Aggressi-on

d
IC'
:r
In ~-c' holo gy. the t~m , agg ress ion ~fe rs to a
that can tT~ult in bot h phy sical and psy cho lo . rangt Of
others or objects in the env iron men t. Thi s t gi<'al hattt. ~h~
,t
e Ype of heha _to )~\1 \1
lJ\ han ning 3no th~r pers on eith er phy sica l) or ll1 Vi0.,
d l • Y il \(t ~
t
s•an of an und er y1ng men tal hea lth di· enta )' It ,
sord er
t
f
' v.· ·
disorder or a n,ed ical diso rder . , a subSt_.t\
Ca?\ 1. ,
ut l
Social p~~ holo gist s defi ne agg ress ion as heh . ~ "1t
han n ano ther indi vidu al ,vho doe s not wi·s11 aVio
to b
ur i.r i
· ttt~
nd Richardson). e hatrti 1\dcd
ed(ll.L ~
a
-~
Because it involves the per cep. tion of intent Wh
. f
s aggression fro m one poi nt o view may not lo,o k at I0oks
ano ther and the san1e har mfu l beh avio ur that w \
considered aggressive dep end ing on its intentlll· lay or Illa" ay &~
r . d as wor se tha n uni nten tio nten r1onaJ' hnot t~
ho,vcver, perceive na1 harm , even~~ .
'd ·ca1.
the harm s are 1 enu

• Forms of Ag gr es sio n
Aggrtssio,r am take a variefY ofJohns, including
• Physical • Ver bal
• Emotional • Me ntal

vVhile \\'e ofte n thin k of agg ress ion as pur ely in physical ~onns S\d\
h" ch I · al
as hi tung ~r ~u~ ~g, psy o ogi c agg ress ion can also be verv
·
dan gero us, 1ntun1dating or ver ball y ber atin g ano ther person e.g.~
.
examples of verbal, men tal and emo tion al aggression.

Purposes of Ag gr es sio n
Aggression can serve a number of different purposes, including
• To express ang er or hos tilit y • To asse rt dominance
• To inti mid ate or thre aten • To ach ieve a goal
• To express possession • A resp ons e to fear
• A reac tion to pain • To com pete with others
Biological Factors

There may be genetic and hormonal

factors that influence aggression.
Imbalances in certain hormones, like
testosterone and cortisol, and
neurotransmitters, like serotonin and
dopamine, may be linked to aggression.
[3] These imbalances can occur for a
number of reasons, including genetics.

Brain structure can also influence

aggression. People with structural
abnormalities in the amygdala tend to
show more aggression than their peers.
Changes in other areas of the brain may
also contribute to aggressive behavior. [3J
Personal Determinants of
Aggression:-
Narcissism and Ego threat:-

In sum, the results of Bushman and

Baumeister (1998) suggested that
individuals who are high in narcissistic traits
are more likely to behave aggressively when
their ego is being threatened by others. The
authors also suggested that high
self-esteem and low self- esteem do not
necessarily determine aggressive behavior.

Gender Differences:-

The s,ocial context and the nature of the

confli ,c t influence gender differences in
aggression. has been linked to the need to
maintain a macho image and competition for
women . introduction of provocation, females
were just as likely as males to act
aggressively.
 Social Fact ors:- 1

• Exposure to Violence in the Media

At leastfive reactions to media violen ce help

1
1

expla,i1n why exposure to violenc e i n the media

1 1 1

might incre,a se aggresslon: ''' If they can do it , so

1

can I.'', " 0h, so that's how y·o u d0 ill", "I th'i nk it
1 1 1

11
must be agg1 1 n gs that l"m experienl1
r es si1ve 'f'e eli1
1
1
1
c i1
ng. ' ,
''Ho~hum, another brutal beating; what 1s on t he
1

