Student ID: Q13713809

“Critically assess the role of personality in aggression”

word count: 2199/2200

In this assignment, I will be critically assessing the role that personality plays within
aggression, by exploring theories of both personality and aggression and establishing a
common factor linking the two together.

Personality is essentially an amalgamation of characteristics and traits that form and

distinguish an individual’s personal and often distinctive character. Within society, many
different personality types can often be identified as a result of individual differences that
vary from person to person. As such, over the years, psychologists have devised a multitude
of different theories that all attempt to ‘determine’ what common traits and types make up
the average personality, and if different types of personality exist and can be identified
through research. With reference to the role personality plays within aggression, some
theorists argue that personality variables are important predictors of aggressive behaviour
(Jones, Miller and Lynam, 2011).

One theory of personality known as the Big 5, or the five-factor model (Costa and
McCrae, 1987) consists of five broadly recognised personality traits, such as extraversion,
openness to experience, conscientiousness, agreeableness and neuroticism. The openness
to experience trait features specific characteristics such as being imaginative and insightful.
People who identified as being low in this trait would likely appear to be more traditional
and struggle with abstract thinking. Individuals who score highly on the conscientiousness
trait tend to be organised and focused on detail. However, someone who scores low in this
trait would likely appose to structure and schedules. The extraversion trait is identified
through high amounts of emotional expression such as, being exceedingly sociable and
assertive. Those who would score low on this trait, would likely feel exhausted when
socialising for too long and would dislike being the centre of attention. Individuals scoring
highly in agreeableness would attribute kindness and prosocial behaviours as an important
part of their personality. Whereas someone scoring low in agreeableness would likely take
little interest in others and often use manipulation as a tool to achieve what they want.
Student ID: Q13713809

Neuroticism, is a trait that features emotional stability in the form of anxiety, depression
and moodiness as its fundamental characteristics. These individuals would likely experience
a lot of stress and dramatic shifts in their moods, in comparison to individuals who score low
on neuroticism; who would likely be more emotionally stable and relaxed.

Through their research, Costa and McCrae (1987), identified that these five
personality traits could be identified worldwide, with both nature and nurture as factors
influencing why some traits manifest more in some than others. Whilst there are five
categories of personality, each category represents a generally extreme version of the trait,
for example with regards to neuroticism, a large number of individuals within society may
fall somewhere in-between the two extreme opposites, as they may experience some
characteristics occasionally, but they may not be a consistently prominent feature of their
personality.

Additionally, another theory of personality, developed by Cattell (1950), as cited in

Hogg (2013), distinguished 4000 possible personality traits. Cattel (1950), using statistical
techniques such as factor analysis, identified his list of sixteen key personality traits. Cattell
argued that these sixteen personality traits could likely be seen in almost every individual,
however he stressed that whilst some people may be high in some traits, they could also be
low in others. These traits range from dominance, tension, and apprehension, to
perfectionism, emotional stability and openness to change.

Furthermore, another theory of personality known as the Type A or B personality,

essentially focuses on how individuals respond to stress (Friedman and Rosenman, 1974). It
is how the individual responds to this stress that essentially categorises them as either a
type A personality or a type B. Friedman and Rosenman (1974) argued that those who
demonstrated a type A behaviour pattern were competitive, time urgent, and aggressive.
Whereas, those who demonstrated type B behaviour patterns reflected a complete contrast
in personality, displaying relaxed, non-competitive and easy-going behaviour. With
reference to the type A behaviour pattern, the culmination of the competitive and hostile
personality traits that the individual would possess essentially demonstrates how
personality plays a role within aggression being displayed. With reference to the
Student ID: Q13713809

competitive trait, Friedman and Rosenman (1974) demonstrate how being highly
competitive causes the individual to possess a higher chance of being easily wound up and
‘more likely to react’. Furthermore, from the identified hostility trait, they found from their
research that type A individuals tended to be easily aroused to anger and aggression. They
also described these individuals as being envious and lacking compassion, often using
physically aggressive behaviour to demonstrate this.

With reference to how personality plays a role within demonstrations of aggressive

behaviour, it can be identified through the understanding of these theories of personality,
that specific traits identified, such as neuroticism for example, possess characteristics more
likely to result in the use of aggressive behaviour in comparison to others. With reference to
the Big 5 model of personality, it could be argued that those who score highly on
neuroticism would be more likely to demonstrate aggressive behaviour due to the main
characteristics of this trait being emotionally unstable, anxious, depressed and likely to
experience stress. In research conducted by Sharpe and Desai (2001) they found that the
neuroticism factor was more positively related to aggressive behaviour, as the dimensions
of neuroticism are connected to the characteristics of people prone to psychological
distress. Furthermore, stress is intrinsically a moderator of aggression, and experiencing
such a fluctuation of emotions on a regular basis is likely to result in frustration or
aggression. Moreover, scoring low in other traits identified by the Big 5 model such as
agreeableness or openness to change could also identify a correlation between how
personality plays a role in aggression, as these two personality traits characterise the
individual as being more likely to be manipulative, use insults towards others and be
unopen to change. For example, if an individual scored low in these two traits but high in
neuroticism, it could demonstrate how personality, and theories of personality establish a
link between the latter and aggression, as these identified traits possess qualities that invite
aggression as an easy reaction. Additionally, with reference to Cattell’s theory of
personality, it is demonstrated how certain personality traits are likely to increase the
probability of displays of aggressive behaviour.

