Talk:Aggression

Predatory behavior between members of one species towards another species is also described as "aggression." To be aggressive towards members of another species is common, such as in these examples: "Lions are aggressive hunters of antelopes," and "Eagles are aggressive hunters of small mammals." There are also other uses of the word "aggressive", such as in describing chemical reactions, bacterial or viral infections, and cancers or tumors.98.81.17.215 (talk) 16:17, 22 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Heredity and Aggression - I know this is true in my case, because my mom is very aggressive and domineering and I tend to be aggressive and highly competitive... even to the point of taking up boxing... so for me, at least, aggression is genetic... ( no one cares) - Nathan Zhang 2007 08 28 2227 -5000 CEAD 3MAC See you in the ring! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.227.106.222 (talk) 02:28:26, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

The entire two paragraphs on the United Nations and acts of aggression should be compactifieded to a few lines with a link to the 'definitions of aggression' article. - 20/04/06

"Aggression is a basic drive of life" Aggression is not a drive -Pete.Hurd 15:32, 19 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

"The easiest aggression to explain is that of a group defending itself against a predator to prevent to be eaten.

Either the strong will form a circle around the weak and defend them, thus using aggression and also endangering themselves, or the group will flee and the weak gets eaten, which may eventually lead to extinction."

Group selection explanation? - Not Good.

In fact, the more I read this page, the more I think it's really not up to snuff. The psychology section should include some discussion of instrumental aggression, reactive aggression etc, in addition to the indirect aggression. The biology section, well there should be a biology section, and it should discuss aggression as a method of securing access to resources, rather than casting it as a behavioural aberration.

To add: Brain's (1979) classification, and other criticisms of Moyer's classification.

Other forms of aggression to add:

• indirect/social aggression
• displaced aggression
• schedule-induced aggression
• ritualized (ethological sense) aggression

Papers to incorporate:

• Brain, P.F. (1979) Hormones and aggression: II. Annual Research Reviews. Hormones and aggression 2:183-xxx
• Ramírez & Andreu (2006) Aggression, and some related psychological constructs (anger, hostility, and impulsivity) Some comments from a research project. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 30:276-291.
• Adams, D.B. (2006) Brain mechanisms of aggressive behavior: An updated review. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 30:304-318

Overall this is a good a topic with a lot of potential. I think this needs to be broken down into a few different sections. Focusing on Aggression in general, aggression in animals, and aggression in humans. We also need those who are knowledgeable in these areas to come forward and present and check this information. Doing this will make this article very worth why. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tbo129 (talk • contribs) 05:07, 31 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

This piece is confusing and contradictory. The writing and thinking are poor. The section, for example, appears to confuse defense and aggression:

"Aggression against outsiders

The easiest aggression to explain is that of a group defending itself against a predator to prevent being eaten.

Agression has three salient aspects: 1. It is intentional. 2. It is behavior directed to create mental or physical harm in another person. 3. The other person does not wish to be harmed. Aronson,E., Wilson, T., & Akert, R. (2010) "Social Psychology." Pearson Learning Solutions. New York.

Hunting is not aggression, it is survival. Cruelty to animals is inhumane. Self defense is spontaneous and lacks intent.

Either the strong will form a circle around the weak and defend them, thus using aggression and also endangering themselves, or the group will flee and the weak get eaten.'

The predator, may be an agressor as well as the defenders. A footbal team is agressive, but so are the cheerleaders (mental harm towards outgroup). But I believe when we try and explain aggression with examples of groups, we blur the distinction between concepts in group behavior. Keep it simple.

"Aggression is a basic aspect of living beings and part of the process of survival and evolution.

Aggression in humans is partly genetic, with origins going back to our reptilian ancestors, and partly a result of upbringing. "

"living beings" might better be restricted to "animals", and "reptilian ancestors" is a bit strange, fish are perfectly capable of aggression... Merely fixing these errors wouldn't really result in a marked improvement, so I moved the material here. Pete.Hurd 01:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Removed numbers in millions associated with the percentage results given in the section on female aggression. They are misleading, implying sample sizes in the region of 10million or so respondents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Olivcm (talk • contribs) 09:46, 20 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

In my opinion, this piece still needs work, including some citations to back up the various assertions. It's still conceptually self-contradictory, and in places the writing could be improved.

