According to studies, there is no rigid definition for aggression nor inter-group aggression and therefore it is defined according to the correspondent's values. The behavior studied may differ from one researcher to another. Bandura (1973) defines aggression as behavior that results in personal injury or the injury of others in society and the destruction of property. On the other hand, Barron (1977) describes aggression as behavior that has the intention of harming or injuring other living beings who do not share the same intention, which could be referred to as intergroup aggression. Although there can be varied interpretations of aggression, Miller et al (1989) argue that all the definitions share a common ground of what aggression is; that is, they have all agreed through their findings that aggression is the intention to cause harm. This study of behavior has been looked at not only psychologically but through sources of sociology, biology, anthropology, history, and political science. Researchers have used different measures to try and operationalize aggression. Bandura et al (1967) did an experiment of the Bobo doll, and Finnema et al (1994) carried an interview in a mental hospital on how nurses characterized and perceived aggression according to the behavior of their patients. Geen (1978) did research on the verbal expression of how people were willing to use aggressive behavior and lastly Milgram's study provided a reason to why people are aggressive. Aggression comes in a different forms, Status Aggression being one of them. The Theory of Frustration-Aggression Hypothesis Dollard et al (1939) argue that aggressive behavior occurs when there is frustration and the existence of frustration always results in aggression. This, therefore, means that personal goals involve the arousal of psychic energy. The aim of this essay is to investigate and look at the different explanations of intergroup aggression.
Anti-Semitism in Germany in the 1920s and 30s can be regarded as an outcome of such psychic energy or personal goals by Hitler. The basis of the Frustration-Aggression Hypothesis is a psychodynamic explanation of catharsis which is a release of frustration building up to create aggression. When external factors prevent individuals from achieving their goals, it may cause frustration and aggression. The psychodynamic theory argues that individuals have defense mechanisms like sublimation which is using aggression where it is thought to be acceptable for instance wrestling. There is also displacement which is when we redirect our aggression to something else, also known as scapegoating. For instance, if a person is attacked by their boss at work, they take their frustration on someone else who is weaker because they are not capable of attacking their boss due to the consequences that may follow. In intergroup, the victims of scapegoats are usually the weaker groups against the powerful groups. Erickson (2017) in her paper; Intersectionality theory and Bosnian Roma: Understanding violence and displacement found that there is intersectionality in societies which allows some groups to be more vulnerable, marginalized, discriminated, and experience more violence than others. Victims of these groups are mainly women over men. According to Crenshaw (1989), intersectionality looks at different factors that stimulate aggression and violence. This includes race, class, and sex. This, therefore, means that intergroup aggression can occur due to the different backgrounds of citizens and the group in power.
In a study, Hovland and Sears (1940) correlated the economic prices of cotton and racial aggression on Black people. The research was conducted in the USA for over 50 years and in their results, Hovland and Sears found that when economic conditions were good the rate of lynching was low and when the economy was bad the lynchings were high. This, therefore, may mean that employers got frustrated due to lack of profit and took out their frustration on Black people and making Black people the victims of intergroup aggression. The growth of the cotton industry meant an increased demand for Black slaves. Nonetheless, this led to the rise of slave rebellion. Anna Freud (1936/1966) in her book The Ego and The Mechanisms of Defense argues that every individual has a defense mechanism. These are psychological mechanisms that we unconsciously use to defend us from unpleasant feelings and thoughts. There are 8 defense mechanisms that are commonly used. For the purpose of this discussion, Reaction Formation is relevant. This is when people behave in the opposite way to which they think is right. When Black people were exploited, they became more and more resistant and, in the end, became rebellious. However, it could be argued that they were ‘labeled' as rebellious as they went against the norms and values on White Americans although they were trying to free themselves from slavery. An example is The Anti-colonial and Anti-Slavery Haitian Revolution (1791) where slaves fought to protect their properties and they won over the French. In reaction to such revolutions, 1st world countries such as America passed different Acts that would allow them to the slave trade. For instance, the Fugitive Slave Act (1793) made it a crime to assist any Black slaves from escaping.
However, not all theorists agree to Frustration-Aggression Hypothesis. Berkowits (1960) did a revision of the Frustration-Aggression Hypothesis and established the Weapons Effect. Arguably frustration does not always result in aggression. Aggression is driven by the presence of cues such as weapons that are likely to activate aggression. Thus, it means the more intergroup are exposed to weapons the higher the likelihood of aggression occurring. For instance, The Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA) that allows Americans over 18 to purchase and sell guns could be the result of the increase in gangs and racism aggression in America.
There are different explanations to justify the presence of aggression in inter- groups in contemporary society. It could be suggested that an agent to intergroup aggression is obedience. This is seen through Milgram's study (1963) that suggested that under instructions and in the presence of authority, individuals can portray aggressive behavior towards each other. In Milgram's study, the individuals raised currency only when they were told to even if they felt it was wrong. These psychological explanations, therefore, explain that citizens sometimes portray aggressive behavior in order to show respect and that they are part of the group or society.
