Causes Of Aggression: A Psychological Perspective

Updated on June 10, 2016

Is Aggression Innate or Learnt?

Aggression is behavior which causes intentional harm to another person (Anderson, 2002). More specifically, aggression is defined as "any sequence of behavior, the goal response to which is the injury of the person toward whom it is directed" (Dollard et al.,1939). Although some definitions emphasize the role of intention, most psychologists agree that it is the actual observable behavior causing harm that defines aggression.

The nature vs. nurture controversy has been a continuing debate in explaining the origin of aggression. There are many different theories about the nature and cause of aggression, all of which can be divided into two types: those that believe aggression is innate and those that see it as learnt behavior. We shall now examine two contrasting points of view, Psychoanalytic approach, which views aggression as innate, and Cognitive approach which claims it is learnt, along with their limitations in understanding the cause of aggression.


Psychoanalytic Approach To Aggression:

Psychoanalysis, the most well known theory under Psychodynamic approach was founded by Sigmund Freud. According to this theory, human aggression is an instinctive drive, related to the person and not the situation, and therefore an unavoidable part of human life (Glassman, 2004). Freud believed that all humans possess two basic drives from birth that contribute to personality development and behavior: the drive for aggression (Thenatos) and the drive for pleasure (Eros). Thanatos, or destructive energy, expresses itself in aggression to others, as well as self-destructive behavior. Moreover, the two primitive forces, life and death instincts, seek constant expression and satisfaction, while at same time, opposing one another in our subconscious. This conflict is the origin of all aggression.

Freud viewed the aggressive drive as part of Id, the part of the psyche that motivates behavior, while ego, our rational self, and superego, our ideal image of ourselves, oppose or repress the aggressive impulses. The conflict between the different parts of personality creates tension in the individual, who then uses defense mechanism or ways to cope and block conscious awareness of this conflict. Anna Freud, Freud’s psychoanalytic heir, also emphasized the impaired parent-infant bonding as one of the causes of pathogenic behavior, and believed that emotional attachments in early childhood help to ‘fuse and neutralize’ aggressive urges in later life (Freud, 1965).

Thus, according to this theory, one can never eliminate aggression, but try to control it by channeling it into ways involving symbolic gratification. This indirect gratification results in Catharsis, or the release of drive energy, and a failure to do so leads to aggressive behavior.


Cognitive Approach To Aggression:

Cognitive theorists believe aggression is learnt rather than innate, and try to understand ways in which it is learned. They emphasize mental processes such as perception and thoughts, along with the role of learning and situation in understanding aggressive behavior.

Albert Bandura, one theorist who pioneered the social learning theory believed that aggression is imitated rather than learned through conditioning, and that reinforcement can be indirect i.e. as reward offered to the model one is imitating, instead of the learner. The Bobo Doll study (Bandura, 1961) shows that viewing aggression increases the likelihood of the viewer acting aggressively and when the model is reinforced by praise, children learn that aggressive behavior is acceptable. Other studies on observational learning also show how children who are exposed to violence in the family are more likely to grow up to become aggressive themselves. (Litrownik et al., 2003)

Cognitive approach also claims that cognitive schemata that develop in the individual’s mind with experience, also affect the possibility of aggression. One field study on street culture of young people shows how their behavior is influenced by a "code" or schema that forms a set of informal rules on public behavior, and the use of violence to respond if challenged. (Anderson, 1994)

Leonard Berkowitz, one of the pioneers of cognitive neo-association theory suggests the idea of priming, according to which violent thoughts and memories can increase the potential for aggression, even without imitating or learning aggression. In one study, he shows how individuals shown pictures of guns are more willing to punish another person than those shown neutral objects (Berkowitz, 1984)

However, Anderson and Bushman have given a comprehensive general aggression model (GAM), which integrates social learning theory and neo association, along with biological data on arousal. By recognizing both personal and situational factors, this theory suggests that aggression is the result of both the personality and interaction of the person and the situation. (Anderson and Bushman, 2002)


Comparison Between The Different Approaches To Aggression:

Both approaches attempt to explain the origin of aggression but from very different perspectives. Psychodynamic approach views aggression as an instinctive drive, and ignores mediational processes like thoughts and memory. Cognitive approach on the other hand, claims that aggression is learnt behavior and emphasizes the thoughts processes that contribute to learning it.

