According to studies, there is no rigid definition for aggression nor inter-group aggression and therefore it is defined according to the correspondents values. The behavior studied may differ from one researcher to another. Bandura (973) defines aggression as behavior that results in personal injury or the injury of others in society and the destruction of property. On the other hand, Barron (977) describes aggression as behavior that has the intention of harming or injuring other living beings who do not share the same intention, which could be referred to as intergroup aggression. Although there can be varied interpretations of aggression, Miller et al (989) argue that all the definitions share a common ground of what aggression is; that is, they have all agreed through their findings that aggression is the intention to cause harm. This study of behavior has been looked at not only psychologically but through sources of sociology, biology, anthropolog
y, history, and political science. Researchers have used different measures to try and operationalize aggression. Bandura et al (967) did an experiment of the Bobo doll, and Finnema et al (994) carried an interview in a mental hospital on how nurses characterized and perceived aggression according to the behavior of their patients. Geen (978) did research on the verbal expression of how people were willing to use aggressive behavior and lastly Milgrams study provided a reason to why people are aggressive. Aggression comes in a different forms, Status Aggression being one of them. The Theory of Frustration-Aggression Hypothesis Dollard et al (939) argue that aggressive behavior occurs when there is frustration and the existence of frustration always results in aggression. This, therefore, means that personal goals involve the arousal of psychic energy. The aim of this essay is to investigate and look at the different explanations of intergroup aggression.