Essay On Social Theories Of Aggression

Many social psychologists agree that aggression can be defined as behaviour which intends to harm another person who does not want harm inflicted on them (Baron & Richardson, 1994; Bushman & Huesmann, 2010). This definition is all encompassing capturing the possible range of aggressive behaviours whilst excluding activities that can ‘hurt’ but to which the target of the hurt willingly consents and are therefore not considered aggressive due to this circumstance, for example, surgery. As aggression can be presented at differing levels and as result of this can range from the act of pushing someone over to domestic violence or even the extremities of terrorism. Therefore, as aggressive behaviour encompasses such a wide range of actions ranging

SLT describes the occurrence of aggression being due to observation and imitation (modelling). When a person observes aggressive behaviour, it is likely they will model their behaviour based on their observation especially if there is direct reinforcement, being rewarded for aggressive behaviour. This could be in the form of achieving the desired outcome or gaining social approval from being aggressive. Additionally, this theory poses that if an individual sees another person being rewarded for aggressive behaviours they will be more likely to imitate this behaviour. This is presented as especially the case if high character identification is present for the observer, then aggression is more likely to be displayed/imitated (Bandura, 1961, 1969; Konijn, Bijvank, & Bushman, 2007; Turner & Berkowitz,

It can said that although children are quick to replicate aggression with toys such as a doll, a distinction can be made by children that this is not morally right behaviour to inflict on another child. This therefore questions whether behaviour inflicted on a toy such as the Bobo doll can be used to predict or explain behaviour towards another living being. As Baron (1977) defines aggression as “Behaviour directed towards the goal of harming or injuring another living being who is motivated to avoid such treatment” (p.7). The aggressive acts conducted by the children on the doll fail to meet this definition, not being living or able to avoid the behaviour. As highlighted by Cumberbatch (1990) who notes that those who were unfamiliar with the doll were five times more likely to imitate the aggression they had previously observed than those who had familiarity with the doll. Therefore, a large proportion of the aggression displayed could be interpreted as playing or playfighting, rather than genuine aggression. However, following the criticism of the Bobo doll being made to hit, in one of