AGGRESSION COMMONLY COMETH FROM COVETOUSNESS OF KINGS
It is subtle, but it is developing in time, the exact extent is hard to grasp.
My acrostic verse today to start off with. The quote by Carlyle is tangentially related to the topic. We are “straining or energies” right now in this country in my opinion, we are in a struggle to define or redefine ourselves.
The examples of my premise above are somewhat limited from a word search on Twitter (X). Russian aggression, Israeli aggression and American aggression (related to our military strikes today in the Middle East) are the primary results found in relation to the search word. However examples of aggression which are applicable to my posting were found, as shown below:
I came across the GAM, the General Aggression Model, researching aggression leading to violence today. I found it quite interesting, and worthwhile enough to show in its entirety. The complexity of aggression in all its forms appears to be addressed through this model. I’m not a psychologist, hence I can only copy this peer reviewed paper, and have not the expertise to discuss it. I darkened the sections which seemed important and erased the reference numbers for easier reading.
Johnie J. Allena, Craig A. Andersona, & Brad J. Bushmanb, c
aIowa State University, W-112 Lagomarcino Hall, 901 StangeRd., Ames, Iowa 50011, USA; bThe Ohio State University, 3016 Derby Hall, 154 N. Oval Mall, Columbus , OH 43210, USA
cVU University Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1105, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands
@JohnieJAllen1
@BradJBushman
(Active on Twitter)
Corresponding Author: Johnie J. Allen, jallen@iastate.edu
Abstract
The General Aggression Model (GAM) is a comprehensive,integrative, framework for understanding aggression. It considers the role of social, cognitive, personality, developmental, and biological factors on aggression. Proximate processes of GAM detail how person and situation factors influence cognitions, feelings, and arousal, which in turn affect appraisal and decision processes, which in turn influence aggressive or nonaggressive behavioral outcomes. Each cycle of the proximate processes serves as a learning trial that affects the development and accessibility of aggressive knowledge structures. Distal processes of GAM detail how biological and persistent environmental factors can influence personality through changes in knowledge structures. GAM has been applied to understand aggression in many contexts including media violence effects, domestic violence, intergroup violence, temperature effects, pain effects, and the effects of global climate change.
Introduction
Many theories have been proposed to explain human aggression—defined as any behavior intended to harm a target who is motivated to avoid that harm. The General Aggression Model (GAM) is one of the most comprehensive and widely used theories for understanding aggression. The present review describes the current state of knowledge of GAM, and briefly outlines recent applications of GAM and possibilities for future directions.
The General Aggression Model
GAM is a comprehensive, integrative framework for understanding human aggression. It considers the role of social,cognitive, developmental, and biological factors on aggression. GAM includes elements from many domain-specific theories of aggression, including: cognitive neoassociation theory, social learning theory, script theory, excitation transfer theory, and social interaction theory. By unifying these theories into one coherent whole, GAM provides a broad framework for understanding aggression in many contexts.
GAM posits that human aggression is heavily influenced by knowledge structures*, which affect a wide variety of social-cognitive phenomena including perception, interpretation, decision, and behaviors. Some of the most important knowledge structures include beliefs and attitudes (e.g., believing aggression is normal, evaluating it positively), perceptual schemata** (e.g., perceiving ambiguous events as hostile), expectation schemata (e.g., expecting aggression from others), and behavioral scripts*** (e.g., believing that conflicts should be resolved with aggression).
—-
*Knowlege Structures may be defined as blocks of information and knowledge obtained during the process of human's cognitive activity and presented in the mind as a regulated system.
**In psychology and cognitive science, a schema(pl.: schemata or schemas) describes a pattern of thought or behavior that organizes categories of information and the relationships among them. It can also be described as a mental structure of preconceived ideas, a framework representing some aspect of the world, or a system of organizing and perceiving new information, such as a mental schema or conceptual model.
***In the behaviorism approach to psychology, behavioral scripts are a sequence of expected behaviors for a given situation. Scripts include default standards for the actors, props, setting, and sequence of events that are expected to occur in a particular situation. The classic script example involves an individual dining at a restaurant. This script has several components: props including tables, menus, food, and money, as well as roles including customers, servers, chefs, and a cashier. The sequence of expected events for this script begins with a hungry customer entering the restaurant, ordering, eating, paying and then ends with the customer exiting. People continually follow scripts which are acquired through habit, practice and simple routine. Following a script can be useful because it could help to save the time and mental effort of deciding on appropriate behavior each time a situation is encountered.
—
These knowledge structures are developed through experience and can influence perception at multiple levels, ranging from simple perception of objects to complex perception of social events. Knowledge structures can also become automatized with repeated practice (as is the case with scripts), and can include both cognitive and affective components. For example, anger is strongly linked with hostile attribution biases (the tendency to interpret ambiguous events as hostile).