Furthermore, through gaining an understanding of the type A behaviour personality,

it can be demonstrated how personality plays a role within aggression as a trait. For
Student ID: Q13713809

example, individuals displaying typical type A behaviour possess personality characteristics

often related to aggressive behaviour, such as high levels of competitiveness, being time
urgent and being hostile to others. These three personality traits essentially relate to
aggression, as aggression often occurs out of the frustration of not being able to achieve
something. For example, if an individual possesses specific traits such as being competitive
and time urgent; if the individual cannot achieve this successfully, aggressive behaviour in
retaliation to the frustration experienced may likely to follow.

Aggression essentially can often be difficult to define, with many agents of social
control attempting to determine what exactly aggression consists of. However, broadly
speaking it is typically a destructive type of behaviour that stems from feelings of anger;
that can often result in hostile and violent behaviour.

Aggressive behaviour can be either self-inflicted or imposed upon another individual,

and social psychologists suggest that there are two main ‘types’ of aggression that can be
identified within society. Buss (1961) suggests that these two types of aggression include
hostile aggression and instrumental aggression. He refers to hostile aggression as aggressive
behaviour that arises out of negative emotions such as anger and frustration, with an aim of
inflicting pain. Whereas he suggests that instrumental aggression is a means to an end as
such, rather than hurting the target directly. However, despite these two types of
aggression varying slightly from one another, it is widely recognised that most acts of
aggression often reflect a mixture of both types (Bushman and Anderson, 2002).

With regards to whether or not aggression is innate or learned, there is no definitive

answer. However, there are a variety of different existing theoretical frameworks that
discuss the different reasons for the existence and manifestation of aggression within
individuals.

For example, the instinct theory of aggression suggests that aggression is essentially
an innate, unlearned behaviour pattern. The foundations of this theory were based upon
Freud’s argument that human aggression springs from a self-destructive impulse. The
theory itself argues that aggressive energy is instinctual, therefore meaning if not
Student ID: Q13713809

discharged, aggression will continue to build until it explodes or the appropriate stimulus
finds a way to release it, as demonstrated within the situational cues theory of aggression.

Furthermore, another theory that argues that aggression is an innate human factor,
are the biochemical influences of aggression. Biochemical influences such as testosterone,
for example, may strengthen aggressive impulses. For example, research has found that
teenage boys and adult men with high testosterone levels are more prone than others to
engage in aggression on provocation (Jean-Claude Dreher et al, 2016). Serotonin is also
another example of a biochemical influence of aggression, however with the power to
inhibit aggressive impulses. In contrast to testosterone, low levels of naturally produced
serotonin can result in high levels of displayed aggression, as demonstrated through
research of violent criminals (Davidson, Putnam and Larson, 2000). Moreover, the
introduction of alcohol into the body can also unleash aggression when the individual
becomes provoked. For example, alcohol lowers self-awareness and thresholds for
antisocial behaviour and reduces the ability to consider consequences, therefore making
aggression as a reaction more likely to occur as opposed to when sober. In cases of
homicide, 65% of assailants or victims had consumed alcohol, with 55% in relation to
domestic abuse cases (World Health Organisation, 2018).

However, theories of aggression, such as situational cues to aggression, suggest that

aggressive behaviour is essentially learned through environmental factors. Situational cues
are essentially cues with aggressive meaning that increase the accessibility of aggressive
cognitions. For example, potential aggression enhancing situational cues act as a primer to
activate schemas related to aggression. Moreover, the weapons effect highlights the
tendency for the presence of guns to increase aggression when an individual becomes
frustrated. Research has demonstrated how guns essentially prime hostile thoughts and
judgements (Anderson et al, 1998), with those who keep a gun in the home 2.7 times more
likely to be murdered, almost always by a family member or close acquaintance (Kellerman,
1997) as cited in (Krahe, 2013).

Another theory of aggression taking the environmentally learned viewpoint, is the

frustration-aggression theory. Frustration, by definition, is anything that blocks the
Student ID: Q13713809

attainment of a goal, with Dollard (1939), stressing that frustration almost always leads to a
motive to aggress. This theory suggests that you experience more aggression when you are
either close to the goal, when frustration is unexpected, intentional or unjustified, or when
an individual cannot retaliate against a cause of frustration. Being unable to retaliate against
the cause of an individual’s frustration then in turn can result in displaced aggression, in
which harm is directed towards something or someone else other than the actual source
and cause of the aggression.

