Theoretical Considerations on Conflict and Aggression

InCultural Variation in Conflict Resolution:Alternatives to ViolenceIEAEdited byFry, D.P., & Bj0rkqvist, K.H LAWRENCE ERLBAUM ASSOCIATES, PUBLISHERS1997 MAHWAH,NJ?The Inevitabilitv of ConflictBut Not of Violence:<strong>Theoretical</strong> <strong>Considerations</strong> onConflict and AggressionKojBjorkqvistADO hRAAeml Unt|eEtryTlris chapter descibes sources of cuflict and, aggression t'rom a theoretical point of vieu.Three main theorbs on the oigin of aggression are analyTed: I) irurinct (Trieb) rheorl, 2)rhe fr*stranon-agrcssion hypotfusu, and. 3) socia) Ieaming rheory. h is conclu.d.ed thataggression is not an innate dive functicrning in accord.ance sith the reservoir nodel, likchunger or sex, but aggression ma\ serue as dme@rs to fulfll other drives, whetJvr innate orIzamed. Scnps for hru to behaue in conflict siuations are leamed., atd tJvy are to a geatextena depend.ent on cuhure. Angel which is a natural human ernotion, 'rra.J serve as aninvtgorating facmr, mcouraging the choice of aggressiue scipu. Wereas conflict constitutesan ineviable part of socialife, violence can be avoided, and. ahemotive scipts employed.-Thc EditorsIn this chapter, I discuss theories about inrerpersonal conflict and aggression. I arguethat angeq, fruscration, and conflict consrirure inevitable ingredients of everydaysocial interaction; Iikewise, they are familiar intrapsychic dynamic forces wirhin eachindividual. Con{lica do nor, however, necessarilv have to lead to acts of violence.THE INEVITABILITY OF CONFLICTConfrct can be defined as "a struggle over values and claims to scarce status, powe!and resources, a struggle in which the aims ofopponents are to neutralize, injure,or eliminare their rivals" (Coser, 1956, p. 8).25

26 BlorkqvislThere are rwo basically different views on rhe necessiry or inevitabiliry, ofconflicr. According ro one view, conflict is an aberration in sociery a kind of socia[parhology (Parsons, 1951; Smelser, 1962). Conflicts can be elinrinated by giving allpeople involved what they need. Conflict is, in accordance with this view, alwaysdysfunctional and does not facilitate evolution or improvement, neicher of socieryas a whole nor of relations between individuals. Conflicr is nor an inevitableingredient of human life.According to the other point of view, conflicts are inevitable by-products ofhuman interaction (Coser, 1956). Conflicrs are consequences of the impossibiliryof always giving all people involved what they want.Desire and needs are not identical, and rhe facr that people cannot get all rheywanr does not automatically and in all cases inrply that they do not get what cheyneed. Rubin, Pruitt, and Kim (1994, p. 5) accordingly described conflicr in morecareful terms, as "perceived divergence of incerest, or a belief that rhe parties'current aspirations cannor be achieved simultaneously."Coser ( 1956) is of the opinion rhac conflicr, alrhough inevitable, is not inherentlypathological or always necessarily dysfunctional. On a short-cerm basis, a conflictnlay seem dysfunctional, but on a long-term basis, it nray be functional and lead toimprovement of a sociecy in question. Lyons (1993) also suggested thar confiictoften can be a consrructive force in social life. The issue offunctionaliry though,is epistenrologically problematic, and based on post hoc analysis.Levi-Strauss (1958) suggesred char conflicrs ofdifferenr kinds are latent in everyculture, and the reason why norms are formed is to prevent latent and potentialconflicts. Norms are ritualized ways of handling conflicr. Nornrs wirh respect toclothing may serve as an example: For instance, by concealing genitals, sexualexcitation caused by visual srimulation is reduced, and sexual conflict ro a greatextent is avoided.There are norms for how to dress in a large variery of societal roles, a factfacilitating the preservation of these roles. Human speech also is highty ritualizedand regulated by norms; in fact, every aspect of communication and social life hasnorms of its own. Individuals who do not follow nornls are regarded as deviant and,if central and important norms are violared, rhe individual in question may bepunished. Every sociery has rules of eciquecte, rhe neglect of which leads tosanctions. Preliterate people have sysrems of social control, although they do notperhaps have a wricren law.l-evi-Srrauss' view may be compared to Freud's (19]0/1948) opinion on normsand culture, presented in his book Das lJnbehagen in der Kultur lCivilization and itsDiscontents]: According to Freud, the internalization of norms into an intrapsychicsuperego is the result ofthe clash between the pleasure-principle and the realiryprinciple.Humans cannot get everyching they want. Taken as a whole, culturefacilitates human well-being, but culture also puts limitadons on the individual.The position raken in this chapter is rhat conflicts really are inevirable. However,rhey should not in all cases be regarded as dysfunctional, or as a kind of socialpathology. Conflicts are of many different rypes, some functional, some dysfunc-

