Preventive measures and aggression management.

There is a point of view according to which it is believed that when an angry person "let off steam" through energetic, but not harming anyone actions, the following happens: firstly, the level of tension or excitement decreases, and secondly, the tendency to resort to open aggression against provoking (or other) persons.

These assumptions go back to the works of Aristotle (384-322 BC), who believed that the contemplation of the production, forcing the audience to empathize with what is happening, can indirectly contribute to the "purification" of feelings. Although Aristotle himself did not specifically propose this method for discharging aggressiveness, a logical continuation of his theory was proposed by many others, in particular Freud, who believed that the intensity of aggressive behavior can be reduced either through the expression of emotions related to aggression, or by observing the aggressive actions of others. While acknowledging the reality of such "cleansing", Freud was nevertheless quite pessimistic about its effectiveness in preventing open aggression. He seems to have thought that his influence was ineffectual and short-lived.

According to these authors, "the result of any act of aggression is a catharsis that reduces the likelihood of other aggressive acts occurring." Carrying out one aggressive act - regardless of what gave rise to it - reduces the aggressor's willingness to resort to other forms of violence. Based largely on this and similar assumptions, generations of parents have encouraged their children to play active games, thousands of psychotherapists have encouraged patients to release hostile feelings, and smart entrepreneurs have made handsome profits from the sale of rubber whips and similar devices designed to achieve emotional catharsis. . Is this belief in the healing properties of catharsis and the activities leading to it justified?

The catharsis hypothesis suggests that if an enraged individual is allowed to "blow off steam" in a socially acceptable way, this will lead to a weakening of the negative emotions experienced by him and thereby reduce the likelihood that he will resort to socially dangerous forms of aggression in the future. Existing research evidence supports the first of these assumptions: participation in various forms ah aggressive interactions, including relatively harmless ones, can lead to a sharp discharge of emotional stress. However, this is not the only way to achieve such an effect: an individual's performance of almost any action that weakens the moment of aversiveness in dealing with him (the individual) of other individuals can lead to a decrease in the level of emotional stress. The data supporting the second part of the "cathartic" hypothesis - that is, the proposition that if an individual who is currently experiencing anger or anger gives an outlet for his aggression in a timely manner, this will reduce the likelihood of him committing a serious offense in the future - is less convincing. Such an effect can only be produced by an individual attacking directly the one who served as the source of his anger or irritation. In addition, the reduction in aggressiveness achieved in this way can be very short-lived. So, it must be admitted that the effectiveness of catharsis as a means of reducing the reduction of aggression in the past has been greatly overestimated.

A fairly effective way to prevent aggression is also the induction of incompatible reactions, i.e., reactions that are incompatible with anger or open aggression. Similar reactions and the subsequent weakening of open aggression can occur when seeing the pain and suffering of the victim of aggression, as a result of viewing humorous materials and with moderate erotic stimulation. The results of the latest research show that the induction of incompatible reactions can significantly reduce conflict in the workplace. In such a situation, a modest but unexpected gift, unobtrusive praise, and the display of humorous materials can serve as an effective means of inducing incompatible reactions.

One of the reasons why so many people are surprisingly consistent with conflict situations is their lack of basic communication skills. There are specially designed programs to develop communication skills in such "conflict" personalities, which often allow to achieve very tangible results.

Aggression management training

The term "aggression" literally means "to move on", "to advance". The closest to it will be the concepts of "progress" - moving forward, development and "regression" - moving backward. Initially, "being aggressive" meant something like "moving towards the goal without delay or hesitation." In the future, this word was associated with the mechanism of intention or conquest, causing damage (physical or mental), harm; violation of accepted rules or norms.

Traditionally, in the genesis, aggression is explained as a kind of defensive reaction, as a destructive trend in the field of subject-subject relations. However, defensive reactions are not limited to aggression; there are also other types of defensive reactions, such as depression, anxiety, anxiety, and fear. One can speak of aggression only when the actions of one person are directed directly against another person, and not at his actions. For example, if you tell a person that he speaks very loudly and therefore it is difficult to understand him, then in terms of its content this is not aggression, although in terms of its non-verbal range it may be, but if you say differently: “You are a blockhead, buddy”, then she is the one!

According to the mechanism of origin, aggression can be considered a particular form of sthenic emotionally regulated actions, in which the identification of one's "I" with one's peripheral manifestations is carried out. In essence, there is a double fault in aggression. The first is when, when angry, we project, attribute it to another person, saying: "He makes me angry." And the second - when we identify ourselves with our parts or particulars, while in each of us a lot happens and sounds. As V. Frankl said, aggressive impulses are something in relation to which a person takes a certain position, whether he chooses to identify himself with them or separate from them. This is the human potential, on which the therapeutic practice is built (9).

According to X. Kaler, aggression as a property of a person manifests itself in hyperactivity (external and internal), low tolerance, anger, irritability, irascibility, anger, impulsiveness, nervousness, anxiety. It also has a constructive element. This is the presence of a large number of ideas of energy, swiftness in actions (2). The author interprets it as a structure determined by nature; it is on it that the other structures of the personality are superimposed and interact with it during their formation. And this basis is temperament, the language of our body, the temple of the soul and everything that is in us.

B. G. Ananiev called this structure "individual". Natural laws rule here, and temperament, as the primary characteristic of mental synthesis, is concerned exclusively with its own needs. According to A. Menegetga, devotion to one's own individualization is embedded in aggressiveness, since it contains egoism, self-preservation, which allow the process of being to be carried out. Thus, the ontopsychological vision of aggression is directly related to the protection of one's own identity.

From the point of view of classical psychoanalysis, primary aggression is due to the desire to directly satisfy instinctive bodily needs. From this it follows that 3. Freud spoke precisely about the body, which reacts with certainty to external influences, relying on its own bodily logic, which is obvious to a given individual, but not to others.

The founder of psychosynthesis, R. Assagioli, believes that “the simplest essence of aggression is a blind impulse to self-affirmation, to the expression of all elements of our being without discrimination and preference, without any interest in the consequences, without attention to others” (8, p. 52).

It seems that the researchers are writing about the same thing, although they use different terms. The only material substratum of the psyche given to us is the body and its language, when inconsistent with the requirements of society and everything that is called the Superego, it gives rise to aggression.

The theoretical generalization of numerous concepts and mechanisms of aggression and their correlation with relevant methods of aggression control allowed us to propose a structural analysis of aggression (3). As you know, B. G. Ananiev singled out four main characteristics of a person, which he called, depending on the context, levels or aspects. These are “individual”, “subject of activity”, “personality” and “individuality”. By analogy with these main characteristics, aggression was considered at four levels.

The first level characterizes a person as a natural being and is manifested in temperamental characteristics. These are sensorimotorics, energy and dynamics of life support. In physiological terms, it is due to the severity of the active-defensive reflex, and in neurobiological terms, it is due to the content of testosterone and serotonin in the blood and various genetic anomalies (an extra Y chromosome, impaired purine metabolism, etc.). The natural basis of such aggression lies in the protection of oneself, offspring, everything that is considered one's own.

At the second, subject-activity level, aggression is associated with the desire to achieve success, goals, with a response to a threat from the outside. Aggression here provides activity, the realization of the functional potential of a person, his stability and safety, manifesting itself in the style of activity and habitual patterns of behavior.

The third, personal level of aggression is associated with the motivational-required sphere, self-awareness and moral maturity of the individual. Aggression as a property of a person consists in the readiness and preference for the use of violent means to achieve one's goals.

At the fourth level of individuality, the specifics of aggression will depend on what we mean by individuality. B. F. Lomov proposed to consider individuality as the highest level of personality development, but he did not have time to say what this “higher” is (6). From the point of view of I. M. Paley, the highest manifestation of individuality lies in the maximum expression of the natural characteristics of a person in his social characteristics. At the same time, with the growth of their integrality, individuality grows. The ultimate expression of this integration can be God, and we can only strive for this. If this is how individuality is understood, then aggression at this level will manifest itself when there are obstacles in the realization of the representation of this completeness, or, as K. Rogers would say, when our true organismal needs are interfered with. Man is imperfect by nature and one of the manifestations of this is aggression. It is necessary for the manifestation of the fullness of individuality. It is difficult to imagine the complete sublimation of aggression, this requires energy, strength, then it will be distracted from other aspects of the personality, and these will be areas not fertilized by creativity.

The conditional allocation of four levels of aggression allows you to group the main mechanisms of aggression and their correspondingsoby psychological correction. For functional mechanisms providing an individual level, the most adequate are the methods offered in psychoanalytic and ethological approaches, as well as counseling. This is the depletion and withdrawal of spontaneously flowing aggressive energy by methods of reaction, movement, catharsis.

