                       7.  MOTIVATION TOWARD AGGRESSION. 
        
             Regarding other specific forms of motivated behavior that
        are frequently studied because of their significance to societal
        and personal functioning, the motivation to hurt others, or the
        motivation toward aggression is of significant interest to
        researchers.  
        
             Dollard et al. (1939) published Frustration and Aggression,
        a text whose main thesis clearly and unequivocally maintained
        that: "Aggression is always a consequence of frustration," and
        "occurrence of aggressive behavior always presupposes the
        existence of frustration and, contrariwise, the existence of
        frustration always leads to some form of aggression."  Therefore,
        a one-to-one relationship between "frustration" is postulated. 
        The authors then carefully defined as a condition which exists
        when a goal response suffers interference (p. 11)."  Whenever any
        type of aggressive act occurs, such an act, according to the
        hypothesis, is always due to some frustration or interference
        with a goal response the organism suffered, and conversely,
        whenever an organism suffers any kind of thwarting or
        frustration, it will aggress (Kaufman, 1970, pp. 24-25).  
        
             As the years progressed, the weakness of the frustration-
        aggression hypothesis started to become apparent.  It was quickly
        pointed out that often goal-directed responses were interfered
        with, yet aggression did not take place.  Considerable aggression
        did often take place despite frustration of a relatively minor
        nature (e.g., the Nazi persecution of the Jews).  These findings
        and other questions relating to the theory were eventually used
        by Berkowitz (1962) as the basis for a revised formulation of the
        hypothesis.
        
             Berkowitz (1962) maintained that the frustration-aggression
        hypothesis contained three basic tenets:
             1.   The greater the frustration, the greater the instinct
                  to aggression.
             2.   There is the prediction that the stronger the
                  behavioral motive being frustrated, the greater the
                  impulse to aggression.  
             3.   The greater the number of frustrations, the greater the
                  aggressive response (p. 32).
        
             Berkowitz concluded that only the first two hypotheses could
        be supported.  The data on the third suggested not a linear
        relationship as proposed but, a curvilinear one, in that
        aggression as a response to frustration will increase with the
        number of frustrations up to a point.  It will then decrease.  He
        believed that expectancies seemed to be the major answer.  As the
        number of frustrations increased, a person comes to expect them. 
        When a frustration does occur, the reaction is not as negative,
        or so the data seemed to indicate.  Berkowitz wrote:
             In general, expected frustrations produce less intense
             emotional reactions than do unanticipated frustrations.  Two
             reasons are suggested: (1) through anticipating interference
             with his activity, the individual may alter his actions, or
             even his goals, so that he actually experiences less
             frustration; (2) expected frustrations may be judged as less
             severe (pp. 72).
        
             Other research evidence revealed the following conclusions
        that were integrated into Berkowitz's hypothesis:
             1.   Aggressive behavior as a response to frustration is
                  inhibited when punishment for such behavior is
                  expected.
             2.   Hostile behavior is inhibited the greater the degree of
                  punishment that is expected.  
             3.   High-status people are usually less likely to be
                  aggressed against than low-status individuals.  This
                  supports the general principle because high-status
                  people are more likely to control the likelihood of
                  obtaining other desired goals .
             4.   The groups and individuals who are usually chosen as
                  scapegoats and as targets of aggressive behavior are
                  usually weaker individuals who have not the strength to
                  fight back at the aggression; hence, this makes the
                  aggression more likely to be successful (Davies, 1962).
             5.   The likelihood of revolution as a function of
                  frustration is more apt to take place after a period of
                  rising expectations (Wallace, 1971).
        
