This article throws light upon the top three theories of

aggression. The theories are: 1. Instinct Theory of

Aggression 2. Frustration Aggression Hypothesis 3. Social
Learning Theory.
1. Instinct Theory of Aggression:
The instinct theory of aggression was advanced by Sigmund Freud
(1927) the great psychoanalyst of yester years. In his earlier writings,
Freud was of view that all human behaviour originates either directly
or indirectly from ‘EROS’, the life instinct, which helps in reproduction
of life.

In this back ground aggression was considered simply as a reaction to

the blocking of libidinal impulses. Thus, it was neither an automatic
nor an inevitable part of life.

But in course of psychoanalysis and particularly after the second world

war Freud gradually came to know the presence of two basic urges
such as Eros and Thantos or life instinct and death instinct instead of
one instinct (Life instinct) held earlier.

Thus revising his earlier view on instincts he wrote. After long doubts
and vacillations we have decided to assume the existence of only two
basic urges Eros or the Life instinct and Thantos or the Destructive
instinct.

Thus Freud with experience and analysis gradually came to adopt the
nature of human aggression, and proposed a second major instinct
named the Thantos, the force of death or destruction whose energy in
directed towards the destruction or termination of life, towards
hatred, anger and violence and towards all sorts of aggressive feelings,
actions, dealings and behaviours.

He thus held that all human behaviour including aggressive behaviour

stems from the complex interaction between the instinct of Eros and
Thantos and the constant tension between them.
Freud held that the death instinct is unrestrained and results in self
destruction. So he indicated that through other mechanisms like
displacement, the energy of Thantos i.e. aggression is redirected out
ward so that it serves as the basis for aggression against others instead
of destructing the self.

Thus in Freud’s view aggression originates primarily from the

redirection of self destructive death instinct away from the person
towards others. The instinct theory of aggression was not much
developed by Freud in the beginning. But later on, he and his
associates worked on it and attempted to explain it in detail.

The instinct theory of aggression originates from the instinct of death

or destruction. Physiologically the death instinct represents the force
which tend to destroy the organic life and to lead organic matter back
to the inorganic state.

Psychologically the death instinct gives rise to hostile and aggressive

behaviour, to aggressive sexual activity or to self and race destruction.
Thus love and hatred, pleasure and pain, life and death instincts go
side by side. The death instinct otherwise known as the instinct of
aggression is also expressed in destructive and aggressive intellectual
activities such as criticism, satire and taunts.

According to the instinct theory of aggression, aggression is a global

instinctive, steam boiler like force which Freud and his associates
argue is urgently required and basically inevitable for self preservation
as well as reproduction. McDougall has also denoted the phenomenon
of aggression in the instinct of combat on the basis of the instinct
theory of aggression first postulated by Freud, Miller, Dollard and
others.

According to Freud when we analyze the desire for love we also find
some desire for aggression. Thus the best loved friend becomes the
bitterest enemy when both fall out. In our hence attitude towards
every stimulus there is the desire for love as well as aggression.
The instinct theory of aggression holds that aggression is inherited and
biological in nature and is expressed overtly and covertly i.e.,
outwardly and internally. Subsequently Freud had decided there is no
use in trying to get rid of man’s aggressive inclinations.

His positive social proposals were to break up human societies in to

small communities through which the aggressive instinct can find an
outlet in enmity towards those outside the group in a conveniently and
relatively harmless form.

Freud holds that life and death instincts are primary instincts and all
other instincts are derived from these. But recently Freud’s concept of
aggressive instinct or death instinct, which he said is the basis for
conflict between human groups, has been discarded.

The instinct theory of Freud (1927) is said to be the starting point but
not the corner stone of psychoanalysis. Psychologists working in the
area of frustration and aggression have in fact found that aggression in
not instinctive, but it develops as a reaction to frustration of basic
urges experienced during early childhood period.

According to Alexander “Fear of the consequences of losing love

because of jealousy gives rise to aggression. No matter
whether love or hate are instinctual or early acquired, they
are always with us. The facts of love and hate are
psychological data independent of the theory.”
The two instincts advanced by Freud are not mutually opposed to each
other. Behaviour originated by life instinct may have strong
components of death instinct and behaviour mainly motivated by
death instinct may have strong components of life instinct. Same
psychologists object to the death instinct advanced by Freud.