At the level operational arrangements behavioral techniques, including learning (RET, modifications of socio-psychological trainings, where the reward-punishment system is of particular importance in the control of aggression, cognitive strategies, strategies of incompatible responses, based on the principle of the impossibility of simultaneously experiencing qualitatively opposite states ).

Motivational mechanisms aggression is an integral part of the value system of the individual, and aggressive mechanisms of individuality appear when all three types of mechanisms exist simultaneously (after all, the main thing in individuality is indivisibility). Hence the relevant psycho-corrective means: personality-oriented, gestalt and positive psychotherapy, psychosynthesis, psychodrama, existential psychotherapy.

However, no matter what the latest or classical theories of aggression try to explain to us its mechanisms, origins and causes, as one wise man said, “even if you know why a stone is flying, you must first dodge it.” There is aggression! It is connected with individual life support, it is our energy, the same as the energy of wind, water, fire, which can both give us life and take it away. It has positive hyperactivity, “research”, experimentation or what P. V. Simonov called “search activity”, creativity, hot temperament, desire for growth, self-affirmation and self-acceptance, self-confidence. There is also a negative - anger, impulsiveness (first did, then thought), anxiety, nervousness, distractibility, short temper, low tolerance.

According to R. May, one of the founders and pillars of existential psychotherapy, aggression is a way of manifesting one's own strength (7). To be alive is a force, these are different forms of its manifestation. In childhood we cry and scream, and this is the only way to show our strength; exploitation, manipulation, rivalry - these are all its possible variants. Caring is the power applied to the other, integrative power is the power to contribute to one's neighbor, the power of unity with the other, the cooperative power. These kinds of forces are in each of us, and the moral question is the proportion of each of them, in specific gravity each of the types of forces, in general color palette personality. We cannot avoid any of them, but we have the opportunity and choice - to learn how to use these different kinds strength constructively. As F. Nietzsche noted, “joy does not come from submission and denial, but from affirmation. Joy is simply a manifestation of the feeling of attained strength (7p. 142).

Hence, aggression can be the only way of manifestation of power in the human repertoire, other people simply do not own, have not learned or have not been taught, but if it is not shown, then how to be alive, how to live? Anger as an emotional and motivational component of aggression, providing its behavioral component with energy, from the point of view of the living classic of modern psychotherapy J. Bugental, arises when and to the extent that three conditions are present (1):

1. When a person's expectations regarding issues that are important to him are not satisfied.

1. When it seems to a person that his disappointment is undeserved or unfair (and often specifically directed against him).
2. When the subject feels that he lacks the strength to change circumstances in such a way that his expectations are met, or so as to at least reduce disappointment.

Based on the above ideas, it is proposed author's (T. N. Kurbatova) aggression training program, having a conceptual character.

The purpose of the training is awareness and learning constructive ways to manage aggression. The specificity of our program, in comparison with all others included in this collection, is that all other trainings fit into the framework of the behavioral paradigm. This training, violating the format of classical behavioral training, is organically combined with cognitive and existential-humanistic psychotherapeutic methods. Based on this, corrective work in the group takes place not only at the behavioral level, but also at the personal level, thereby affecting the deep layers of individuality.

The Aggression Management Training program can have both two- and three-day design, depending on the tasks solved by the facilitator, time possibilities and the specifics of the group. Traditional training procedures - role-playing games, different kind exercises, discussions, mini-lectures, combined with psychotherapeutic. Of the psychotherapeutic methods used: rational-emotive psychotherapy, psychosynthesis, gestalt therapy, co-consultation, existential psychotherapy. If the facilitator does not own any of these types of psychotherapy, then he can expand the use in the training of the possibility of that psychotherapy that is more familiar and close to him.

THE FIRST DAY

Target. Acquaintance with aggression, both with one's own and with someone else's. To begin with, it is important to learn to identify it on the verbal and non-verbal levels; cognitive, emotional and behavioral.

Tasks for the group include individual assessment of anger and self-instruction within the framework of rational-emotive psychotherapy (RET), meditation, exercises from psychosynthesis and gestalt therapy.

Participants draw aggression, depict it with body language, talk to it using the Gestalt technique of the “empty chair” and the psychosynthetic technique of “communication” with aggression.

An important result of the first day of work is a deeper understanding of the various manifestations of aggression and the ability to monitor it.

Second day

Target. Work with anger and anger, their reaction, splash, catharsis.

Here, the techniques of working with aggressions are used to the maximum, with phenomena (child-parent, gender, age, role-playing, professional), richly represented in counseling. Techniques that can be used here: “role reversal”, “say more”, “exaggerate”, “downplay”, “laugh”, “tell a story”. As a result, participants feel that they think more clearly, have greater psychological freedom, feel a surge of vitality and a positive attitude towards the social environment.

DAY THREE

(or part of the second day)

Target. Practicing constructive ways to manage your own aggression and the aggression of your opponents.

In the "turntable" technique, individual work with behavioral technologies for controlling aggression is underway. Techniques such as verbalization are used own feelings and feelings of the partner, “reflection of the obvious”, “interruption of the process”, “visualization of the image”, “psychological profile of aggression”, etc. The practice of influencing the opponent in one’s own interests is carried out, but with the observance of the interests of the partner in the mode of behavioral training. Individual skills of assertive behavior are developed. At the same time, there is a deeper awareness and living of one's own aggressive patterns of behavior through the use of techniques offered by existential psychotherapy.

Thus, the presented concept of training makes it possible to more consciously relate to the aggressive manifestations of a person, to identify, differentiate, accept, acknowledge and manage aggression. This allows you to significantly beat your inner freedom, responsibility, balancing harmony, which, of course, contributes to personal growth, behavioral efficiency and productivity.

The training is taken from open sources on the Internet.

Massacres in South Africa, massacres by Iraqi soldiers of Kuwaiti citizens, assassination attempts on national leaders, cases of senseless and unsystematic "rage" in American cities, torture of children, from the description of which gives shivers, terrorist attacks, murders, rapes - a list of brutal human actions sometimes seem endless. Looking over the countless sensational reports of similar events in the newspapers and TV news, one would like to say that we live in a time when human violence has risen to new, unprecedented heights. However, even a cursory glance at human history it is enough to raise serious objections to this conclusion. In 5600 years of recorded history, mankind has experienced about 14,600 wars, about 2.6 annually (Montagu, 1976). Moreover, it is established that only ten of the one hundred and eighty-five generations that lived during this period were fortunate enough to spend their days without knowing the horrors of war. And of course, history is literally replete with examples of mass looting, torture and genocide. So do not assume that violence is a specific feature of the 20th century. It would be more correct to say that each era has received its share of violence.

Assuming that aggression has always been integral part human society and relations between groups and nations, the question immediately arises: can anything be done to reduce the intensity of its manifestations, or at least control them? The answer to this question depends to a large extent on what theoretical concept the person dealing with the issues of aggression adheres to. If we assume that a person's aggressive behavior is genetically programmed, a pessimistic conclusion suggests itself: most likely, almost nothing can be done to prevent manifestations of open aggression. At best, such behavior can only be temporarily restrained or, somewhat more effectively, transformed into harmless forms or directed towards less vulnerable targets (Freud, 1933; Lorenz, 1975). On the contrary, when considering aggression as an acquired form of behavior, a more optimistic conclusion suggests itself. If aggression is indeed the result of learning, then a wide variety of situational, social and cognitive factors influence its formation. So if we are able to understand the nature of these factors, the modes of manifestation of aggressive reactions and the tendencies acquired with this (Huesmann, 1988), then it is likely that we will be able to break the chain of violence that binds us to the terrible history of previous generations.

Fortunately, most researchers currently studying aggression adhere to the latter point of view (Bandura, 1986; Geen, 1991).

Without denying the possible influence of biological or genetic factors on aggressive actions or motives, a significant number of researchers believe that all cases of manifestation of aggression, its specific forms and the goals pursued by those who choose this behavior model, are largely influenced by the unique acquired skills of individuals, various aspects of cognitive processes, such as thinking, memory, interpretation of one's own emotional states, etc. (Zillmann, 1988) and many social and environmental factors (Baron, in press). Thus, from this point of view, aggression is by no means an inevitable and predetermined side of human social relations, on the contrary, under appropriate circumstances, it can be prevented or controlled.