3. Invevifobilitv of Confllcf Bul Not ol Vlolence 27rional. Some confliccs are harmful, but, in some cases, conflicts may improve societyand social relations on a long-ternr basis.AGGRESSION AND ANGERViolence and aggression are related concepts, often used synonymously in everydaylanguage; they are not, however, identical but rather partly overlapping concepts,violence being only one form of aggression. The emorion of anger also is oftenmistakenly used as a synonym ofaggression. Aggression is an act, not an inner stare.The emotion ofanger is often (bur not always) a precursor ofaggression.Buss (1961, p. 1) defined aggression as "a response that delivers noxious sdmuliro anorher organism." That definition does not exclude harm delivered to anotherperson or organism unintentionally. IfBuss'definition is taken literally, hitting andinjuring another person accidentally by car would be an aggressive act.Authors ofa behaviorist orientation have rried to avoid references to inner statesor inrentions, bur rhey use instead ternrs such as goal'direcrion. Dollard, Doob,Miller, Mowrer, and Sears (1939, p.7) defined aggression as "an act whosegoal-response is injury to an organism (or organism-surrogate)." Baron (1977' p. 7)defined aggression as "any form ofbehavior directed toward the goal ofharming orinjuring another living being who is nrotivated to avoid such fieatment."Aggression here is defined as an incencional act, carried out with the purpose ofcausing physical or mental pain to another individual or organisn (see alsoBjorkqvisr & Nienreld, 1992). In order to be regarded as painful, the act must be ofa kind that the object is motivated to avoid. If the perperaror does not succeed inhis or her intentions, and no injury occurs, the act may still be regarded as aggressive.There is experimental evidence (Holm, 1985; Bjorkqvist, Lindstrcjm, Pehrsson,1989) that people pay attention !o at least the following four facrors when theyattribute aggressiveness to an act: 1) its intentionaliry, Z) the extenc of injury orharm, 3) the reason (e.g., offensive attack vs. defense), and 4) the method.While aggression is a kind of behavior or an act, aggressiveness is the inclinationto inrenrionally behave in a harmful way. One may distinguish becween situationallydetermined'state aggressiveness' and the more profound'crait aggressiveness,' thatis, the inclination to behave aggressively in a variery of situadons, a personalirytrait).Ic is noteworthy that intentional harmful behavior may be carried out withoucany feeling of anger whatsoever, so to say, in cold blood. It is common practice todifferentiate between emotionally determined agressbn, originating from anger, andinstrumental aggression.ln the latter case, the aggressive behavior is only an instrumentfor the accomplishment of a speci{ic goal. Feshbach (1964), who was the firstto make the distinction between rhese two, used the label hosole aggression for theemotionally determined category whereas Fraczek (1989) referred to it as emo[o-[enic aggression These rwo rypes of aggression do noc necessarily exclude oneanother, and aggressive acts are, indeed, in many cases, a mixrure ofboth. But, as