1 1

other channel? n, and ''I had !b etter get h1im before hie
1

get sme!''
Direct Provocation
• Research has shown that verbal and physiegJ:
provocation results in people behaving
aggressively (Geen, 1968) e.g., street figral!s,,
brawls in bars or sports grounds
• Reci rocit rinci le: tendency to strike back if''
provoked - mutual aggression (also in 'attraction')
• Age is a moderating influence on the link between
provocation and aggression (Eagly & Steffenm
1986)
• Aggression in retaliation to provocation may bei
seen as self-defense and therefore adaptive
Noi~ Environmental Factors:-
Donnentdn and Wilson CI 9 76) found dun then= wm n ~ or a
1

grrcalCT tmdmc, towards aggRS5ioo in conditions o'f high noise

leve1i. II has, u,1be borne 'in mind that lhchr e1perimr=n1 ~as
1

laborutol")".. ba.scd Md illv1olved panicipants beina prq,3ffd to ~li-

ver higher levels or shock to u panM'r 1in high-noise conditions 1hu
in low noise ur no, n,oise ,a l un. Noise i1sclr did not prollakc \liolcncc..
'h ut luwa:ml Ou: ttne&hnfd wht:n an in.sLigution to \'ill!cncc '\UH
prcsenl. "luwcvcr ~ th is kind uf s.lud)· nwy nut be WC'ry \tulid a:ulo-
1

sitaD)1. llo"'- 1onen in ~~, lire~ dtt ,ou delh·er ~hocks 10 n1her
pcoptc?

A i, fluaJ;1.)'

In an an:hivnl Hudy. Ronon and Frey (l,tt.5) motchcJ Rfk)l1.5 or

lfo_n11ll y diiuurhancc~ ""ri1h t~d• or ozone in thi.! urmos:phuc nind
firVcailcd o corndruion bctv.wcn \\'EDl'hcr condilion!l ,t1nd violcnl cimr~
Da)B when 1hc mc:mpcnnurc was high uni.I the winds a ~n: lo~ (u. hen
mr quati1y wm. u1 1 1tfi wor!il) 1cnded 10 pn:ccdcd viutcn1 qnsoon

When thtrc have bec'n civd ,11,1urbanccs~ mcdh1 rcpon.1 tun,T rm-
phusiscd 1hr: ·1ong hut ;u,n,mc1' dfcct. In ruc1 ml\,: US Riu1 Cammis•
lion ti 96'8) cited ,un '~cnlln:T 115 u CllU5C or riol5. In r11C°I lht
n:lulion1hip bclw.:~n high le-mpen.1 t1ures ,a nd UJggn:ssin: liN:b1.1"uJu1
1

is nn1 quite as simp1e us 1ham. Rcse:m:h bns round llw1 u.;bil~ 1t LS uu~
1hc heal incrcaLscs lhc tendency ro,1tard.li uggrcs.sion. ir i1 nol mlinear
1

rcl111ionffliS, tB,u,on. 11971). 11\ appears 1ha1 aggrcssi,·c tendencies~

mcduucd b)· the mnou:01 or dis,;omfon people !feel r.md that tbc
ehlrionship ~,ween discomfon and u~om is ntnilinmr.. Tht
highest lc,.·c-ls of aggression are round wbm di:5'0mJ'an i! al an
intcnnadi~tc hnu.d, 'with lov.rcr tendencies cowards aggression bo1h
v.1lm lhere ts liure discomfon and v.1hm i1 is very hi,ghmfipm
 Determinants of aggression
3- Situational determinants (psychological)
• Heightened physiological arousal due to
stress, anxiety, competition, vigorous exercise or
exposure to films that produce arousal.
• Sexual arousal: Minimal levels of aggression
occur in presence of mild sexual stimulation and
stronger levels with higher degree of stimulation.
• Pain: Physical pain may arouse aggressive drive
but up to limits. Severe pain may hinder
aggression.

•.,,,~er FaC:ors Epilepsy, dementia, psychosis, alcohol l

abuse, drug use and brain injuries or abnormalities can
also influence aggression.
Psychoanalytic Theories of Aggression

Freud ( 1930) proposed that there were two opposed instinctive

forces at work in humans, eros and thanatos, the former a life
instinct, the latter a death instinct; self-preservation as opposed to
self-destruction. In humans aggression was related to the second of
these forces, self-destruction, and this instinct is directed outwards
towards others, to cause harm to them. The important point is that
aggression is for humans a natural and instinctive urge which has to
find expression, either prosocially through activity, or antisocially
through causing harm to others. A young man may give vent to his
aggression by a hard game of rugby football . A vigorous debate may
allow aggression to be expressed verbally, but within what is socially
accepted. Alternatively, there may be verbal insults or fighting
aimed at harming someone else. This urge is considered to be innate,
inevitable and needing to be tamed.