The social learning theory can also contribute towards demonstrating how
aggression can be learned from an individual’s environment. From Bandura’s (1963)
observational experiment, it was illustrated how people, most commonly children, observe
nuances of aggression through the direct observation of others. Through this observation,
an individual can essentially learn specific aggressive behaviours, how to develop positive
attitudes and beliefs about aggression, ways in which they can harm others, what actions
justify retaliation and what situations approve of aggression as an appropriate response.

Furthermore, the general aggression model demonstrates how aggression acts as a

social encounter that follows several steps. The person and the situation they are in
essentially act as the inputs that influence appraisals through cognitive arousal routes. It is
then the persons actions that rest on whether the appraisal is thoughtful or impulsive.

Through developing an understanding of both theories of personality and

aggression, it can be agreed upon that all of the discussed theories combined essentially
demonstrate a strong connection between aggression and personality. For example, with
reference to both the general aggression model and the big 5 model of personality, within
the context of the learning in the general aggression model, it is suggested that personality
dispositions found within people are essentially related to developing an aggressive
personality depending on the specific Big 5 trait. For example, if an individual is confronted
with a hostile provocation, individuals who display disagreeable behaviour are more likely to
process these hostile cues, thus increasing the chances of hostile interactions from
occurring, likely reinforcing a range of aggressive schema and scripts (Bartlett and Anderson,
2012).
Student ID: Q13713809

Overall, it can be argued that there is significant evidence that the role
personality plays is compelling when understanding why and how aggression occurs. From
gaining a theoretical understanding of both personality and aggression, it can be identified
that there is an obvious correlation between the two, with traits characterised within
certain personality types being more likely to cause aggressive displays of behaviour in
comparison to others, thus demonstrating the importance of personality and the role it
plays with reference to aggression.

Reference list

ALBERT BANDURA. (1963). The role of imitation in personality development. The Journal of
Nursery Education, 18(3), 207-215. Retrieved
from https://www.uky.edu/~eushe2/Bandura/Bandura1963.pdf

Anderson, C. A., & Bushman, B. J. (2002). Human aggression. Annual Review of

Psychology, 53(1), 27-51. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135231

Barlett, C. P., & Anderson, C. A. (2012). Direct and indirect relations between the big 5
personality traits and aggressive and violent behavior. Personality and Individual
Differences, 52(8), 870-875. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2012.01.029

Buss, A. H. (1961). Theœpsychology of aggression. New York [u.a.]: Wiley.

Craig A. Anderson, Arlin J. Benjamin, & Bruce D. Bartholow. (1998). Does the gun pull the
trigger? automatic priming effects of weapon pictures and weapon
names. Psychological Science, 9(4), 308-314. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00061

Davidson, R. J., Putnam, K. M., & Larson, C. L. (2000). Dysfunction in the neural circuitry of
emotion regulation--A possible prelude to violence. Science, 289(5479), 591-594.
doi:10.1126/science.289.5479.591

Dollard, J. (1939). Frustration and aggression (9. pr. ed.). New Haven: Yale Univ. Pr.

Jean-Claude Dreher, Simon Dunne, Agnieszka Pazderska, Thomas Frodl, John J Nolan, & John
P O'Doherty. (2016). Testosterone causes both prosocial and antisocial status-
Student ID: Q13713809

enhancing behaviors in human males. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

of the United States of America, 113(41), 11633. doi:10.1073/pnas.1608085113

Jones Shayne, E., Miller Joshua, D., & Lynam Donald, R. (2011). Personality, anti social
behaviour and aggression: A meta anayltic view 39(4) Retrieved
from https://econpapers.repec.org/scripts/redir.pf?u=https%3A%2F%2Fptop.only.wip.la%3A443%2Fhttp%2Fwww.sciencedir
ect.com%2Fscience%2Farticle%2Fpii%2FS004723521100050X;h=repec:eee:jcjust:v:39:y
:2011:i:4:p:329-337

Krahé, B. (2013). Social psychology of aggression (1st ed.). England: Psychology Press.
Retrieved from http://lib.myilibrary.com?ID=446891

Meyer Friedman, & Ray H. Rosenman. (1974). Type A behaviour and your heart (1st ed.).
New York: Alfred A. Knopf / Random House.

Michael A. Hogg, & Graham M.Vaughan. (2013). Social psychology (7th ed.). Englan:
Pearson.

Robert R McCrae, & Paul T Costa. (1987). Validation of the five-factor model of personality
across instruments and observers. Clinical psychology I: Assessment and
formulation (pp. III103). London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
doi:10.4135/9781446286197.n45 Retrieved
from http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781446286197.n45

Sharpe, J. P., & Desai, S. (2001). The revised neo personality inventory and the MMPI-2
psychopathology five in the prediction of aggression. Personality and Individual
Differences, 31(4), 505-518. doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(00)00155-0

World Health Organisation. (2018). Intimate partner violence and alcohol. Retrieved
from https://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/violence/world_report/factshe
ets/fs_intimate.pdf