They say death instinct is a part of life instinct and hence it not
justified to introduce it as a separate instinct. Some biologists also go
against the aggressive instinct advanced by Freud. They argue that life
instinct motivates an organism to live and to do whatever is possible
for the sake of living. It is due to this that we are organisms. If we wish
death, how could we be called organisms?

Recent by Freud’s conception of aggressive instinct (death or

destructive instinct) which he said is the basis for conflict between
human groups has been discarded. Research findings earlier
mentioned indicate that the view about innate drive for aggression or
destruction is not correct since in most of the instances aggression is
found to be due to frustration arising out of early childhood
experiences.

Social learning and imitation also induce aggression. Aggression may

occur due to some hormonal and biological factors, but it is not
instinctive as Freud held.

According to Berkowitz (1962) Research findings offer little support

for Freud’s reasoning. He held that the view of an innate drive for
destruction can be attacked both factually and logically.

The group for advancement of psychiatry (1964) formally rejected the

instinct theory of aggression advanced by Freud and held “war is a
social institution; it is not inevitably rooted in the nature of
man.” These conclusions are supported by studies during Second
World War.
The great majority of soldiers reported that their reason for fighting
was to get the job done or the desire not to let their outfits down. Only
2 percent said that they fought out of anger, revenge or fighting spirit.
Another 3percent gave replies that might be interpreted as aggressive
such as crushing or cutting the aggressor piece by piece.

The men in the front or boarder where expression of aggression would

have been maximum and in accordance with their actions expressed
very few aggressive feelings. But it was however noticed that soldiers
in the training camps where aggression, hostility and combat is part of
the training, most frequently expressed hatred and aggressive feelings
for the enemy.
Though some critics of Freud hold that the instinct theory of
aggression is now considered a matter of historical importance and
though recent psychologists have discarded the term instinct from the
glossary of psychology the instinct theory has its importance in view of
the fact that all researches on theories of aggression have been
reinforced by Freud’s theory of aggression.

Freud and his followers did not believe that aggression can be
completely uprooted. They however viewed that the intensity of
aggression can be reduced by the promotion of positive emotional
attachment among people with the help of substitute out lets such as
engagement in adventure works like sports, swimming, athletics,
mountaineering, space travel, Karate, Judo etc.

Lornez’s View:
Observations of animals in their natural habitats led some
psychologists to view that aggressive drive has an innate, biological or
instinctive basis. In the opinion of Konrad Lorenz, aggression which
causes physical harm to others starts from a fighting instinct that
human beings share with other organisms. The energy associated with
this instinct is spontaneously produced in individuals at a more or less
constant rate.

The probability of aggression increases as a function of the amount of

stored energy and the presence and strength of aggression releasing
stimuli. According to him aggression is inevitable and at times
spontaneous outbursts of powerful feelings occur like volcanic
irruption.

Lorenz considers aggression as a “true, primarily species

preserving instinct”, in humans as well as in animals. Though
observation of animal behaviour suggests that the innate instinct of
aggression drives animals to aggressive behaviour, the same should
not be generalized in case of human beings, and such generalization if
made by anybody is highly questionable.
There are in fact major differences between human aggression and
animal aggression. While animal aggression can be controlled and
regulated by immediate changes in the stimulus, human aggression
can be maintained by mediating cognitive structures and to a much
smaller degree stimulus bound. (Feshbach)

Thus the issue of biological basis of aggression is a controversial one

and needs further debate. But according to Mussen, Conger & Kagan
there is strong possibility that constitutional factors play a significant
role in human aggression. They further view that sex differences in
aggressive behaviour most likely have a biological basis.

It is found that experimental administration of hormone of male

monkeys, pigs to female rat’s pigs and monkey makes them much
more aggressive in their approaches to others. Further it is seen that
activity level of a person is connected with his constitution. An active
child is more found to be involved in aggressive encounters.

