Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Psychologyy of aggression
Theories of aggression
Psychologyy of aggression
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Psychologyy of aggression
Aggression has been and is still is a complex form of emotion to understand. This term aggression cannot be precisely defined due to the different attribute of behaviours presented amongst organisms. According to Buss (1961, p1) as cited in Green (1990, p2) the definition of aggression “is a response that delivers noxious stimuli to another organism”. This definition by Buss (1961) is now what psychologist have now generalised as the standard definition of aggression. Therefore aggression is a behaviour that aims to injure a directed individual. However Bandura (1973) suggests that a major limitation with these definition is that it recommends that aggression plays a single role and purpose which is to oppose injury to an individual. Hence …show more content…
This theory gives the idea of one losing their sense of individuality and their identity, this occurs when an individual feels they are anonymous is in a crowded area or even when they are part of a society wearing masks and uniform for example a police officer. The deindividuation theory can explain why aggression occurs in a group, as the individual believes they are less identified as there is a shared responsibility amongst the group, according to the Psychology Bulletin they lose self-awareness and behave more aggressively. This may be the reason why bank robbers and members of the Ku Klux Klan wear masks while committing crimes, why crowds at sporting events sometimes become violent and why violent crimes are mostly committed during night time hours than during daytime hours. According to the Psychological Bulletin (1998) the deindividuation theory supply explanation for different “expression of antinormative collective behaviour such as violent crowds, mindless hooligans, and the lynch mob”. Staub, 1996; Staub & Rosenthal, 1994 as cited in the Psychology Bulletin states that this theory is been “applied to social atrocities such as genocides”. Festinger, Pepitone and Newcomb (1952) cited in Review of general psychology (1997) proposed when a group is not looked at as an individual the sense of deindividuation arises. Studies conducted inside the laboratory carried out by (Zimbardo, 1969) cited in Review of general psychology (1997), showed that the deinividation group gave significantly longer shocks as they were not recognised and identified due to the hood they wore and their name being anonymous. Compared to the individuated group where they were identified with name tags. This proves how anonymity of a person can encourage them to portray high level of violence. Zimbardo (1969) cited in Psychology Bulletin stressed that “deindividuated
Traub, C. M. (2009). Defending a diagnostic pariah: validating the categorisation of Dissociative Identity Disorder. South African Journal of Psychology, 39(3), 347-356.
Aggression is defined as any behavior intended to harm another person who is motivated to avoid the harm according to Baumeister & Bushman (2014). A study was conducted in 1967 by Leonard Berkowitz and Anthony LePage, to determine whether the presence of weapons would elicit aggressive behavior from an individual (Baumeister & Bushman, 2014). They hypothesized that participants were likely to associate weapons, particularly firearms, to aggression and violence, which would cause observing a weapon to elicit an aggressive response. The experiment determined that the presence of weapon can elicit an aggressive response from people ready to act aggressively. In the study, participants were shocked up to seven times then given the opportunity to
According to Becker, the labelling theory of deviance looks at what happens to individuals after they are labelled as deviant (Skatvedt & Schou, 2008) The symbolic interactionist approach focuses on the role of social labels and sanctions that pressure individual gang members to continue engaging in deviant acts (Skatvedt & Schou, 2008).The labelling theory suggests that when an individual is labeled as deviant they are more likely to be rejected by families, friends, and societies which ultimately leads to further deviant acts (Becker, 1973). The deviant identity is thus complete when the individual gang member integrates himself into the gang subculture (Becker, 1973). Two high school gangs, the Roughnecks and the Saints, were constantly involved in deviant acts such as drinking, petty theft etc.,; however, high school teachers labelled the Saints as those headed for success and the Roughnecks as those headed for trouble (Chambliss, 1973) After high school, almost all of the Saints went to college and became doctors, lawyers, etc. while only two Roughnecks went to college and others were involved in killings and dropped out of school and so forth (Chambliss, 1973) This case study demonstrates that labels are powerful; they can trigger a greater involvement in deviant acts through social
The horror of domestic terrorism is a problem all Americans should be concerned with, especially since there is a violent subculture in this nation which seeks out and indoctrinates people into their way of life. The crime that I will be focusing on during the course of this paper will be domestic terrorism, specifically hate groups such as the KKK, and various other white supremacy groups. The theory that I will be using to try and explain these crimes will be subcultural theory, but more especially the Subculture of Violence theory provided to us by Marvin Wolfgang and Franco Ferracutti. The reason I will be using his specific subcultural theory is because I feel that it bests describes how the people in these situations are desensitized to the evils they do and then begin to believe that the acts and beliefs are normal, or superior to all other views.