It is worth noting that a thorough study of the psychological literature on the problem of aggression showed us the virtual absence of articles on specific methods and techniques that allow limiting the scope of aggressive actions. While a large number of studies aim to investigate the factors that contribute to the manifestation of aggression, much less work is devoted to the development of preventive measures or ways to control aggressive behavior (Kimble, Fitz & Onorad, 1977). Why it happens? Why have researchers made so little effort to solve this seemingly key problem? Perhaps there were many reasons for this, but two of them, in our opinion, are the most significant.

Firstly, a significant part of researchers adheres (although they do not advertise it) to the opinion that aggression can be controlled using the so-called "negative" method - by eliminating the factors that contribute to its manifestation. From this point of view, the study of the possible causes of aggression will help us kill two birds with one stone. On the one hand, information will be obtained about the conditions conducive to the manifestation of aggression, and on the other hand, we will learn how to reduce the intensity of acts of aggression or control aggressive behavior. At first glance, this assumption seems quite logical: in order to exclude aggression, it is simply necessary to eliminate the conditions conducive to its manifestation. Unfortunately, the credibility of this argument becomes questionable when we take into account the growing number of social, cognitive and environmental prerequisites for such behavior. For example, Berkowitz (1988, 1989) argues that aggression is often caused by negative affect, regardless of its origin. All sources of such affect can hardly be eliminated from the social and physical world. Similarly, aggression can be generated by frustration, provocation by others, being in a crowd, heat and noise. Is it possible to eliminate all these factors from environment? Again, the answer is in the negative. On the whole, apart from the legendary Utopia, it is difficult to imagine a situation in which most of the conditions conducive to the emergence of aggression and discussed in the previous chapters of this book can be eliminated. The impossibility of eliminating them raises serious doubts about the effectiveness of the proposed control strategy.

Secondly, a more weighty, in our opinion, reason for the neglect of the development of preventive measures and methods of controlling aggression has the following origin: until recently, many psychologists believed that they already knew the best ways to achieve such goals. More importantly, there was a belief that two methods - punishment and catharsis - were extraordinarily effective in reducing cases of human aggression. In short, many psychologists believed that if we talk about the control of human aggression, then the “foundation” has already been laid, it remains only to add small, insignificant details. This convenient point of view, unfortunately, now raises serious doubts. Accumulating evidence regarding the effects of punishment and catharsis suggests that neither is truly effective in controlling overt aggression, as previously thought. Moreover, the mechanism of action of both factors is much more complex and its “launch” can occur in more limited conditions than previously thought. Therefore, although both punishment and catharsis can be used to some extent to control aggression, they will not, either alone or in combination with each other, be a panacea for all manifestations of human violence.

As confidence in the validity of the arguments mentioned above waned, the amount of research devoted specifically to the prevention or control of human aggression increased. Not surprisingly, many of these works are extensions of earlier research on punishment and catharsis, thus providing us with additional material on the action of these two factors (Rogers, 1980). Many researchers, however, have turned their attention to previously unconsidered ways to reduce aggression. These include factors such as observing actions in nonaggressive behavior patterns and inducing incompatible responses in potential aggressors (Baron, 1983a). In addition, given the increased interest of psychologists in cognitive processes, considerable attention has been given to the potential role of certain cognitive processes in the control of overt aggression. The results in this area have been quite encouraging, suggesting that cognitive intervention can indeed be very effective in reducing the likelihood and severity of outright aggression (Baron, 1988a; 1990; Ohbuchi, Kameda & Agarie, 1989; Zillmann, 1988). Finally, following the notion that prevention is better than cure, considerable attention has been paid to the social skills of individuals to avoid aggressive interactions with others (Goldstein, Carr, Davidson & Wehr, 1981), as well as self-control techniques, tactics that they can use to to resort to a variety of situations to curb their anger or temper (Goldstein et al., 1981; Weisinger, 1985). Some of these methods will be discussed in this chapter.

PUNISHMENT: AN EFFECTIVE MEANS OF AGGRESSION PREVENTION?

Can the fear of being punished keep a person from harming others or doing illegal things? And can punishment itself keep people from repeating the actions that led to such unpleasant consequences? Many cultures would say yes. Exactly

for this reason, many states have established severe penalties for violent crimes such as murder, rape and robbery (Groth, 1979). It is interesting to note that some recognized authorities in the field of the study of human aggression hold similar views. Thus, for example, Dollard and colleagues in the famous monograph "Frustration and Aggression" argue that "the power of inhibition of any act of aggression depends to a large extent on the potential punishment in case of committing such an act" (Dollard, 1939). Commenting on this statement 23 years later, Berkowitz remarks: "This proposition, as stated, is beyond doubt" (Berkowitz, 1962). In short, there is an opinion that punishment is a very effective means of curbing human aggression. Is it true?

The existing empirical evidence on this issue paints a rather complex picture. Briefly, it can be imagined in the following way: under certain conditions, punishment (or simply the fear of possible punishment) can actually deter a person from committing acts of violence. However, under other circumstances this may not happen. In certain cases, punishment may even contribute to the actualization of aggressive behavior, rather than deter it. To understand the facts, it is best to consider separately how punishment and fear of its use affect aggression.

FEAR OF PUNISHMENT: WHEN IT "WORKS" AND WHEN IT DOESN'T

The plots of many militants are built on a single principle. At some stage in the development of the action, the hero or heroine of the film, having put the criminal in a hopeless situation, demands from him complete obedience to his orders. Sometimes the perpetrator concedes and the bloodshed (which could have been) does not occur. Sometimes, on the contrary, he refuses to obey, and the inevitable happens - he meets, quite deservedly, his end! Naturally, films cannot serve as a basis for scientific conclusions. However, in this case, they reflect, as in a mirror, situations often encountered in life, when the fear of punishment sometimes prevents aggressive actions, and sometimes not. Why it happens? Several decades of empirical research have given us the opportunity to suggest the following: whether (if so, how much) or not the fear of possible punishment will influence aggression depends on several factors. We will focus on only four variables that we think are the most important.

How angry are potential aggressors?

The first variable is the degree of "anger" of potential aggressors. The results of several studies suggest that with low or moderate provocation and arousal caused by anger, the fear of punishment can "protect" against manifestations of open aggression. On the contrary, when the provocation and the anger that arises as a reaction to it are strong, the fear of punishment may not play any role and not have a deterrent effect (Ba-

ron, 1973; Rogers, 1980). There is no doubt that many people, being in a state of anger, are simply unable to think about the consequences of their aggressive actions. Therefore, they behave, according to Berkowitz, impulsively, lashing out at others without thinking about possible consequences their actions (Ber-kowitz, 1988, 1989). Examples of this kind are typical of wartime. Soldiers who witness the death or injury of their comrades in arms often fall into despair and rush into a deliberately unsuccessful attack against a hated enemy, without thinking that such behavior will surely entail serious injury or even death. For example, during the bloody struggle for Pakistan's independence, soldiers fighting on the side of the new state of Bangladesh sometimes witnessed the shocking brutality of the Pakistani army towards the civilian population. In one such case, they came across hundreds of corpses of young women who, being captives of Pakistani soldiers, were raped and killed by them. At the sight of such pictures, many soldiers lost control of themselves and rushed into desperate attacks against the fortified Pakistani positions. An idea of ​​this is given by the following description of the actions of the Bengali soldiers, armed only with spears: “Some of the Bengalis were so furious that they simply could not turn back and ran forward ... until they were stopped by the explosions of the cannons, and some ... rose again, to throw his spear into the sky ... ". It is clear that in such cases it is extremely powerful emotions suppress the fear of death and cannot deter people from aggressive actions.

Direct empirical confirmation of the above conclusion is provided by the data obtained as a result of several studies (Rogers, 1980). During one of them (Baron, 1973), the experimenter's assistant had to piss off one part of the university students (experimental condition - provoking anger), and the other part - not (experimental condition - no provocation). Then the subjects from both groups, under the pretext of studying the effect of electrical stimuli on physiological reactions, were given the opportunity to take revenge on the provocateur with electric discharges. Fear of punishment was the manipulated variable in this experiment. One-third of the participants in the experiment said that their victim would never have the opportunity to retaliate against them (low chance of retaliation); the second is that she may have such an opportunity (medium probability of retaliation), and the third that she will certainly have such an opportunity (high probability of retaliation). The experimenters suggested that the fear of punishment would be most effective - to keep the individual from displaying aggression - in the case when the subjects were not provoked by the victim, and would not give the expected effect under the condition of strong preliminary provocation. As can be seen from fig. 9.1, both assumptions were confirmed. As predicted, the power of the electric shocks, which were chosen by the unprovoked subjects, dropped sharply as the fear of punishment (in the form of a retaliatory blow from the victim) increased. On the contrary, this factor practically did not affect the behavior of the participants in the experiment who were provoked. Such results, including data from other studies (Knott & Drost, 1972; Rogers, 1980), suggest that the fear of punishment can be very effective, but only when potential aggressors have not been strongly annoyed and provoked.

