After these scales have been introduced and explained, several possible mechanisms by which the
fighting arts may influence them will be discussed. As the papers are reviewed these potential
mechanisms will then be examined in light of current research findings.
NATURE VS NURTURE
| NATURE | NURTURE | ||
| man the animal | tabula rasa | ||
| body | brain | ||
| A | B | C | D |
At point B, man can modify his aggressive behavior but it is still innate and latent. There is a
certain feeling that aggression must be released in some way but the method of expression can be
selected.
At point C, man is seen as having the biological capacity for aggression, but aggressive behaviours
are learned. We have feet, fists, teeth, and perhaps a certain urge for self-preservation, but we
learn how to use these tools by observing our fellow humans.
Finally, at point D, the idea of a biological basis for aggression is rejected, and aggressive
behaviors are strictly learned. This "societal determinism" is every bit as inevitable and
deterministic as is the "biological fate" of point A.
Again, points A and D are derived from theoretical approaches while most experimental
discussions tend to fall somewhere along the line between them.
Russel Geen (1990) gives a model for aggressive behavior which depends on background factors
and immediate eliciting factors which combine to raise the likelihood of an aggressive act.
Inhibiting factors can then come into play to modify or eliminate the aggressive impulse. Some of
these background factors include genetic makeup, sex, and personality (presumably the more
permanent portions of our learned behavior) while the immediate elicitors include stress levels,
general arousal, frustration or attack. Inhibitors and modifiers include such things as fear of
punishment or retaliation, and judgments of the other person's intention when that person acted.
Geen points out that the strictly biological or the strictly learning-based explanations of aggression
are really just excuses. "It was my hormones" or "It was my bad childhood" are both simply
excuses which remove the responsibility for the actions from the actor.
Karl (1991) also states that the idea of aggression as instinct is simply an excuse for evil and there
is in fact no "beast within".
Groebel and Hinde (1989) present a justification for the Seville Statement on Violence, a
declaration by several scientists in 1986. The statement claims that it is scientifically incorrect to
say that we have inherited a tendency to make war from our animal ancestors; that war or any other
violent behavior is genetically programmed into our human nature; that there has been an
evolutionary selection for aggressive behavior more than for any other kind of behavior; that
humans have a 'violent brain'; and that war is caused by 'instinct' or any single motivation. This
statement might be taken as some type of proof that the biological argument for aggression is
wrong, but in fact the authors recognize that it is our biological bodies that determine what types of
aggression we can undertake. This statement does not, by any means, belong on the extreme right
hand side of our scale above.
Another book, edited by Silverberg and Gray (1991) and reviewed by Pellis (1993), takes
exception to the Seville Statement and argues that it does not represent any kind of scientific
consensus on the role of biology in human violence, in fact it simply promotes the split between
biological and social sciences. Pellis points out that ignoring the biological bias in learning,
whereby some things tend to be easier to learn than others, would simply be ignoring reality. The
situation in the former Yugoslavia is given by Pellis as an example of the failure of two
generations of education in ethnic cooperation within a period of months. Surely the children who
grew up learning cooperation could not have 'learned' to perform such barbaric atrocities within
such a short time without some sort of biological predisposition toward aggression. This
predisposition however, does not mean that there is a biological determinism.
Two theories on aggression which we encounter in the literature are those of "cathartic" and
"circular" aggression. The catharsis theory views aggression as something like an instinct or drive
which builds, rather like the water behind a dam. In order for the water not to get so high as to
burst the dam and cause considerable damage, it must be "bled off" by controlled spillways.
Aggression can be "bled off" by violent sport or other situations of controlled violence. This view
of aggression would fall somewhere between points A and B on our scale above. The circular
theory of aggression is well defined by the axiom "violence begats violence" and simply states that
aggressive actions provoke more aggressive actions which in turn cause the original perpetrator to
aggress further. This theory would fall more toward the right hand end of the scale, between points
C and D as aggression is "learned" and used.
Groebel and Hinde (1989) define aggression as an interaction between two individuals. "Attack on
another individual usually involves risk of injury for the attacker. It is therefore rarely
single-minded, but is associated with self-protective and withdrawal responses." (p.4) Other
authors have suggested that aggression may be directed toward inanimate objects as well.