Researchers questioned how and why certain people became defined as criminal or deviant. Many theorists viewed criminals not as evil persons who engaged in wrong acts but as individuals who had a criminal status placed upon them by both the criminal justice system and the community at large. From this point of view, criminal actions themselves are not significant; it is the social reaction to them that are (Bernard, Snipes, and Gerould, 2010). This point of view is called Symbolic Interactionism. Developed by George Herbert Mead, Charles Cooley, and Herbert Blumer in the early twentieth century, they claimed that deviance creates a process of social definition which involves the response from others to an individual's behavior; which is key to how an individual views himself. “Vold’s Theoretical Criminology” describes the process of segregation creates "outsiders", who are outcast from society, and then begin to associate with other individuals who have also been cast out. When more and more people begin to think of these individuals as deviants, they respond to them as such; thus the deviant reacts to such a response by continuing to engage in the behavior society now expects from them (Bernard, Snipes, and Gerould, 2010).
Aggression, violence, and victimization are remarkably dynamic terms. How these terms are understood and defined is shaped by formal and informal social policies and controls (Goldstein, 1986). Excluding assertiveness from the definition of aggression as it relates to violence, aggression can be considered to encompass behaviors intended to cause physical or psychological harm. Violence may be understood as an extreme form of aggression, in which the intent of the perpetrator is to cause serious harm (Berkowitz, 1993). Anthropological research on various non-western cultures demonstrates that aggression and violence are not necessarily inevitable, nor are they universal (Goldstein, 1986). Like words and manners, as Elias points out, the concepts transform over time, and vary across and within cultures (Fletcher, 1997).
By definition aggression can mean a wide range of behaviors that occur for a large number of reasons under many different circumstances. Just about all wild animals are aggressive when guarding their territories, protecting their offspring and themselves.
The labelling theory became dominant within society during the 1940’s and 1950’s, when a group of graduate students from the Chicago school tried a different approach to applying theory to deviant behaviour. Within this group was a highly influential young man, Howard S.Becker who became the person most recognised for his work with the labelling of crime (Williams.F. McShaneM. 2010.p110). Becker argued that labels could be applied through the social reaction of others when a deviant or criminal act had been committed he stated that “Labelling is the process of identifying, categorising and stereotyping social categories such as delinquents” (Davies.M.et.al.2010.p30). When an individual becomes labelled a criminal, people do not consider all the praiseworthy things they may have done previously, they just see that they have committed some form of deviance and are now judged within societ...
Lieberman J, Arndt J, Personius J, Cook A. “Vicarious Annihilation: The Effect of Mortality Salience on Perceptions of Hate Crimes”. Law & Human Behavior (Springer Science & Business Media B.V.). December 2001;25(6):547. Available from: Business Source Alumni Edition, Ipswich, MA. Accessed April 1, 2014.
Introduction: Philip Zimbardo once said, “Treating other people as insignificant, as anonymous, as dehumanized, bothered me very much. So one of the things I studied later on was the psychology of deindividuation.” He soon proposed the idea of deindividuation to be a mental state in which a person is “less concerned with the future, with normal societal constraints on behavior, and with the consequence of their actions.” (Gilovich 2013) This state usually happens when one is absorbed in a large group.
