tend to escalate on the basis of reciprocation, (Toch, 1966), one antagonistic remark or action provokes an aggressive response and a 'tit-for-tat' exchange builds to violent resolution. If the aggressor cannot see any benefits from his chosen course of behaviour however, he will tend to desist, if the risk of harm to himself. Of course the extent to which the reciprocation of both prosocial and aggressive behaviour continues depends both on situation and the inclination of those involved towards extremes. If the aggressor cannot see any benefits from his chosen course of behaviour however, if the risk of harm to himself, outweighs any positive results he can draw from a clash, he will tend to desist in the interest of self-preservation. Toch (1966) found in his case studies that certain 'violence-prone' strategies can be employed to intensify and prolong aggressive exchanges. This tendency in aggressive subjects toward creating justifications for violence is paralleled in instances of prosocial behaviour where the helper will assess the need for assistance or kindness, according to standards of justice, influenced by both contemporary social standards and their own world view. A person more inclined to partake in prosocial behaviour will find it easier to justify a good deed. (Beirhoff, 2001) So, both pro-social behaviour and aggressive behaviour have similar boundaries and conditions which are deeply rooted in our evolutionary past. However, the notion that they are two opposites on a continuum depends highly on the process by which they result in manifesting themselves. Modern theories on altruistic behaviour point toward what is known as the Process model of altruism. (Schwartz & Howard 1981) , while, Dodge's (1986) Social Information Processing model of aggression is seen as the most plausible. Both models share similar characteristics, an aggressor will perceive and attend to cues from others he sees as threats, while cues ...