Aggression may be of several types. Instrumental aggression is goal oriented and occurs during
theft or war. This may also be called felonious aggression. Hostile or teasing aggression, or
emotional aggression is directed toward another and harm is intended. Defensive aggression
occurs when one is attacked or provoked. Games aggression occurs when one deliberately tries to
injure someone during a sporting venture. Dyssocial aggression is associated with gang behavior,
and bizarre aggression is due to psychopathic behavior. Violence is defined by these authors as
physical but not psychological damage to a person or object.
These various attempts to classify aggression point out the variety of opinions that can be
expressed on the subject. Almost every author and researcher will have an idea as to what
aggression and violence is, and we now present several scales which may help locate a particular
definition. No one of these scales will suffice of itself, to define an aggressive action. Each scale
may also be affected by other scales and these compound effects may make precise definitions of
aggression or violence most difficult.
The recipient/observer can see both the action and
the actor but must suppose the actor's intent. The
actor knows the intent, and acts on the recipient
through the action. To a much smaller degree the
actor may be able to influence the
recipient/observer directly, perhaps by facial
expression or other communication apart from the
action, and thus consciously influence the
recipient/observer's determination of intent.
In addition to these three factors, several other
influences can be identified which may affect the
judgement of how aggressive is any particular
action. In all the scales below, a judgement of
greater aggressiveness is presumed for the left side of the scale, while a probable judgement of
less aggressiveness is represented to the right.
ACTION
| MOST AGGRESSIVE | LEAST AGGRESSIVE | |||||
| shooting | hitting | boxing | basketball | cards | sitting | sleeping |
| FAST ACTIONS | SLOW ACTIONS | |||||
| DELAYED REACTION | IMMEDIATE REACTION | |||||
The speed of an action may represent its potential damaging effect, with a fast swing of a stick at a
friend being defined as more aggressive than a slow one.
When responding to an attack, an action may be considered more aggressive when it is delayed in
time. It is not usually considered overly aggressive for someone to hit back immediately on being
hit, this is simple retaliation or self defence and is done "in the heat of the moment". Hitting
someone a week later, however, is likely to be called vengeance or revenge and is likely seen as
overly aggressive. This is especially true when considered from a legal viewpoint. This self
defence aspect of the scale will be affected by other factors, for instance, by judgements of the
aggressiveness of the original attack, the attributes of the retaliator and the effects of the retaliatory
action.
The effect of any particular action can often define its aggressive nature. Hitting someone is likely
considered a more aggressive act when death or permanent damage results than when no bruises at
all occur. Physical actions with visible effects such as bruises are likely to be considered more
aggressive than the psychological damage caused by, for instance, taking away a possession. An
action with no effect at all, is unlikely to be labeled as highly aggressive.
EFFECT OF ACTION
| GREAT DAMAGE | MINOR DAMAGE | TAKING A TOY | NO EFFECT | |
| death | permanent injury | broken bones | bruises | pain |
Attacking humans is not a single point on the scale, it is likely considered less aggressive for a
man to hit a stranger than it is for him to hit his wife or children.
OBJECT OF ACTION
| PEOPLE | ANIMALS | INANIMATE | ||||
| wife | strange man | large eyed mammals | fish, frogs | trees, weeds | bacteria, virus | rocks |
ACCIDENTAL ACTIONS
| AGGRESSIVE | NON-AGGRESSIVE | |||||
| jumping on someone | theft | self defence | drunk driving | playing football | jumping around | fall on someone |
The fact that in many places the words used in the law are actually "reasonable man" has led some
to argue that there should be a difference between what is permitted for a "reasonable man" and
for a "reasonable woman" and that women should, due to their more vulnerable situation, be
allowed more latitude in their justifiable defensive responses.
One of the ways to establish the intent of the actor is to consider the following.
