largely determine the structure social phenomena in the history of mankind.
He considers the problem of destructiveness from a biosocial point of view. He proceeds from the fact that the type and warehouse of the personality fits into a specific social background that has an impact on the individual, developing social characters.
In the problem of aggression and destructiveness, E. Fromm combines two seemingly diametrically opposed points of view on the problem of aggressiveness - instinctivism and behaviorism. The first point of view - instinctivism - explains everything destructive in a person and reduces it to his animal essence. The second point of view - behaviorism - deduces the destructiveness of a person exclusively from his social nature. It would seem that the outwardly acceptable connection of the two extreme positions wins in the methodology that allowed Fromm to divide aggressiveness into benign and malignant. At the same time, the first goes back to instincts, the animal principle, the second relies on character, on human passions, behind which there are existential motives (love, hatred, fear, faith, self-interest, lust for power, envy, etc., etc.).
The interaction of human instincts and passions expresses a person's attempt to overcome the banal existence in time and move into a transcendent being. Any barrier on the way to the realization of one's needs leads to the destruction of social relations, the deformation of psychological mechanisms. E. Fromm identifies several types of them - masochistic, sadistic, destructive and conformist.
2.5 The theory of frustration aggressiveness by J. Dollard and N. Miller
Frustration is a mental state of experiencing failure, due to the impossibility of satisfying needs, arising in the presence of real or imaginary insurmountable obstacles on the way to a certain goal. It can be considered as one of the forms of psychological stress. It manifests itself in feelings of disappointment, anxiety, irritability, and finally, despair. At the same time, the efficiency of activity is sharply reduced. Frustration is accompanied by a range of mostly negative emotions: anger, irritation, guilt, etc.
D. Dollard defined aggressiveness as “a predisposition to anger; indignation and the forcible removal of every hindrance or obstacle preventing the free exercise of any other tendency.
The essence of J. Dollard's theory is quite simple and lies in the fact that frustration always leads to aggression in some form and aggression is always the result of frustration. This theory is based on two assumptions:
Aggression is always the result and consequence of frustration;
Frustration always leads to aggression. Baron R., Richardson D. Aggression. -- St. Petersburg: Peter, 2001
It is assumed that frustration, defined as blocking or interfering with any purposeful behavior, provokes aggression (induces aggression), which, in turn, on the one hand, it is clear that frustrated individuals resort to verbal or physical attacks on others. . Rather, they demonstrate the full range of reactions to frustration: from humility and despondency to active attempts to overcome an obstacle in their path.
Empirical research shows that although frustration sometimes contributes to aggression, it does not happen as often.
Most psychologists believe that the connection between aggression and frustration is much less rigid than J. Dollard and N. Miller once assumed.
Miller, one of the first to form the theory of frustration - aggression, amended the first position: frustration generates various behaviors, and aggression is only one of them.
The assumption that aggression is always driven by frustration also goes too far. There is little doubt that aggression is the result of many factors other than frustration.
J. Dollard and N. Miller believed that the more the subject anticipates pleasure, the stronger the obstacle, and the more responses are blocked, the stronger will be the push to aggressive behavior. They also concluded that "the degree of delay in any act of aggression varies in direct proportion to the perceived severity of the punishment that may follow this act."
If an individual is warned against attacking the one who has frustrated him, having previously been intimidated by some kind of punishment, he will still tend to act aggressively. As a result, aggressive actions can take place, directed at a completely different person, the attack on which is associated with less punishment.
Miller proposed a special model to explain the emergence of displaced aggression - that is, those cases when individuals show aggression not towards their frustrators, but towards completely different people. The author suggested that in such cases the choice of victims by the aggressors is due to three factors:
The force of incitement to aggression;
The strength of the factors that inhibit this behavior;
· the stimulus similarity of each potential victim to the frustrating factor.
Miller believed that the barriers to aggression disappear more quickly than the incentive to such behavior as the similarity to the frustrated agent increases.
The most important factor for predicting the consequences of frustration and their intensity is the nature of the individual. For example, a glutton will be indignant if he does not get enough food, a greedy one becomes aggressive if he cannot bargain for something and buy it cheaply. The narcissistic person is frustrated if he does not receive the expected praise, recognition and admiration. So, it depends on the character of a person, firstly, what causes frustration in him and, secondly, how intensely he will react to frustration.
2.6 The theory of messages to aggression L. Berkowitz
L. Berkowitz made the most significant amendments to the theory of frustration - aggression. He argued that frustration is one of many different aversive stimuli that can only provoke aggressive reactions, but do not lead to aggressive behavior directly, but rather create a readiness for aggressive actions. Such behavior occurs only when there are appropriate messages to aggression - environmental stimuli associated with current or previous factors that provoke anger, or with aggression in general.
Rice. 2. Model of the theory of messages to aggression by L. Berkowitz
According to L. Berkowitz, stimuli acquire the property of provoking aggression, similar to the classical development of conditioned reflexes. The stimulus may acquire an aggressive meaning if it is associated with positively reinforced aggression or associated with previously experienced discomfort and pain. Berkowitz L. Aggression. Causes, consequences and control. SPb.-M., 2001.
Berkowitz argued that in highly frustrated individuals, the aggressive urge can only be weakened if the frustrator is harmed. Only successful attacks, accompanied by causing damage to the object of aggression, are able to weaken or completely eliminate the aggressive impulse.
2.7 A. Bandura's social learning theory
The theory of social learning proposed by A. Bandura is unique: aggression is considered here as a specific social behavior, which is acquired and maintained in much the same way as many other forms of social behavior.