Intergroup aggression could be due to the lack of status, and status frustration. Citizens commit illegal acts or aggressive behavior towards each other in order to gain status and because they cannot take it out on the provocation. As discussed earlier, the other defense mechanism is displacement. Displacement is when someone behaves aggressively towards someone or something that had nothing to do with the conflict. Acts are also committed when the inner group may think it is beneficial and may help them gain status and respect amongst themselves and outsiders. Committing intergroup aggression is always a sign of displacement when citizens who are seen at the bottom of the graph are treated unfairly by those that hold power. Such aggression is seen in subcultures such as gangs. To explain intergroup aggression and displacement, Vásquez et al (2014) in their paper: Rumination and the Displacement of Aggression in United Kingdom Gang‐Affiliated Youth found that there is a three-way interaction between gangs, that is affiliation, gender, and rumination. Males had a high displacement of aggression towards innocent victims when there was the presence of rumination and affliction. Rumination contributed to the displacement of aggression and gang affiliation. Rumination remained the predictor of displacement aggression even after controlling trait of aggression, hostility, anger, and irritability. Miller and Bulgelski (1948) did a study on young men in a summer camp to investigate the effects of authority. Their results concluded that the attitudes of these young men deteriorated as a result of frustration toward minority groups.
At times individuals are bound to abide by orders because of power and hierarchies in the intergroup. The theory of social dominance (SDT) suggests that those with power in the society impose hierarchy-enhancing ideologies which those at the bottom must conform to. This type of aggression is mainly found in wars and the division of victims is mainly the aim. Those with power brainwash those who do not have the power to turn against each other so they can succeed. The Rwandan genocide (1994) can be used as an example of SDT. The Rwandans were all under the German colony. However, the Germans divided the Rwandans by imposing that the Hutu were better than the Tutsi. This was a success as it led to the genocide and approximately 800,000 Tutsis were killed. The Genocide is linked to SDT by that people may reject or accept discrimination and hierarchy. Those who want their social groups to be more dominant find ways to dominate outgroups. Inner groups dominate out groups by giving them less power (Duck 2006). Hiebert (2008) in their study: Theorizing Destruction: Reflections on the State of Comparative Genocide Theory looked at structures that trigger genocides, the causes, and the killings, and agrees that one of the main weapons of intergroup aggression is controlling power.
The other factor that could be used to describe intergroup aggression is the shift of gender roles. Traditionally men were seen to be more aggressive and more powerful than women. However, gender roles in mainly Western communities have shifted, women can now work and have equal rights to men. This, therefore, has also raised the number of women who are involved in crimes such as drug and alcohol abuse. Also, the empowerment of women has led to a rise in the unemployment rate. Hence, because most men are unemployed, men will experience status frustration and therefore this may lead to more criminal violence and intergroup aggression. A study carried by Borhart et al (2014); Perceptions of Aggression are Colored by Gender Roles found that there has been a rise in violence and aggression in women and also aggression seems to be mainly influenced by gender roles.
A cultural variation could be used to explain intergroup aggression. A society is made up of different cultures, therefore, aggression and violence are bound to happen. Cultures have different norms and values, and these are not universal and not always respected by other groups. Different societies have different beliefs, and these are not universal as well. For instance, some social groups believe in homosexuality and some don't. Severance et al (2013); The psychological structure of aggression across cultures argue that aggressive behavior within cultures is caused by intercultural conflicts. Not everyone shares the same culture, therefore, intergroup aggression within cultures could be a result of what one believes in and what the other thing is wrong. There are groups within cultures referred to as a subculture, and some of these are violence groups. Similarly, Toch (1969) looked at subcultural violence. Most societies with minority subcultures have violence as a lifestyle. Aggression and violence are usually the norms and values of these groups. Violence and aggression are rewarded when they take place and status are often achieved. These groups are labeled as gangs and sometimes even those that are not part of these groups respect those in the group as they are perceived to be more powerful. Also, Bond (2004) argues that men that are against social income equality, are nondemocratic, believe in the men warrior, and have been to war are more likely to be aggressive than those that have not. The reason for such intergroup aggression could be explained as exposure and observing. Aggression can be a learned behavior Bandura (1979), Bobo doll; when people are exposed to violence, they are likely to adopt those behaviors.
Berkowitz (1962) argues that aggression is a matter of cognitive abilities and memory caused by frustration. Memory is a collection of different stored networks that consist of nodes. These nods allow thoughts and feelings and connect them when we associate or socialize. When a thought comes to mind, it becomes active and we automatically react. This, therefore, means that these thoughts can be triggered by social agencies such as the media. For instance, if one watches violent television programs, it triggers other violent thoughts such as shooting or kicking, and this is an unconscious action. Feelings such as anger can trigger these thoughts, and this may lead to intergroup aggression. The higher the trigger the higher the level of aggression. On the other hand, Philips (1986) suggests that this could be a copy-cat-crime act suggesting that what the media portrays is what is done by society.