2. Frustration Aggression Hypothesis:

Miller and Dollard in their stimulating yet no less illuminating
book “Frustration and Aggression” define frustration as “that
condition which exists when a goal response suffers
interference.” Frustrating events are those which block the
individual’s goal oriented behaviour, threaten his sell’ esteem or
deprive him of the opportunity to gratify his important motives and
immediate goals.
When an event or situation disturbs or upsets the child or the adult, it
is considered frustrating. But a situation which is considered
frustrating for one person may not be frustrating for another person.
Here parental training, social class, economic status and early
childhood training for frustration tolerance play their role.

Freud probably for the first time gave the term frustration a scientific
basis. Frustration in simple terms may be defined as that state in the
organism which exists as a consequence of interference in the goal
oriented behaviour and gives rise to a number of maladaptive or
substituted reactions.

A person who fails to marry his sweet heart because of parental

rejection and social restrictions is said to be suffering from severe
frustration.

Frustration during childhood may arise from several sources because

of his helplessness at birth. The famous German psycholosist Ottorank
held that birth cry indicates the greatest frustration in human life. The
pangs of separation from the mother acts as a tremendous source of
frustration.

Minor interferences however may bring mild and brief reactions of

aggression. The view of Freud and his followers that aggression is an
instinct and innate drive has been rejected by later psychologists like
Miller; Bollard and many others. They have proposed that it is a
frustration instigated drive.

The Frustration-Aggression hypothesis proposed by Miller Bollard and

others (1939) is a significant contribution is tracing the causes of
aggression. This hypothesis states that aggression is always a
consequence of frustration. Miller applied this hypothesis to the
Negroes of U.S.A. to study their reaction as a consequence to the
frustration imposed by the white groups.

Frustration-Aggression Hypothesis postulates the following:

1. A thwarting person’s efforts to reach a goal induces an aggressive
drive in him which in turn triggers off a behaviour to injure or destroy
the person or object which has caused the frustration.

2. The expression of aggression reduces the desire for it.

The key aspect of the hypothesis is that aggression is the measure and
fundamental reaction to frustration though other responses like
regression, withdrawal, reaction formation and displacement etc. may
occur.
According to this hypothesis aggression is not inborn but is a learned
behaviour. Since frustration is found universally aggression is also
found universally, they say, and hence frustration may be considered
as a drive.

Marke and Ervin (1970) further view that even though the presence of
some genetic or biological factors in aggression cannot be ruled out in
case of human beings, these mechanism are under the cognitive
control of man. A person with a particular brain injury may react
aggressively to situations which may not give rise to any aggressive
response in case of a normal person without brain injury.

This indicates that a normal person has cognitive control capacity

where as a brain injured person lacks this. In normal persons the
frequency with which the aggressive behaviour is expressed, the form
it takes and the situations in which it is displayed are determined
greatly by learning and socio-cultural factors.

The proponents of the Frustration Aggression hypothesis advocate

that aggression is always a consequence of frustration of some sort.
They further say “although these reactions may be temporarily
compressed, delayed, disguised, displaced and otherwise deflected
from their immediate and logical goals, they are not destroyed. It is
therefore inevitable that aggression follows frustration.”

This hypothesis by far is said to be most influential model for

intergroup prejudice and aggression. This theory briefly holds that
frustration produces aggression which acts as a drive or motive to
react, combat or make attacks.

Supporting the frustration—aggression hypothesis or drive theory of

aggression, Newcomb opines “Frustration always induces
motivation of some kind of aggression and if no aggression
occurs, it has been inhibited.”
If the frustration is produced by a powerful person like the employer,
or the boss, the teacher, the husband or in laws, the parents, the
aggressive reaction is inhibited. My grandson Anuraag when wants to
view cartoon net work in television his father objects strongly.

Anuraag inhibits his aggression towards his father and withdraws

from the Television. But when the maid servant asks him not to see
cartoon net work, immediately he shouts at her and sometimes gives
her a kick. Thus members of the out group who are considered less
powerful become suitable targets of aggression and hence become the
scapegoats for the frustrated members of the more powerful groups.

