The Importance of Androgenic Hormones

Discussing whether a behaviour is innate or not is to assess whether this aspect is ‘a quality or ability that you were born with, not one you have learned’. Innate suggests a biological link and that aggression is inherent in the essential character of humans, arising from our own mind as opposed to something we pick up from the environment. The differing theories that exist with regards to genetic pre-determiners and hormonal impaction are therefore opposed by the social accounts that explain behaviour attribution with cognitive learning processes and reinforcement from environmental factors. However, the role of such social influences needs to be considered alongside and possibly integrated with the impact biological factors may also have.

The importance of androgenic hormones in relation to aggression has been long standing. Such hormones influence bodily development known as organizing effects, and alter behaviours in everyday life known as activating effects. Despite numerous research studies carried out on animals, showing testosterone activity facilitating aggression, especially at peak mating times (Archer, 1988) there is no conclusive evidence of such effects in humans to date.

Certain researchers suggest testosterone has no relation to human behaviour and suggest the power of social factors outweigh the effects of such neurochemicals (Campbell, 1997). On the other hand there are several studies which oppose such assumptions, for example; when testing the saliva of criminals it revealed individuals with higher levels of testosterone has a history of violent crimes e.g. Murder/rape, as opposed to those with lower levels who has committed non-violent crimes e.g. petty theft (Dabbs et al, 1987). The same could also be seen in the case of war veterans (Dabbs and Morris, 1990), across different cultures (Brooks & Reddon (1)) and even in women, who although have a lower basal level of testosterone, are more influenced by smaller changes in levels compared to men (4). Further correlational studies also reveal a relationship between male levels of testosterone and personal or observer ratings of their aggression levels. It was found teenage boys who were preliminarily described by their parents as ‘nasty’, ‘delinquent’ and other negative attributes had much higher levels of testosterone compared to boys described positively (Susman, 1987).

The hormone cortisol is also a hormone believed to have effects of human aggression. As it acts as a testosterone inhibitor it is suggested people with low levels of cortisol display higher levels of aggression. This was shown is recent research on young boys, which found the individuals with low levels of cortisol engaged in anti-social acts at a younger age than their peer, and were three times more aggressive than other boys of the same age (McBurnett et al). However, as with testosterone there is still no conclusive evidence of this relationship as there are also contradicting research papers which show a correlation of higher aggression with higher levels of cortisol (Gerra et al). While both of these hormones seem to play a role in the expression of aggression it is a reductionist view as other environmental and social factors are not taken in to account.

A large issue raised by such research however, is the question of causal link. Correlational studies aren’t conclusive and leave open the question concerning whether it is hormones that raise levels of aggression, or if social interactions and built up frustrations cause an increase in the hormone, better preparing us to aggress in response to such provocation. It may even be the case that the effects of aggression causes an increase in the hormones, as found when playing aggressive sports such as tennis increases testosterone levels of the winner but lowers the losers (Mazur & Lamb, 1980) however there is a possibility this could be due to the inter-male competition situation of such games (Glaude, Boechler, & McCaul 1989). Such evidence could even explain the modern day phenomenon of sporting related riots after the rioting group’s team had in fact won. The majority of such research is also based on self or parental ratings of aggression which poses a risk of bias to the results. To also conclude; testosterone is a hormone which is secreted in bursts at random moments, thus making it a difficult variable to measure scientifically therefore the reliability of such experiments is questionable (3).

Following Lagerspetz & Lagerspetz research, we have strong evidence that aggression can be in part genetically determined, as animals can specifically be bred to be aggressive by breeding the two most aggressive offspring with each other (1971). Throughout time researchers have believed there is a genetic link involved with human aggression. This interest sparked when Osborn and West (1979) studied criminals to establish if you could inherit criminal tendencies. The results show only 13% of boys with non-criminal fathers had convictions, whereas the criminal father group had 40%. This genetic link was further established when research was carried out on “The Super Male Gene”, comprised of XYY chromosomes as opposed to the usual XY. It was found in Scottish hospitals for the criminally insane 28% of the men had the defective gene as opposed to the normal population which was 0.1% (Price, 1996).

Overtime researchers were led to believe the genetic link to aggression is a result of a gene’s impact on the production of the enzyme Monoamine oxidase, which affects the neurotransmitters; noradrenaline, serotonin and dopamine. A quasi experiment was conducted on five males who had the same genetic condition, from a family in the Netherlands who displayed high levels of aggression. The subjects aggressed when angry, fearful or frustrated. All five men were found to have a defect in their MAOA gene, subsequently causing them to be MAOA deficient and flawing the metabolism of serotonin, thus causing inability to regulate personal aggression (Brunner, 1993). The condition of which the men had is very rare which does cause a generalisability issue, however it does provide support for the determinism argument as these men will always behave in a way predetermined by their condition. Brunner himself did acknowledge genetics are not the sole cause of aggression and even that it was unlikely there is a link between one gene and aggression.

More recently Moffit et al (2002) suggested the gene MAOA is linked to impulsive aggression. His study spanned over 26 years and found a strong correlation between childhood abuse and criminal behaviour in males with the MAOA gene. It was found aggression was nine times more likely to manifest in males with the gene who were abuse in comparison to those without the gene. Such research not only provides evidence of a genetic link, but also displays the interaction of environment and genotype in ultimate expression of human behaviour, for example genes provide an individual a certain potential for growth, but this may ultimately be mediated by nutrition and other environmental factors when growing up.