According to Bandura, the analysis of aggressive behavior requires consideration of three points:
1. ways of mastering such actions;
2. factors provoking their appearance;
3. the conditions under which they are fixed.
Social learning theory considers aggression as a social behavior that includes actions "behind which are complex skills that require comprehensive learning." A. Bandura, Principles of Behavior Modification, Sofia, 1999
Aggression is acquired through biological factors and learning (observation, direct experience).
biological factors.
The performance of an aggressive action depends on the underlying neurophysiological mechanisms. Simply put, the nervous system is involved in the implementation of any action, including aggressive ones. However, the influence of these basic structures and processes is limited, neuropsychological mechanisms are activated depending on the appropriate stimulation, and are controlled by consciousness.
Learning
observation. Children and adults easily adopt aggressive reactions that are new to them, to which they were not previously predisposed, simply in the process of observing the behavior of other people. Of even greater significance are cases when people watch examples of aggression meet with approval or go unpunished - this often inspires such behavior.
Direct experience.
One of important ways the assimilation by a person of a wide range of aggressive reactions is a direct encouragement of such behavior. Receiving reinforcements for aggressive actions increases the likelihood that such actions will be repeated in the future.
Evidence for this effect has been obtained in many animal experiments. In these studies, animals received various types of reinforcement for aggressive behavior (water, food, etc.). Reinforced animals quickly acquired a pronounced propensity for aggressive behavior. However, in many cases of human learning, compared with learning in different animal species, among the positive factors leading to a noticeable increase in the tendency for aggressive behavior in adults and children include the receipt of material incentives (money, things, toys), social approval or higher status, as well as good attitude from other people.
According to the theory, aggression is provoked by the influence of patterns (excitation, attention), unacceptable treatment (attacks, frustrations), motives (money, admiration), instructions (orders), eccentric beliefs (paranoid ideas).
A. Bandura identified three types of rewards and punishments that regulate aggressive behavior.
• external rewards and punishments: for example, material rewards and punishments, public praise or censure and / or weakening or strengthening negative attitudes from others;
vicarious experience: for example, by providing the opportunity to observe how others are rewarded or punished;
Self-regulatory mechanism: for example, a person can assign rewards and punishments to himself.
2.8 Cognitive theories
2.8.1 Cognitive theory by D. Silmann
Despite a more preferable interpretation of arousal and cognitive processes as independently influencing aggressive behavior, Silmann argued that “cognition and arousal are closely interconnected; they influence each other throughout the process of experiencing painful experiences and behaviors.”
Thus, he quite clearly pointed out the specificity of the role of cognitive processes in strengthening and weakening emotional aggressive reactions and the role of excitation in the cognitive mediation of behavior. He emphasized that regardless of the moment of its appearance (before or after nervous tension) comprehension of the event can probably influence the degree of arousal. If the person's mind tells him that the danger is real, or the individual is obsessed with the threat and contemplating his subsequent revenge, then he will retain a high level of arousal. On the other hand, the extinction of arousal is the most likely consequence of the fact that, having analyzed the situation, the person found extenuating circumstances or felt a decrease in danger.
Similarly, arousal can influence the process of cognition. D. Silmann argued that at very high levels of arousal, a decrease in the ability for cognitive activity can lead to impulsive behavior. In the case of aggression, the impulsive action will be aggressive for the reason that the disintegration of the cognitive process will interfere with the inhibition of aggression. Thus, when failures occur in the cognitive process that provides the ability to suppress aggression, a person is likely to react impulsively (that is, aggressively). Under what Silmann describes as a "rather narrow range" of moderate arousal, the aforementioned complex cognitive processes will unfold in the direction of less aggressive responses.
Rice. 3. Model of aggressive behavior by D. Silmann. Baron R., Richardson D. Aggression. -- St. Petersburg: Peter, 2001
2.8.2 Model of formation of new cognitive connections by L. Berkowitz
In his later works, L. Berkowitz revised his original theory, shifting the emphasis from messages to aggression to emotional and cognitive processes, and thereby emphasizing that it is the latter that underlie the relationship between frustration and aggression.
In accordance with his model of the formation of new cognitive connections, frustration or other aversive stimuli (for example, pain, unpleasant odors, heat) provoke aggressive reactions through the formation of negative affect.
L. Berkowitz argued that "obstacles provoke aggression only to the extent that they create a negative affect." Blocking the achievement of the goal, therefore, will not prompt aggression unless it is experienced as an unpleasant event. In turn, how the individual himself interprets the negative impact determines his response to this impact.
As revised in 1989, Berkowitz's theory states that aggressive messages are not at all a prerequisite for the emergence of an aggressive reaction. Rather, they only "intensify the aggressive reaction to the presence of some barrier that prevents the achievement of the goal." He also provided evidence that an individual who has been provoked into aggression (that is, he explains his negative feelings as anger) may become more receptive and more likely to respond to cues to aggression. So, although aggression may appear in the absence of situational factors stimulating it, a frustrated person will still pay attention to these stimuli more often, and they are likely to increase his aggressive reaction.
Chapter 3
3.1 Formation of aggressive behavior
Children learn about patterns of aggressive behavior from three main sources:
· Family - can simultaneously demonstrate models of aggressive behavior and provide its reinforcement.
· Peers - learn aggression when interacting with them, learning about the benefits of aggressive behavior during games.
· Mass media - learn aggressive reactions on the symbolic examples of mass media.