Yep, this thing is maybe 5% done... Even just making a "to do" list would be a big step forward Pete.Hurd 00:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

I have added a See Also PsychoanalyticTheoryA Fundamental Revision. Aside from the U.N. definition, and the Aggro stuff, this article is an unorganized series of examples of mostly individual and some group aggression. This is characteristic of the literature on aggression. However running through are frequent mentions or references to two important easily observed constructs from ethology and animal behavior, namely, Territory and Dominance. These two constructs refer to complex patterns of behavior which have not been taken seriously in the literature on human behavior. The above WP link starts the process. Don't be put off by the title or introduction and explanation.This was just an almost empty article with a semi-appropriate title.Most of the text could just as easily been placed here.Islandsage 01:42, 27 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Example follows: "For example, a researcher’s ideas becomes territory through his personal interaction over time with the formulation, elaboration, and maintenance of those specific ideas. The researcher will not only vigorously defend her ideas, but will return again and again to those ideas even after long periods of separation. In fact, an individual may perservere in holding abstract ideas long after they have been factually contradicted or period of usefulness is exceeded, as in an obsolete scientific theory , religious beliefs, or political dogma."Islandsage 18:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

The page for Aggro leads to this page. Shouldn't their be a disambiguation page instead, with a new article talking about aggro in video games, y'know, getting a mob to keep attacking you and all that...

This page really needs some structured thinking, clarification of different disciplines use of the word, good references, etc etc and the writing needs to be cleaned up throughout. Pete.Hurd 15:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

I added a well accepted definition of aggression from social psychology, so this should help us to focus our thoughts while cleaning up this article. While talking about aggression, it's important to make sure we understand what aggression is not. Jcbutler 23:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

A worthwhile article to add, considering that this quality is coveted in many areas of music, particularly heavy metal. It forms the spine of the genre's ethos, among others.

I disagree. Music is generally not used to harm others. This topic might be more appropriately addressed elsewhere. Jcbutler 23:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Music is not source of aggression, but it is a way to release some. vordhosbnbg 1:04, 14 August 2007

This article seems to me to be sorely lacking in content, at least based on my expectations for such an important topic. Further, I have noted it as anthropocentric, as it completely ignores questions of animal aggression, which could then be tied into how animal aggression is manifest in more complex human aggression.

I cannot rewrite the article myself at this time, though I may contribute to it later. Excellent reading on the subject could be had in Desmond Morris's books, as he covers the topic in many of his published works. --Lvthn13 04:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

This is an interesting point. I normally think of aggression as something that occurs between human beings, but I can see how a short section on animal aggression would be very valuable here, especially in the context of evolutionary theory and research. Jcbutler 23:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

It looks like 140.247.44.100 has made some solid improvements. I think the definition and Moyer's classification have value though, so I have restored them, along with some softening of the language suggesting that aggression is no longer perplexing. I like the emphasis on biology and evolution, though I think the article needs some additional social psychological research and theory. Some anthropological work on the influence of culture would also help to round out the section on human aggression. Jcbutler 20:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'd say that in the biological literature, "aggression" is taken to mean within a social context, that is to say between members of the same species. Pete.Hurd 19:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

I agree, though this distinction seems to have been confused in edits to this article over the past few years. I tried fixing up the introduction but the article really needs some serious "top to bottom" attention. --Jcbutler (talk) 22:57, 16 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Alcohol, pain and discomfort, frustration, and violence on television are just a few of the factors that influence aggression in humans.

Er...I'm pretty sure the television thing isn't a scientifically proven fact.
138.243.129.4 15:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

From a review article by Anderson & Bushman 2001 (Psychological Science 12:353-359) "Five decades of research into the effects of exposure to violent television and movies have produced a thoroughly documented and highly sophisticated set of research findings. It is now known that even brief exposure to violent TV or movie scenes causes significant increases in aggression, that repeated exposure of children to media violence increases their aggressiveness as young adults, and that media violence is a significant risk factor in youth violence (Bushman & Huesmann, 2001; Huesmann et al., 2001)." Pete.Hurd 15:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Also keep in mind that these are considered to be risk factors, or "factors that influence" aggression. No one is claiming a simplistic view of causality in which a person sees violence and then immediately goes out and commits violence 100% of the time. The link between aggression and violence isn't actually proven but then the theories of evolution and gravity aren't proven either. They are merely explanations that have a tremendous amount of empirical support. I'd recommend going over to logic or geometry if you want to talk about proof. Scientists try to avoid that word. --Jcbutler 16:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm confused about this paragraph: "There is some evidence to suggest that the presence of violent objects such as a gun can trigger aggression. In a study done by Leonard Berkowitz and Anthony Le Page (1967), college students were made angry and then left in the presence of a gun or badminton racket. They were then led to believe they were delivering electric shocks to another student, as in the Milgram experiment. Those who had been in the presence of the gun administered more shocks. It is possible that a violence-related stimulus increases the likelihood of aggressive cognitions by activating the semantic network."