Etholologically-based Theor~s of Aggression

Ethologists study the normal behaviour of animals. It is suggested

that there is a build up of energy which finds expression in fixed
1cdon patterns (Crook, 1973). The release of this energy is depen-
dent on the presence of a trigger, which Hess (1962) has called a
releaser. The threatening behaviour of another animal (bared teeth,

106 Social P,yclwlo,y

for instance) may act as the trigger, or the invasion of territory.

These mechanisms have a function to preserve the species as well as
the individual according to Lorenz (1966). The protection and
preservation of territory allows each animal to have the resources
it needs to survive. There is also a purpose served in sexual selection.
Within a species, aggression allows the stronger members of a
species to mate and so to produce stronger offspring. The losers in
such contests signal appeasement so that injury or death rarely
occurs in these conflicts. The problem with humans is that such
appeasement gestures have not been developed (there was no need in
a hannJess omnivorous creature) so that they deploy the killing
power of weapons to cause death and destruction.
Sociobiology

Wilson (1975) defined sociobiology as the study of the biological

bases of social behaviour. He has extended the Darwinian theories
of evolution. Agpesaion (or indeed any behaviour which survives)
must be adapd,e. This means it must mak~ it more likely that an
individual member of a species exhibiting that behaviour will
reproduce and 10 pass on its aenes. Neo--Darwinists, as they have
been called, are not so much concerned with the species as with the
genes which determine an individual's patterns of behaviour. Such
genetically-based behaviour will continue if it serves to increase the
genetic •tnrzz (that is, reproductive success) of the individual or of
close relatives who carry the genes for that behaviour' (Cunning-
ham, 1981, p. 71).
Aggression may enable an individual to acquire or to preserve
more resources or to defend and protect relatives all of which make
it more likely that the individual (or its close relatives) will be able to
pass on its acnes and so perpetuate the behaviour they determine.
We are not talking about the preservation of the species, but the
success of individuals or groups within that species. It bas to be
remembered that aggression also carries a potential cost, severe
injury or death, which may prevent its aims being realised so that
gains have to be balanced against costs. The development of
assression is bound to be selective (Krebs and Miller, 1985).
The assumptions of all the biologically-based explanations of
aggression centre upon it being instinctive and innate. It is a basic
part of the condition of all animals including humans.
Blolodal Explanadoal
These explanations include the frustrado■/11111 hi hypothesis,
and also Zillman's exdtadon/ara.f'er theory.

Frvstration/ Aggression HypotMJU

Dollard et al. (1939) proposed that aggression was always caused by
some frustrating event or situation. On the other band, frustration
does not inevitably lead to aggression. This theory was welcomed as
not involving the kind of psychoanalytic •mumbo-jumbo', prevalent
at the time. Frustration was defmed as anything which interfered
with the realisation of a goal. When someone expects to be able to
buy an electric light bulb from a shop, but fmds it closed, that is
frustrating even when there is a supermarket half a mile away.
Frustration may come from the difficulty of the task itself or Crom
interferenoe from someone else.
While there is evidence that aggressive behaviour may sometimes
have its roots in frustration (Azrin et al., 1966; Rule and Pe1ci.-al
1971) the link is by no means as strong as Dollard had suggested.
Buss (1961 , 1967) suggested that the link only existed! when the
aggression had instrumental value (that is, when aggression might
help to get over the frustration). The amount of the frustration is
important too. Mild frustration does not seem to result in aggressive
behaviour. Harris (1974) carried out some field studies, cutting in on
people who were queuing for the theatre or in a store. When she cut
in on someone who was second in line, she was often met with verbal
abuse, while someone who was twelfth in line responded much less
aggressively. Interference when you are close to your goal is more
frustrating than when you are further away.
Cognitive Neoassociation Theory
Berkowitz ( 1989. 1990. 1993) has proposed that aversive events such as frus-
trations. provocations, loud noises. uncomfonablc 1emperaturcs. and unpleasant