CLASSES OF AGGRESSION
| HOSTILE | INSTRUMENTAL | DYSSOCIAL | DEFENSIVE | GAMES | BIZARRE |
| intended damage | theft/war | football hooligans | fighting back | fouls | "madmen" |
Using the classification provided by Groebel and Hinde (1989), we can construct an intent scale
such as this one. Deliberately seeking to hurt someone "for no reason" while in one's right mind is
likely seen as extremely hostile. If the actor hurts someone during a robbery, the damage may be
the same or greater but there was likely no intent to do the damage. The aggression may be seen as
less serious in this case. Similarly, running with a youth gang may be seen as giving one less
responsibility for the aggression. This reasoning is more easily seen if one considers mob
aggression in the crowd at a sporting action. Hurting someone during a crowd melee is likely to
be thought less aggressive than hurting someone in the relative calm of a living room. Causing
injury while defending oneself from attack is certainly not an act which is as aggressive as an
unprovoked attack, even if the effect of the action is the same. While hockey or football players
who seek to damage their opponents are said to be aggressive, they are not usually deemed as
aggressive as a wife-beater or a thief and they are not usually brought before the law. Finally, one
who is mentally ill is usually not thought to be aggressive in the same way as is one who is sane.
A deranged person is often more to be pitied than condemned as aggressive. This last case may be
subject to modification by certain other factors. The various political and social forces at work in
our society may affect the judgement of how "crazy" a killer is, and of how aggressive his or her
acts. This judgement may be made independently of any medical pronouncements on the mental
state of the actors.
AGGRESSION VS ASSERTION
There is often a fine line between whether one is being aggressive or simply assertive. Speaking up, speaking up and poking a finger into someone's chest, and simply poking a finger into someone's chest are likely points along the assertion-aggression scale. A wide range of judgements can be made about the same action (poking a finger) depending on what the actor is saying or otherwise communicating at the time of the action.
| AGGRESSION | ASSERTION | |||
| hitting with fist | poking with finger | poking and complaining | poking and explaining | explaining |
Along with the intent of the actor we must consider the various physical characteristics of the actor since these will almost always influence judgements of aggressiveness. A large, poorly dressed, unshaven male is often seen as inherently more aggressive than a small female child regardless of intent or the actual effects of an action. Questions of race and religion also enter into this scale. There will always be some groups that feel other groups are aggressive, simply by being other groups. This aspect may be treated more thoroughly in the power balance scale as it involves both the actor and the recipient or observer.
| MEN | WOMEN | BOYS | GIRLS |
| "the other" | "those like us" | "us" | |
We have not attempted to provide scales for the "reasons why" an actor acts. These have been
discussed in the previous section, and in several of the scales given here, one can perceive
potential reasons for acting, as for instance, in cases of self defence.
There is an important distinction to be made between the recipient of the action and the third
party. It is a common finding in studies on sexual assault that those women who meet the
experimenter's definitions of having been "raped", will deny it. While there seems to be no
difference of opinion as to what action occurred, there is a difference in the interpretation of the
meaning of that action. As a result, it is now common practice for experimenters to ask questions
such as "have you ever experienced forced or attempted forced sexual intercourse against your
will?" and to define this as rape or attempted rape when reporting the results of the study (see
Lori Haskell and Melanie Randall, Toronto Globe and Mail Sept 9/ 1993 for an example of this
type of study). One reason for this difference of opinion could simply be that experimenters are
looking only at the action itself while the recipients are looking at both the intent of the actor and
at their own perceptions of the action.
Perhaps one of our best clues as to whether we are being aggressed against is the "fight or flight"
response. This is the familiar churning sensation that we feel in the stomach and is a biological
reaction to many environmental cues, most of which would indicate some danger to the organism.
As a learning animal, man can modify this "gut reaction" and even eliminate it in situations where
danger is known to exist. This is a very important concept in most systems of fighting and is
called variously, a cool head, grace under fire, and in Japanese, fudoshin or immovable mind.
The opposite of this would be panic or a frozen mind (fushin in Japanese). If one is exposed to a
certain action and one does not experience this gut reaction, one might be less likely to label it an
aggressive act. On the other hand, if one is stressed and anxious, a rather innocent action might
trigger the physiological reaction and one may call the action aggressive.
| ALARM REACTION | CALM MIND | |||
| panic | anxiety | physical anticipation | calm | stress |
The degree to which the recipient is involved in the action or in the events leading up to the action
can influence the definition of aggression. If one is struck when taking a massage, or playing a
contact sport it is not likely to be called aggression. If one is struck while standing on the
sidelines of a football game it is also not likely to be called aggression but if one is struck from
behind when walking down the street, even if accidentally, it is likely to be thought of as an
aggressive act. The closer or more linked one is to the action, the less likely one is to define that
action as aggression. There is a large component of anticipation and preparation in this scale,
what we expect, doesn't alarm or shock us as much as what we do not expect.