Gaining advantage through aggression

The second variable that determines whether the fear of punishment will influence the manifestation of aggression or not is the individual's awareness of how beneficial such behavior is for him. When the result of acts of aggression can be profit in any sense of the word - for example, a large monetary income or promotion to a higher level in the social hierarchy - even a strong fear of punishment is not able to deter people from such behavior. On the other hand, when aggressive behavior provides little or no benefit to people, fear of punishment can be a very significant deterrent to open aggression (Baron, 1974a).

An unusually clear example of the choice of aggression as a means of obtaining profit are the warring gangs of drug dealers, whose actions are the same all over the world. The laws of almost all countries for the distribution of drugs such as heroin and cocaine provide for very serious penalties. Despite this, the drug trade continues. Moreover, today's drug traffickers involved in the transportation of drugs, in a fierce struggle, defend their territories - geographical areas where they have a monopoly on the sale and distribution of illegal drugs. Pre-

well aware of the fierce competition, the warring gangs still try to lay a paw on foreign territory, which almost always leads to actions that can be classified as aggressive - there are violent clashes between heavily armed opposing organizations, ending in the death and physical injuries of a huge number of people. These clashes are so brutal, and the gangs involved are so well armed, that in many places, including cities in the United States, at night the police do not actually even try to intervene in the course of criminal showdowns. You can probably find many reasons for the events described above, but the most important of them, in our opinion, is the huge financial profits that the illegal transportation of drugs provides. These revenues are so large that they essentially guarantee the inclusion high levels aggression. And this is quite understandable: how else can uneducated, unemployed guys still get such huge incomes?

Strength and likelihood of fear of possible punishment

Whether or not the fear of punishment will affect the manifestations of aggression is determined by two more variables that, to our surprise, are not always paid attention to: the severity of the possible punishment and the likelihood that such an aversive measure will actually be used. With regard to the severity of punishment, research suggests that fear of punishment will play a large role in preventing outright aggression when aggressive acts are punished severely (Shortell, Epstein & Taylor, 1970). Dollard and colleagues believe that there is a linear relationship between these variables, that is, an increase in the degree of severity of the expected punishment leads to a decrease in the intensity of aggressive manifestations. However, some evidence suggests that this relationship is actually non-linear, so the effect of fear of punishment on open aggression will be relatively small until it (fear) becomes very strong. However, it is clear that the degree of fear of possible punishment is a factor that often determines how effective such a measure as punishment is in preventing aggression.

Finally, whether the fear of punishment will influence an individual's behavior also depends on how high the probability of actual use of punitive measures is. Observations show that the fear of possible punishment often does not become an obstacle to the implementation of acts of violence, when it is known that such punishment is unlikely to be resorted to. In fact, empty threats can lead to completely unexpected results. This is evidenced by data obtained in the course of several laboratory studies (Baron, 1971a, 1973, 1974b): aggression steadily decreases as the likelihood of punishment for such behavior increases. Unfortunately, in life, people often consider the probability of punishment for a certain aggressive act to be rather low, at best, it is defined as 50/50. In such a situation, the effectiveness of potential punishment in preventing aggression in further behavior is greatly reduced.

In general, the available evidence suggests that the impact of fear of punishment on the display of aggression depends on several factors. This measure leads to positive results if: 1) potential aggressors are not subjected to strong provocation; 2) get little or no benefit from

open aggression; 3) possible punishment for aggressive actions will be severe; 4) the probability of punishment is high. The significance of these specific conditions for the successful functioning of the criminal justice system will be discussed later.

REAL PUNISHMENT: WHAT DOES IT TEACH?

Although the fear of possible punishment does not always deter an individual from aggressive behavior, it is logical to assume that the actual implementation of punitive measures will be of great benefit. After all, punishment serves to convince the aggressors that society "understands what's wrong" and is not going to tolerate outbreaks of aggression. Moreover, if fairly harsh measures are used, punishment can stop - temporarily or even permanently - the activities of the aggressors, thus preventing possible acts of violence (Buss, 1971). Evidence suggesting that the use of punishment can actually play the role of a “deterrent element” preventing the emergence of aggression has come from several studies.

For understandable ethical reasons, it is completely impossible to directly determine the impact of severe physical punishment. Therefore, many psychologists strongly recommend the use of alternative methods for controlling aggression and other forms of antisocial behavior (LaVigna & Donnellan, 1986). However, one clinical study actually looked directly at the effect of physical punishment on the prevention of aggression (Ludwig, Marx, Hill & Browning, 1969). In this study, attempts were made to change the behavior of a woman with schizophrenia who frequently and out of the blue attacked patients and staff in a psychiatric hospital. Showing extraordinary ingenuity to achieve her aggressive goals, she used the following strategy: she threatened the person, and then seemed to forget about the threats. As soon as her intended victim relaxed and stopped thinking about the need for self-defense, the woman would suddenly attack, causing significant harm to unsuspecting people.

To change this dangerous pattern of behavior, Ludwig and his colleagues prescribed this patient systematic "treatment" with high-energy electric shocks. Initially, she received electric shocks only after assaults with physical force. Then she began to receive them when she simply threatened others. She ended up being hit when she complained or blamed others. The results of such treatment were evident: soon the patient ceased to resort to aggressive actions and even eventually established resembling friendly relations with others. The woman herself also felt that significant changes had taken place in her. This is evidenced by her confession: "You are trying to make a human being out of me." It turns out that in this case, painful physical punishment was quite successful in mitigating dangerous forms of aggression.

With the exception of this and a few other studies also conducted in clinical settings, most investigators studying the effect of punishment on aggression have not resorted to such extreme measures - they have used mainly social disapproval or lack of rewards as punishment (Brown & Tyler, 1968; Deur & Parke, 1970). Or, as we noted in Chapter 3, researchers who focused on studying the dependence of aggression on punishment chose observation as a research method to find out how parental punishment of children is associated with future aggression by these children (Eron & Huesmann, 1984). As noted earlier, such studies show that parental discipline that is not too severe is most effective in reducing the likelihood of children exhibiting aggressive behavior later on (Lefkowitz, Eron, Walder & Huesmann, 1977). Children whose parents chose harsh or even very harsh punishments as punitive measures tend to behave more aggressively in the future than children who were not punished too severely.

Despite existing evidence confirming that punishment is often indeed an effective means of preventing various forms of aggression, we have every reason to ask the question: does such a measure always work? First, recipients often see punishment as unfair, especially if they see others avoiding it by doing similar things. For example, imagine the feelings of rage and resentment among schoolchildren who are punished for wrongdoings their classmates get away with, or drivers who are fined for stopping in the wrong place, although they have seen others do it with impunity more than once. No wonder they go berserk when they are punished for this kind of behavior.

Secondly, the persons by whose hands the punishment is carried out sometimes set an example of aggression by their actions. In such cases, punishment certainly encourages future aggression (Eron, 1982). Imagine a parent belting their child for fighting a classmate, angrily saying, "I'll show you how to fight!" What can a child learn in this case? It is exceptional that you can fight, but you should choose a smaller victim! Third, new evidence suggests that while punishment for antisocial acts may deter individuals from committing such acts, it may force the individual to choose other, well-defined forms of antisocial behavior as models. For example, in one study on this issue, Bell, Peterson & Hautaluoma (1989) punished subjects with coupon withdrawal for displaying selfish behavior during a game based on the following principles: 1) stealing coupons from other players; 2) excessive spending (that is, the participant in the game spent significantly more than the available resources allowed). The results showed that punishing a player for demonstrating one type of behavior increases the likelihood of choosing a different behavior.

Finally, recent research suggests that punishment will have a long-term effect only if it is carried out under certain conditions, namely: 1) an aggressive action and punishment should be separated by a small period of time; 2) the punishment must be sufficiently severe and unpleasant; 3) the recipient must be clearly aware that certain form his behavior entails punishment (Bower & Hilgard, 1981). It is only when punishment is carried out in accordance with all these principles that it contributes to significant changes in behavior.

In general, punishment as a method of preventing open aggression also has its drawbacks. It can be regarded by the punished as exactly the same aggression; it can restrain some models of antisocial behavior, but at the same time contribute to the actualization of others; it can serve as an example of aggressive behavior for the punished; its effectiveness depends on the fulfillment of certain conditions. In light of all of the above, it is hardly surprising that individuals who "get what they deserve" rarely change or "rebuild" as a result of experience.

