Theoretical Considerations on Conflict and Aggression

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.