3.1.2 Family relationships
It is in the family that the child undergoes primary socialization. On the example of relationships between family members, he learns to interact with other people, learns the behavior and forms of relationships that he will retain in his adolescence and adulthood. Parents' reactions to the child's misbehavior, the nature of relations between parents and children, the level of family harmony or disharmony, the nature of relations with siblings - these are the factors that can predetermine the child's aggressive behavior in the family and outside it, as well as influence his relationship with surrounding in adulthood.
Negative relationships in the pair "parents - child" are strongly affected. If children have a bad relationship with one or both parents, if they feel that they are considered worthless, or do not feel parental support, they will turn on other children; peers will not perceive them; will behave aggressively towards their parents.
A child's relationship with a sibling is fundamental to learning aggressive behavior.
Children show more physical or verbal aggression against a brother or sister than against all other children with whom they associate.
The study of the relationship between family leadership practices and aggressive behavior in children has focused on the nature and severity of punishments, as well as parental control of children's behavior. In general, it was found that cruel punishments are associated with a relatively high level of aggressiveness in children, and insufficient control and supervision of children correlates with a high level of asociality, often accompanied by aggressive behavior.
Eron and others found that children who were severely punished were characterized by their peers as more aggressive.
Patterson and his colleagues found that two dimensions of family leadership - control (the degree of guardianship and awareness of their children and consistency (constancy in the requirements and methods of discipline) are associated with his personal assessment of his own lifestyle in relation to social norms. At the same time, sons parents who did not monitor their behavior and were consistent in punishment, as a rule, behaved antisocially.
Associated with child aggression are:
mother's negativism - hostility, alienation, indifference of the child;
Tolerant attitude of the mother to the child's manifestation of aggression towards peers or family members;
The use of forceful disciplinary methods by parents - physical punishments, threats, scandals;
The temperament of the child - the level of activity and short temper.
The use of physical punishment as a means of raising children in the process of socialization hides a number of specific "dangers". First, parents who punish their children may actually be an example of aggressiveness for them. In such cases, punishment can provoke aggressiveness in the future. The child learns that physical aggression is a means of influencing people and controlling us, and will resort to it when communicating with other children.
Second, children who are punished too often will tend to avoid or resist their parents.
Third, if punishment is too exciting and frustrating for children, they may forget the reason for such actions. That is, the child will remember only about the pain inflicted on him, and not about learning the rules of acceptable behavior.
3.1.2 Peer relationships
Playing with peers gives children the opportunity to learn aggressive responses (such as throwing fists or insults).
There is evidence that children who attend preschool regularly are more aggressive than children who attend less often.
Aggressive children are not liked by their peers and are often labeled as "the most unpleasant". Such children exhibit social behavior such as verbal (threats, swearing), physical (hitting, kicking), causing hostility.
The researchers found that students with high levels of aggression were named as their best friends by the same number of peers as those who were less aggressive. As expected, aggressive children tend to associate with equally aggressive peers.
One of the classic discoveries social psychology- the fact that people are often strongly influenced by the actions or words of others. Such learning behavior plays an important role in explaining the effects of examples of violent behavior.
An individual who observes the aggressive action of others can often radically reconsider the restrictions he himself had previously set for such behavior, arguing that if others show aggression with impunity, then the same thing is permissible for him. This inhibition-removal effect can increase the likelihood of the onlooker's aggressive actions, moreover, constant observation of scenes of violence contributes to the gradual loss of emotional susceptibility to aggression and signs of someone else's pain.
People who frequently observe violence tend to expect it and perceive the world as hostile towards them.
Experiments lead to the same conclusion: children who observe aggression in adults tend to behave aggressively in relationships with others.
3.1.3 Models of aggression in the media
In a study of popular television programs, two out of every three programs were found to contain violence (“acts of physical coercion accompanied by the threat of being beaten or killed”). Where does this lead? By the end high school a child watches about 8,000 murder scenes and 100,000 other violent acts on television.
Since the beginning of the television era, the number of violent crimes has increased several times faster than the population. Defenders argue that the epidemic of violence is the result of many factors. The controversy continues to this day.
The more violence in the transmission, the more aggressive the child. This connection is moderately expressed, but it is gradually found in different countries.
Studying the boys, the researchers concluded that, in contrast to those who watched a small number of programs containing scenes of violence, those who watched more of them committed almost twice as many offenses during the last six months. This gave grounds to believe that the "inveterate" deviation in behavior really occurs due to television.
Iron and Huisman found that men in their thirties who watched a lot of "cool" TV shows as children were more likely to commit serious crimes.
The conclusion of some researchers is as follows; watching films containing antisocial scenes is strongly associated with antisocial behavior. This influence is not very strong; in fact, it is sometimes so mild that some critics doubt its existence. Moreover, aggression in experiments is more likely to be at the level of pushing each other, an insulting remark. But one cannot help but conclude that watching scenes of violence increases general level violence. Rather, it is about the fact that television is one of the reasons.
Surveys conducted among adolescents and adults showed that "inveterate" viewers (four hours a day or more) more often than indulging indulgence (two hours or less) exaggerated the degree of violence that exists in the world around them and feared that they would be attacked .
3.2 Biological factors of aggression
genetic influences.
People with similar biological characteristics behave in similar ways. That is, if people have the same genes, and show the same features in behavior, such behavior can be considered hereditary.
Heredity affects sensitivity nervous system to aggressors. Our temperament - how receptive and reactive we are - is partly given to us from birth and depends on the reactivity of our sympathetic nervous system.