What's all this about badminton rackets and electric shocks? It makes no sense to me. 76.2.4.94 15:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Two different Psychological experiments (which are as far as I am aware unrelated as regards participants)

I find it interesting that from the very first line of this article aggression is painted as a negative, dark part of human nature. There are many examples of how aggression can be a good thing. Watch a game of poker on television and see how aggressive play can result in a win, even when the cards don't warrant it. Aggressive play in sports and aggressive moves in a game of strategy are often the correct play in oarder to secure a win. Perhaps this is because the games themselves were designed by aggressive humans, but one could argue that life itself favors the aggressive.

The willingness to take on greater risk is also a form of aggression. Aggressive business strategies, aggressive investing, etc. The natural world and human society favor the bold. Why is this article devoted only to the modern psychologist's view of aggression as a negative?

Whoever you are, you don't exactly provide any reason to see it as positive, unless you think survival of the fittest to be the basis of what is right and wrong (see appeal to nature). Richard001 08:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Social scientists define aggression more precisely than the way you are using it (you mentioned poker, risk taking, investments, etc.). Note that the definition is about deliberately causing harm to others. This is generally pretty negative. Just because I invest in risky stocks doesn't mean I am trying to hurt others. --Jcbutler (talk) 17:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

The original poster is correct, there has been scholarship finding aggression in moderation is positive, and which is concerned that "traditional" definitions of aggression are moralizing. I'll work on a new section about this over the next few days but give me some slack if it is incomplete 69.91.76.238 (talk)MV Guy —Preceding undated comment added 20:52, 7 January 2012 (UTC).Reply

Hello Contributors to this issue,

I recently began to write ex nihilo a new WIKIPEDIA page, under the title of "Social Defeat", it is excellent for within-species aggression. I think this approach is more adequate for scientific investigation of human aggression than social psychology approachs because i)it draws comparisons with animal studies (experiments in laboratory and observations in naturalistic settings), ii) evaluates physiological (neurological and endocrine) ccorrelates and iii) usually evaluates social context parameters (isolation vs. group housing, group stability vs. instability, etc.) Please read the page, and make good contributions if possible: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_defeat

Thank you for your attention,

AlbertoAlcor2010 17:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Cancers have three traits: aggressive, invasive, and metastatic. I'd like to be able to link to pages explaining these terms. On this page, could someone add a section about aggressive as it relates to cancer? --Una Smith 04:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

This would be more appropriately handled in a medical article, or the article on cancer. The "aggressive" growth of a tumor and a mugging are two entirely different subjects. --Jcbutler (talk) 17:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

1. PEER PRESSURE,pressure set by peers(friends) to be "cool"or have a social status.

See normative social influence.

1. PRESSURE,force set upon an object.(I put pressure on the can.)

Students of behavioral and social sciences have a jargon. Thus when a conversation speaks of pressure, it is taken to mean in the context of the social world, not the kitchen.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.236.184.200 (talk) 21:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)Reply 

I noticed that there wasn't a lot of information in some of the sections on this page, specifically Evolution of Aggression: Aggression with in a Species, Biology of Aggression: Aggression in the Brain, Neurotransmitters and Hormones, and Genetics and Aggression. I just added some material I thought would be useful from some research I conducted over the past weeks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KristyK3211 (talk • contribs) 19:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

I also added some new material as part of an honors project conducted over this past semester. —Preceding unsigned comment added by kmfrey (talk • contribs) 19:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.7.57.74 (talk) Reply

What is the reason a specific person can become agressive, when she is drugged with hashish and also also Abilify(R).

Do doctors give medicine to limit a hostile and emotional agression?

This topic is far to subjective to answer. See; definition of situation, perceptual salience, fundamental attribution error, and alcohol myopia (just for starters). An individual under the influence may do anything; furthermore, it is unlikely a licensed practioner would add another substance to one under the influence of illegal drugs. More importantly though, this is not the proper place for question and answer, try psych how. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Applejack32 (talk • contribs) 22:23, 11 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Suicide and other self-injurious acts are also forms of aggression. However, I only see information related to self-injury in the section about violent female youths.

