The background and pitfalls of the original
catharsis hypothesis with regard to human aggressive behavior are first
presented, which is followed by an account of the research on the reformulated
“cathartic effect” by V.J.Konečni and the development of his Anger-AggressionBidirectional-Causation theoretical model (AABC). After analyzing the key
findings and applications of this model, the article comments on the
anti-catharsis studies by B. J. Bushman, which were carried out twenty five
years later and published from the standpoint of neglect, or lack of awareness,
of prior work. Such eyebrow-raising attitude to scholarship is discussed in
terms of its broad socio-cultural and political backdrop – a Zeitgeist of
antagonism to research that does not support a blanket “aggression breeds
aggression” view and is too preoccupied with politicized quasi-sociological
preferences to bother with the subtle findings and provisos of the AABC model.
The notion of catharsis as a
kind of emotional “purgation” can be traced to Aristotle’s ideas about tragedy
in his Poetics, and to its substantial 20th-century transformations by way of
psychoanalytic theory, ethology, and the frustration-aggression propositions
into the “hydraulic” or “boiling pot” theoretical
models of human aggressive behavior. A considerable amount of laboratoryresearch with adults and children, as well as field studies, was carried out inthe 1950s and 1960s. Many of these experiments suffered from inadequate
conceptualization and methodology. For example, authors tended to regard,
without a solid empirical grounding, the infliction of physical injury, play
aggression, observation of aggressive acts, and fantasy aggression as
functionally equivalent for a “cathartic release.” In addition, inadequate
control conditions were used, especially with regard to the emotional state of
the participant prior to aggressing, specifically the degree of anger (if any)
due to a provocation (if any).
In 1973, Bandura proposed a
“moratorium” on the catharsis hypothesis. He did this in part on the basis of
his own “Bobo doll” sociallearning studies, although they themselves suffered
from conceptual and methodological shortcomings. While Bandura justifiably
criticized the view of endogeneously generated “negative energy” that builds up
(even without provocations) and must be released, he himself relied on
experimentally administered frustration in order to obtain the findings of
allegedly “mere” imitative aggression in children. The idea of the spontaneously
accumulating negative energy, coupled with the alleged benefits of “venting,”
has found a place, in the past forty or so years, in pop/folk psychology and a
variety of unsophisticated self-help manuals.
No comments:
Post a Comment