This lecture and the one scheduled for next Tuesday are intended to supplement and extend the treatment of interpersonal aggression discussed in Chapter 2 Theories of Aggression. The lecture was delayed until now so that we could consider theory about other current events (e.g., terrorism and the genocide) taking place at the time that Chapter 2 was assigned.
1.	Definitions of aggression
	a.	Geen (2001)
		1.	Affective aggression--behavior aimed primarily at injuring the provoking person. (4)
		2.	Instrumental aggression--Behavior need not have a strong emotional basis to be aggressive. People often attack others with intent to harm but without necessarily feeling any malice towards them: the aggression is simply a means to some other end. (5)
	b.	Baron (1977)
		1.	Hostile aggression--instances of aggression in which the primary or major goal sought by aggressors is that of causing the victim to suffer. (13)
		2.	Instrumental aggression--instances in which aggressors assault other persons not out of a strong desire to see them suffer but primarily as a means of attaining other goals. (13)
2.	Frustration-aggression hypothesis
	a.	Dollard, Doob, Miller, Mowrer, & Sears (1939)
		1.	Frustration--The blocking of ongoing, goal-directed responses. (Baron, 22-24))
		2.	Frustration-aggression hypothesis in its initial form.
			a.	Frustration always leads to some form of aggression.
			b.	Aggression is always the result of frustration.
		3.	Frustration is not assumed to induce aggression directly; rather, it is assumed to induce an instigation toward aggression (an aggressive drive), which then facilitates or encourages aggressive behavior.
	b.	As pointed out by Bandura (1973), these assertions are highly appealing, partly because of their boldness and partly because of their simplicity. After all, if they are accepted, a highly complex form of behavior is explained in one daring stroke. (22)
		1.	Caution: Social psychologists characterize humans a cognitive misers. We take mental shortcuts. We find bold and simple answers appealing because they require less cognitive effort. Often, however, critical thinking reveals a much more complex set of conditions.
	c.	Neal Miller (1941), one of the original formulators of the frustration-aggression hypothesis, quickly amended the first proposal to read:
			a.	Frustration produces instigations to a number of different types of responses, one of which is an instigation to some form of aggression.
	d.	Turning to the second proposal, that aggression always results from frustration, it is clear that the formulators of this view went too far. (Baron, 23)
	e.	The strength of the instigation to aggression formulated by Dollard, Doob, Miller, Mower, & Sears. (Baron 24)
		1.	Dollard et al. suggested that three factors were crucial:
			a.	The reinforcement value or importance of the frustrated goal response.
			b.	The degree of frustration of this response.
			c.	The number of frustrated response sequences.
		2.	Dollard and his colleagues suggested that the effects of successive frustrations may summate over time, so that several minor experiences of this type can combine to induce a stronger aggressive reaction than any one alone.
	f.	Since it is clear that individuals do not always aggress following frustration, Dollard et al. turned their attention to factors serving to inhibit overt aggression. They concluded that such behavior is primarily inhibited by the threat of punishment. (Baron, 24)
		1.	In their own words, "The strength of inhibition for any act of aggression varies positively with the amount of punishment anticipated to be a consequence of the act."
		2.	While threatened punishment was assumed to inhibit overt aggressive reactions, however, it was not viewed as reducing the actual instigation to aggression. Thus, if an individual were prevented from attacking the person who had frustrated him by the fear of some type of punishment, the individual would still be motivated to aggress. The result might then be assaults against persons other than the frustrator, persons associated with weaker threats of punishment--a phenomenon generally known as displacement.
	g.	If threats of punishment serve merely to block the performance of aggressive actions and leave the instigation toward aggression largely unchanged, what factors operate to reduce aggressive motivation?
		1.	According to Dollard and his associates, the answer centers on the process of catharsis.
		2.	Earlier Freud had defined catharsis as a discharge of destructive energy and in this manner lessen the likelihood of more dangerous aggressive acts. Freud was relatively pessimistic about the effects of catharsis. He felt its effects would be quite minimal and short-lived.
		3.	Dollard and his colleagues, however, assumed that catharsis is more effective than Freud assumed. We will return to the topic of catharsis next week. (Baron, 17-18)
	h.	Extending and refining the theory of displacement, Miller (1948) proposed a specific model to account for the occurrence of displaced aggression--instances in which individuals aggress against persons other than their frustraters.
		1.	Miller suggested that an aggressor's choice of victims is largely determined by three factors:
			a.	The strength of the instigation to aggression.
			b.	The strength of the inhibitions against aggression.
			c.	The stimulus similarity of each potential victim to the frustrating agent.