PUNISHMENT AND CRIMINAL LAW: POSSIBLE PARADOXES

As noted earlier, in most States, punishment is the cornerstone of the criminal law system. Perhaps for this reason it is the most common means of controlling open aggression. Given this circumstance, systems that use punishment as a response to aggression should do so with extreme caution. In short, it would seem to be expected - and hoped for! - that every step taken by the system will be aimed at strengthening the deterrent effect of punishment on aggression. But really it doesn't matter. The conditions currently in place in many justice-related legal systems seem to reduce the effectiveness of punishment as a deterrent to aggression. First, imagine the mechanism of action of the fear of punishment - under certain conditions, its effectiveness is low. In many countries, the likelihood of being arrested and convicted for aggressive acts is close to zero, and the benefits of such behavior are often significant. As for the forms of punishment for assaulting people with violence, they are at best vague. The content of the sentence depends on who is in charge of the case, and even on the court where it is heard. All these factors greatly reduce the value of the fear of punishment as a deterrent to aggression.

Secondly, real punishment often does not lead to the results that were expected from this act of retribution. The time gap between the facts of a crime with the use of violence and the punishment for their implementation is calculated in months and even years. The connection between acts of aggression and punishment is accidental; far from all aggressors, as noted earlier, are arrested, and even fewer are sentenced. That is why many perpetrators of violent acts go unpunished, while others plead not guilty in order to reduce the severity of possible punishment, which is quite natural for our busy judicial system. Given all this, it is not surprising that some individuals who have received what they deserve often consider themselves either losers or victims of an illogical system, but by no means deserving of such measures from an angry society.

In conclusion, the available evidence suggests that punishment, properly implemented, can be an effective means of preventing aggression. But for this it is necessary that there is a certain system in the procedure for its application and that it does not contradict the basic principles. Unfortunately, such requirements are absent in the system of

fishing law of most countries. The result is thus quite predictable: punishment often fails to exert any appreciable deterrent effect on potential aggressors. And, according to the researchers, it really is mostly a lesson in cruelty or a legally sanctioned act of retribution against individuals who are considered dangerous. It is important to note, however, that such outcomes are not intrinsically associated with the punishment itself. On the other hand, there is evidence that punishment can be an effective tool for modifying many behaviors, including aggression. However, whether it will be applied in the criminal justice system in a way that increases the likelihood of such results remains open.

CATHARSISE: DOES "OUT OF YOURSELF" REALLY HELP?

Imagine this situation: one fine day, your boss really pissed you off, seriously scolding you for an act that you had nothing to do with. After the boss leaves, you slam your fist on the table, break two pencils, and tear the morning paper to shreds. Will these actions reduce your anger? And will they stop you from becoming angry with your boss in similar situations in the future? According to the well-known theory of catharsis, the answer in both cases will be yes. This view suggests that when an angry person "lets off steam" through energetic but harmless actions, the following happens: first, the level of tension or arousal is reduced, and secondly, the tendency to resort to open aggression is reduced. against provoking (or other) persons.

These assumptions go back to the works of Aristotle (382 - 322 AD), who believed that the contemplation of a performance that makes the audience empathize with what is happening can indirectly contribute to the "purification" of feelings. Although Aristotle himself did not specifically propose this method for discharging aggressiveness, a logical continuation of his theory was proposed by many others, in particular Freud, who believed that the intensity of aggressive behavior can be reduced either through the expression of emotions related to aggression, or by observing behind the aggressive actions of others. While acknowledging the reality of such "cleansing", Freud was nevertheless quite pessimistic about its effectiveness in preventing open aggression. He seems to have thought that his influence was ineffectual and short-lived. Thus, the concept of catharsis, accepted in psychology, is rather akin to that set out by Dollard and his colleagues in the monograph "Frustration and Aggression" (Dollard et al., 1939).

According to these authors, "the result of any act of aggression is a catharsis that reduces the likelihood of other aggressive acts occurring." In short, Dollard and others believe that the implementation of one act of aggression - regardless of what gave rise to it - reduces the aggressor's desire to resort to other forms of violence. Based chiefly on this and similar assumptions, generations of parents have urged their

children to play active games, thousands of psychotherapists encouraged patients to free themselves from hostile feelings, and smart entrepreneurs received very substantial income from the sale of rubber whips and similar devices designed to achieve emotional catharsis. Is this belief in the healing properties of catharsis and the activities leading to it justified? Again, the available empirical evidence adds up to a rather complex picture.

DISCHARGE THROUGH AGGRESSIVE ACTION: WHEN OTHERS' SUFFERING LEADS TO GOOD MOOD

First, let's consider the claim that in the face of strong provocation, activities that involve vigorous but safe actions, including relatively innocuous forms of aggression, can allegedly lead to a release of tension or emotional arousal. Studies that have tested this assumption have generally supported the hypothesis, but have pointed to important limitations that need to be considered when working with this process. On the one hand, it would seem that the discharge of excitement caused by a strong provocation can occur as a result of the performance of physical actions requiring great effort, or relatively harmless attacks on others (Zillmann, 1979). Perhaps this effect is well demonstrated by a whole series of studies conducted by Hokanson and his colleagues (Hokanson & Burgess, 1962a, 1962b; Hokanson, Burgess & Cohen, 1963).

In these studies, the subjects (usually female college students) were provoked in the first stage by the experimenter. Then they were given the opportunity to commit any aggressive actions towards him or others. Before, during and after the experiment, the subjects' blood pressure was measured. In general, the results indicate an emotional discharge - catharsis. In subjects who received permission to show direct aggression towards the provocateur, there was a sharp drop in the level of arousal.

It is perhaps worth considering in detail one of these experiments (Hokanson & Burgess, 1962b), when subjects, under the pretext of studying the effect of performing intellectual tasks on physiological responses, were asked to list a sequence from 100 to 0, decreasing by three. At the same time, the experimenter repeatedly interrupted the subjects, interfered with them, in some cases insisting that they start the enumeration again. Finally, he ended this phase of the experiment, noting with obvious indignation that the "unwillingness to cooperate" of the subjects made all the work pointless. As expected, this extremely provocative technique contributed to a noticeable increase in the indicators of physiological arousal in the subjects (that is, they had a sharp rise in blood pressure and increased heart rate).

To determine whether a decline in excitation would occur if the participants in the experiment were given the opportunity to take revenge on the provocateur, the subjects were divided into several groups and given the opportunity to show towards the experimenter: 1) physical aggression (discharges of electric current); 2) verbal aggression (questionnaire scores); 3) imaginary aggression (composing stories based on the viewed drawings). The subjects from the fourth, cont-

role group, did not have the opportunity to respond to the sharp remarks of the experimenter. As can be seen from fig. 9.2, the results showed the presence of emotional catharsis. The subjects, who had the opportunity to respond to the experimenter with physical aggression, experienced a sharp drop in excitation to the initial level. The same could be said for the subjects, who were allowed to retaliate only through verbal aggression. Last example indicates that under such conditions even relatively harmless actions

actions can lead to voltage discharge. However, imaginary aggression towards the experimenter did not lead to such a result. In subsequent studies, Hokanson and his colleagues obtained data indicating that the manifestation of aggression in relation to persons associated with a source of irritation can lead to a discharge of physiological tension. And attacks on individuals who have nothing to do with provoking the subjects do not lead to the same result (Hokanson, Burgess & Cohen, 1963). In combination with data from other studies (Geen, Stonner & Shope, 1975), these data suggest that individuals may indeed sometimes experience a release of emotional tension at the time of aggressive actions. From this point of view, the conclusions drawn from everyday experience that we often “feel better” (that is, less excited or tense) after getting even with people who pissed us off are really justified.

Emotional catharsis: some specific conditions

Before we end our discussion of what might be called the problem of emotional catharsis, two things should be noted. First, the fact that aggression towards others often leads to a decrease in the level of physiological arousal does not in any way mean that in the future the individual will not choose aggressive behavior as a model of behavior so often in the future. In fact, argues Hokanson (1970), this way of relieving emotional tension is often encouraged, which can increase aggressive tendencies. Briefly, this mechanism can be represented as follows: a person is driven out of himself, and he responds with aggression to the provocateur. As a result, his level of physiological arousal falls. This way of relieving tension, in turn, can contribute to the development of a person's tendency to react in the future with aggression to those who will provoke him. In short, emotional catharsis is by no means a guarantee that the release resulting from attacking others will lessen the likelihood of such behavior occurring in the future. As life has shown, diametrically opposite results are quite possible (see Fig. 9. 3).