Nervous system
Aggression is a complex behavioral complex, and therefore it is impossible to talk about the existence of a clearly localized "center of aggression" in the human brain. However, in both animals and humans, scientists have found parts of the nervous system responsible for the manifestation of aggression. With the activation of these brain structures, hostility increases; deactivating them leads to a decrease in hostility. Therefore, even the most meek animals can be enraged, and the most ferocious can be tamed.
Biochemical factors
The chemical composition of the blood is another factor that affects the sensitivity of the nervous system to the stimulation of aggression. Laboratory experiments say that those who are intoxicated are much easier to provoke aggressive behavior. People who commit violence often:
1) abuse alcohol;
2) become aggressive after intoxication.
In the real world, almost half of the crimes associated with violence, including sexual violence, are committed under the influence of alcohol.
Aggression is also influenced by the male sex hormone testosterone. Drugs that lower testosterone levels in men who are prone to violence weaken their aggressive tendencies. After the age of 25, the level of testosterone in the blood of a man decreases, and with it the number of "violent" crimes among men of the corresponding age.
Among other sources of aggressive behavior, low levels of the neurotransmitter serotonin, a deficiency of which is also noted in people suffering from depression, are suggested. Among humans and primates, low levels of serotonin are found in violent individuals. Moreover, artificially lowering the level of serotonin in the course of laboratory experiments makes the subjects more aggressive in response to provocative phenomena (in particular, they are more willing to “punish” another subject with an electric shock).
It is important to keep in mind that there is a two-way relationship between testosterone and serotonin levels and behavior. For example, high testosterone levels contribute to the development of personality traits such as dominance and aggressiveness. On the other hand, aggressive behavior increases testosterone levels. Serotonin levels drop in people whose position in society has suddenly changed for the worse.
3.3 External determinants of aggression
Researchers have found that individuals of a wide variety of animals, subjected to pain, show more cruelty to each other than the pain sensations caused in them. Also in humans, pain increases aggressiveness. Berkowitz concluded that aversive stimulation rather than frustration is the main trigger for hostile aggression. Any aversive event, be it an unfulfilled expectation, a personal insult, or physical pain, can lead to an emotional outburst. Berkowitz L. Aggression. Causes, consequences and control. SPb.-M., 2001.
Climate change can affect behavior. Disgusting smells, tobacco smoke, air pollution can all be linked to aggressive behavior. But the most studied is the heat.
The riots took place on hot days rather than on cold days. The greatest number of violent crimes is committed not only on hot days, but also in the hot season, especially in those years when the summer is especially hot. Drivers of non-air-conditioned vehicles are more likely to honk at slower vehicles.
Attacking behavior
The attacking behavior of another person, such as the deliberate infliction of pain or an offensive act, is a particularly strong causative agent of aggression. The most common principle is “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth”.
Cramped-subjective feeling of lack of space is also a stress factor.
The state of stress experienced by animals in an overcrowded confined space increases the level of aggressiveness. Likewise, people in densely populated big cities experience more crime and people there experience more emotional distress.
Excitation
Studies have shown conclusively that arousal does indeed enhance emotions.
Sexual arousal and other types, such as anger, can reinforce each other. Based on laboratory experiments, it has been found that erotic stimuli act more excitingly on those people who have just experienced a fright.
Frustration, heat, tightness, insult increase arousal. However, arousal combined with hostile thoughts and feelings can lead to aggressive behavior.
3.4 Social determinants of aggression
Allocate such social determinants as frustrations; physical and verbal provocations of others; moments of incitement from others
frustration
The level and unpredictability of frustration give rise to negative emotions, the presence of which L. Berkowitz considers necessary for the emergence of aggressive intentions. Messages to aggression can strengthen (or suppress) the impulse to aggression. Whether frustration will lead to aggression or not depends on the individual's interpretation of a variety of situational factors (such as the intensity of frustration and aggression-related stimulants) and on his emotional response to them.
Physical and verbal provocations of others
Provocative Attacks: Direct provocation, whether verbal or physical, often elicits an aggressive response. According to the study of O "Leary and Dangerink, people respond in the same way to a provocation from the outside, almost all the subjects adhered to the principle of "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth", even a little, not yielding to their opponent.
The gender of the aggressor also affects the manifestation of aggression. Experiments have shown that women are less likely to be physically assaulted than men. Richardson, Vandenberg and Humphreys conducted an experiment, the results of which revealed that women cause less aggressiveness, as they are perceived as less threatening than men. In an experiment designed to identify factors that increase the likelihood of male aggression against women, Richardson, Leonard, Taylor and Hammock proved that there is no reason to believe that women are less aggressive than men. Fear is one of many factors that overwhelm the supposed deterrent to not harming a woman.
Similar Documents
The concept of socio-psychological status, aggression and aggressive behavior. Psychological features of aggressive behavior in adolescence and its causes. The meaning of status for a teenager and its impact on relationships with peers.
term paper, added 02/18/2011
Theoretical aspects of studying the characteristics of aggressive behavior of adolescents in domestic and foreign psychology. Definition and essence of aggressive behavior. Formation and assimilation of aggressive behavior by a person. Analysis of the obtained results.
term paper, added 08/01/2010
The problem of aggressive behavior of a teenager in modern psychology. The concept of aggressiveness, temperament. Factors influencing the aggressive behavior of adolescents. Empirical study of the relationship of aggressive behavior with temperament. Research methods.
laboratory work, added 10/14/2008
Theories of the emergence of aggressive behavior. Definition of aggression and aggressiveness, classification of types of aggressive behavior. Causes of aggression in childhood. The role of the family in the occurrence of aggressive behavior of the child, prevention of its manifestation.