RECIPIENT INVOLVEMENT
| PASSERBY | SPECTATOR/BYSTANDER |
PARTICIPANT |
| unprepared | somewhat prepared | prepared |
| no responsibility | some responsibility | fully responsible |
LOCUS OF CONTROL
The way in which one views one's place in the world can affect one's judgement of acts. A person
with an external locus of control, someone who believes themselves to be largely powerless in
the face of external events, will likely see many actions as being aggressive. After all the world
is acting on the individual and the individual has little control over those actions. At the other end
of the scale is the internal locus of control. A person who believes that they have the power to
influence the environment around themselves is also less likely to judge actions as being
aggressive, believing that they can influence them, and even, perhaps, have some responsibility
for them.
COPING METHOD
| EXTERNAL | INTERNAL |
| no control of environment | master of own fate |
| acted on | acts upon |
Closely associated with locus of control, is the concept of perceived self efficacy, the belief that
one has the skills to influence the external environment and that one can do it. This is often
loosely termed self confidence and this aspect of personality tends to be highly situation specific,
as opposed to the locus of control which is more of a method of looking at the world. If one
believes one has the skills to deal with a certain action, then the fear and anxiety provoked by that
action are reduced which could lead to the action being judged less aggressive. To look at this
another way, if one has low perceived self-efficacy than even an innocent act may be interpreted
as aggressive out of fear caused by the lack of coping skills.
PERCEIVED SELF EFFICACY
| LOW SELF EFFICACY | HIGH SELF EFFICACY |
| can't cope | have coping skills |
STRESS LEVELS
Certain physical factors such as noise and light may act as general irritants and increase judgements of aggressiveness. In the same way, conditions of mental stress such as anxiety, sexual or emotional arousal or excitation might act as amplifiers of any judgements made. Depression or other conditions which would reduce the mental or physical responsiveness would also tend to reduce judgements of aggression.
| HIGH | LOW |
| stimulating environment | quiet environment |
| physical excitation | sickness |
| mental excitation | depression |
The pre-existing beliefs of a person can affect the judgement of an aggressive act. If a person believes "all men are rapists" or that "all feminists are castrating lesbians" or that "gang members are violent" than one can become either fearful of, or outraged at these groups (depending perhaps, on whether one has an external or internal locus of control). These prejudicial views may cause one to make an immediate judgement of aggression which might not be made by someone with a more open mind who might look at several other factors before judging.
| HIGH BIAS | FLEXIBLE |
| opinionated | open minded |
| fearful | trusting |
| outraged | understanding |
These scales are included with the recipient scales simply because both observer and recipient
must use many of the same cues regarding the action and the actor's intent when forming an
opinion of whether an act is aggressive or not. A third party observer will also be influenced by
the factors mentioned above for the recipient but only as they apply to the observer, since a third
party can know nothing of the thought processes of the others. A third party may, however, use his
own mental processing as a reference more or less in relationship to how similar he believes the
recipient to be to himself. This closeness will be affected by personal distance, the source of
information about the action, and the psychological distance from the recipient.
PERSONAL DISTANCE
| NEARBY |
DISTANCED | ||
| me | my family | my friends | strangers |
| in town | somewhere else | ||
INFORMATION SOURCE
| NEARBY | DISTANCED | |||
| personal information | personal communication | television | radio | newspapers |
PSYCHOLOGICAL DISTANCE (THIRD PERSON)
We have mentioned the aspects of similarity in previous scales. An observer is likely to be more
harsh in the judgement of aggression when watching an action against a recipient judged as
similar, than against one who is dissimilar to that third person. When considering a stranger, such
aspects as sex and race will likely give strong cues as to similarity, while social aspects such as
education and class should give less information and simply being in a situation similar to one the
observer has been in should give even fewer cues as to similarity.