Secondly, with regard to the claim that there is, in a sense, a unique relationship between aggressive actions and the release of emotional tension caused by anger. Until recently, there was a widespread belief that only actions against the source of provocation - or objects associated with it - can remove the emotional arousal of the provoked persons. However, the results of recent very interesting experiments suggest that, in fact, any reaction that helps to end the disgusting behavior of any person can have a similar effect (Hokanson & Edelman, 1966; Hokanson, Willers & Koropsak, 1968; Stone & Hokanson , 1969).

During an experiment conducted by Hokanson, Willers & Koropsak (1968), subjects in different experimental conditions had the opportunity, using two buttons, to either reward another person (award him an extra point) or punish with discharges. electric current. At the very initial, basic phase of the experiment, the subjects' partner (experimenter's assistant) responded with a reward or punishment in a random order, regardless of the behavior of the subjects. As expected, throughout this period, the subjects demonstrated a release of emotional tension (catharsis) when they reacted with aggression to the electric shocks sent by their partner, that is, when they had the opportunity to respond with counterattacks.

At the second stage of the experiment, the conditions changed - the actions of the partner began to depend directly on the actions of the subjects. In 90% of cases of non-aggressive responses of male subjects to electrical discharges received from their partner (in fact, encouragement), he, in turn, responded to them with encouragement the next time. When 90% of the subjects responded aggressively to the actions of their opponent (that is, by sending him electric shocks), he responded to them in the same way. It was hypothesized that, under such conditions, the subjects would quickly realize that it was most advantageous to respond to an electric shock received in a non-aggressive manner. Moreover, and much more important for our study, they will gradually begin to show a drop in the level of tension precisely after non-aggressive actions. In short, the prediction was that subjects would show signs of emotional catharsis as a reaction following non-aggressive behavior, because such behavior would prevent subsequent attacks from the experimenter's assistant. That is exactly what happened.

Even stronger evidence that anger relief does not have some unique association with aggressive responses comes from a study by Stone and Hokanson (1969). According to the conditions of the experiment, the subjects had to respond to the opponent in one of three ways: by striking him back; by rewarding him, or by inflicting weaker (weaker received) blows on himself. A pattern of actions was established between the behavior of the subjects and their partner: each time they responded to blows from the experimenter's assistant by striking themselves, they received a reward. Under such conditions, the participants in the experiment began to gradually demonstrate a cathartic discharge of tension immediately after such reactions. In other words, their level of physiological tension dropped quickly and drastically every time they demonstrated - at first glance - masochistic behavior! In fact, such behavior was far from masochistic - it reduced the discomfort experienced by the subjects.

my. These data are strong evidence that there is no unique or specific relationship between aggression and the discharge of emotional arousal. It seems that, under certain conditions, almost any form of behavior can acquire such "cathartic" properties.

CATHARSIS AND BEHAVIORAL AGGRESSION: DOES VIOLENCE TODAY REALLY LEAD TO FORGIVENESS TOMORROW?

Although the phenomenon of emotional catharsis is of considerable interest, more important in terms of the ability to manage aggression seems to be the question of the existence of behavioral catharsis - whether safe and non-harmful actions can help reduce the likelihood of more dangerous forms of aggression. Unfortunately, the data obtained to date on the possible effect of behavioral catharsis can hardly be called encouraging. In fact, it can be stated with absolute certainty that such an effect occurs only under very specific conditions and that it will not appear in situations in which it should have, as it was once thought, manifested itself. For example, consider the following facts: 1) watching violent movies or television programs does not reduce aggression; on the contrary, such an experience is more likely to increase the intensity of aggressive manifestations in the future (Wood, Wong & Chacere, 1991); 2) the level of aggression does not decrease if a person takes out his anger on inanimate objects(Mallick & McCandless, 1966): if people are given the opportunity to “bang” inflatable toys, throw darts at images of hated enemies, or smash some objects to smithereens, it is not at all necessary that the strength of their desire to commit aggressive acts towards annoying individuals will decrease; 3) the level of aggression does not decrease after a series of verbal attacks (Ebbsen, Duncan & Konecni, 1975) - on the contrary, the data obtained indicate that such actions actually increase aggression.

Naturally, these results cast serious doubt on the widely held belief that catharsis can prevent aggression. And yet it can be argued that behavioral catharsis does occur, but only under very specific conditions: when angry people directly harm those who angered them, or witness others doing it. In short, catharsis may occur, but its occurrence will be due to the principle of justice or equal responsibility (Greenberg, 1987) rather than the principle of "purification of the senses" first proposed by Aristotle. And although this assumption seems quite logical, the data related to it also paint a complex picture. Some experiments suggest that aggressors, having hurt the object of their anger or witnessing others do it, may indeed be less prone to aggression towards those individuals afterwards (Fromkin, Goldstein & Brock, 1977; Konecni & Ebbesen, 1976). But the results of other works indicate that such actions, on the contrary, can lead to an increase in the intensity of acts of aggression and their repetition in the future (Geen, Stonner & Shope, 1975). The latter can only be explained by

him: inflicting harm on one's enemy is often gratifying and can turn into a kind of conditioned reflex (Baron, 1979a). Thus, acts of aggression towards others that achieve the desired goal may increase rather than weaken the propensity for aggressive behavior. Whatever subtle mechanism is involved, it is clear that in such cases the effect, the occurrence of which is attributed to the so-called behavioral catharsis, is often not observed.

Currently, the data obtained regarding the ability of catharsis to prevent aggression are rather contradictory. The effect of catharsis was observed in some experiments, but was not registered in others. And we cannot provide simple and clear explanations for the inconsistency of these data. However, one possible explanation is that, contrary to popular belief, catharsis occurs only under very specific conditions, so the fact that it occurs only in some of the experiments can be explained by the fact that only in some studies the appropriate conditions were created. So what are these conditions? Based on the works we have reviewed and the current understanding of the nature of aggression, which is strongly influenced by the ever-complicating psychological theory of cognitive processes (Berkowitz, 1984, 1989; Zillmann, 1988), the following hypothetical assumptions can be put forward.

First, aggressive actions that enable an individual to improve the way others treat themselves or stop mistreating themselves can indeed help to relieve emotional tension. However, since it is pleasurable to drop the level of arousal or negative feelings due to the implementation of aggressive actions, such a situation as a whole can indeed serve as the basis for an increase in the propensity to aggression. Thus, under the influence of frustration or other conditions that cause negative emotions or arousal, persons who have resorted to aggression in the past are likely to turn to it again.

Secondly, "settling scores" with a provocative person may lead to a temporary decrease in the motivation for aggression in relation to this person. At the same time, it should Special attention turn to the word "temporary". An aggressive model of behavior is chosen to restore social justice (equality), and this goal can overshadow one of the most important incentives for aggressive actions. However, when people remember real and imagined troubles that they experienced or could experience through the fault of the object of their aggression, negative feelings can be reborn. As Berkowitz suggested, these feelings themselves can increase the propensity for aggression (Berkowitz, 1989). In addition, these feelings may lead the aggressor to conclude that he or she has not yet repaid his or her abuser for his or her previous provocations. If one of these mechanisms is triggered, after the initial weakening, the propensity for aggression may increase again. By the way, it should be noted that in studies on catharsis, the problem of the duration of its effect was practically not touched upon, while this topic deserves the most careful study.

Thirdly, the need to perform vigorous, exhausting physical activity can also contribute to a temporary decrease in emotional tension and the level of demonstrated aggression. A wealth of evidence suggests that exercise can actually reduce stress and stress levels (Ros-kies, 1987). Similarly, feeling completely exhausted reduces the likelihood of almost all forms of physical exertion. Thus, it is likely that the level of aggression, which often requires vigorous action, can be reduced as a result of exhausting exercise. It should be noted, however, that physical and emotional fatigue passes quickly, especially if individuals are accustomed to such a load (Zillmann, 1979). Thus, the reduction in emotional tension and the level of aggression caused by such activities are relatively short-term in their effect and do not seem to allow achieving a stable and long-term elimination of the tendency to aggression.

In general, both empirical evidence and certain theoretical considerations suggest a decrease in the value of catharsis as a means of preventing or controlling aggression. Any easing of aggression caused by catharsis will eventually pass. Not only "emotional clearing", but also many factors affecting complex concepts equality and social justice, as well as other aspects of social cognition, play a role in the emergence and strength of the manifestation of catharsis. Thus, it can be concluded that the potential of such a technique has been overestimated in the past.