30 ANDERSON ■ BUSHMAN

odors produce negative affect. Negative affect produced by unpleasant experiences

au1oma1ically stimulates various thoughts. memories, expressive motor reactions.
and physiological responses associated with both fight and Hight tendencies. The
fight associatio ns give rise 10 rudimentary feelings of anger. whereas the Hight asso-
ciations give rise 10 rudimentary feelings of fear. Funhermore, cognitive neoassoci-
ation theory as:sumes that c ues present during an aversive event become associated
with the event and with the cognitive and emotional responses triggered by the
event.
In cognitive neoassociation theory. aggressive thoughts. emotions. and behav-
ioral te ndencies are linked together in memory (Collins & Loftus 1975). Figure I
contuins a simplified schematic of an associative memory structure in which
the concept of "gun" is linked to a number of aggression-related concepts (CA
Anderson cl al.. 1998). Concept.~ with similar meanings (e.g .. hurt. hann) and con-
cepts that frequently arc activated simultaneously (e.g .. shoot. gun) develop strong
associations. In Figure I associatio ns are illustrated by lines between the concepts.
with thicker lines representing stronger associations and sho ncr distances repre-
senting greater similnrity of meaning. When a concept is primed or activated. this
activation spreads to related concepts and increases their activation as well.
 Aggression Concepts Retaliation Script

Figure I Simplified n.~sociative neiwork with aggression concepts and a retal.iation

scripl (from CA Anderson el al. 1998).

HUMAN AGGRFSSION 31

Cognitive oeoassociation theory also includes higher-order cognitive processes.

such as appraisals and attributions. If people arc motivated 10 do so. they might
think about how they feel, make causal attributions for what Jed them to feel this
way. and consider the consequences of acting on their feelings. Such deliberate
thought p.roduccs more clearly differentiated feelings of anger. fear. or both. It can
also s uppress or enhance the action tendencies associated with these feelings.
Cognitive neoassociation theory not only subsumes the earlier frustration-
aggression hypothesis (Dollard ct al. 1939). but it also provides a causal mech-
anism for explaining why aversive events incrca.~e aggressive inclinations. i.e ..
via negative affect (Berkowitz 1989). This model is particularly suited to explain
hostile aggression. but the same priming and spreading activ-,11ion proces.~s arc
also relevant to other types of aggression.
Excitation/Transfer Theory

Zillman has developed an excitation/transfer model of aggression

(Zillman, 1979, 1988). This attempts to link the effective and the

108 SoeW Psycl,ology

environmental clements. Zillman's model suggests that there are

three factors which determine whether aggression is expressed in
action:

I. Learned aggressive behaviour;

2. Arousal or excitation from another source;
3. The individual's interpretation of the aroused state.

Excitation might occur from a wide variety of sources. We might

just have played a stimulating game of squash which we won in a
close-fought contest. We might just have had a row with someone at
work and there is residual excitation or arousal. If someone then
cuts in on us at a traffic intersection, we arc much more likely to
react with 'road rage' than we would if we were not aroused. Figure
4.5 illustrates the excitation/transfer theory.
FIGURE 4.5
ZIUman's Excitation/Transfer of Aggres.,ion

EVENT 1 EVENT2 EVENT3

Insults received Unjustlfl&d

Exciting
es you walk down grad.I ng
news et college
to college

Produces
Residual
An aroused arouse.I
Arousal
state from event 1
attributed to
(eg. Increased event 1 causes
heart rate etc.) over-reacllon

Arousal
No eggresslve
attributed
response
to event 3

Aggressive
resp0nse

Source: Based on Zillman ( 1979).

Social Learning Theory
According to social learning theories (Bandura 1983, 2001; Mischel 1973, 1999;
Mischel & Shoda 1995), people acquire aggressive responses the same way they
acquire other complex forms of social behavior-either by direct experience or
by observing others. Social learning theory explains the acquisition of aggres-
sive behaviors, via observational teaming processes, and provides a useful sci of
concepts for understanding and describing the beliefs and expectations that guide
social behavior. Social learning theory-especially key concepts regarding the de-
velopment and change of expectations and how one construes the social world-is
particularly useful in understanding the acquisition of aggressive behaviors and
in explaining instrumental aggression. For example, Patterson's work on family
interactions and the development of antisocial behavior patterns relies heavily on
this approach (Patterson el al. 1989, 1992).