Third parties will also receive similarity cues in diminishing strength as the recipient characteristics get further from being human. Large eyed mammals look more like human children than do beady eyed rats, while plants, bacteria and rocks are not likely to remind anyone of anybody they know and are thus not likely to arouse much sympathy.
| SIMILAR TO ME |
NOT SIMILAR | ||||
| sex | race | nationality | education | economic class | situation |
| humans | cute animals | ugly animals | bugs | plants | rocks |
When looking at a situation which is potentially aggressive, one thing that will likely be assessed is the relative power of the two parties. If the actor is judged more powerful than the recipient, any specific action is likely to be seen as more aggressive than if the power balance is tipped the other way. These power imbalances are not as clearly defined as they might at first appear. A case in point is the balance between black and white people. If the recipient or observer is afraid of blacks, then the greater power may be seen to be in their hands rather than in the hands of the whites, in which case the scale below would be reversed. Similar arguments can be made in the case of male and female, depending on the situation and on what is being defined as "power" in that situation. In the case of a child and an adult, the perceived power balance is likely to be as shown, as is the case of several actors and one recipient.
| STRENGTH TOWARD ACTOR | BALANCE | STRENGTH TOWARD RECIPIENT |
| male vs female | female vs male | |
| white vs black | same qualities | black vs white |
| adult vs child | child vs adult | |
| many attackers | same numbers | one vs several |
There will always be an effect of the social sanction of violence or aggression on an individual's judgement. The most obvious source of information on how a society defines aggression is though the legal system. The particular situation in which a society exists at the time of the action will also affect the judgement of aggression. Acts that are tolerated and even seen as necessary during wartime, such as the internment of groups of people, may be labeled aggression during peacetime. State sponsored acts in some dictatorships may not be seen as aggression by the advantaged classes, while being labeled as such in more democratic societies. Some acts are also more likely to be labeled aggressive in relatively classless societies than in ones that are highly structured, especially when the acts are performed across classes. Finally, it is usually not considered aggressive for the state to execute an individual while it is always aggressive if an individual performs the same act.
| LOW | HIGH SANCTION | |
| peacetime | terrorist threat | wartime |
| free society | pseudo-freedom | dictatorship |
| egalitarian | pseudo-classes | class system |
| individuals | vigilantes | state |
REALITY QUOTIENT
Finally, an act performed in the imagination with a war toy is not likely to be considered as
aggressive as when the exact same act is performed with the real thing during wartime.
| PHYSICAL REALITY | IMAGINATION | |||
| warfare | war toys | movies/theatre | storybooks | daydreams |
SOURCES OF AGGRESSION
If aggression is an innate, unchangeable, biological fate, than learning a fighting art will have no
affect on aggressive behavior at all. The more one accepts that aggression can be learned, the
more one must also accept that aggression can be modified by learning. The relevant question
then becomes 'what affect does learning to fight have on aggression'. The acquisition of a set of
behaviors that have the potential to damage another person may or may not increase the likelihood
that those behaviors will be used. If the catharsis theory of aggression is correct, than controlled
aggressive behaviors such as boxing or wrestling should reduce aggression outside the ring. If the
circular theory is correct, than learning a fighting art should create more aggressive behavior.
If the fighting system studied also teaches things such as cooperation with a partner or the rest of
the class, control of emotions, control of actions, and personal responsibility for actions, then it is
possible that aggression may be reduced in the student. Another consideration which must be
answered by research is the speed with which aggressive behavior can be modified by education.
Will a short course in boxing or Aikido change one's behavior one way or another, or does this
type of education require years to modify the habits of a lifetime? Many authors suggest that the
fighting arts, and other arts such as yoga, promote an integration of the brain and the body, to
develop a "bodymind". Does this integration of the rational mind, (which may represent nurture or
learning), with the body, (representing nature or biology), have an effect on aggressive or other
behaviors?
If we use Geen's (1990) model of aggression we can consider what effect learning the fighting arts
has on the background factors, the immediate elicitors and the modifying, external factors. It is
unlikely that fighting arts will have an effect on race or sex but they may have an effect on gender
orientation, on how "masculine or feminine" one is as judged by various psychological measures
of these things. Do the fighting arts have an effect on "machismo"? It is also possible that the
fighting arts may affect the long term or stable "personality" of students. A more likely place to
examine the effects of learning to fight, would be on the immediate elicitors to aggression. It is
quite possible that effects might be seen on such items as stress levels, general arousal,
frustration, fear and the perception of being attacked. It is also possible that learning fighting
skills may affect the inhibiting factors to aggressive acts, possibly by removing fears of
retaliation. For instance, the aggressor may gain increased confidence that the person attacked
cannot match the fighting skills learned, and so be more likely to attack. The various substituant
factors involved in aggressive acts may also show changes through training in fighting arts.