Hence, in line with Freudian energy model, (Instinct theory), the

aggression is stored and compounded with each new frustration ready
to be released on a powerless or less powerful stimulus. According to
Freudians the expression of aggression is desirable as it would drain
off the accumulation of aggressive urges.

Inhibition of aggressive urges on the other hand will lead to

psychological complications during the subsequent stages of
personality development. At least the child should be allowed to vent
his aggression on his toys and dolls or in painting and drawings. He
should be allowed to play and run to release the suppressed energy.

Another theory based on Freudian theory postulates that repeated

frustrations and severe harsh treatment in early child hood produce
subsequently an authoritarian personality which is rigid, unfriendly,
undemocratic and prejudiced towards the out groups and hence prone
to violence. Such frustrated persons lack good social relationship and
fail to undertake successful social interactions.

They are moody, irritative and get excited all of a sudden on some very
trivial or minor issues. With slightest provocation they start
quarrelling, combating and make counter arguments in an agitated
manner as if aggression is deep rooted in their personality. Such
people are not liked by the society.

From these two theories which are interred related the

following conclusions can be made:
1. Aggression is not an inevitable response to frustration. In both
animal and human studies frustration has produced different other
reactions like submission, regression, repression, projection,
displacement, withdrawal reaction and other defence mechanisms or
forgetting about the episode.

2. Many aggressive acts are not instigated by frustration. Ber Kowitz’s

research (1962) led to the undisputed conclusion that there are some
aggressive acts that are not necessarily instigated by frustration. For
example, killing and destruction during an operation or war is a policy
decision and this need not be considered as reactions of frustrated
individuals.

3. The most frustrated people are not necessarily the most aggressive.
Women are highly frustrated in societies throughout the world, but
they are relatively less aggressive than males perhaps because of
biological reasons and social learning.

Sherif (1953) in this connection holds “with a society divided by

hatred and violence among its groups, the direction of
prejudice and hostility is typically from the dominants and
mighty groups downward to the down trodden and
deprived.”
Comparison between different societies and cultures do not prove that
the most frustrated are necessarily the most aggressive.

As Klinberg rightly points out at the time when lynching negroes’ was
not uncommon in the southern United States, White Brazilians were
by and large much more frustrated in their attempts to maintain a
subsistence level of life and were similarly subjected to the ups and
downs of economic conditions.

But they were not lynching the Brazilian Negroes. The Indian soldiers
in the Jammu and Kasmir border and near the P.O.K are being killed
mercilessly and subjected to terrorists attack daily. But they are not
lynching the enemies or making henius terrorist attacks.
4. The scape goat theory does not explain the targets of aggression.
This theory holds that the most likely targets would be the people most
helpless and most likely to retaliate. BerKowitz (1962) found that the
most helpless groups are not always the objects of hatred and not the
only ones.

He therefore reached at the conclusion that the scape goat theory as

usually formulated is incomplete. In studying juvenile gangs of
Chicago in 1927 Thraser observed that the height of solidarity and
mutual trust among members frequently accompanied their most
intense conflicts with other groups.

Considering the limitations of the famous frustration-aggression

hypotheses, later psychologists challenged it and tried to bring
modifications. They hold that aggression is a consequence of
frustration but it is not the only or sole reaction to frustration. G.K
Morton, in “A note on the Frustration—Aggression theory of
Dollard and his associates” criticised as follows.
“The view of Miller, Dollard that frustration leads to some sort of
aggression is equal to the falacy which was popular 20 years back i.e.,
if you suppress your sexual urges a complex will set in and therefore
people let themselves go…perhaps the frustration aggression is
roughly equivalent in validity to this view on sex.”

When exposed to severe frustration many people become depressed

rather than aggressive. Aggression does not always originate from
frustration.

In-spite of the controversies the Frustration— Aggression hypothesis

advanced by Dollard et.al.(1939) still stands the test of time. That
aggression is the fundamental reaction to frustration, though not the
only one, nobody can deny.

