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.