IMPACT OF NON-AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOR: THE CONTINUOUS EFFECT OF RESTRAINT

A large body of research evidence supports the suggestion that observing patterns of aggressive behavior—the actions of individuals whose behavior can be qualified as aggressive—can sometimes trigger similar actions on the part of observers (Sprafkin, Gadow & Greyson, 1987; Wood, Wong & Chachere , 1991). Moreover, as we noted in Chapter 3 and Chapter 5, this effect is observed not only in adults (Baron & Bell, 1975), but also in children (Eron, 1987). One of the generally accepted explanations for the described effect is that models of aggressive behavior affect the processes of restraint and inhibition in observers. It is assumed that the observation of patterns of aggressive behavior "destroys the barriers" that previously kept the observer from committing acts of open aggression, which, accordingly, increases the likelihood of such behavior. If this is the case (and the existing data confirm this), then there is interest Ask: Is it possible to evoke opposite reactions in the same way? If the "barriers" against aggression can be broken down by displaying patterns of unusually aggressive behavior, can they not be "erected" in a similar way - by observing patterns of non-aggressive behavior - by the actions of individuals remaining restrained and calm in the face of even the most severe provocation? The most common observation gives a positive answer to this question. For example, many situations that feel tense or threatened can be defuse if the people involved show restraint, urge not to go to extremes, or do both. This tactic has been used repeatedly - and quite successfully - on various university campuses to prevent clashes between students and the police.

That observation of patterns of nonaggressive behavior can reduce the level of open aggression has also been confirmed by several experiments (Baron, 1971c; Baron & Kepner, 1970; Donnerstein & Donnerstein, 1976). It turned out that angry individuals who were given the opportunity to respond with acts of aggression to the person who was the source of their irritation, after observing patterns of non-aggressive behavior, showed significantly lower levels of aggression than individuals who did not have such an opportunity. Moreover, similar results were obtained not only in the case of demonstration of models of non-aggressive behavior (Donnerstein & Donnerstein, 1976), but also verbal calls to behave more restrainedly (Baron, 1972b). Perhaps the most obvious decrease in the level of aggressiveness was observed among individuals who had previously been subjected to strong provocation by potential targets of aggression. As a demonstration of the described effect and the power of its influence, let us turn to the study conducted by Baron and Kepner (Baron & Kepner, 1970).

In this work, Buss's traditional teacher-student system (Buss, 1961) was modified: during the experiment, the subjects dealt not with one person - the experimenter's assistant, who usually served as the object of aggression, but with two experimenter's assistants, of whom one played the role of the student, but the other is the role of the second teacher. (Before the start of the main procedure, the student drove the subjects mad with his offensive behavior - he doubted their intellectual inclinations and their desire and ability to complete the experimental tasks.) In two experimental groups, the second assistant fell out to play the role of the teacher first: he punished the student with electric current as the subject did. In one version of the experimental conditions (the model of aggressive behavior), the assistant behaved unusually aggressively, "punishing" the intended victim for mistakes with electric shocks by pressing buttons 8, 9 and 10. In another version (model of non-aggressive behavior), he behaved with restraint, non-aggressive, choosing low-power discharges for punishment - buttons 1, 2 and 3. And finally, in the third variant, in the control group, where there was no demonstration of any behavior model, the subjects acted as a teacher first, so they were spared the influence of the assistant's actions before hitting a student.

The results showed that the level of aggression in the participants in the experiment who observed the model of very aggressive behavior was higher than in the subjects from the control group. But (and this is most important for us) the demonstration of the model of non-aggressive behavior significantly reduced the level of aggression of the subjects compared to the control group. Moreover, this affected both the intensity and the duration of the electric discharges that the subjects chose (the assistant, of course, did not receive any blows) to punish the student (see Fig. 9. 4).

Similar results were obtained in several subsequent studies (Baron, 1971b, 1972b; Waldman & Baron, 1971). In addition, the researchers set out to add new data to the results obtained by Baron and Kepner - they suggested that often one human presence,

demonstrating a model of non-aggressive behavior is quite enough to neutralize the aggressively provoking influence from the behavior of aggressive individuals. In situations where potential aggressors are influenced by both individuals who demonstrate aggression and individuals who demonstrate restraint, the influence of the former can be largely suppressed by the presence of the latter. As one experiment (Baron, 1971c) showed, the presence of a non-aggressive person can indeed completely neutralize the influence of even an unusually aggressive behavior model, so that the behavior of the subjects will take the form that is characteristic of them in the absence of any social models. If we take into account that we most often encounter models - both real and depicted by the media - of aggressive behavior, and also take into account the strength of their influence on observers, then it should be recognized that factors that can negate the impact similar models will play important role in attempts to prevent and control human violence.

THE IMPACT OF NONAGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOR PATTERNS: A NOTE ON RELATIVE EFFICIENCY

The data we have examined allow us to think that often the demonstration of models of non-aggressive behavior can really restrain the aggression of eyewitnesses. But how effective is this tactic among others? In other words, how effective is the demonstration of non-aggressive behavior as a way to control and prevent aggression compared to other methods (eg, punishment, catharsis) that we considered? So far, there is no definitive answer to this question. However, an experiment carried out by Donnerstein and Donnerstein (Donnerstein & Donnerstein, 1976) provides a possible answer.

In it, student subjects were asked to give a certain man an electric shock. According to experimental conditions, half of the subjects were inspired with the idea that the object of aggression could take revenge on them, the other half did not assume such actions on the part of the victim. But, before they were all given the opportunity to press the button, some participants in each group were shown a videotape where one person (the experimenter's assistant) punished the victim by choosing low-power electric shocks (he used for this purpose two buttons corresponding to the most weak ranks). On the contrary, other participants in the experiment were shown a video where there was no explicit demonstration of any behavior.

On the basis of previous data, it was suggested that the demonstration of both revenge scenes and models of non-aggressive behavior would be equally effective in reducing the level of aggression. Both of these assumptions were confirmed. Persons who had the opportunity to observe patterns of non-aggressive behavior chose less powerful discharges of electric current for the experimenter's assistant than those who had no information about behavior patterns. And individuals who knew for sure that the victim would be able to take revenge on them addressed her with electric current discharges of less power than those who were not sure of the possibility of an act of retribution.

At first glance, these results suggest that the deterrent effect of exhibiting non-aggressive behaviors is consistent with the effect of fear of possible retaliation. But other evidence, however, has shown that observing patterns of behavior may be more effective in this regard. Everything described above applies only to direct aggression, an indicator of which is the power of the selected discharge. If we talk about the inhibition of aggressive behavior, then both the likelihood of retribution and the display of a model of non-aggressive behavior lead to the same result. However, if we talk about an indirect form of aggression (the indicator is the duration of the discharge), then a completely different picture emerges. In this case, the demonstration of models of non-aggressive behavior does not produce a significant effect, while the fear of retaliation increases aggression. In short, the fear of possible retribution from the victim reduces the intensity of manifestations of direct, observable aggression, and at the same time increases indirect, less obvious. Demonstration of the behavior of a non-aggressive model, on the contrary, does not have such an impact.

We can explain this apparent advantage of demonstrating behavior patterns over fear of retaliation as follows: the procedure used earlier was designed with the task of finding two different ways to deter aggression, while the current one is designed with the task of finding a single one. Both the threat of retaliation and the display of a non-aggressive behavior pattern can reinforce the barriers that keep the individual from resorting to aggression. In addition, the demonstration of a model of calm, non-aggressive behavior (especially after provocation) can contribute to the decline in emotional arousal among observers. Decreased arousal levels may, in turn, suppress external aggression (Rule & Nesdale, 1976). Although these assumptions are consistent with the data obtained by Donnerstein and Donnerstein (Donnerstein & Donnerstein, 1977), and the facts stated in other works (Rule & Nesdale, 1976), they have not been subjected to direct empirical research. Thus, they can be considered speculative in nature. Whether or not future research confirms the existence and mode of action of this putative mechanism, the existing data nonetheless support the conclusion that self-control, like aggression, can be socially contagious. As a result, displaying patterns of reserved, non-aggressive behavior can often be very effective in comparing