This theory is still considered as an excellent theory which explains

how frustration produces aggression and if frustration is minimized
aggression, violence and crime can be minimized in the society if not
totally uprooted. In-spite of the criticisms that this hypothesis had to
face and in-spite of its limitations it is undoubtedly the starting point
of all researches in the area of frustration, aggression and its probable
reactions.

3. Social Learning Theory:

Subsequent research works in the area of frustration and aggression
give the impression that Frustration— Aggression hypothesis should
be modified. From such researches originate the Social Learning
Theory.

Bandura, Berkowitz and others, the proponents of social learning

theory view that an arousal which results from frustration does not
necessarily lead to aggression, but only creates a condition for a
readiness to cope with a threatening situation.

It can elicit different kinds of responses depending upon the kind of

responses an individual has learned to cope with the frustrating
situations in the earlier period of life.

Thus, he may become aggressive, may become regressive and cry or

may withdraw from the situation, may remain silent, may displace his
aggression on others or may seek the help of others. That response
which has been most successful in the past in relieving his frustration
will be repeated.

Bandura (1965) has demonstrated that aggressive responses can be

learned by reinforcement or by imitation or by modeling which come
under social learning theory. In a study on nursery school children it
was observed that when an adult showed various forms of aggressive
responses towards a large doll, the children showed similar aggressive
responses through imitation.

There after they were shown film versions of aggressive modeling

using dolls as cartoons. Results showed that the children who had
observed life cartoon characters exhibited greater aggressive
behaviour. It was also noticed from follow up studies that children
remembered these aggressive reactions even after eight months.
Crime and violence shown in television and films now a day’s help
increase of aggressive behaviour, crime and hostility to enormous
extent. This proves that aggressive behaviour in mostly learnt and
imitated from the environment is which the child lives.

Julian Rotter (1954, 1982) another, contributor to Social Learning

Theory suggests that the likelihood that a given behaviour will occur in
a specific situation depends upon the learning and imitation of the
organism in a social situation, the expectancies concerning the
outcome of a behaviour will produce and the reinforcement value they
attach to such out conies i.e. the degree to which they prefer one
reinforce to another.

Social learning theory relies on the role of modeling, identification and

human interactions. According to Bandura a person can learn by
imitating and observing the behaviour of another person. But at the
same time personal factors also play a role in determining one’s
identification with and imitation of other persons.

If the model is not liked, appreciated or respected by the person, then

his behaviour may not be imitated only when a person identifies with
another person and likes him, he accepts him as a model and imitates
him.

A child imitates his parents because he likes and respects them as they
take care of him, provide him security, confidence, love and affection.
In course of parenting he observes their behaviour and imitates them.
Social learning through observation is also called imitation learning.
Social learning theorists combine operant and classical conditioning
theories.

How? Although observation of models is a major factor in the learning

process of social learning theory, it is important that-imitation of
model must be rewarded and reinforced if the person has to identify
with the person and accept his qualities as his own quality. He not only
accepts the qualities of his model, he also learns to behave like them
under similar situation.
Alfred Bandura is a major proponent of Social Learning School;
According to him behaviour occurs as a result of the interplay between
cognitive and environmental factors, a concept known as reciprocal
determinism. When children or other persons learn by observing
others either incidentally or intentionally, this process is called
Modeling or Learning through imitation.

But choice of a model depends upon so many factors like age, sex,
status, similarity to oneself, whether he likes or dislikes him, whether
he respects or dis-respects him etc. usually it is found that that
because of sex role identification a son accepts his father as his model
and a daughter usually accepts her mother as a model and they imitate
their parents accordingly.

But suppose due to some reasons the boy does not like his father but
loves his mother most then he may accept his mother as a model and
imitate her behaviour, likes and dislikes dress, emotion etc.

If the mother shows aggressive reaction towards the cook, the child
will learn to show the same reaction. If the mother does not like a
particular food, the child will not like the same. Sometimes children
are found to accept their teachers as model and imitate their
behaviour.

If the model selected by the child is normal, less aggressive, reflects

healthy values and norms the child develops socially acceptable
qualities. On the other-hand an aggressive model helps in the
development of aggressive reactions. Normal and socially acceptable
behaviour of the model develops the capacity to adapt to normal
everyday life and various threatening, dangerous situations in day to
day life.