68.54.107.114 (talk) 18:44, 2 May 2010 (UTC)SelfAggressionResearcherReply

There is a whole page on self harm. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:37, 19 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Interesting study regarding punishment and aggression in children. Not sure were to add it. [1] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:37, 19 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Okay added it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:41, 19 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

And I moved it! (The next sentence did not make sense with your study inserted) Lova Falk talk 10:42, 19 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

I saw on User:Delta shewa that he had made a sentence with a source. But it was not added to the article.

The contribution:This kind of behavioural problem has a big impact in social life and also it is not acceptable or it is not neccessary in the community that you are living with.[1]

The source: oliver, africano; murphy (2009). aggressive behaviour. 23. pp. 903-913.

I couldn't check for reliablility of the source, because it there wasn't a link to the article and I couldn't find it on the web or in a database. The contribution is all opinion though. Honestly, it shouldn't be put into this article, simply because a good wikipedia article is factually accurate and verifiable, with a non-biased opinion. Since the sentence is someone's opinion, it can not follow any of these three standards.

I added information in the Varieties Section: Both of these can be classified under Relational aggression. Reactive relational aggression (hosile, affective, retaliatory) is used in response to feeling attacked, threatened, or mad. Usually the person who exhibits this type of aggression feels provoked to do so. Instrumental relational aggression (predatory, goal-oriented) is used in order for an individual to get what they want.[6]

My Source: YOUNG, ELLIE L.; NELSON, DAVID A.; HOTTLE, AMERICA B.; WARBURTON, BRITTNEY; YOUNG, BRYAN K.. Education Digest, Mar2011, Vol. 76 Issue 7, p24-29, 6p; Reading Level (Lexile): 1360

SCayce1230 (talk) 19:33, 8 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Just read the article & found that point very interestingj, looking for the source online the reference seems to be to a codensed version (which I couldn't access) of an article published in 2010 in 'Principle Leadership' the full text is here http://www.nasponline.org/resources/principals/Relational_Aggression_PLOct10.pdf It seems to be about relational aggression without necessarily making the distinction between, or using the words, reactive vs instrumental. So not sure if anyone has any ideas on that but I'll also try to look into this topic & help cover it. EverSince (talk) 13:17, 18 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

I added a new section on aggression as a positive adaptation in humans. Given that most discussion of aggression in psychology implies it is always negative, I think this scholarship suggesting otherwise is worth bringing to light. It was removed by another user who said it was unnecessary, but I suspect it is. Perhaps there is a difference between disciplines, psychology and biology where this point is "obvious" to biologists (and thus seems unnecessary) but is not to psychologist who tend to add moral terms to their views of aggression. Thus I have moved it to the section on humans where perhaps it is more relevant. May be ways to improve the discussion or even make the heading clearer. ~~MVGuy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.91.76.238 (talk) 15:41, 8 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

I wonder if a section on positive vs negative views of it would be a way to address this, as there isn't currently a section heading on it being negative. I think it needs to always be clear wehther 'adaptive' is being used in a technical sense in context of past (or theoretically current) natural selection, or a general sense in terms of current society. The heading structure generally seems a bit of a hindrance but i'll address that below so as not to detract from this. Eversync (talk) 14:38, 10 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Seems like the overall heading structure could be clearer - evolution-biology-human seems confusing and the content under them tends to mix those aspects anyway, even if the former are intended to mean non-human. Don't know how others see it. I've moved all the references inline (rather than two systems in place) as that seemed confusing too. Eversync (talk) 14:38, 10 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Making quite a lot of changes trying to address the cite tags & content being unrelated to headings or too detailed on examples etc and just to add content, am gonna keep ploughing on carefully unless anyone indicates otherwise... Eversync (talk) 23:47, 14 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

This article is mostly about violence, instead of aggression.

Violence:

The use of physical force. 

Aggression:

The initiation of involuntary violence on someone or something. 

Surgeons, chiropractors, voluntary fighting martial artists etc. all use violence, yet they are not aggressing. Fawby (talk) 12:27, 6 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Aggression. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120525061300/http://www.tamiu.edu/~cferguson/Video%20Games%201%20Year.pdf to http://www.tamiu.edu/~cferguson/Video%20Games%201%20Year.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:10, 28 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

According to Iain McGilchrist, the left brain mediates anger and aggression. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.228.51.95 (talk • contribs) .

This article could introduce the distinction between violence and aggression earlier, in that violence is a form of physical aggression that may cause physical harm to another person. Vorbee (talk) 16:59, 1 September 2018 (UTC)Reply