Psychodynamic approach sees the individual as helpless, driven by aggressive urges, and hence unable to control destructive impulses. In short, nothing can be done to eliminate aggression, except channeling it. In contrast, since Social cognitive approach sees aggression as learned behavior, it is not inevitable and that the individual is seen as actively involved in this process. Human being are considered neither inherently good nor bad, but their actions depend on learning. (Glassman, 2004). Thus, any type of behavior can be shaped by modifying the environment to block imitation of aggressive models and schemas and by rewarding and punishing consequences.

Moreover, it is difficult to scientifically test the claims of Psychodynamic approach, whereas the cognitive approach makes its claims on empirical evidence and extensive research.

However, both approaches recognize the role of early childhood experiences in increasing aggressive behavior. For Psychodynamic approach, this can result from unresolved conflicts, while for Social cognitive approach, exposure to aggressive behavior, along with reinforcement can encourage children to learn it.


Limitations To The Different Approaches To Aggression:

There is no existing scientific evidence to support Freud's theory of aggression, nor can it be empirically investigated. Thus even though it describes aggression as innate, resulting from a conflict between different structures of the personality, it does not give a concrete source for it, as there is no way to prove or falsify this claim.

Also, Freud based most of his work on case studies, made largely of pathological middle class patients of the Victorian era, which makes generalizations to the wider population difficult. (Pervin, 1990)

His idea of catharsis as a control mechanism for aggression has also been disproved, with more studies showing that opportunities for catharsis increase, rather than decrease, aggression. In one study, it was seen that participants given shocks and asked to retaliate, later showed increased aggression despite initial opportunity to retaliate. (Geen, 1977)

Moreover, by suggesting the symbolic release of aggressive drive, he even ascribes nonviolent actions to aggressive motives (Glassman, 2004).

Lastly, not only does the psychodynamic perspective ignore thought processes involved in aggressive behavior, but also the role of environment and outside provocation. In claiming that aggressive drive is an innate drive that we cannot eliminate, it seems too deterministic, and leaves little room for the idea of personal free will.


The Social Cognitive approach has undergone several elaborations since it was first presented and continues to exert a strong influence. There are, however, several criticisms of this approach, one being that it is not unified enough.

It has also been criticized for being too focused on rational and cognitive aspects of behavior; e.g. it does not explain why people who are not normally aggressive sometimes behave uncharacteristically aggressive in some situations. The Bobo doll experiment itself is controversial; one criticism being that the children who acted aggressively in the experiment tended to be ones rated as aggressive anyway, implying that factors, such as emotions and personality are ignored by this approach. Also, it is difficult to generalize the findings to real life as most experiments are done in a lab and this is not very realistic. However, some of the research on relationship between watching violence in the media and real life aggression supports Bandura.

The neo-association theory also depends on experiments for its claims, with only co relational data for real life aggression. Ethical constraints limit field studies, as exposure to aggression, in whatever form, is likely to increase potential for violence in observers and this has serious implications. (Glassman, 2004)

Overall, the Cognitive approach recognizes biological factors without regarding them as direct cause of aggressive behavior. It assumes that a person’s genetic endowment creates potential for aggression, while the specifics of aggressive behavior are acquired through experience (Bandura, 1983). Despite the technical limitations, most studies are consistent with its claims, and the general aggression model in particular has great potential for future research.


The Cognitive approach offers a more comprehensive view of aggression than the Psychodynamic approach, yet to set ‘nature’ against ‘nurture’ in discussing aggression is to create a false dichotomy. Both heredity and social learning are important factors and human beings it seems are neither driven completely by their urges, nor helplessly vulnerable to environmental influences. Even when one is disposed to aggress and capable of behaving aggressively, a specific situation must elicit the act. Thus, in order to fully understand the complicated nature of aggression, further research is required into both factors before drawing any final conclusion.


    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • profile image

      propalo 5 weeks ago

      What about the energetic origin of aggression?

      Is it not obvious?

      Aggression always expresses itself by splashing out of energy.