Even abnormal and maladaptive behaviour learnt from un-favourable

role models can be eliminated through behaviour modification
technique (operant conditioning).
Through behaviour therapy a person can learn alternate behaviour
from other role models who show normal and society acceptable
models. It is true that an aggressive and maladaptive model helps in
the development of aggressive and maladaptive behaviour. As children
grow older they acquire the knowledge of sex category through social
learning.

Social learning theory emphasizes the impact of modeling and operant

conditioning learning on acquisition of different behaviors. According
to social learning theory children are rewarded with verbal praise
when they behave in accordance with gender roles and gender
stereotypes i.e., when they show the behaviour as boys or girls
sanctioned and expected by the society.

For example a boy learns to be dressed like his father or brother and
he plays games decided for the boys or the games which other boys
play.

If a boy is dressed like a girl he is ridiculed by the society and this

activity is not reinforced or rewarded. So he gives up being dressed
like a girl and starts wearing the dresses meant for boys. Similarly a
girl learns to help her mother in house hold works as society expects a
girl to do so.

Here the approval of parents and sanction of society acts as rein-forcer

for the child, so he imitates such activities. On the contrary,
punishment eliminates certain learning and behaviour not approved
by the society and culture. When a boy imitates the male members of
his family and a girl imitates the female members of the family they
tend to adopt the behaviour shown by their same sex models.

Bandura’s social learning theory suggests that people can learn by

observing others and events in the environment as well as by
participating them. In several recent studies Bandura, Bandura and
Walters et.al, demonstrated the usefulness of observational learning in
children.
They have also provided great deal of information regarding factors
that influence the likelihood of a subject’s subsequently imitating
responses acquired through observation. In a typical experiment a
child is exposed to a real life or filmed model who is either a child or
an adult.

The model then performs various activities and the child observes
them. There after it is examined how far the child has imitated the
actions displayed by the models. Changes that occur in the behaviour
of the child after observing models and imitating them are not always
positive in nature. Very often people are likely to acquire bad habits as
good ones.

A child of 3 years Atul went to a neighbor’s place to play with his

friend Babloo. When he reached there he saw Babloo was rolling on
the floor, crying and crying and showing tantrums as his mother did
not give him money to buy ice-cream. Atul observed this vividly and
next day he was found showing the same tantrums and aggressive
actions when his mother refused to give him money to buy chocolates.

In another incident a boy named Raju saw his friend Bittoo spitting on
his maid servant as she did not allow her to go out and play with his
friend in the absence of his mother who was a working woman. Next
day Raju was found spitting on his servant boy’s face as he broke his
Spiderman. These are all learned aggressive behaviour coming under
social learning.

Social learning theory suggests that through observation and imitation

of models a lot of behaviour is learnt. Even by
observing “Saktiman”, “Spiderman” and other serials, in television
many children learn to show similar kinds of aggressive actions. Due
to hero-worship many boys are found to run, jump, kick and beat.
However, in case of girls such actions are less found probably because
of discouragement by parents and lack of reinforcement by society.
Many experiments on children prove the concept of social learning
theory through observational learning and imitation.
A very famous study on learning to show aggression was conducted by
Bandura and Ross and Ross (1963). The study indicates how children
learn to be aggressive by observing an adult aggressive model.

In this study they took two groups of nursery school children as

samples. The control group was exposed to a quiet non-aggressive
amiable adult model. But the experimental group was exposed to an
aggressive adult model that kicked a big inflated Bobo Doll, scolded
and insulted it.

The adult model in the experimental group knocked the doll down, sat
on it, pushed it, insulted verbally and threw it several times in the air,
punched it repeatedly in the nose.

Later the children of both the groups were allowed to play in a room
with several toys including a Bobo Doll. Careful observation of their
behaviour revealed that those who had seen the aggressive adult
model often imitated his behaviour. They too punched the toy, sat on
it and often uttered verbal comments similar to those of the model.

On the contrary children of the control group rarely if ever

demonstrated such actions of violence and aggression. The findings of
this study prove that children acquire new ways of aggressing through
exposure to violent television programmes, movies and aggressive
behaviour of his parents, grand-parents and teachers.