1 Nature of aggression

It is important to distinguish between two types of aggression:
- genetically incorporated defensive, "constructive";
- inherent only to man - "destructive".
constructive aggression. In general, the types of constructive aggression can be divided into two groups: pseudo-aggression, i.e. actions that may result in harm, but which were not preceded by evil intentions, and defensive aggression aimed at preserving species and genus, and defensive aggression serving the natural needs of the individual.
Destructive aggression arises as a possible reaction to the result of the interaction of various social conditions and the existential needs of a person.
The current theories of aggression explain the causes and mechanisms of aggressive human behavior in different ways. Some of them associate aggression with instinctive drives (Z. Freud, K. Lorenz), in others, aggressive behavior is interpreted as a reaction to frustration. (J. Dollard, L. Berkowitz), thirdly, aggression is seen as the result of social learning (A. Bandura). There are many variations of these approaches. The frustration theory of aggression and the theory of social learning received the greatest experimental confirmation. However, there are still disputes about the biological conditionality of aggression. In addition to being destructive, aggression also performs an adaptive function, i.e. is benign (as defined by E. Fromm). It contributes to the maintenance of life and is a response to a threat to vital needs. K. Lorenz considers aggression an important element of evolutionary development. Observing the behavior of animals, he came to the conclusion that aggression directed against fellow species is in no way harmful to this species, on the contrary, it performs the function of its preservation, because. it is aggression that allows the group to have the strongest and most intelligent individuals, and the best possible leaders. But the oversimplification of this theory gave rise to thoughts about conflict as a necessary law of life. Such reasoning becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy and may ignore the survival value of a species of non-aggressive and non-competitive behaviors.
Man appeared before the animal world as extremely aggressive. With the exception of some rodents, no other vertebrate kills members of its genus so consistently and senselessly. What is aggression? What is the reason for such forms of aggression? Can it be modified? What are the factors that increase or decrease its level? These are the few questions that science faces. It is extremely difficult to give a definition of aggression, because in wide use this term is used in very different meanings from each other. In order to improve the understanding of aggression, we need to get through the terminological swamp and separate the ordinary understanding of aggression, which indicates the assertiveness of a person, from the understanding associated with destructive behavior. In other words, a distinction should be made between behavior that harms other people and harmless behavior.
Aggression as a stable personal characteristic is formed as a result of significant experience in suppressing the possibilities of self-realization. Suppression is carried out outside an aggressive context, on the contrary, blocking actual personal needs is most often associated with excessive concern for the individual, within the framework of an educational strategy described as "hyper-guardianship". The paradoxical socialization of aggression can be viewed as an aggressive trace of social experience that deprives a person of independence. This approach is confirmed by the obtained data on the direct relationship of such personal qualities as "shyness" and "spontaneous aggressiveness".

2 Aggression for the purpose of self-affirmation

3 Aggression management

We live in an active and aggressive world. Every day we have to deal with certain manifestations of aggression, adults are especially worried about the aggressive actions of the younger generation.

Society will never approve of the aggressive actions of the population, even if this property exists in human nature. But, as you know, aggressive actions cannot be eradicated by banning, punishing and reading instructions. Maybe it's worth understanding the nature of aggression and learning how to manage the energy capabilities of this property?

The term "aggression" carries such concepts as "attack", "hostility", etc., and it is used to refer to the listed actions that arise out of fear or frustration; desire to cause fear in others or put them to flight; striving to achieve recognition of their ideas or the implementation of their own interests. Aggression is one of the psychological defense mechanisms. Each person must have a certain degree of aggressiveness. Its absence leads to passivity, dependence, inability to defend one's interests, lack of one's own ideas and goals. However, its excessive development is reflected in the whole appearance of the personality and characterizes a person as a conflict, incapable of conscious cooperation with society.

Aggression itself does not make a person consciously dangerous to society, since the connection between aggressiveness and aggression is not rigid, and the act of aggression itself may not take deliberately dangerous and unapproved forms. In our worldly consciousness, aggressiveness is presented in the form of "malicious activity", and does not carry any destruction in itself. It is worth mentioning here that aggressiveness is a personality trait characterized by the presence of both destructive (destructive) and constructive (creative) tendencies. Based on this, aggressive manifestations can be divided into two types: the first type is motivational (a state of excitation that prompts the body to act aggressively) aggression, as a value in itself, and the second type is instrumental aggression, as a means to achieve some goal or a consequence of learning. and, possibly, imitation of aggressive actions. Practical psychologists are interested in motivational aggression as a direct manifestation of personality characteristics with destructive tendencies, in other words, the aggression of psychopaths. A person himself cannot cope with his problems, it is worth contacting a specialist who will help to identify the level of aggression with the help of diagnostic questionnaires, and jointly develop techniques aimed at the constructive use of his aggression.

Types of aggressive reactions

Direct physical aggression is the use of physical force against another person.

Indirect - aggression, in a roundabout way directed at another person (when "set up").

Irritation - readiness to manifest negative feelings at the slightest arousal (temper, rudeness).

Negativism is an oppositional manner in behavior, manifested in the form of either passive resistance or active struggle against established customs and laws.

Resentment - envy and hatred of others for real and fictional grievances.

Suspicion - distrust and caution in relation to other people, conviction in their "bad" intentions.

Verbal aggression is the expression of negative feelings through squeals, screams, threats, stamping feet, cursing. For example, a mat is a manifestation of verbal aggression.

Feeling of guilt - is expressed in the form of a person's conviction that he has negative qualities, remorse.

It's amazing how different faces aggression has. At first glance, you can’t say that we are talking about it, but after reading it carefully, you notice a certain feature - aggression can be directed at yourself (auto-aggression) and at the external environment (yes, it’s the environment! Acts of vandalism are also a manifestation of aggression), and if society is calm about auto-aggression, then it will never accept external aggression. Since man is a social being, he will have to accept and obey the requirements of society.

Methods for managing your own aggression

So how do you deal with aggression? The first and most obvious sentence is “know thyself”. Need to understand real reasons its aggression. If the reasons are internal, i.e. endogenous, it is worth contacting a psychologist, and maybe a psychiatrist. Perhaps the reasons are external, i.e. exogenous, it is worth analyzing them and directing the aggressive energy in a constructive direction. It is impossible to suppress your aggression, it is better to reorient aggression - this is the easiest and most reliable way to neutralize it. She is content with ersatz objects (substitutes) more easily than most other instincts, and finds complete satisfaction in them. Already in ancient Greece, they knew about the cleansing discharge obtained as a result of sports loads. Sport is a special ritualized form of struggle that develops in the cultural life of a person. This form of fighting serves a very important purpose - it teaches people conscious control and responsible power over their instinctive fighting reactions. It is important not to punish your child for aggressive actions, but to introduce him to less dangerous forms of its manifestation in the form of sports achievements. Perhaps your child is attracted by the competitive spirit of fighting in a team, cultivating the ability to build relationships in society, perhaps he will like some kind of individual sport where it is required to educate and show personal character traits, which will make it possible to feel calm and confident among peers. It is worth remembering that aggressive actions occur in people deprived of love, therefore, when complaints about your child appear, it is necessary to reconsider your relationship as a parent and child. Increased demands, lack of affection (there is an opinion that boys need to be brought up tough) can be perceived by the child as a loss of parental love. Not only the lack of love for the child can be the cause of aggression. The lack of love between a man and a woman is also the cause of aggressive behavior when a scandal in the family replaces sexual relations. No wonder there is a slogan: "Make love, not war." In a family where there is love and sex, there is no place for aggression, scandals and quarrels. "The more often a woman moans with pleasure at night, the less she swears during the day."

The next method of controlling aggression is to separate yourself from your own aggression and thereby free yourself from its power. After all, irritation, anger, resentment are not only painful for those to whom they are directed, but also destroy those who experience them. Everything that happens to us in itself is neither bad nor good. Only we ourselves attach this or that meaning, our nerve cells equally experience both joyful and sad events. Only by passing through the mind, we are aware of them and experience them as pain or triumph. If a person looks at life from the position of “winning a place in the sun”, then it will always seem to him that it is simply necessary to show signs of aggression to his applicants, so as not to be habitual. In such cases, you have to reconsider your priorities and learn how to establish contacts with others through negotiations. Aggression is a sign of weakness, and intimidation is simply an attempt to intimidate others, nothing more.

Another method that helps to direct the energy of aggression in a constructive direction is the ability not to succumb to your emotions and not get turned on half a turn. Any opposition, the slightest difficulties, insignificant objections arouse in us the desire to “pulverize” everyone, if only to remove the obstacle that has arisen. Think about how you look in anger, and when you suddenly succumb to your fleeting reaction, look at yourself in the mirror - is this your essence?! Is this mangled face like an angry mask an integral part of you? This is the source of your problems, your suffering. you carry full responsibility for your reaction, whether it is necessary to respond with aggression to aggression. Relaxation techniques will help you get rid of addiction. These include meditation and auto-training. The purpose of meditation is not to suppress aggression or artificially empty your mind, but to allow aggression to come out and dissipate without leaving traumatic traces. The purpose of auto-training is to relieve the internal tension that arose as a result of experiencing aggression and balance your state of mind.