28 EiorkovisiLagerspetz (1984) suggested, rhe mosr common emotion of soldiers in war is nocanger, but fear. Anger is noc a prerequisite for aggressron.Accordingly, it is important ro keep in mind that anger and aggression areconceptually different. This distinction is of special imporrance when we discusswhether violence is an inevitable outcome of conflict. Although anger may lead roaggressive behavior, it does not necessarily do so in every case. Anger is a natural,invigorating emotion, biologically geared from the lin'rbic system, especially fromthe hypothalamus and the amygdala (Herbert, 1989); it is an emorion everyone hasexperienced and will experience, perhaps on a daily basis. The well-known crossculturalsrudy on nonverbal expressions ofemorions by Ekman and Friesen (1971)suggesthat rhe emotion of anger is similarly displayed in different cultures in analmost universal fashion. How we deal with our anger, however, whether we willutilize its lorce for aggressive or consrrucrive purposes, is learned.THE ORIGIN OF AGGRESSIONThe history of psycl-rology has wirnessed three nrain theories about rhe origin ofaggression: 1) instinct rheory, claiming that aggression is an innare drive, Z) thefrustrarion-aggression hypothesis, and 3) the social learning rlleory of aggresskn. Idiscuss rheir advantagcs-and problems----one by onc.Instinct TheoryThe nrost well-known proponents of the theory (Signrund Freud, and KonradLorenz) have written ir-r Gernran, and the so callcd instinct theoni accordingly,should rather be labeled the Tiieb-theory because there is a vasr differcncc berweenthe Cerman Tneb and the English instinct (Cerrnan: Instinftt). \Vhen Freud's workwas translated into English, the rranslators wrongly chose the word insrinct ir-rsteadof drive, which would have been the erynrologically correcr equivalenr. This misrakehas caused enornlous confusion wirhin the field of psychology of nrotivarion, andthe damage cannot bc undone.The closest way ro describe whar Tileb really nreans is rhar ic implies an innatc(Latin in natus: present ar birrh) drive, funcrioning in accordance wirh rhe so cailedreservoir model. The drivc is triggered by internal rarher rhan external srimuli,examples being the hunger, thirst, and sexual drives. Tl're internal pressure plays amore central and imporranr role than external stimulation, and it determines thestrength of rhe drive, although external stimuli may contribute. The reservoir nrodelsuggests rhar in the same way as a reservoir slowly fills wirh water, increasing thepressure in the rank, drive srrer-rgth also continuously increases over tinre, if theneed is nor fulfilled. Tl-re longer rhe rime since lasr fulfillment, rhe greater rhepressure.lf the theory were correcr and aggression really is a ?reb in the suggested scnse,then humans would feel an evcr-increasing drive toward being aggressive, alsowithout exrernal frustration. The pressure would sooner or lacer force each one ofus to carry our acrs of aggression.

3. Invevilobilltv of Conflict Buf Nol of Vlolence 29Freud originally stated rhat there existed only one basic drive in humans, thetibido or Eroi, fto* which other morivarion is derived (Freud, 1920/1940). Later'after experiencing rhe horrors of\0orld \var I, he canre to che conclusion that therealso must e*ist *iihin man an opposite, desructive drive, which he labeled Thanatosafter rhe Greek god ofdearh (Freud, 1910/1948). The English-language literaturehas labeled this drive the death instinct.Freud was involved in correspondence with Albert Einstein, in which theydiscussed whether tl-ris proposed destructive drive really existed, and ifit did, woutdrhis drive explain *hy humar.r, so easily ger involved in warfare (Einstein& Freud,l933llg7z). Emsrein denied the existence of Thanatos, but Freud held a morepessimistic view According to him, hunrans have indeed an innate drive towarddestruction, and therefore, warfare cannot be avoided'A circumstance lirtle known or at least seldonr described in the literature is thatFreud was of the opinion rhat the death ?ieb, Thanatos, primarily is self-descructive'directed inwards io*ard people themselves, and rhat outward aggression o.ly is achan1rele derivarion front ic. Eros a1d Thar-ratosymboli;ed to him the ongoingstruggle berween thc wish for life and the wish fbr death, within eacl'r individual'ir1,.hor,.,"lyrt, afrer Freud found rhe idea of an innate self-destructive drivedifficulr to reconcile and Hartmann, Kris, and Loewenstein (1949) suggested thatthere is, indeed, a drive roward destrucrion rvithin humans, but the primarydirecCion of ti.ris drive is outward aggression, uot inward self-destruction. Thrsviewpoint has been commonly accepted within psychoanalysis ever since' That is'the notion of ar.r innate aggressive drive stems, in a strict settse, frotn Hartmann,Kris, and l-,oewensreiu, l'Iot frotn Freud.Erhologist Konrad Lorenz also suggested the existence of an innare' aggressivedrive in hii book On Aggression ( 1966). The exacc ftanslation of the German originalname Das Sogenon,l,. Bor. (Lorenz, 1963) woutd be "The