|
Abstract
|
VioLit summary:
OBJECTIVE:
The intent of this article by Fehrenbach and Thelen was to identify the problems inherent in defining aggression, to explain the major theories of aggression, and then to examine three approaches to the treatment of aggressive disorders.
METHODOLOGY:
The authors employed a non-experimental design by reviewing research in the field of aggression and then explaining and classifying various methodological approaches to aggression.
FINDINGS/DISCUSSION:
After reviewing the literature, the authors determined that there was no generally accepted formal definition of aggression and no systematic classification of aggressive disorders. The only definition which seemed to hold any promise was Zillmann's (1979), which made a distinction between the four areas of aggression; hostility, threats of aggression or hostility, and expressive behavior. Zillmann noted that acts of aggression sought to inflict bodily damage or physical pain, while hostility sought to inflict other types of harm, a distinction that few other theorists made. Zillmann also noted that angry aggression was motivated by attitudes such as anger or annoyance, while instrumental aggression was geared toward obtaining extrinsic incentives such as money. The former was annoyance-motivated and the latter was incentive-motivated. Moving on to the major theoretical approaches to aggression, the authors discussed reinforcement theory, social learning theory and a three-factor theory of aggression. According to one reinforcement theory, drive theory, frustrated goal-directed activities produced an aggressive drive (Dollard et al, 1939). Although this theory posited that a cathartic discharge of the aggressive drive subsequently reduced the drive, Green and Quanty (1975) noted that aggressive acts served to reduce inhibitions regarding further aggression. Feshback added to drive theory by suggesting that improving self-esteem and power was the goal of aggression, not the production of pain or injury. Zillmann noted the distinction between drive theory and learning theory by stating that learning theory identified aggression as an act reinforced by primary and secondary reinforcers. Drive theory, however, stated that aggression produced its own rewards and reinforcements. As a proponent of social learning theory, Bandura (1973) suggested that aggressive behavior was learned not only through the rewards and punishments received directly, but also by witnessing the rewards and punishments experienced by others. Zillmann hypothesized a three-factor theory in which 1) cognitive faculties regulated aggressive 2) behaviors according to an individual's state of 3) physiological excitation. While the authors noted the heuristic value of Zillmann's theory, additional research was required to further assess it.
Specific treatment approaches to reinforcement theories included: 1) deceleration, in which the rewarding consequences for aggressive behaviors were removed while prosocial behaviors were increasingly rewarded; 2) extinction, in which aggressive behaviors were snuffed out because they were completely ignored; 3) time out (TO), in which subjects were simply removed from their environment and isolated during outbursts; 4) differential reinforcement of other behavior, in which reinforcing stimuli were presented if the targeted behavior was not displayed within a certain time period; 5) response cost which involved the loss of reinforcement contingent upon specific behaviors; 6) punishment, in which verbal and physical punishment were employed to discourage aggressive behaviors; and 7) overcorrection (or restitution treatment), which consisted of the removal of reinforcement for offenses, TO from positive reinforcement, and effort requirement. Specific methods for implementing reinforcement procedures included behavioral contracts and comprehensive retraining programs in which parents and other high contact individuals were educated to use learning principles and child management strategies. Because social learning theory posited that inappropriate behaviors resulted from the lack of exposure to positive interpersonal relations, this theory recommended the use of modeling and role-playing to encourage behavior change. In several studies, role-playing, modeling, instruction and feedback were applied together as part of a systematic treatment. According to the three-factor theory, incentive-motivated aggression was treated via the removal of positive reinforcements for the behavior, while annoyance-motivated aggression was treated by removing or preventing extreme annoyance (e.g., counter conditioning of anger and cognitive behavior therapy).
AUTHORS' RECOMMENDATIONS:
The authors concluded that because much of the research was not guided by theory-based hypotheses regarding aggression and hostility, specific applications for particular populations were not clear. They therefore suggested more specific, theory-based research regarding assessment, classification, and specific methods of treatment. One strategy for addressing these issues was to establish a well controlled, highly descriptive, single-subject experiment which addressed specific problem behaviors and treatments. The authors also cautioned against experiments that did not address the generalization of behaviors to the natural environment, those that did not control for the effects of observation on the subjects, and those that failed to assess long-term effects of treatment.
(CSPV Abstract - Copyright © 1992-2007 by the Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, Institute of Behavioral Science, Regents of the University of Colorado)
KW - Child Aggression
KW - Child Treatment
KW - Juvenile Aggression
KW - Juvenile Treatment
KW - Adult Aggression
KW - Adult Treatment
KW - Aggression Treatment
KW - Aggression Causes
KW - Behavior Modification
KW - Hostility Effects |