According to Oddone-Paolucci et al (2000), the exposure of men to pornography is linked to sexual harassment, sexual assault and deviancies, and rape myths. The effect of erotica on aggression depends on the erotica viewed. For instance, Baron (1979) and Ramirez et al (1983) suggests that if a person is exposed to mild erotica eg attractive nudes, it may result in distracting effect but lowers the chances of aggressive behavior. However, to some extent, being exposed to highly erotica such as violent pornography can result in high social aggression (Zillman 1996) and women are more likely to be the victims of aggression (Mullin and Linz, 1995). To explain this, it could be suggested that high erotica triggers the thoughts of wanting to experiment or express uncontrollable sexual desires. This may then result is intergroup aggression such as rape and sexually related crimes. Linz et al (1998) in their study found that women enjoyed violent pornography and men were willing to be aggressive against women. It could be therefore be argued that women enjoy sexual violence. Such act weakens social retrains against female violence and reinforce rape myths. On the other hand, Zillman and Bryant (1984) have argued against this view. They pointed out that pornography portrays women as socially irresponsible, careless, and hyper-promiscuous. The feminist perspective has a few concerns that are violence will lead men to become insensitive and brutal against female victims and that exposure to pornography may lead to a rise in intergroup aggression. Women have become more of sexual rewards and, rape and sexual aggression within society have become normal (Geen 1998). Leets and Giles (2016) in their book ‘Harmful Speech in Intergroup Encounters: An Organizational Framework for Communication Research' pages 91-137 argue that the major issue with pornography is with the way it presents women. Women in pornography are presented as sex machines and it has become aggressive toward women. This has been found in several pieces of research on intergroup aggression. Not only is sexual aggression common in pornography but also verbal aggression.
By getting an insight into what intergroup aggression, there are many theories into explaining the existence of intergroup aggression. When looking at groups and aggression, the size of the groups does not matter. Aggression does not have to be only physical but also verbal. The theories of psychology argued that social aggression in society is shown in different social groups such as culture and gender. In support of these theories, theorists like Geen (1978) in his research concluded that people are willing to be aggressive under authority. This means that intergroup aggression is a result of authority. On the other hand, Dollard et al (1939) argue that intergroup aggression is a result of the frustration-aggression hypothesis that leads people to be aggressive against each other. Hovland and Sears (1940) suggested that intergroup aggression could cause by racial differences and this was more common in America during the times of slavery. When there is intergroup aggression, individuals tend to practice displacement, and this is when they put their frustrations on someone who has less power than they do. This was further explained by the theory of the defense mechanism. There are many ways in which intergroup aggression can be explained however as far as there may be some research, the field of intergroup aggression has few modern theories. Society has changed over time and the definition of aggression might have broadened. Also, there could be more research on culture and aggression. Contemporary society has a variety of cultures and the norms and values may have changed over time.
References
Bettencourt, B. Ann, Miller, Norman, 1996. Gender differences in aggression as a function of provocation: A meta-analysis... Psychological Bulletin, 119(3), pp. 422-447. Editors, History.com, 2018. Rwandan Genocide. [Online] Available at: https://www.history.com/topics/africa/rwandan-genocide [Accessed 14 April 2019].
Gustafson, R. (1989). Frustration and successful vs. Unsuccessful aggression: A test of Berkowitz' completion hypothesis. Aggressive Behavior, 15(1), pp.5-12.
Hieber, M. S., 2008. Theorizing Destruction: Reflections on the State of Comparative Genocide Theory. Genocide Studies and Prevention: An International Journal, 3(3).
Hogg, M. and Vaughan, G. (2011). Social psychology. 6th ed. Harlow: Prentice Hall, pp.385-492.
Hulsizer, L. M. W. & M. R., 2005. Psychosocial roots of genocide: risk, prevention, and intervention. Journal of Genocide Research, 7(1), pp. 101-128.
Jane L. Wood, 2014. Understanding gang membership: The significance of group processes. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 17(6), pp. 710-729.
Jost, A. M. a. J. T., 2017. Frustration-aggression hypothesis. [Online] Available at: https://www.britannica.com/science/frustration-aggression-hypothesis [Accessed April 2019].
Laura Leets & Howard Giles, 1999. Harmful Speech in Intergroup Encounters: An Organizational Framework for Communication Research. Annals of the International Communication Association, 22(1), pp. 91-137.
Myers, D. and Twenge, J. (n.d.). Social psychology. 12th ed. New York: McGraw Hill Education, pp.296-332.
Vaughan, G. and Hogg, M. (2014). Social psychology. 7th ed. Harlow, England: Pearson, pp.388-499.
Wood, E. A. V. S. O. J. L., 2014. Rumination and the Displacement of Aggression in United Kingdom Gang‐Affiliated Youth. Aggressive Behavior, 38(1).