Furthermore, there are several alternative explanations put forward by social psychologists on the origins of human aggression. During the 1960’s the Social Learning Theory emerged. The consensus Bandura put forward was that through observation and reinforced imitations we learn how to behave, and therefore when to aggress, from our environment and role models.

A main concept in this theory is that of self-efficacy. It is thought the more an individual believes they are physically capable of carrying out an act, the more likely it is it will be acted upon. In one study children who were seen to be described by their peers as aggressive, expressed a greater confidence in themselves in solving a problem with an aggressive solution. They also carried a stronger belief that carrying out such aggressive acts would produce a positive outcome and be successful in anticipating further conflicts (Perry et al, 1986).

Research carried out on maltreated children who were both witness to and victims of aggression, show it has a detrimental affect on later adult life. Lab and peer assessments establish such children have early cognitive deviations and thus higher levels of aggression (Rogosch et al). In certain cases, it was seen men and women who endured physical punishment and marital violence, were three times more likely to abuse partners later in life and self-reports also represented a higher likelihood of abuse to them on children (Straus 1990). Such findings could be attributed to the social learning theory as higher exposure to aggressive acts would reinforce such behaviour in a child’s mind, and as Gelle stated, “not only does the family expose individuals to violence and techniques of violence, the family teaches approval for the use of violence” through such learning, which is also supported by the hypothesis of an integrational “cycle of violence” (McCord 1988). One however, cannot ignore the unreliable retrospective nature of such studies as the recall of memories may be difficult, as they are rather sensitive also there may be an issue of false or biased memories in some recounts (Weis 1989). Further studies also reveal an especially strong relationship of exposure to aggression with high levels of aggression in adulthood, in males specifically (Rosenbaum and Oleaery). As previously laid out testosterone is a predominantly male hormone which although still unconfirmed, is believed to affect aggression levels, therefore showing social learning theory is not conclusive and both social and biological factors work in conjunction to produce individual aggression levels.

As such implications have been recognised by researchers, more recent developments have been made in this area suggesting we create mental ‘scripts’ for behaviours. Scripts are a procedural knowledge structure, somewhat like a schema in the brain for understanding and enacting behaviours (online link). Once encoded for, aggressive scripts may be triggered by general activation of memory or specific cues in the environment, therefore observed violence not only create scripts but it also provides a trigger for the recall of them. Once created these can be difficult to alter or undo (Heusmann LR 1988). Research relating to this type of learning has shown children who view violent media display increased levels of aggressive thoughts and behaviour, as these observations further encode scripts for aggressive acts (Brad, Bushman, Heusmann, 2006). Furthermore, if children already have a history of abuse they will develop schemas of aggression, mistrust and emotional inhibition at early ages, allowing for the further cementing of such scripts throughout adult life, fully mediating the relationship seen between psychological maltreatment and adult victimization (Tandonfline.com). This poses serious concerns for the impact of increasingly violent media is having on society’s behaviour, however we must take in to account cognitive scripts are not the sole source of aggression in humans. Several other affecting factors need to be taken in to account; such as individual differences between people, and also the fact both individual and situational factors have been seen to predict aggression (Herschovis 2007), thus showing the interaction of biological and social factors.

To expand on the idea there is an interlinked relationship of biological and social factors in human aggression, an extremely recent theory has emerged; the general aggression model (GAM). GAM creates an integrative and comprehensive framework in the study of human aggression (Anderson & Bushman, 2002). This model is comprised of proximal factors separated in to three different phases. The first being inputs; these are persona logical and situation input variables that influence a person’s internal state, either increasing or decreasing the chances of an aggressive act. Personal factors are very stable across time and consist of but not limited to; self-image, narcissism and self-efficacy – a topic draw from the social learning theory(Mischel and Shoda 1995), and situation factors include; social stress, provocation, frustration etc. The second phase is the routes through which the input variables travel. These routes include affect, cognition and arousal which are three elements which make up an individual’s internal state and either encourages/discourages aggression, for example; if temperature was the affect variable, this usually makes people feel more agitated and more likely to display an aggressive act as it has been noted increases in temperature cause increased feelings of anger and hostility (craig a 2004). The third phase is outcomes. This focuses on how the individual’s present internal state influences appraisal and decision process that will ultimately then lead to either a thoughtful or impulsive behaviour.

In respect of the GAM it is a more parsimonious model than its predeceasing theories and better explains aggression through several motives. It provides a multidimensional classification scheme by which we can break aggression influences down in to several factors and stage rather than focusing on one narrow scope. By such explanation this model also helps parents, teachers etc. to have a better understanding when raising children of how life experiences can serve as crucial learning in the development of new knowledge structure and more importantly new personalities.

The question of whether aggression is innate still remains a contentious issue, conflicted by inconclusive research from both biological and social perspectives. The importance of genetic predispositions and the strong relationships found between hormones and aggression levels provides biology a strong standing, experimental theory as to why we aggress. However, whilst biology may contribute, theories and models put forward by social psychologists also provide a strong explanation of aggression. Social learning theory and the recent general aggression model show how equally influential operational and observational learning of, which we receive from the environment, is in terms of shaping the cognitive links we create throughout life and refer to when certain situations arise. In this way, although still regarded to be inconclusive, such models as GAM provide an integrative and comprehensive explanation that displays how aggression in humans is derived from a series of both biological pre-determiners and social factors working concurrently and therefore showing aggression is not from a solely innate origin.