Script Theory
Huesmann ( 1986, 1998) proposed that when children observe violence in the mass
media, they learn aggressive scripts. Scripts define situations and guide behavior:
The person first selects a script to represent the situation and then assumes a role
in the scripL Once a script bas been learned, it may be retrieved at some later time
and used as a guide for behavior. This approach can be seen as a more specific and
detailed account of social learning processes.
Scripts arc sets of particularly well-rehearsed, highly associated concepts in
memory, often involving causal links, goals, and action plans (Abelson 1981,
Schank & Abelson 1977). When items arc so strongly linked that they form a
script. they become a unitary concept in semantic memory. Furthermore, even a
few script rehearsals can change a person's expectations and intentions involving
important social behaviors (Anderson 1983, Anderson & Godfrey 1987, Marsh
et al. 1998). A frequently rehearsed script gains accessibility strength in two ways.
Multiple rehearsals create additional links to other concepts in memory. thus in-
creasing the number of paths by which it can be activated. Multiple rehearsals also
Social Interaction Theory
Social in1er.a~don d111!Gry (Tedeschi & Felson l 994) ml6p.dl1■gressiw behavior
(or coerci.ve actiom) m,BOGial influence bebaviort i.e.r1 an actor me1cocrcive actions
1

1
rto produce some change in I.be 111111 1 behavior. Coercive ac1ions can be 'U sed by an
actor to obtain 10111~1 of value (e .1-~ iafmfflaUon. moneyl 1cois½
1
••!! RrVicm'T
safety), to euc( retribuli.,.e justice for perceived wnm11, or IO brina abc)lfl desired
1

social, and self identities (e.1., toughaeuil compe1ence). According EO dlis lbeoly·.
rtbe. ,a dor is a decis1on..maker whose clloims are directed by dl! m.pedcd ...v~
1

costs, and probabillitia of obtaini111 di ffen:nl oulcornes.

Social m1eraction llieu)' provides an u.plualio.n of auressive ,1 Cbl1motivall:d
1

by hiper level (or uJl.imale) 1oals~Even boslile a11resJbm mipl have :some rati~
nel goal behind it~ sucb u. punishing lhl: provocateur in Oftler 'ID redlllee me likeli-
1

hood of fulW'I pmvocadons. This tbe.ory. plD'lidu an exceUe 11 way lo under,.11and

acent findings 1lhM au,euion1is, often Ille remit of due.au I01hi1.h :s elf-es1~
especially to uowarnmled tli1h sel'f~1eem (.i.e~,, narcimsm) (Bawnei1ter el. al .
l 996. Busllmu & Baume:ister 1998).
The General Aggression Model
The General Aggression Model (GAM; Anderson and Bushman,
2002) Is the most recent and broadest theory of aggression
processes to date. It is a biosocial-cognitive model designed to
account for both shon- and long-term (developmental) effects
of an extensive range of variables on aggression. GAM can
explain the widest range of aggressive behaviors, including
those not based around avmive events or negative affect. In
addition, it is arguably the model that has the most empirical
suppon. CAM unifies previous major models of asgression
from the field of social psychology into a single framework, but
also incorporates knowledge from other duciplines in
psychology.
The model itself is deceptively parsimonious. Every instance
of aggression involves a person, with all their characteristics
(e.g., biology, genes, personality, attitudes, beliefs, behavioral
scripts), responding to an environmental trigger such as
a provocation, an aversive event, or an aggression-related cue
(lower ponion of Figure 1 ) . These person and silJ.UJrion variables
influence the person's present internal state - cognitions, affects,
and physiological arousal. Depending on the nature of acti-
vated knowledge structures (which include affect), and on how

Biological Environmental
modifiers '-.,/ modifiers

'
• -••••
IPersonality
•
I ••
•••
••
. •
Ji,t''\"'
Person y Situation
Social
encounter
Proximate Present Cognition
causes&
processes
internal
state
/
Affccl - '
Arousal

f Thoughtful ..,_
Appraisal &i-. action
decision
processes i-. Impulsive
acbon
aroused the person is, the person's immediate response may be
an impulse to aggress. The person may act on this impulse, but
if they have the time and cognitive resources to do so, and if the
immediate response is undesirable, a period of appraisal and
reappraisal will follow. C.Onsequences are then thought-
through, alternate responses considered, and a considered
response made. The resulting behavioral action may or may not
be aggressive, but in any case all actions feed back into the
immediate situation and also influence the person's psycho-
logical make-up (i.e., their personality).
Underlying the GAM are detailed assumptions that take int.o
account a myriad of within-person factors, a range of possible
triggers for aggression, known internal psychological processes,
and the means by which behavior is reinforced and learned. In
terms of the latter, knowledge structures such as schemas
(a grouping of knowledge, feelings, m.emories, perceptions and
notions about typical behavior that is centered around
a particular theme) and scripts (knowledge about how people
typically behave in a given situation such as during conflict) are
person factors that can not only impel a person to be aggressive
in the moment, but also change to reflect our experiences
(upper portion of Figure I ). Thus, experience leads to changes
in the type, content, and accessibility of knowledge structures,
which are seen as the basis of personality.
Together, these features of GAM can be used to explain
shon- and long-term aggression across a range of forms and
functions, including the three key dimensions already noted:
degree of hostile/agitated affect; degree of automaticity versus
conscious thought; and degree to which the goal is to harm the
victim versus benefit the perpetrator. Phenomena as different as
sexual and nonsexual aggression against women (e.g.,
Anderson and Anderson, 2008), personality effects on violent
crime ( I Josic et al., 2014 ), and dozens more are well explained
byGAM.
 PS1810 Psychology in Contemporary Society
Lecture 4: Psychology of Terrorism