term paper, added 08/16/2011
The concept and types of aggression. Causes of aggressive behavior and the influence of education on its formation. Empirical study of gender characteristics of students' aggressive behavior in conflict situations: features of the sample, plan and research methods.
term paper, added 01/30/2013
Essential characteristics of aggressiveness: concept, theories, types. Peculiarities of aggressive behavior in children. Psychological and pedagogical characteristics of the status of a pupil of an orphanage. An empirical study of the determinants of aggressive behavior in children.
thesis, added 06/26/2011
Analysis of the psychological aspect of aggressive behavior in children. The main features of younger adolescence and their influence on the emergence of aggressive behavior. Experimental study of students' aggressiveness during practice.
thesis, added 05/20/2015
The phenomenon of aggression in psychology. The role of the family in shaping the aggressive behavior of children. Characteristics of children from incomplete families. The study of aggressive behavior of younger students. Theory of social learning. Cognitive models of aggressive behavior.
term paper, added 08/31/2010
The relevance of the problem of child aggressiveness. The concept of "aggressive behavior". The specificity of the manifestation of aggressive behavior in the middle preschool age. Analysis of existing programs aimed at correcting the aggressive behavior of a preschooler.
term paper, added 03/09/2011
The problem of aggression modern world. Theoretical aspects of socio-psychological prevention of aggressive behavior in adolescents. Analysis of the psychological characteristics of adolescence. The concept, methods and forms of correction of aggressive behavior.
In recent decades, the problem of violent, aggressive behavior has become the object of the widest scientific, practical and everyday interest. The number of studies pertaining to this problem is growing much faster than on any issue in the social sciences.
Almost any work, one way or another connected with the problem of violence and aggression, begins with an attempt to define the phenomenon under study in order to at least approximately outline the range of problems with which this work deals. Thus, every time we study this or that work devoted to the problem of aggression, violence and aggressiveness, we are faced with a certain, sometimes even new understanding and definition of these concepts for us. All this is due to the extreme volume of the concepts of "violence" and "aggression", covering a huge range of behavioral reactions. The terms "aggression", "violence", "destruction" are widely used both in everyday language practice and in social and behavioral sciences. Although many researchers attempt to formulate precise definitions, the problems and differences of opinion about the terminology used are extremely wide.
One of the main shortcomings of the studies of aggression and violence is that these concepts are not sufficiently disclosed in terms of content and therefore are often mixed up and act as synonymous. Meanwhile, the breeding of these concepts is absolutely necessary to deepen the understanding of each of them.
The variety of interpretations and cases of using the concept of aggression can be associated and explained by the presence of a wide range of specialists, each of whom considers aggression as part of his subject area. The problems of aggression are widely studied outside of psychology by anthropology, sociology, criminology, pedagogy, ethics, legal sciences, and political science. Each of these disciplines has its own approach to the understanding and conceptualization of aggression, uses its own system of concepts, often not taking into account the solution of such problems in related fields of knowledge, which inevitably leads to a number of terminological differences, and often to confusion.
An analysis of the approaches to understanding aggression that exist in modern psychology allows us to distinguish three aspects - behavioral, taking into account which makes it possible to operationalize the definition of aggression (number of strokes, speech activity, number of murders, etc.), motivational and emotional (for example, hatred, anger, disgust ). The latter not only plays an important role in determining aggressive actions, but also determines their duration and intensity.
Currently, many domestic psychologists use the definition proposed by R. Baron and D. Richardson: "... aggression is any form of behavior aimed at insulting or harming another living being who does not want such treatment." This definition limits the scope of the study of aggression, because it leaves many phenomena outside it, primarily all manifestations of auto-aggression.
A common shortcoming of most definitions is that they lack a description of the social context of aggressive behavior, usually associated to some extent with the violation of social norms.
Nowadays, the idea of aggression as motivated external actions that violate the norms and rules of coexistence, causing harm, causing pain and suffering to people is increasingly asserted. We believe that aggression can be called purposeful destructive behavior that violates the norms and rules of coexistence of people in society, harming the objects of attack (animate or inanimate), causing physical damage to people or causing them psychological discomfort (negative experiences, states of tension, fear, depression and etc.).
Many researchers separate the concepts of aggression as a specific form of behavior and aggressiveness as a mental property of a person. Aggression is interpreted as a process that has a specific function and organization, while aggressiveness is seen as a structure that is a component of a more complex structure of the human psyche.
Traditionally, aggressiveness as a personality trait is attributed to people in whose behavior aggressive actions are relatively often observed. Thus, the presence of this property is derived not from an analysis of the structure of the personality, the characteristics of its orientation and other psychological components of the need-motivational complex, but from the observed behavior of a person. An unambiguous relationship between personality traits and behavior is established, as a result of which aggression and aggressiveness are explained from the standpoint of a one-factor theoretical model.
Attempts to overcome this one-sidedness lead to the identification of an increasing number of factors influencing the manifestation of aggression. Great difficulties also arise when answering the question why people with the same level of aggressiveness (revealed during testing) differ greatly in the frequency and intensity of manifestations of aggression in real behavior.
An analysis of the psychological literature shows that aggressive behavior is most often considered by researchers as one of the forms of a person's response to various physically and mentally unfavorable life situations that cause stress, frustration and other similar conditions, expressed in an attack on a direct source of tension or an object that replaces it. . In any of these cases, the purpose of the attack psychologically is to seek a release of internal mental tension caused by stress.