Proximate Processes
GAM is separated into two major aspects: proximate and distal processes (see Figure 1). The proximate processes explain individual episodes of aggression using three stages: inputs, routes, and outcomes. Inputs influence a person’s present internal state, which in turn affects appraisal and decision processes, which in turn influence aggressive and nonaggressive outcomes. Importantly, each episode of aggression (or non-aggression) serves as a learning trial that can influence the development of aggressive knowledge structures (and thereby personality) over time.
Stage One: Inputs
The first stage of the proximate processes outlines how person and situation factors increase or decrease the likelihood of aggression through their influence on present internal state variables (i.e., cognition, affect, and arousal) in stage two. Input variables that increase the likelihood of aggression are considered risk factors, whereas those that decrease the likelihood of aggression are considered protective factors.
Person factors are any individual differences that may influence how a person responds to a situation. These factors tend to be fairly stable over time and across situations as long as the person consistently uses the same knowledge structures. Through this lens, personality can be considered the summary of a person’s knowledge structures. Aggressive knowledge structures make aggression more likely. Many person factors have been identified as risk factors for aggression. These include (but are not limited to): unstable high self-esteem and narcissism, aggressive self-image, long-term goals supportive of aggression, high self-efficacy for aggressive behavior, normative acceptance of aggression, positive attitudes toward aggression, hostile attribution biases, aggressive behavioral scripts, moral justification of violence, dehumanization, displacement of responsibility, high trait anger, certain personality disorders, low self-control, high neuroticism, low agreeableness, and low conscientiousness. For example, people with hostile attribution, perception, and expectation biases are more aggressive than people without those biases. Many of the risk factors that have been identified serve as protective factors when reversed. For example, negative attitudes toward aggression, low neuroticism, high agreeableness, and high conscientiousness would all make aggression less likely.
Situation factors are aspects of the situation that may influence whether aggression occurs. Many situation factors have been identified that increase the likelihood of aggression. These include (but are not limited to): social stress, social rejection, provocation, frustration, bad moods, exercise, alcohol intoxication, violent media, pain or discomfort, ego depletion, anonymity, hot temperatures, noise, the presence of weapons, and threatening or fear-inducing stimuli. For example, the presence of a gun (as compared to a badminton racquet) can increase the aggression of angered individuals. Some situation factors also serve as protective factors, such as good moods or exposure to prosocial media.
Person and situation factors can work additively or interactively to influence cognition, affect, or arousal. Generally, as the number of risk factors for aggression increases, (either person or situation factors), the likelihood of aggression increases. This means, for example, that a person who believes aggression is normal and useful is more likely to be aggressive than a person who believes aggression is abnormal. That same person would be even more likely to behave aggressively if he or she was provoked, especially if the provocation occurred in a hot, noisy setting. In contrast, as the number of protective factors increases, the likelihood of aggression decreases. For example, someone who is highly agreeable and has just received a gift is relatively less likely to behave aggressively.
Stage Two: Routes
Stage two focuses on the routes through which person and situation factors exert their influence on appraisal and decision processes (and thus affect aggressive or nonaggressive outcomes). Person and situation factors can change a person’s affect, cognition, and arousal. These three variable types make up a person’s present internal state; changes in these variables alter the likelihood of aggression. Different input variables affect different present internal state variables, but present internal state variables also influence each other in interactive and reciprocal ways, as indicated by the dashed lines in Figure 1 with arrows at both ends. Affect can influence cognition and arousal. For example, feeling angry can encourage hostile thoughts and increase arousal. Similarly, cognition and arousal can influence affect. For example, interpreting a situation in a hostile manner can increase anger, which in turn can increase arousal. GAM does not propose that the present internal state variables must occur in a certain order. Any of the three variables can occur first and then influence the other two.Alternatively, some factors can influence aggression primarily through one route. For example, weapons increase aggression by priming aggressive thoughts.
Affect. Input variables can influence our moods and emotions. For example, people high in trait hostility (a person factor) also have higher state hostility in a particular situation(i.e., greater aggressive affect). Additionally, situation factors can increase aggressive affect. Pain increases state hostility and anger, and uncomfortably hot temperature also increase state hostility.
Cognition. Input variables can also influence aggressive thoughts. Aggressive concepts can be activated by certain situational factors (i.e., priming) or can become chronically accessible after repeated activation (as with scripts). Aggressive priming occurs when a situational factor (such as exposure to media violence) causes a short-term increase in the accessibility of aggressive concepts. Certain input variables (e.g., trait aggression) can lead aggressive thoughts to become highly accessible at all times in the form of scripts and hostile attribution biases.
