Theoretical Considerations on Conflict and Aggression

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.