Depending on the degree of awareness of the situation of mental tension, three main forms of aggressive behavior are possible:
- 1) the subject is aware of the source of tension and directly attacks him;
- 2) the subject is aware of what caused his tension, but, not being able to attack him directly for one reason or another, he looks for an object, an attack on which would give relaxation;
- 3) the subject does not realize where the source of tension is, and attacks the object available to him.
In this case, aggression can act as one of the forms of protecting the "I" and be the main way to solve problems related to control and maintaining a sense of self-worth (often distorted, misunderstood, overestimated), as it is an action that can bring immediate results. . The ability, through the use of force, to force the enemy to perform actions that are undesirable for him confirms control over the environment, and also maintains or increases a sense of one's own value. Considering that the assessment of one's own value depends on comparing one's own position with the position of other people on the subjective scale of values, it can be concluded that even symbolic aggression, not to mention its other types, can protect against troubles associated with a comparative decrease in one's own status.
Aggression, in contrast to its traditional understanding as a personal property, is considered by us as some complex psychological formation that determines, directs and ensures the implementation of aggressive behavior. The proposed approach to understanding aggressiveness as a special psychological formation allows, in our opinion, to identify the role, significance and limits of influence of its various components in the variety of forms and manifestations of aggression, since aggressive behavior, apparently, is an integral result of the interaction of various aspects of human individuality. aggressive behavior hostility anger
Aggressiveness is considered by us as a complex personality formation, which includes interrelated elements of both the emotional-volitional and value-normative spheres. The role and influence on aggressive behavior of such properties and states of the emotional-volitional sphere as anxiety, emotional lability, self-control and others is beyond doubt and is the object of numerous studies. To date, little attention has been paid to the study of the relationship between the value-normative sphere and aggressive behavior; in fact, it is just beginning.
Although the predominant meaning of violence is "coercion", the scope of this concept includes such terms as "management", "bosses", "authority", "authority". Up to the present day, the concept of violence has been assigned opposite meanings, which can be found in various attempts to legitimize violence. Some find it acceptable only as retaliatory violence, others do not consider violence unfair.
Violence as coercion is the actualization of possibilities, but those that are contrary to the one who suffers. In this sense, violence is destructive.
With this understanding of violence, it ceases to be simply identified with power and force and acquires a more specific and strict meaning. This makes it possible to distinguish violence as a certain form of social relations: a) from such human properties as aggressiveness, dominance; b) from other forms of coercion that exist in society, in particular paternalistic and legal.
Thus, the central content element in the interpretation of the concept of violence is coercion, always carried out through the impact on the human psyche by means that encroach on his physical or spiritual well-being. In almost all of these definitions, violence is understood as the use of force, resulting in damage to basic human needs or even life in general, lowering the level of their satisfaction below the potential. However, the threat of violence is also violence.
J. Galtung singled out three forms of violence: direct, structural and cultural. The most obvious and accessible for empirical observation is direct violence with all kinds of cruelty shown by people to each other, other forms of life and nature in general. Direct violence manifests itself in the following forms: a) murder; b) bodily injury, blockade, sanctions, poverty;
- c) desocialization from one's own culture and resocialization into another culture (for example, the prohibition of the native language and the imposition of another), treating people as second-class citizens;
- d) repression, detention, exile.
Structural violence, according to J. Galtung, can be: a) exploitation of type A, when subordinates can be so disadvantaged that they die of hunger and disease; b) Type B exploitation, where subordinates may find themselves in a state of permanent poverty characterized by malnutrition and disease; c) penetration into consciousness, limitation of information; d) marginalization, disunity. The concept of structural violence does not include actors who cause damage by acting by force. It is equivalent to social injustice.
Under cultural violence, J. Galtung proposes to consider those aspects of culture, the symbolic sphere of our existence, represented by religion and ideology, language and art, empirical and formal science (logic and mathematics), which can be used to justify and legitimize direct and structural violence. Cultural violence leads to the fact that direct and structural violence begin to look and be perceived as a fair or, in any case, not a bad thing. The study of cultural violence sheds light on how the act of direct violence and the fact of structural violence are legitimized and thus made acceptable in society.
The analysis and study of the manifestations of various forms of violence primarily concerns two problems: the use of violence and the legitimization of this use.
Most of the values that function in modern society contribute to the fact that aggression and violence are actively manifested and reproduced in society. This primarily has to do with values relating to status, property, age relations, and creating the basis for strong social tensions experienced by a large number of members of society. This is especially noticeable in modernizing countries, where a large number of people, explicitly or implicitly, are involved in the process of redistribution of resources and statuses. Such a state of society contributes to the fact that direct and structural violence manifests itself either as an attempt by the subordinates to break out, equalize the situation, redistribute wealth, take revenge, achieve revenge, or as the actions of people who want to maintain or improve their status. People who feel humiliated, squeezed, suppressed and lost, begin to use direct violence to free themselves, change their situation and, accordingly, counter-violence - to maintain the existing situation, that is, violence breeds violence.
Numerous studies have shown that the increase in violent actions in society is closely related to large and abrupt social changes (for example, the modernization of the country) and the resulting disruption of the traditional organization of society, which force people to pay attention to their individual problems.
The feeling (not always conscious and objective) of the impossibility of satisfying one's needs increases the likelihood that various forms of direct violence become the most likely reaction. But this is not the only reaction, as feelings of hopelessness, frustrations, deprivation syndromes can arise, which manifest themselves as inward-directed aggression, and outwardly as apathy and withdrawal.