So-Catled Evi[," revealingLorenz's viewpoinr that aggression is not necessarily bad. It is obvious from Lorenz'spresentarion ihat he rhoughr this drive to function in accordance with the pre'viously menrioned reservoir moclel. Monragu (1976, p. 92) describes it as a "hydraulicnrodel." Lorenz (1966) suggested that the best way for hunankind to avoidviolence is ro find vicarious ourlets for this drive, such as the viewing of aggressivesporrs-a kind of catharsis hypothesis (Feschbach, 1955). The serious problenr ofulol"n." antong soccer fx15-;se6sg1 hooliganism"-is a real-life refutation of thishypothesis, n, *. th" findings ofincreased aggressiveness after violent film viewing(e.g., Goranson, 1970; Huesmann & Eron, 1986).Tl.re instincr, or Trieb rheory, should thus be regarded as refuted: The need toaggress is not an innate drive comparable to hunger, thirst' or sex, functioning inaccordance with the reservoir model. If tltat were the case, everyone of us wouldfee[, wirhout exrernal stinruli or frustration, an ever-incteasing drive to beconleaggressive, perhaps a need to go out and hit someone about once a week, in orderto have the drive fulfilled' This is certainly not the case.There is, however, at least one circuntstance ofbiological nature that may havea strong tenclency to lead nten and wonren intO interpersonal conflict: the naturalemorion of angcr, cxperienced when one is frrrstrated. The abiliry to get angry has

30 Biorkqvislprobably served as an invigoraring mediaror enhancing the tendency towardsaggressive behavior.Subhuman primates show borh terrirorial and hierarchical behavior (Mason&Mendoza, 1993). Humans display territorial and hierarchical parrerns of behavror,too, but whether chese reflect innate drives or learned behavior is a matter ofdispute(Knauft, 1994). Aggression is often useful and somerimes even necessary in thedefense of one's territory. In prehistoric times, individuals who were noc able to learnaggressive behavior may nor have been able to survive and propagare.Mammals living in social groups have hierarchies or "pecking orders" (Tinbergen,1951). The studies by Goodatl ( 1991) on chimpanzees living in rhe wild presentlively descriptions ofviolence berween chimpanzees, as a consequence ofhierarchicaldisputes. Hierarchical orders may be noced also among humans. These socialhierarchies are to a grear extenr sex-specific, males forming hierarchies of their own,females of their own (Bjorkqvisr &Niemelii, 1992). Individuals of rhe same sex alsohave a tendency to compete over mating partners. When rhe hierarchy wirhin agroup is known and accepted, there is litrle overt aggression: When the order isdisputed, aggression increases.The conclusion derived is that aggression is nor an innare drive in itsel{, bur rrmay serve as a means to fulfill ocher drives, wherher innare or learned. Aggressronmay also have been necessary ro arrain viral resources in periods and geographicalareas where resources have been scarce. The emorion of anger serves as anenergizing power, rendering violent solutions of conflicts more likely than nonviolencones (but sdll not inevirable).The Frustrotion-Aggression HypothesisThe second (chronologically speaking) influer.rtiaI theory abour the origin of aggressionis the frustration-aggression hypothesis, presented in rhe work Ftustration andAggression by Dollard, Doob, Miller, Mowrer, and Sears (1939). According to rhishypothesis, the source ofaggression is always a frustration ofsome kind, whether arecent, situationally relevant frusrration or a previous one (e.g., stemming from thechildhood). In rhe latter case, one could speak ofbottled-up frustrarions, leadrngto an aggressive personaliry a tendency to behave aggressively in a variery ofsituations.The original version of the hyporhesis, as presenred by Dollard, et al. (1939),stated that frustration always caused aggression, and thar aggressive behavior wouldnever appear withour previous frustration (i.e., there is a direct, necessary connectionbetween che rwo).This argument has several problems. The firsr difficulry is epistenrological:Inductive inferences about causal relationships, like the one between frusrationand aggression, are impossible ro prove (Poppea 1959).Second, frustration may well lead to other forms of behavior than aggression, forinstance depression. Or, frustradons may inspire the individual ro consrrucnveproblem-solving. Frustration often has other consequences than aggression.