Terrorism: deliberate and systematic violence performed by a small number of people

Mass Communal Violence: spontaneous violence, requires mass participation
Genocide: elimination of entire communities

Purpose of Terrorism
• Intimidate a watching popular audience by harming only a few
• Violence against innocent people to intimidate or coerce a government or civilian people to
accept the demand of an ideology or a cause
• English (2016) says it rarely achieves its goals

Types ot Terrorism:
1. Social-revolutionary terrorism
• Rebellion against their parents generation: responsible of their failures and problems
• Their aim is to overthrow capitalism and social order
• Eg. Red army faction (Germany)

2. Nationalist-Separatist terrorism
• Their aim is to establish a new nation based on homogeneity
• They carry on the mission of their parents
• Loyal to their parents and disloyal to the regime
• eg. IRA

3. Religious fundamentalism
• Their aim is to expel the secular west with its corrupt values
• Crucial role of the leader
• eg. AI-Quaeda, ISIS

Psychology & Terrorism

Problems of researching terrorism:
• Lack of extensive primary data
• Hypotheses: based on speculation or very small number of cases
• Interviews with terrorists
• Its a diverse and complex phenomena: no overarching psychological explanation
• It must be examined from a social psychology perspective

How to fight terrorism from a psychological perspective?

Post, 2005:
• Once in very diffusely
• Need to make leaving easy
• Stop potential recruitments
• Education programmes
• Role of the media

1. Prevention (Sarma, 2017)

• Identify individuals at risk of terrorist behaviour BEFORE they join
• Need to understand contributing factors of terrorism to be able to prevent it
• Agencies: police, education, health, youth services

2. Risk Assessment (Sarma, 2017)

• Prevention of radicalisation
• Identify individuals who are at risk of radicalisation
• Risk factors - readiness to use violence, capability to cause harm, change n persona, isolated
peer groups, hate speech, political & religious activism

3. Intervention (Sarma, 2017)

• Once identified individuals are subject of interventions
group
HymldWofdl•
GrNt \\foFd ... ,Genm 1(,tvoc) 11 ~race. people~
Latin suflll • Cltdo = •act of ldl Iln1•
- The lerm 1:enacide was coined by laphHI Lamkin in1his.book Alls IRulr tin Occupied lu1rope (l.944J
- The Polftfal ilnst1Mllty Ta&k Fa,ce estlma~ed I hat, lbetween11956 .and! 201 16. 11lota1 01 43 genocides look,
1

place, ,causjna lhe dealh of about so mllllo.n (:5 Crom) people. ~1. :tJ L •·Viar/ 2.21.3 - Day)
n. Canwntlan111ft thl ~ cwntton 1ndl PunJlllmant al Iha Crim■ Df Gll'IOdH,. 1941
1

cd the Conv.ention1defines 1er1oclde 11 - ■nr of the folil owin1 aru c:om1mlned Mth inlenl •t,o,
- Altttl'e 2 1
desHOf; in w1 hole or tin pan, a nanonal, ethnical, racia'I or reHg~oui 1raup,, as such:
1

11) 1nm n1 m,emben of the ,~oup

b) Clu1ln1 serious, bodily or mental htinn1to. rnemben al Iha group
1

c) Dellberate~w inn1ct1na on the 1r,oup mnd1idons of'HI! calculaited to bdn1 about rits phw.S;tcal de&truelion In
whole air in part
d) 1mposln1 1me1s1:1m 1ln11nded 1·0 prevent births 'Wllhln t.he a~owp
e) Ford.bly lr,ansfen1n1 c:hHdren af lhe 1rou1p I.a another 1mup