ACTION SCALES
The particular aggressive acts performed, will not of course be changed by learning a fighting art.
A punch will remain a punch, but it is possible that persons trained in the fighting arts may be
able to very rapidly change from one action to another. This fine motor skill could convert a
punch to a push even when only a few inches from contact. The actor may also be able to modify
the speed of the action, the effect of the action and thus, even the perceived intent of the action.
These near-immediate changes will depend of course on the actor changing his mind and wanting
to change from one act to another.
Training in fighting arts, with their emphasis on fast reaction time, is likely to make any retaliatory
act immediate rather than delayed, thus reducing the chance of judgements that the action was
"revenge" rather than self defence. The influence of the timing of retaliatory acts has become
more important in recent years as lawyers have begun to use ideas such as "battered wife
syndrome" to argue self defence in cases where a woman kills or maims her partner when she is
under no apparent immediate physical danger or threat. As mentioned before, the fine muscle
control which is presumably gained when learning a fighting art would allow an actor to control
the amount of damage inflicted by any particular act. This control would reduce the likelihood that
any act would have an effect that is not intended by the actor, presumably reducing doubt about the
aggression of the actor. On the other hand, if the fighting art was taught in such a way that the
student had no idea of what type of damage he or she was capable of inflicting, the possibility
exists that the effect of an action would be out of proportion to the intended damage. Such a
situation might occur with throwing arts such as wrestling, judo or aikido. Partners thrown in
class know how to fall without damage while an untrained person thrown in exactly the same way
could be injured severely. In all cases, however, it is quite probable that the effect of an act
intended to cause harm, would be more damaging from a trained person than from one not trained
in a fighting art.
The object of the action is not likely to be changed during the enactment of a potentially
aggressive act, but the choice of object might be influenced, as, perhaps when a wall or door is
struck instead of a person. It is hard to see, however, how fighting arts might influence this choice
except through the practice (habit) of striking inanimate objects in arts like karate. Perhaps by
knowing how to strike inanimate objects without injury, the likelihood of striking them rather than
the desired (or eliciting) target might increase.
INTENT OF ACTOR
It is possible that learning a fighting art could modify the intent or at least the apparent intent of the
actor. Most fighting systems would train students to be quite careful in their movements, and the
more "self-defence oriented" arts would presumably teach vigilance. This could very well mean
that the likelihood of an accident is reduced with the extra care taken when moving around. This
reduction in accidents would mean that any particular action would more likely be interpreted as
intentional. If the actor is not "accident-prone" but is seen as being under good self control, then it
is less likely that any particular act would be judged an accident.
When considering the several "classes" of aggression, it is likely that learning self defence
oriented arts would change the likelihood of "defensive aggression", probably by increasing it.
Hostile, instrumental and dyssocial aggression might be affected if the art included ethical
training in its curriculum but it is hard to see how the likelihood of performing these aggressive
acts would be affected directly by simply learning how to fight. Similarly, aggression which
occurs during a game might be affected by ethical training (in, for instance, agonistic type fighting
arts) but might not be affected by learning the physical techniques themselves. The likelihood of
psychopathic aggression is not likely to be affected by learning a fighting art unless these arts can
be shown to have therapeutic value for this type of mental aberration. On the question of
aggression vs assertion, it is likely that a fighting art that teaches self-control would make it
unlikely that an assertive act would be misinterpreted as aggressive. Training in fighting could
give a good appreciation for "personal space" and threat behaviors and so might reduce the
likelihood of an erroneous retaliatory act such as punching the bank clerk who insists on getting
another signature for something or other.
While it is not possible for any training to change the characteristics of race, sex or other physical
trait in an actor, it is possible that the actor might be trained to a wider appreciation of who is
"like us" and who is "different". Many fighting systems are products of foreign cultures that retain
much of their original flavour. Training in these arts might widen one's "family" to include those
of other cultures and/or races.
PERCEPTION OF RECIPIENT OR OBSERVER
When looking at the scales involved with the perception of the recipient, we must examine the
effects of training in fighting arts on how the trained person views actions received, with regard to
both the judgement of aggression and on the likelihood of retaliation to a perceived attack.
Training in fighting arts may also affect the judgement of a third party observer.
If a fighting art promotes the control of the alarm response, giving a "cool head", then the
physiological cues which might indicate an aggressive attack will be absent from many situations.