3. Invevilobillly of Conltlct But Nol of Vlolence3lOnly rwo years after the publication o( Frustratian and Agressbn, one of ircaurhors, Neal Miller wrote an article (1941) in which he revised his opinion.According to his revised version ofthe hypothesis, the connection between frustrationand aggression is not necessary but likely. Frustrations may have consequencesother than aggression.Fraczek (1989) has suggested chat frusrations are not a necessary prerequisiceof aggression, and individuals may be aggressive out of pure habit. He coined thercrm habitu.al agression, to describe this pattern of behavior. He did not, however,mention habitual aggression in connection with the frustration-aggression hy'pothesis, but the existence ofhabitual aggression would as such imply a refurationof the frusradon-aggression hypothesis, even in its revised version (Miller' 1941).It is, however, possible that aggression may be caused by frustradon, but also byhabiruation; and, fruscration likewise nray have consequences other than aggression,as suggested by Miller (1941). In thar case, a second, rarher diluted, revisionof the frustration-aggression hypothesis-including multiple causes of aggression,and multiple effects of frustration-n'right be considered acceptable. This versionwas presented in an article by Bjorkqvist (1990).Figure 3.1 presents the frusrration-aggression hypothesis, covering rhe modifrcationsuggested by Milter (1941), as well as rhe modification presented byBjorkqvist (1990).In 1989, I asked Neal Miller whether the interpretation of Miller's (1941) articlejust presented was correct. Miller's answer was "yes," but rhat he now also would-->\--

32 Bi6rkqvislbe ready to accept that orher causes of aggression than previous fiustratio^ mightexist (N. Miller, personal communication, June, 1989).Sociol Leorning TheoryThe third main theory on rhe origin of aggressive behavior, social learning theory,dominated psychological chinking during rhe 1960s and 1970s, but ir seems nowto be giving way ro more cognirively oriented hypocheses. According ro it,aggression is not an innare drive, but ir is learned. The main proponent of thischeory has been Albert Bandura (e.g., Bandura,1973). The theory has focusedmainly on rhe issue of how aggression is learned, and especially on observarionallearning. The [earning of aggression occurs by condirioning. The conditioning maybe direct or vicarious; ic is direct when the individual learns rhat aggression pays,by a kind of trial-and-error srrategy, or through instrumenral condirioning. Notethat the principle of rrial-and-error described by rhe associacionist Thorndike(1906) is in facr identical wirh rhe principle of instrumenral condirioning asproposed by rhe behaviorist skinner (191s). social learning cheory suggests thatlearning fiom models should be regarded as vicarious conditioning, (i.e., learningoccurs by warching models attaining rheir goals through aggressive means). If rhemodel succeeds, it has the effect of a positive vicarious reinforcemenr on theviewer.The concept of vicarious conditioning appeared the first rime ir.r rhe book socrarI*arning andlmitation by Miller and Dollard (1941), who atre.rpted ro explain allkinds of learning, also rhe difficult issue of learning fronr nrodels, in behavioristermsas kinds of conditioning.I basically agree with Bandura's theory, the onlv serious criticism beins rhat hewas nor able ro disrance himself enough from behaviorisr lea.ring rheory. In thesame vain as Miller and Dollard (1941), he presenred imicarion as if learning frommodeis occurs only if the model is successful, ie., rewarded (Bandura, r9z3). It rsnot certain whether he really was of this opihion, but rhis is the inrpression thereader gets.I have suggested in other articles (Bjdrkqvist&Osrerman, 1992; Bjorkqvist, rnpress) that the learning of aggression from models cannor be explained i' rerms ofvicarious conditioning only. At a minimum, the following four facrors are imporranr:1) the degree of similaricy between the model situation and the acrual siruation, z)the degree of identification berween acror and model, 3) rhe success or failure ofthe model (vicarious conditioning), and 4) the amounrofexposure ro the modelsituation.Heavy exposure to an aggressive model (e.g., a father) who is unsuccessfur anddoes not reach his goals by aggressive behavior may as such be an influence sffongenough to cause imitation, if the child has no orher scripts of behavior (Schank&Abelson, l9?7) to assimilate. Recent authors within aggression research (eg.,Huesmann & Eron, 1986; Bjorkqvist & Osterman, L99Z; Bjorkqvist, in press)suggested thac cognirive theory is berter able co explain the learning ofaggressionrhan raditional, behaviorist-oriented social learning rheory.

