Studies of Aggression in Early Childhood: Patterns of Attachment and Efficacy

Aggression, as a construct, is more or less central in every major theory of behavior. Barring a particular group of ethologists, all seriously consider the importance of social influences. But theorists differ in their fundamental premises, viewing aggression as either biosocial or social-reactive in origin. Moreover, even within the biogenetic-social framework characterizing psychoanalytic propositions, a medley of differences is evident. To describe the concepts simply at this juncture: Some theorists limit the term to acts that are injurious to an object regardless of intent; some limit it further to those that are intentionally destructive; while some have applied the term to a range that includes destructive and nondestructive aims or behavior, on the grounds that the given behaviors reflect a common source of undifferentiated (drive) energy and have in common the doer's energetic acting upon (or toward) an object. Thus, the major definitions employed in research vary in their focus on motivational intent, on the overt act, on the target's reaction, or on some combination of these. Clarity or consensus in conceptualizing the sources or the “nature” of aggression, as well as its definition, continue to elude us.