Does imagined aggression reduce aggression?

The general answer is no. Moreover, imaginary aggression rather increases the likelihood of unleashing real aggression.

In an experiment by Richard Walters and Murray Brown, boys who were occasionally rewarded for hitting a plastic doll became more aggressive towards their competing peers after a few days. In Miomir Zuzula’s experiment, boys who often played with children’s weapons then showed more aggressive behavior towards their classmates. Experiments by Charles Turner and Diana Goldsmith showed that preschool boys who played with children’s guns subsequently exhibited more aggressive antisocial behavior than boys who handled conventional toys.​​​​​​​

Imaginary aggression does not have a positive effect either on calm children or on children in a state of increased emotional arousal.

In the experiment of Shahbaz Mallik and Boyd McCandliss, pairs of third-graders, made up of representatives of both different and same sex, had to build models from a construction kit. At the same time, each child who was the object of observation did not know that his partner received a special task from the leaders of the experiment, which consisted of either helping to solve the set construction task or hindering its implementation in a sharp form. Immediately after the end of this stage, the subjects had to complete an additional task within eight minutes. Its appearance had a decisive effect on the results obtained. Some subjects, who were members of both the first and second types of groups, had to show imaginary aggression by firing toy guns, while in the control conditions in both types of groups, both participants in each pair spent time in neutral conversations with the experimenters. At the same time, another group was used to determine how aggressive the subjects would become if they knew that the incorrect actions of the partners were not directed personally at them. Experimenters talked to some of the irritated children and explained to them that the behavior of the partners was due to fatigue and distress.

When the time for completing the additional task expired, the experimenters’ assistants moved to another room, ostensibly to solve similar problems of building models from the constructor. Each of the unsuspecting subjects was given the opportunity to either help or hinder this assistant from performing the assigned work by pressing special buttons on the electronic device. The degree of aggressiveness of their behavior was measured by the number of pressing the «Harm» button when trying to interfere with the partner’s work (the maximum allowable number of pressing this button was 20).

It turned out that the irritation of the children significantly increased the manifestation of their aggressive inclinations, even if their partners had no intention of interfering with their design activities. The actions of the experimenter, who explained the reasons for the other child’s behavior, significantly reduced the desire (or readiness) of the children to punish their offender. Having changed their opinion about the offender in a favorable direction, the children either completely refused to use retaliatory repressive measures, or significantly reduced the level of manifestation of their aggressiveness. On the other hand, an aggressive style of play did not lead to a decrease in the number of attempts to attack the offender. Thus, excited children did not experience the beneficial effects of catharsis as a result of firing their toy guns.

“When my little brother was angry about something, he started kicking the furniture with his feet. Our mother said that in this way he «lets off steam.» Now he is 32 years old, and if something annoys him, he still takes out his anger on the furniture. But in addition, he began to beat his wife, his children, his cat and destroy everything that comes in his way, ”one reader answered the psychologist’s recommendation to give the child a special“ whipping bag ”to help him cope with outbursts of irritation.

As L. Berkowitz wrote in his classic study, “When this woman’s brother kicked furniture, his imaginary aggression against other people was reinforced, so that his propensity for violence grew stronger, and he himself was more likely to attack anyone that caused him irritation. person. In many ways, similar processes can occur whenever people behave aggressively, regardless of the form in which such behavior is expressed. The time has come for mental health professionals to stop recommending the exercise of imaginary violence as a means of reducing the propensity for aggression.»

Discharge of aggression and negative emotions in men and women

The method of discharging aggression through screaming and outburst of emotions does not help men well, but sometimes it helps women. As for the discharge of aggression not through speech, but with the help of real or imaginary physical actions, such as beating an imaginary offender, here experiments confidently say that this does not free men from aggression, while sometimes it becomes easier for women. See →

When imaginary aggression has a positive effect

Imaginary aggression can have a positive effect if it brought joy, satisfaction to a person and improved his mood. A person in a good mood is indeed less aggressive.

People who have enjoyed shooting targets with a pistol, or running down a dark corridor and hitting all their opponents with an electronic light gun, can really experience a surge of benevolent feelings for the next few minutes or even hours. However, this state will not be the result of their release from the urge to violence, but the result of their good mood in this period of time↑.

As Elliot Aronson comments on this, «the lion’s share of the facts testifies against the catharsis hypothesis. At first glance, this may seem strange, because on a certain level the idea of ​​catharsis is not without meaning. I mean that it is consistent with folk wisdom, which advises in anger, first of all, to “let off steam”, “to give vent to your anger”, etc. What is the reason for the contradiction between folk wisdom and science? I think it comes from the fact that we humans are cognitive animals. Accordingly, our aggression depends not only on tension — on what a person feels — but also on what he thinks. Put yourself in the place of the participant in the situation described in the two previous experiments. Once you give another person an electric shock or speak disapprovingly of your leader, it becomes much easier to do it a second time. In a sense, your initial hostile act makes you feel the need to justify it. What for? As shown in the previous chapter, when a person harms another, cognitive processes are triggered to justify the act of cruelty. Thus, cognitive dissonance is reduced, but at the same time the ground is being prepared for further aggression.” (Elliot Aronson, Social Animal. Introduction to Social Psychology, St. Petersburg, Prime-Eurosign, 2006, pp. 253-254.)