Social scientists explain the in-disciplined aggressive and ruthless

behaviour of many modern youths as a consequence of imitating the
same from the above agencies. All learned aggressive behaviour come
under social learning.

The ability to learn by observing the activities of others in the family or

society is due to the cognitive influence of learning. Even Tolman’s
experiment on rats learning to run mazes substantiates the fact that
simple creatures can learn from experience to form internal models to
guide later behaviour.
Social learning theory emphasizes the role of learning, especially
impact of modeling and operant conditioning techniques of learning.
According to this theory children are rewarded for behaving in
accordance with gender stereotypes and gender roles.

“I act like my Papa so I am a boy” “I act like my Mummy so I am a

girl”, they say. In this manner their ideas about sex role and sex
stereotypes develop. Children usually identify with their own sex
models.

Rotter who has also contributed to social learning theory is of view

that those individuals who strongly believe that they can make and
change their own personalities, own destinies they are known as
Internals. On the other hand those who believe that their destiny and
personality is an outcome of the forces in their outside or external
environment and they have no control upon them, they are known as
Externals.

Internals are often happy people and are better adjusted because they
try to shape their career and future. The externals throw all the
responsibilities on the outside environment and hardly make any
attempt to build their character, personality and future.

According to Rotter, “internal factors such as subjective

estimates concerning the likelihood of various outcomes,
subjective reactions to those out comes and generalized
expectancies of personal control all combine to influence
behaviour”.
These suggestions of Rotter definitely contrast very sharply with the
view stated in early learning approach to personality that only external
reinforcement contingencies should be taken in the account.

Internals:
In Rotters Social Learning theory “Internals” are those individuals
who believe that they exert sufficient control over the outcomes they
experiences.
Externals:
Externals are those individuals who believe that they have little control
over the outcomes they experience. The social learning theory
advocates that people benefit from the exposures to others. Many
people who came to psychologists for help appear to have inadequate
basic social skills of communication and social relations.

They do not know how interact with others in an effective manner.

They do not know how to make a request without sounding pusliy or
how to refuse one request without annoying the requester.

To-day, I went to a bank in some personal work. There I found that

one customer was angrily arguing with one bank employee and they
were having very heated discussion over a very small issue i.e.,
updating the pass book of the customer. Both the customer and the
bank employee I feel lacked minimum sense of courtesy, patience and
the skill to interact successfully.

Such people don’t know how to expose their feelings clearly and how
to hold their temper in check. They lack in emotional intelligence and
even how to start, continue and hold an ordinary conversation. Such
individuals experience difficulties in forming friendships and intimate
relationships, they also face difficulties every-where for getting things
done. In short, they don’t know how to behave properly.

They feel helpless, depressed, aggressive and anxious because of their

difficulties. Presence of such qualities makes life hail.

Behaviour therapists have developed techniques to modify such

aggressive, undesirable, socially unacceptable qualities and help
people improve their social skills through observational learning.

There techniques of therapy often involve modeling, i.e., showing

these people live demonstrations or video tapes of how people with
good social skills behave in different situations. Modeling as a very
successful technique in social learning is often used in “Assertive
training” which helps clients to learn how to express their feeling
and desires more clearly.
Women who learn to be unassertive, shy, obedient, submissive and
tolerant by observing women models from the childhood with these
qualities, can be made assertive, confident, self supportive and
protective by proper assertive training through alternate models. But
assertiveness is not aggressiveness.

Assertiveness means being able to state one’s preferences, wishes,

desires and needs rather than simply surrendering to others wishes
and desires. Pushy persons can be checked through assertiveness.
Sometime we wish to avoid a person or refuse something which we
don’t want.

But we cannot do it because of our unassertiveness. This can be

achieved by assertiveness training, women in India and other
developing, under developed countries should be given this
assertiveness training.

Appropriate good social models in the view of Bandura can irradiate

many aggressive behaviour. It can also be controlled through social
learning of desirable and unaggressive models. Thus the crux of social
learning theory is learning through models.