Arousal. Finally, input variables can influence arousal (both physiological and psychological) by increasing it (e.g.,exercise), or decreasing it (e.g., alcohol). Arousal can affect aggression in at least three ways. First, arousal from irrelevant sources (e.g., exercise) can be mislabeled as anger, increasing the likelihood of aggression (this is known as excitation transfer). Second, arousal from irrelevant sources can strengthen aggressive action tendencies, as when a person is provoked while highly aroused. Finally, very high or low levels of arousal can serve as aversive states that increase aggressive affect and cognition in the same way that pain and uncomfortably hot temperatures do.
Stage Three: Outcomes
The third stage of the proximate processes focuses on appraisal and decision processes, and on aggressive or nonaggressive outcomes. In stage three, the person appraises the situation and decides how to respond. The action that is selected then influences the encounter, which in turn influences the person and situation factors, beginning the episodic cycle anew.
The first part of stage three is an immediate appraisal of the situation, which occurs automatically (i.e., spontaneously, unconsciously, and with little-to-no cognitive effort) and is influenced by the person’s present internal state. Immediate appraisals often include trait or situational inferences. For example, if a man bumps into a woman at a crowded party, she could make a trait inference (e.g., “He meant to do that—what a jerk!”) or a situational inference (e.g., “It’s so crowded—I’m sure that was an accident.”). Immediate appraisals also include affective, goal, and intention information (e.g., “I am angry. I want to retaliate. I want to push this jerk.”). When a person’s present internal state is conducive to aggression, negative immediate appraisals—including a goal, plan, and script to harm the perpetrator—are more likely. Input variables influence immediate appraisals indirectly, through their effects on present internal state. For example, hostile attribution biases increase the likelihood of interpreting ambiguous event as being intentionally harmful.
After immediate appraisal, the person decides how to respond to the event. This process depends on available resources and the event itself. If the person has sufficient time and mental resources, and if the outcome of the immediate appraisal feels both important and unsatisfying, then the person will engage in a deliberative reappraisal of the event (i.e., considering alternate interpretations). If not, then the behavioral script that was activated during immediate appraisal is enacted, with little or no awareness of a decision having been made.
When the reappraisal process is activated, it can influence present internal state variables. For example, if the woman who was bumped at the party reconsiders her initial hostile interpretation as an accidental event, then she may feel less angry and have fewer aggressive thoughts, depending on what other pieces of information are discovered or brought to bear during reappraisal. Of course, reappraisal can also yield information confirming the immediate appraisal of intentional harm, and can thus lead to more anger and aggressive thoughts. Once reappraisal has occurred, the person decides on and carries out a thoughtful action, which can be aggressive or non-aggressive.
Once an action has been carried out, that action influences the social encounter, which can alter person and situation factors, restarting the cycle of proximate processes. For example, if the woman decides to push the man who bumped into her, he may decide to insult her, which may provoke her to further escalating aggression.
Distal Processes
The second aspect of GAM focuses on distal processes, which operate in the background of each episode of proximate processes. This aspect of GAM outlines how biological and persistent environmental factors work together to influence personality, which in turn change person (and situation) factors.
Biological modifiers that increase the likelihood of developing an aggressive personality include (but are not limited to): ADHD, impaired executive functioning, hormone imbalances, low serotonin, and low arousal. For example, testosterone is positively associated with aggression. Individuals with more testosterone tend to be more aggressive and dominating others increases testosterone.
Environmental modifiers that increase the likelihood of developing an aggressive personality include (but are not limited to): cultural norms supportive of violence, maladaptive families or parenting, difficult life conditions, deprivation, victimization, violent neighborhoods, violent or antisocial peer groups, group conflict, diffusion of responsibility, and chronic exposure to violent media. For example, aggressive behavior is more likely if one has received poor parenting or lived with coercive families.
Applications of the General Aggression Model
GAM has been applied to a wide variety of aggressive contexts including: temperature effects, violence associated with global climate change, media violence effects, pain, intergroup violence, intimate partner violence, sexual aggression, domestic violence, suicide, and personality disorders with an aggression component. By increasing the understanding of aggression and violence, GAM has guided research and informed interventions aimed at reducing aggression and violence, such as the treatment and assessment of violent offenders.
Summary and Conclusions
GAM has effectively organized theoretical insights gleaned from several key theoretical perspectives. Proximate processes of GAM detail how person and situation factors influence aggressive thoughts, angry feelings, and arousal levels, which in turn affect appraisal and decision processes, which in turn influence aggressive or nonaggressive behavior. Each cycle of the proximate processes serves as a learning trial that can create aggressive knowledge structures after many repetitions, contributing to an aggressive personality. Distal processes of GAM detail how biological and environmental factors can influence personality through changes in knowledge structures.
