Theories of Aggression

A critique of behaviourism: allergic to emotion

In my last post we looked at the historical context to Dollard and Miller’s original Frustration-Aggression hypothesis of depression (Dollard et al., 1939; Miller, N. et al., 1941) as well as the psychological theories de jour linking frustration, aggression and depression. We started by examining the research on Aggression and different schools of thought, starting with Social Learning Theory of Aggression.

Continuing our focus on research around aggression, Marcus-Newhall and colleagues (Marcus-Newhall et al., 2000), did a content analysis of 122 social psychology textbooks, noting that displaced aggression received a surge of attention immediately following Dollard and Miller and colleagues monograph (1939), but subsequent interest sharply declined. Why was this the case?

In a synopsis of research up to the end of the 20th century, Lindsay & Andersen, (2000) point out that aggression research has been heavily influenced by classical and instrumental learning paradigms and definitions (Berkowitz, 1978) highlighting Bandura’s work on observational learning (Bandura & Walters, 1977). Berkowitz’s cognitive neo-associationist model of aggression relies heavily on cognitive principles (Berkowitz, 1978; Baron & Richardson, 1994). At least the nuanced model of Dollard and Millar incorporated a psychoanalytic dimension, making space for emotions and unconscious processes.

Critics of social learning theory note that it overlooks factors like sensitive caregiving and interactional synchronicity. In current attachment theory, as articulated by Diane Poole Heller (2019), attunement is a crucial variable in forming secure attachment. We will cover this in more depth when we do an overview of the attachment literature.

Please become a paid subscriber so that you can read more of my book as I write it