      And if you've got an instrument to damp this energy, you win

    • profile image

      Wilkister Musanga 9 months ago

      Nature and nurture both contribute to aggressive behavior and thus we have to major on both sides to know the real causes of aggression

    • profile image

      zoya 10 months ago

      reference is not given

    • profile image

      10 months ago

      m&m are good

    • profile image

      S. Reen 11 months ago

      How does this APA citation look? (Everything in swirly brackets should be italicized, but I can't do that in this post. Also, you'll want to indent the second line 5 spaces.) (2016). {Causes of aggression: A psychological perspective}. Retrieved from

    • profile image

      VIC 12 months ago

      How to cite?

    • profile image

      geeta 14 months ago

      Reference plzzzz

    • profile image

      wjnyc 15 months ago

      As is the growing trend, this is a gross mischaracterization of psychoanalytic theory and an overvaluation of cognitive theory based on a fetishization of "empirical support" (i.e., logical positivism), ignoring developments in the philosophy of science, and consistent with cognitive theory itself in that it speaks to our erroneous interpretation of data. I am not blaming you, the author, however, but our current culture around these issues. There a limited number of citations in the psychoanalytic section, mostly Freud. To be frank, it is a very shallow reading of Freud, who was constantly revising his theory. The unfalsifiability claim is pervasive and yet you do not elaborate it here. In fact you contradict yourself: the evidence you present that controverts social cognitive theories supports the idea that aggression is innate. Further, the evidence you present in favor of social cognitive theory only supports the hypothesis that aggressive BEHAVIOR is learnt, not aggression itself. So in fact your presentation draws a false dichotomy in the two theories, which, taken this way can in fact coexist: Aggression can be innate, while aggressive theory is learnt. You even initially present psychoanalytic theory as recognizing that behaviors are learned and aggression is dealt with differently, depending upon a number of learning experiences, including, but not limited to, the parent-infant attachment system. You go on to contradict yourself by saying that in psychoanalytic theory aggression is inevitable and the individual is at its mercy, ignoring the role of the ego in modulating aggression as well as a major tenet of psychoanalytic theory speaking to the agency of the individual. There is empirical support demonstrating these theories, if you would take the time to read anything more up to date than Freud. There is an entire discipline of neuropsychoanalysis providing empirical support through fMRI and other brain science. I say this out of frustration, because the case against psychoanalysis has become something of a witch hunt without any real understanding of how science works or of the philosophy of science and the fallibility of our methods. Moreover, cognitive behavior theory has become something of a brand and quite frankly a monopoly, with proponents of the theory claiming superior evidence over psychoanalytic models when in fact statistically and methodologically rigorous meta-analyses reveal little to no difference in their therapeutic efficacy. CBT has MORE evidence, due to a greater number of studies (again speaking to popularization through branding), but no evidence that it is more EFFECTIVE than psychoanalytic approaches, primarily because CBT is most often compared to no treatment, waiting lists, or bogus therapies, termed "treatment as usual," which are most often "supportive" therapies and not strictly psychodynamic/analytic. Lastly, much about psychoanalytic theory can be rephrased in behavioral/cognitive terms and vice versa, so the distinction is again a wash, but with the result that psychoanalytic therapists and researchers are shunned as unscientific and even unethical, falsely threatening our professional integrity and thereby our livelihood. Please do not jump on the bandwagon of psychoanalysis bashing and read the literature for both theories more critically and deeply with less cognitive bias (double entendre) that would otherwise create a cognitive distortion of hypothesis confirmation bias or even self-fulfilling prophecy (empirically supported cognitive terms to which you are falling prey in this article). Start with Shelder (2010) and Baardseth et al (2013) and note both articles are at least 6 years more recent than any of year citations and no doubt more comprehensive and rigorous. For neuroscientific research supporting psychoanalytic theory see the work of Andrew Gerber and Mark Solms. This is, of course, if you are truly dedicated to scientific truth rather than confirmatory bias.

    • profile image

      Marcus Jay 15 months ago

      Very interesting subject. I noticed you have in-text citations but no references. Where do you get your information to back your paper?

    • profile image

      hiyaa 24 months ago

      how do we cite this in APA format?