GAM has already been used to guide research and interventions in many domains of aggression, but there is always more work to be done. New research is needed to further develop GAM as a comprehensive model of human aggression and violence. Promising directions include more detailed applications to understanding and treatment of perpetrators of violent crime, intimate partner violence, and sexual aggression. Similarly, GAM could be applied to help develop aggression prevention programs at the individual, family, community, and societal levels. The first step toward reducing aggression and violence is understanding the underlying processes. GAM sheds light on these underlying processes.
The actual brain processes involved in aggression and possible violence seems rather interesting to me. I have shown excerpts from an online paper, enough to understand the basics. Go to the paper for more information.
Sci Am. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2021 Jul 16.Published in final edited form as:Sci Am. 2019 May; 320(5): 65–71.
Experiments in humans and animals have started to identify how violent behaviors begin in the brain
R. Douglas Fields
@rdouglasfields1
(Active on Twitter (X))
Physical, sometimes deadly violence is the hub of nature’s survival-of-the fittest struggle, and all animals have evolved specialized neural circuitry to execute—and control—aggressive behavior. In pioneering experiments on cats beginning in the late 1920s, Walter Hess discovered a locus deep within the hypothalamus, a brain area that unleashes violent aggression. It turns out that this is the same spot where other powerful compulsive urges and behaviors are activated, including sex, eating and drinking. When Hess stimulated this knot of neurons using a wire electrode inserted into the brain of a docile cat, the feline instantly launched into a hissing rage, attacking and killing another animal in its cage. The human brain has this same neural structure, labeled the hypothalamic attack area.
This discovery sparked the widely popularized “lizard brain” concept, the assertion that primitive urges in humans spring from an evolutionarily ancient neural core that, in the right circumstance, provokes beastly behavior. Since Hess’s discovery, the vital question confronting scientists for nearly a century has centered on what circuits feed into the brain’s hypothalamic attack region to activate or squelch an attack. Relatively new techniques—optogenetics (an experimental method to switch neural circuits on or off) and fiber-optic cameras threaded into the brains of experimental animals to observe neurons firing during a violent attack—enable some of these questions to be answered. In fact, it is now possible to identify rage and aggression circuits.
For ethical reasons, much of the research tracing the neurocircuitry of violent behavior comes from animal research. Care must be taken in applying terminology used in animal studies to human behaviors and emotions, but clear parallels exist between violence in humans and in other vertebrates. Engaging in physical aggression is potentially life-threatening in any animal, so this behavior is tightly regulated and exhibited only in response to specific types of perceived threats.
Humans and other animals use violent, even deadly aggression instinctively to obtain food, protect their young or defend themselves against bodily injury. But for any of these violent actions—killing prey as opposed to protecting one’s young, for example—separate neural connections come into play.
In addition, many animals are highly social species, and aggression is how social order is established and maintained—picture rams butting heads to determine which one gets to breed with the females. For humans, capital punishment, imprisonment and forced removal of resources (fines and revoking privileges) are all codified forms of aggression to maintain social order. Defending territory, protecting group members and competition are other parallels that enable scientists to extrapolate from studies on experimental animals to find neural circuits in humans for each distinct type of aggression.
From a psychological perspective, human aggression can be sparked by a seemingly endless range of provocations and motives, but from the viewpoint of neuroscience, only a few specific neural circuits in the brain are responsible for this behavior. Identifying them and understanding how they function is still a work in progress, but undertaking this task is critically important. The capability for violent aggression engraved in our brain by eons of tooth-and-nail struggle for survival too often malfunctions in response to disease, drugs or psychiatric impairments and can lead to tragic consequences.
********
That ends my look at aggression. The General Aggression Model may have been too much information, too far in the weeds to be of use. However, I thought the knowledge of its existence has value, so I copied the paper in its entirety for view.
I came across the following today on how perhaps the average MAGA Republican can retain their support of Trump. Some possible psychological factors at play. I found this quite interesting, and thought it was worthy of mentioning although it is not exactly applicable to my aggression theme.
Fixation refers to being unable to look at a situation from any other perspective.
Belief perseverance is the tendency to continue believing something even after evidence supporting it has been contradicted.
Belief bias is the tendency to view that which conflicts with one's own bias as illogical, or believing something illogical in order to support a pre-existing belief.
Overconfidence refers to overestimating the accuracy of one's own judgments.
“Those who in quarrels interpose,
Must often wipe a bloody nose.”
— Gay.
Jean-Baptiste Sylvère Gay, 1st Viscount of Martignac (20 June 1778 – 3 April 1832) was a moderate royalist French statesman during the Bourbon Restoration 1814–30 under King Charles X.
161st Posting, February 2, 2024.