In many studies that do not take into account the specific historical roots of social phenomena, the concepts of aggression and "violence" are confused, aggressive, violent actions of an individual nature, including criminal ones, are identified with manifestations of socio-political violence, despite the fact that they have different nature and are determined by completely different causes and conditions. A significant drawback of a number of theoretical concepts of violence is that any manifestations of violence are considered as phenomena of the same order.
It should be noted that in domestic practice, violence is most often considered from a legal point of view, therefore, the legal definition of violence is based on its illegality and public danger. The definitions of violence in the criminal law literature reflect only a part of the manifestations of violence considered by criminology.
For many years, such concepts as "aggression", "aggressiveness", "anger", "hostility" did not have a clear differentiation. At the same time, the very concept of hostility was not differentiated from emotional and behavioral states. In addition, the studies were not clear on the definition of the hostility construct, and as a result, methods were used that were often inadequate for the purpose of measuring hostility.
A. Bass (1961) tried to differentiate the concepts of "aggression", "hostility" and "anger", which marked the beginning of a new direction in the study of hostility, which modern psychologists and clinicians rely on. Hostility was understood by him as a long-term, stable negative attitude or rating system applied to surrounding people, objects and phenomena. Thus, according to A. Bass, hostility corresponds to the cognitive component of the psyche along with anger and aggression, which are emotional and behavioral components, respectively. Attributing hostility to the number of cognitive variables is not entirely fair, since hostility and hostility also imply an emotional assessment.
Another understanding of hostility was given by J. Berifut (1992), who considered hostility as an antagonistic attitude towards people, including cognitive, affective and behavioral components. The affective component is made up of interrelated emotions: anger, irritation, resentment, contempt, indignation, disgust, etc. The cognitive component is represented by negative beliefs about human nature in general (cynicism) and beliefs in the hostility of other people towards the subject himself (hostile attributions). distrust, suspicion). Finally, the behavioral component combines various forms of manifestation of hostility in behavior, often disguised: aggression, negativism, unwillingness to cooperate, avoidance of communication, etc. Thus, J. Berifut considers hostility as a complex formation that includes anger and aggression as behavioral and emotional correlates of hostility, which act as its external indicators. The most valuable thing in the scientist's approach is that he went beyond the triad "hostility-anger-aggression" and described a fairly wide range of behavioral and emotional correlates of hostility. Understanding that hostility does not always lead to aggression, but instead of anger, it can be accompanied by other emotional experiences, opens up the possibility of an independent, to a certain extent, isolated study of hostility.
V.N. Myasishchev, developing the category "attitude", notes that hostility is formed in the process of interaction with its object and then sets the bias in the perception of new objects. Thus, he refers hostility to emotional relationships, delimiting it from emotions proper and other forms of relationships, such as interests, moral and aesthetic convictions.
Hostility can be generalized to varying degrees. Separate selective negative attitudes towards someone or something are characteristic of most people. Moreover, a person's complete absence of hostile relationships seems to reflect a certain personality dysfunction or personality immaturity and is not conducive to adaptation. On the other hand, a hostile attitude can be inadequately generalized, to the extent that a person perceives any objects or influences from the outside as negative, unpleasant, undesirable, etc. In such cases of generalization of a hostile attitude, it makes sense to talk about a hostile picture of the world, which, under certain circumstances, can acquire the character of a pathology (for example, paranoid delusions). With a high level of hostility, a person tends to attribute negative qualities to other objects and phenomena. Characterizing a person as hostile, we mean the following: a) hostility prevails in his system of already established relations; b) the probability of forming a negative attitude towards new objects is generally higher than the probability of forming a positive one, that is, there is a certain bias. Hostility is characterized by a number of properties: the degree of awareness, qualitative specifics, the degree of stability. It should be emphasized that these properties are closely related to the level of hostility generalization. For example, the more specific the hostile attitude, the less stable it is. On the contrary, generalized hostility (a hostile picture of the world) is resistant to change.
Hostility as a psychological attitude is not actually observed directly in the behavior of the individual, although it finds numerous manifestations in various mental processes and phenomena. The study of the sphere of personality relations, and in particular of hostility, thus presents a methodological problem.
Therefore, it is necessary to pay attention to mental phenomena through which hostility can manifest itself, especially those whose connection with hostility is not obvious. As J. Berifut notes, in addition to anger, the range of "hostile emotions" includes irritation, resentment, contempt, disgust, disappointment, etc. One or another form of emotional manifestations of hostility also strongly depends on the qualitative specifics of hostility and its other parameters. So, contempt involves devaluing the object and attributing to it some "unworthy" qualities, such as cowardice (these qualities in each case depend on the person's value system). Fear, as a rule, is associated with an assessment of the object as strong, dangerous, aggressive, etc. It is obvious that anxiety can also become a consequence of hostility.
The connection between anxiety and hostility is indicated by the data of a number of studies conducted on patients with anxiety-phobic disorders. Hostility in the structure of depressive disorders has a certain specificity, since the question remains of what or who is the object of hostility of depressive patients. According to a common belief, in depressive patients, hostility is directed primarily at oneself, which is expressed in ideas of self-blame. Suicidal tendencies in depression are also explained by a hostile attitude towards oneself, considering them as auto-aggression. Within the framework of this approach, it is assumed that hostility towards other people is not typical for depressed patients.
