This theory denies that humans are innately aggressive and that frustration automatically leads to aggression. Instead Bandura (1973) argues that aggression is learned in two basic ways: from observing aggressive models; from receiving and/or expecting payoffs following aggression. The payoffs may be in the form of: stopping aggression by others; getting praise or status or some other goal by being aggressive; getting self-reinforcement and private praise; reducing tension. There is no doubt that aggression pays off. Parents who yell and threaten punishment get results. The child who hits the hardest gets the toy. The brother who is willing to be the most vicious in a fight wins. It is not necessary that the aggressor be especially mean to get his/her way. The slightest overt hint of anger can communicate. I'm sure you recognize the old nature-nurture issue in these discussions. The difficulty, as I see it, is that both sides over-simplify and want to claim all the influence, i.e. on the one hand, the genes-instincts-hormones (biological determinism) theorists imply that hostility is "human nature." Indeed, 60% of Americans buy this idea, saying "there will always be wars, it is human nature." How sad that we are not better educated. No wonder the U.S. has used military force 150 times since 1850. There is, of course, a lot of fighting between countries, tribes, religions, spouses, and parents and children. But there is no evidence that we humans have inherited more of a... [to full text]