             Another major body of research literature falls under the
        heading of modeling, or watching the effects of the behaviors of
        others on one's own behavior.  Bandura and Walters (1963) focused
        on the conditions under which models and modeling might be used
        as a mechanism for changing the behavior of aggressive people. 
        They found that the cessation of some punishment is more likely
        to be repeated by the observer than if the behavior is punished. 
        Bandura, Ross, and Ross (1963) made the rather simple assumption
        that people learn about attainable values by observation. 
        Feshbach and Singer (1971) found that boys who watched aggressive
        behavior on television were less likely to be aggressive than
        those who did not watch television violence.  This was directly
        opposite from the modeling studies and from the general
        expectancy-value framework.  Recent research into the
        relationship of television violence on aggression is still
        inconclusive.  
        
             Walsters and Berscheid (1972) proposed the inequity theory
        to explain aggressive behavior.  They maintained that inequity is
        a negative tension state that people want to reduce.  They cited
        the following propositions:
             1.   Under some conditions, a person will feel inequity
                  because he receives outcomes higher than he perceives
                  he deserves.  Such tension may result because this
                  would violate the societal norms of equity that
                  underlie the basic equity assumption and because of a
                  fear of retaliation for this equity violation.
             2.   A person may reduce his feelings of inequity, under
                  certain conditions, by (a) derogating the other person
                  in terms of the value of the other person's inputs into
                  the system, thus reducing the necessity for higher
                  outputs; (b) minimizing the other person's inputs, thus
                  increasing relative output; and (c) denying the fact of
                  one's responsibilities for the lack of value (or
                  outputs) that the other person receives (p. 216).
        
             The rapidity of change and the resultant aggressive behavior
        are the current focus of many researchers.  Among the highly
        stable phenomena that can be counted on in a rapidly changing
        world is the level of unplanned and random violence is
        increasing.  Any casual observer of today's events is assaulted
        by the crime on the streets, the senseless murders and beatings
        of innocent people, and other similar aggressive events.  The
        question researchers are asking is what is causing it?  Zimbardo
        (1969) outlined a Model of Deindividuation and Aggression.  He
        wrote:
             Deindividuation is a complex, hypothesized process in which
             a series of antecedent social conditions lead to changes in
             perception of self and others, and thereby to a lowered
             threshold of normally restrained behavior.  Under
             appropriate conditions what results is the "release of
             behavior in violation of established norms of
             appropriateness."  Such conditions permit overt expression
             of antisocial behavior, characterized as selfish, greedy,
             power-seeking, hostile, lustful, and destructive.  However,
             they also allow a range of "positive" behaviors which we
             normally do not express overtly, such as intense feelings of
             happiness or sorrow, and open love for others.  Thus,
             emotions and impulses usually under cognitive control are
             more likely to be expressed when the input conditions
             minimize self-observation and evaluation as well as concerns
             over evaluation by others.  We may speak loosely of:
             conditions of deindividuation (conditions stimulating it),
             the feelings or state of deindividuation (the experiential
             aspect of the input variables together with the inferred
             subjective changes), and deindividuated behaviors
             (characterized by several specific output behaviors). 
             Deindividuation refers to the entire process and only then
             becomes a unique psychological construct (p. 254).
        
             This is one attempt by a psychologist to account for the
        increasing violence in America today.  More evidence is needed as
        Zimbardo suggested himself.  What is important about his work is
        that he attempted to explore why deindividuation results in
        greater aggression.  His hypothesis was basically that violence
        was an instinctual general drive, and he argued that humans
        desire to avoid controls and do what nature tells them to do. 
        Increasing change leads to increasing frustration an such
        increasing frustration leads to an increased propensity for
        aggression.  It is more likely to occur because external controls
        inhibiting the aggression (possible punishment) have decreased in
        salience due to the rapid change.     
        
             Deindividuation theory received minimal focus by
        researchers.  No significant correlations have been proven to
        adopt it as a definitive answer to the exponential increase of
        street violence in America.  Aggression motivation needs to be
        studied further not only to validate what causes it, but more
        importantly, how to curtail it given its detrimental effect on
        individuals, families, communities, and the civilization it
        currently is affecting with dire results.