At the same time, according to clinical observations, depressed patients, among other things, are irritable, touchy, and often verbally aggressive, on the basis of which some researchers conclude that they have hostile attitudes towards people around them. This, however, does not contradict the approach described above. On the contrary, it was found that the hostile attitude towards oneself and others has a single nature. Apparently, in depression, hostility towards one's own Self, other people, as well as generalized impersonal hostility in the form of a sense of injustice, hostility of the surrounding world, and a negative assessment of the subjective future are intertwined in a complex way.
Hostility is most clearly manifested in interpersonal interactions. At the same time, the specific form of manifestations of hostility in the process of communication depends on many factors. For example, a negative attitude towards others can be expressed in unwillingness to compromise, inability to cooperate, avoidance of close interpersonal relationships or social contacts in general, and even in the desire to do independently work that would be better entrusted to others. A striking example is racial, ethnic and other prejudices. Being inherently a form of hostility, they do not always become the cause of aggressive actions against the corresponding objects. In this sense, physical or verbal aggression are only particular variants of the manifestation of hostility in social behavior.
As already noted, for a long time in psychology the view was preserved, according to which the categories of anger and aggression were not separated and were sometimes used as synonyms, without a clear operationalization.
The term "anger" in psychology usually refers to an emotional state characterized by varying intensity - from mild irritation to rage. The concept of "anger" is used to describe an emotional state that is intrapersonal in nature. Anger in modern studies is considered in different ways: within the framework of the triad "hostility-anger-aggression", in the dichotomy "anger as a character trait - anger as a state".
Given the role of cognitive processing in the emergence of anger and its connection with motivation, it is apparently impossible to speak with full right about the exclusively emotional nature of this experience.
Carried out by K. Izard, the analysis of anger as one of the basic emotions allowed him to identify the following reasons for it: restriction or interruption of purposeful activity, unpleasant stimulation, being deluded or experiencing unfair resentment, as well as indignation at the inconsistency of the behavior of others with their own moral ideals. He sees anger as an adaptive emotion that interacts with feelings such as disgust and contempt. Anger mobilizes energy, and its presence can be justified if viewed as an appropriate defense against arrogance.
R. Lazarus's approach to anger is much more complete than other theorists of emotions, and is presented in his cognitive-motivational theory. He characterizes anger (as well as other negative emotions) as the result of resentment, loss, or threat, while the source (features of the situation, another person, etc.) is external to the subject. For an angry person, the main point is that, regardless of who caused the negative experiences, the subject himself, depending on his own desires, could maintain control over anger or not.
The issue of primary importance for a person, according to R. Lazarus, is the safety of his self-identity, and any attack on it can induce anger, the severity of which will depend on personal characteristics and recent experience of humiliation. Anger arises when self-esteem or the evaluation of others is threatened. However, anger can be easily changed under the influence of cognitive coping processes.
From the position of R. Lazarus, anger includes such an assessment of the situation, which suggests that the best resolution of the attack situation is an attack. Moreover, if the person expects the attack to provide a successful resolution, then the likelihood of anger arising increases.
R. Lazarus argues that there is often a ban on anger, especially in cases where strong retribution can follow its expression. He believes that manifest anger can be both beneficial and dangerous, but uncontrolled anger is equally unproductive and detrimental to physical health.
The most complete consideration of anger and aggression was J. Everill, who views anger as an antisocial, negative and very common phenomenon. He argues that at an interpersonal level, consideration of the problem of anger involves the inclusion of the fact of violation of socially accepted norms of behavior and the presence of a goal to take revenge, or at least punish the person who committed it. Typically, biological factors are characterized by a lack or lack of control over anger. The goal of society is to try to create rules for experiencing and expressing anger in accordance with maximizing its benefits and minimizing its losses.
J. Everill argues that anger is a common phenomenon, and its main target is a friend, acquaintance or loved one. Very rarely the target is an unfamiliar or disliked acquaintance. The purpose of anger is to change the conditions that led to it. The cause of anger may be unjustified actions or an avoidable event. Interpretation of external influence and internal state is carried out by an individual on the basis of social norms and roles that are relevant in a given situation. Emotions are the possibilities of diverse actions that are adequate to the social context, expressing an individual's assessment of the significance of the situation that is relevant to him. However, one of the features of role-playing behavior included in emotional expression is the possibility of breaking the generally accepted norms of rational behavior. Thus, the experience of strong emotions allows the individual to relieve himself of responsibility for actions committed in such an "uncontrollable" state, that is, the experience of emotion allows the individual to move away from an undesirable social norm, for example, when angry or aggressive.
The problem of anger was considered in the light of the problem of the functionality of emotional phenomena in the framework of the discussion about such functions of emotions as motivating and disorganizing. Most models assume a two-way connection of emotional phenomena with a system of ideas and beliefs. According to the model of the syndrome, the presence of an associative network (including emotional and cognitive processes, motivation and corresponding activation of the body) leads to the fact that unpleasant experiences can cause anger or actualize the image of the enemy, regardless of their cause. At the same time, the presence of a feeling of anger only strengthens the tendency to act, and aggressive behavior can be blocked. In the model of cognitive adjustment, the main factor modulating emotional phenomena is the approach (removal) from the goal, and negative emotions, revealing the unfavorable situation, contribute to the necessary mobilization.
The disorganizing function of emotions is manifested in the violation of the expediency and social mediation of the individual's behavior. Insufficient attention to the issues of anger is due to the fact that it is an emotion focused on overcoming, and is experienced when confronted with obstacles that prevent the implementation of a feasible human activity. However, due to the fact that anger and rage (considered as the extreme manifestation of anger) can translate into purposeful actions, the attention of clinicians is shifted from emotions to behavioral manifestations.