On the other hand, a fighting art that emphasizes getting "psyched" for a competitive, sporting
match, could well provide trained cues to trigger the physiological response which then might be
tripped by the actor, leading to a more severe judgement of aggression.
It is unlikely that training in a fighting art will affect a judgement of the degree of participation in
any particular act, but it may affect the assumption of personal responsibility for that particular
degree of participation. Training that emphasizes the personal responsibility of each student for
their own safety and their own avoidance of conflict, could very well lead to a student assuming
that an act was in part "my own fault for being there" and lead to a judgement of reduced
responsibility and aggression from the actor.
It is uncertain whether the locus of control can be changed with education, or how easily that
could be done, but it is highly likely that the perceived self efficacy of a student of the fighting
arts will be changed by that training. It is, after all, the skills to handle physical conflict that are
presumably being taught to students. Having the skills to handle a conflict, and having the belief
that one can use the skills could perhaps lead to a change in the judgement of aggressiveness
through, for example, a lowering of fear levels.
If the training acquired includes such features as breath control and other commonly recognized
methods of stress control, then the overall stress of the recipient may be lowered, also lowering
the "threshold of aggression judgement".
Any educational experience is likely to open a "closed mind" and training in combat arts is
probably no exception. A reduction in prejudgement about the actor's intent or actions will likely
lower the chances of an incorrect judgement of aggression.
As was mentioned above, training that includes acculturation to other countries or other ethical
systems may reduce the personal distance from the observer to the receiver. This could lead to
increased judgements of aggression than might otherwise be the case as, perhaps, a stranger is
now regarded as one of the newly widened group or family. When training in a combat art, it may
also be easier for an observer to put himself in the place of a receiver of a physical attack. This
empathy may overcome the distancing effect of some information sources and reduce the
psychological distance between the observer and the receiver, making for harsher judgements of
aggression than before the combat training.
On the other hand, combat training may affect the perception of power balances. Those trained in
self defence may well become less sympathetic to recipients of physical actions, thinking "why
didn't he defend himself". It is possible that those who have experienced the power of a trained
woman might be less likely to accept automatically that women are less powerful than men. It is
also possible that the concentration on physical conflict when learning a fighting art may
influence judgements on such things as the imbalance of power between persons of different
colour. A white and a black man may be judged solely on their physical attributes during a
physical altercation, and considerations of historical domination ignored.
Social sanction may be influenced by fighting arts through legal restrictions on exotic weaponry,
leading to a public perception that those who use "martial arts weapons" are unusually
aggressive. There is also the possibility that a person's training may be taken into account during
trials on assault but on the whole, there is little indication that those trained in fighting arts are
treated any differently than untrained citizens.
A final, and very important matter which must be considered when examining fighting arts training
is their "reality quotient". Is training in boxing "play fighting" or "aggression". There is plenty of
evidence that these two things are not the same and should be treated as separate subjects when
considering interpersonal relationships.
Michael Boulton (1991) states that not all behaviors that look aggressive are aggressively
motivated and separates "rough and tumble" fighting from aggressive fighting. One interesting
finding from his research is that 8 and 11 year old children could easily and reliably determine
whether or not an act was intended as an aggressive challenge, or an invitation to rough and
tumble play. An invitation to rough and tumble was usually met by a response in kind, while acts
of aggression were likely to be responded to by an act of aggression or by no reaction at all. The
judgement of aggressive behavior in the children was made by the researchers on the basis of the
same three major factors proposed above, the characteristics of the action performed
(action/outcome), the presence/absence of signs of distress/annoyance of the recipient (perception
of recipient), and the presence/absence of signs of regret by the perpetrators of injury/distress
(intent of actor). Of special interest in this research was the finding that less than 1% of bouts of
rough and tumble play changed directly into aggression.
This last point is important to remember when examining the psychological effects of training in
the fighting arts since it could easily be assumed that what is being practiced in the classroom is
the same as what occurs in the back alleyway. If this were indeed the case, and if it is accepted
that aggression breeds aggression or violence breeds violence, than learning the fighting arts
should produce aggressive students. If, however, what is happening in combat training is "rough
and tumble play", than it may have little to do with aggressive behavior at all.
In the next section we will examine the scholarly literature for evidence of any psychological effects of the fighting arts on the students.