There are various causes and correlates of aggression as there are also mixed reports regarding the causes and correlates of aggression. Some researchers have argued that parental style, social economic status, socio-biological factors; poverty, single parenthood and reconstructed marriages are predictors of aggression (Campbell, Shaw, Gillion, 2000; Deater- Deckard & Dunn, 1999; Prior Sanson, Smart & Oberklaid, 2001; Escasa, Casey & Gray, 2011; Kumpulainen, 2008; Little et al., 2003). Farrington, Barnes and Lambert (1996) following an examination of 411 eight to 40 years old males, reported that family influence is only a small predictor (6%) of aggression. Support for Farrington et al. includes Bor, Najman, O‘Callaghan, Williams and Anstey‘s (2001) longitudinal examination of 5000 mothers and children which indicated that aggression more strongly predicted delinquency in children (age 5) than poverty, maternal education, family structure and gender.
Other ways of understanding likely causes and correlates of aggression can be viewed from psychoanalytical and learning processes (e.g. Freud, 1920; Skinner 1963; Watson, 1913). According to Freud, for instance, aggression is carried out as a form of catharsis, in order to make up for life desires that a person cannot accomplish. What seemed like an empirical support for Freud‘s work was proposed by Dollard, Doob, Miller, Mowrer, and Sears (1939, p.11) who argued that “the occurrence of aggressive behaviour always
presupposes the existence of frustration and, contrariwise, that the existence of frustration always leads to some form of aggression.” Thus frustration in Dollard et al.‘s argument can
be related to the concept of Freud‘s catharsis explanation of the causes of aggression release due to some repressed feelings. Bandura (1973, p.40) opposed the concept of „inner drives
and forces‟ and among other researchers (e.g. Tedeschi & Felson, 1994; Brenner, 1971;
39
Bandura (1961) argued instead that aggression is modelled and learnt. This assertion was made following a bobo doll experiment that suggested that children exposed to an aggressive adult model acted more aggressively than those who were exposed to a non- aggressive adult model. Bandura (1986) further asserted that anyone who comes in contact and interacts with children can have an impact on the way they (children) react and handle situations. Just like the criticisms of Freud (1920) and Dollard et al.‘s (1939) work, Bandura‘s assertions were met with criticisms on the basis that no person was hurt in the bobo doll experiment and that the behaviours were often playful and instructed (e.g. Ferguson, 2010).
There are other propositions which followed along the line of Bandura‘s argument that aggression can be learned through watching and engaging in similar behaviours as others (Anderson & Bushman 2002; Huesmann, 1986; 1988). In one study, Aronson, Wilson and Akert (2005) posit that media such as television (e.g. violent games and movies) are an influencing factor for younger people. Aronson et al.‘s argument has also been criticised on the basis that there is no long term relationship between playing violent video games and youth aggression (e.g. Ferguson 2011). There are also smaller effects of violent video games on aggression as have been found with television violence on aggression (e.g. Freedman, 1984).
It could be argued that modelling and the media influence on aggressive behaviour is contingent upon the type of violent games and the time spent in playing the game; and arguably the disposition of the person watching the game. For example, watching violence on the television may have some sort of effect on young adolescents‘ disposition in a social environment, such as exhibiting certain traits with hand gestures that demonstrate a gun, or practising acts of violence (e.g. wrestling, cops & robbers) exactly like those modelled on the television (e.g. Coyne & Archer 2004). The gestures of these acts are by themselves not aggressive; however they become a thing of concern when the actual acts viewed on
40
television are carried out to the detriment of others. Support for Bandura‘s theory thus indicates that through learning and modelling one is able to adapt certain specific behaviours (e.g. Coyne & Archer, 2004). There is also support for Freud‘s work which now allow for therapeutic treatments of aggression such as anger management (e.g. Björkly, 2001).
Specific to bullying, it has been reported that around 79% of teenagers prefer high social status which comes with bullying others than adhering to rules (LaFontana & Cillessen, 2009; Eder, 1985). There have been various supports for this assertion among bullying researchers (e.g. Olthoft & Goossens, 2008; Espelege, Bosworth, Simon, 2001). In adolescence particularly during transition to secondary school, acceptance into the peer group is a likely precursor for bullying behaviour due to the need to fit in socially (Pellegrini, 2002; Juvonen & Ho, 2009). Othoft and Goossens reported that involvement in bullying was positively correlated with outcome expectancies such as being liked and accepted within a group or by others. Witviliet, Olthof, Hoeksma, Smit, Koot & Goosens (2009) also argued that enhancement of social standing is a likely reason for people to join others to bully others. Espelage, Holt & Henkel (2003) reported that those who joined a group to tease and socially exclude others gained more popularity among males and females. On the group level, those who bully others pursue dominance and high status among their peers (Pellegrini, 2002; Salmivalli & Peets, 2008; Olthof & Goosens, 2009). However, the perpetrator is dependent on the group in order to achieve his or her required status. According to Björkqvist, Ekman and Lagerspetz (1982) the quest for dominance (among males, age 14-16), the perception that others (in the group) want them to be dominant and the (personal) importance that they place on dominant roles, are reasons for bullying others. In a study of adult bullying, South and Wood (2006) reported that social status and prestige are more reasons why adult males bully others.
41