34 giorkqvisfpanzees living in the wild, reported warlike conflicts berween groups of chinpanzees,including sysremadc ambush, ending in killings of members of the rival grtup.warfare is, according ro rhe sratemenr, a peculiar hun'ran phenomeno.t that do.snoc occur in other animals. The fact that warfare is frequenr among humans, thestatement suggesrs, indicares that war is a product of human culture: Language,tools, and rechnology have made warfare possible. varfare is, however, nor inevitable;rhere are cultures that have nor engaged in warfare, whereas orher have hadwars fiequenrly. Further, there are cultures which have engaged in warfare frequentlyduring certain periods, although they have been living in peace wirh rheirneighbors at orher times (The seville staremenc on Molence, r986ii989).People used to jusrifo slavery and sexist domination by claiming rhat they werebiological and inevitable. These claims were found ro be unrrue, slavery was ended,and the world communicy is working ro srop racial and sexisr dominarion. In chesame fashion, the signarories of rhe seville staremenr suggesc, rhe world is nowfooling irself by believing thar war and violence cannot be ended because rheyconsdture a parr ofour biological makeup.The seville Statemenr was endorsed by a number of nongovernmental organrzations,among them Unired Narions'Educational, sciendfic, and cultural organization(UNESCo). An impressive number of scientific organizarions also haveendorsed the statement, among them, the American Psychological Associarion(APA)' the American Anthropological Association (AAA), and rhe Inrernationalsociery for Research on Aggression (lsRA). The iniriarive ro drafr rhe sevilleStatenrent was, in fact, made by individual ISRA menrbers.The validiry of the seville srateme'r has noc gone unquestioned, and, witnrnISRA, there were debaces about whether the sociery should endorse the sratemenror not.\Uhen the council of Representarives of the ApA vored to endorse rhe Sevillestatement in 1987, the Board of scienrific Affairs emphasized that, in their opinion,it is not a quesrion of a scienrific sraremenr on the issue of specific inheriredbehavioral traits. Rather, it is a social sraremenr designed ro eliminare unfoundedstereorypic thinking on the inevirabiliry of war.coNcLUstoNsIn summary aggression is nor an innate drive (or instinct) per se, funcrioning inaccordance with the reservoir model, like drives to satisfii hunger, rhirsr, and ie*.Throughout human evolutionary history incerpersonal "ggr.rrio., may have had,however, a facilitating and mediating role in the fulfrllmeniof orher drives, whetherthese are innate or learned, such as territorial and hierarchical drives, and strugglesfor getting access ro mating partners. Aggressive behavior has cerrainly playJanevolutionary role for survival, especially when resources have been scarce. Althoughscripts of aggressive behavior are learned, n6s Innsgs-nobody knows how ro fighrwithout training or modeling-it may be argued thar rhe abllicy ro learn aggressionhas been useful for survival, and narural selection for rhe ability to get angry whenvital interests are threa[ened may have occurred.

3. lnvevitobillty ot Conlllcl Bul Not of Vlolence 35The emodon of anger is often a predecessor of aggressive behavior, with angerserving as an invigoracing factor, making aggressive behavior more likely. Angershould definitely not be regarded as unnatural; it is an emotion as natural as anyother. Anger however, does not have !o lead to violence. There is not proof of theexistence of any biological factor making violent solutions of conflicts inevitable.It is especially important ro keep in mind that forms of aggressive behavior arelearned, not innate. While every child has innate programs for laughing, crying,crawling, and walking, there is no innace programming for clenching fists, beacing,kicking, or shooting others. These parrerns or scripts of behavior are learned,especially by watching aggressive models. This learning is more likely to occur in asociery acceptive of and, even more likely, in one glorifring aggression. If modernwarfare is a consequence ofhuman culture rather than ofhuman nature, perhapsculture is also the best cure against it. As the Seville Scarement put it, che speciesrhat invented warfare should also be capable of invendng peace. What is needed,above all, is a change in the general atdtude rowards violence.REFERENCESBan,lura, A. (1973). Aggressioru- A sxialleaming arol1sis. Englewon, R. A. (197i). Hurun Aggresson- Ncw York: Plenum.Batcs