The theoretical study of societal reaction to deviance has been carried out under different names, such as, labelling theory, interactionist perspective, and the social constructionist perspective. In the sociology of deviance, the labelling theory of deviant behaviour is often used interchangeably with the societal reaction theory of deviancy. As a matter of fact, both phrases point equally to the fact that sociological explanations of deviance function as a product of social control rather than a product of psychology or genetic inheritance. Some sociologists would explain deviance by accepting without question definitions of deviance and concerning themselves with primary aetiology. However, labelling theorists stress the point of seeing deviance from the viewpoint of the deviant individual. They claim that when a person becomes known as a deviant, and is ascribed deviant behaviour patterns, it is as much, if not more, to do with the way they have been stigmatized, then the deviant act they are said to have committed. In addition, Howard S. Becker (1963), one of the earlier interaction theorists, claimed that, "social groups create deviance by making the rules whose infraction constitute deviance, and by applying those rules to particular people and labelling them as outsiders". Furthermore, the labelling theoretical approach to deviance concentrates on the social reaction to deviance committed by individuals, as well as, the interaction processes leading up to the labelling.
The first thing to look at is what human aggression is. It is defined as any behavior toward another individual that is carried out with the proximate (immediate) intent to cause harm (Anderson & Bushman 2002). Not to get confused with violence, all violent acts have aggression but not all aggressive acts are violent. For example kids often aggressive behavior towards each other but without the intent to hurt them. So now it’s time to look at the different types of aggression. Affective aggression (also labeled 'hostile' or 'emotional' is usually conceived as impulsive, thoughtless (that is, unplanned), driven by anger, having the ultimate motive of harming the target, and occurring in reaction to some perceived provocation. Instrumental aggression, in contrast, is usually conceived as a premeditated means of obtaining some goal other than harming the victim, being proactive rather than reactive, and resulting from cold calculation rather than hot affect. Impulsive aggression is usually conceived as thoughtless (automatic, fast, and without consider...
Labelling theory outlines the sociological approach towards labelling within societies and in the development of crime and deviance (Gunnar Bernburg, and D. Krohn et al., 2014, pp. 69-71). The theory purposes that, when an individual is given a negative label (that is deviant), then the individual pursues their new (deviant) label / identity and acts in a manner that is expected from him/her with his/ her new label (Asencio and Burke, 2011, pp. 163-182).
This theory places the individual into a box where the individual internalises everything. The individual in their box has culturally defined goals, their personal means to obtain these goals, the strain placed upon them from the disjunction between the society’s goals and their means. The strain on the individual leads to their selection of one of five adaptions without taking into consideration the individuals reaction to the strain of other individuals and groups and their interaction with the individual (Cohen, 1965). This is prominent in individuals who are members of social groups, such as members of church or religious groups, as the individual’s reaction to their personal strain is heavily influenced by their social interaction with the group. Individuals who are members of religious groups are unlikely to lean towards deviance and crime due to the conflict with their belief system and their connection with the groups, although it is not uncommon but these crimes due to be crimes not associated with strain, while individuals without that strong relationship with a social group are more likely to associate with deviance and crime. Furthermore, the anomie theory fails to look at the relationship between individuals and groups when it comes to deviant and criminal behaviour. Individuals are more likely to engage in joyriding, vandalism or violent behaviour when placed in a group. With the influence of peer pressure on individuals and normalisation being an important central factor in an individual’s likelihood to be deviant, the anomie theory is not taking into account a critical piece of the puzzle. The neglecting of other individuals and groups experiences when looking at the anomie theory means the that it’s not considering these experiences, whether conforming or deviant, and how they could
The field of psychology has opened different hypothesis from a variety of theories with the aim of studying the behaviour of humans being as a result they concluded with five psychological perspectives. Behaviourist, Biological, Psychodynamic, Cognitive and Humanistic perspectives are the deduction after a depth study of mental activity associate to human behaviour. In this essay I will be comparing two psychological perspectives according to aggressive behaviour.