BlorkqvisfFreud, S. (1940). Csamruhz Weilc [Collected works] (Vol. l3). London, England: lmago.(Origrrul work published 1920)Freud, S. (1948). GsamkeWe*e lCollected works] (Vo[. 14). London: lmago. (Original mrkpubtished 1930)Coqlall, J. (1991). Throug! a uindru: 30 lears with rhe chinpanzea of Gmbe. Boston, MA:Houghton Mifflin.Goranson, R E. (1970). Media violence and aggressive behavior: A review of expenmentalresearch. InL.Berkowitz (Ed.),AdwuinuPei'mtr,lsxialpslcholog (pp. 1-31).NewYork:Academic.Crmbel,J., &Hinde, R. (Eds.).(1989).AsgrssionandwarTheirbbbgicaland.socazlbcs.NewYork: Cambridgc University Press.Hartmann, H., Kris, E., & L*wenstein, R. (1949). Nores on rhe rheoryof aggression PsychoanafticSudl of rlv ChiA, 3,9-36.Herbert, J. (1989). Thc physiology of aggrcssion. In J. Groebel & R. Hinde (Eds.), Aggrasbn anduar: Their bbbgaol atd, srcial basa (pp. 58-71). New York: Cambridge Universiry Prcss.Holm, O. (1985). Four deteminants of perceiued aggressbn and a fourstep dt ibutin rnodel. Umcl.Sweden: Umcl Univcrsity Press.Hucsmann, R. L., & Eron, L. (Eds.).(1986).?levubn and. tlle agrusive chiH: A cross-rccio.ujcomparison. Hillsdalc, NJ: Lamencc Erlbaum Associatcs.Knauft, B. M. (1994). Culture and cooperation in human evolution. In L. E. Sponscl & T Gregor(Eds.), The aruhropobgy of pwe andrcnvblsae (pp.37-67). Boulder, CO: Lynnc-Rienncr.Lagerspctz, K. M. J. (1984). Psychology and its frontiers. In K. M. J. Lagerspetz & P Nicmi (Eds.),Psychoio6y in ke 1990' s (pp. 2344\. Amsterdam: North.Holland.Levi-Strauss, C. (1958). Anrhrcpologb scructuralc [Sructural Anrhropology]. Paris: Plon.Lorenz, K. (1963). Dc SogmmneB6se. ZurNaurguchidte du Agression [The so.calletl evi[: Onapgressionl. Viema, Austria: Borotha Schcler-Verlag.breu, K. (1966). On Agrasbn. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.Lyons, D. M. ( 1993) . Conflict as a consuuctivc forcc in social life. In W A. Mason & S. P Mcndoza(Eds.), Parote saial conflict (pp. 387-408). Albany, NY: State Univcrsiry of New York Press.Mason, V. A., & Mendoza, S. P (Eds.). (199! . Pnmce social conflict. Albany, NY State UniversiryofNew York Press.Mead, M. ( 1940). Warfare is only an invendon-noc a biological necessiry. Aria, XL, 402-.405.Miller, N. E. (1941). The frustration-aggrcssion hlpothesis. Pslchologica! Revieu, 48, 337-342.Miller, N. E., & Dollard, J. (1941). Socialleaming and imntion. New Haven, CI Yale UnivcrsrryPress.Montagu, A. (1976). The rucate of humn aggression. New York: Oxford Universiry Press.Parsons, T (1951). The sxial sysrm. New York: Free Press.Popper, K. (1959). The logic of scientific dLscueris. London, England: Hutchiruon.Rubin, J. 2., Pruitr, D. G., & Kim, S. H. (1994). Social conflict: Escalanon, stalernate, and sectlqnstNew York: McCraw-Hill.Schank, R, &Abelson, R. (1977). Scriprs, phru, goak ad.urvJ.ers:ain&ing: anen4uirJ intohuntar.tkrcwledge. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Aswiates.Seville Statement on Molence. (1989). Reprinred in J. Croebel, J. Hinde, & R. Hinde (Eds.),Agrasion anl, uar: Theu bblogical nd social basa (pp. xxiii-xvi). New York: CambridgeUniversity Press. (Original work published 1986)Skinner, B. E (1938). The behzvior of organisms. New York: Appleton.Smelser, N. (1962). Theol of colbcrile behanw. New York: Rce Press.Thomdike, E. L. (1906). Animl intelligatce. Psychological Monograpls, 1, No. 8.Tinbergen, N. (1951). The study ofinstinrt. Oxford, England: Clarendon Press.