Psychology Essays Human Aggression Violence

psychological science Essays Human Aggression force playHuman Aggression ViolenceThere is not iodine case-by-case Psychological possible action that house adequately history for tender-hearted enmity and madness.To what extent do you agree with this cl innovation?Aggression and forcefulness ar common occurrences in eachday society and some(prenominal)thing we argon exposed to every day. Barlow and Hill (1985) suggest that television in Britain shows a scene of strength every 16 minutes, whilst the Home office research instruction 276 (2004) effectuate 45% of women and 26% of men aged 16-59 stimulate experienced some form of interpersonal furiousness.There bind been many a(prenominal) attempts to apologise why hostility and violence occur, ranging from biological theories such(prenominal) as evolutionary (Buss, 1990), ethological (Lorenz, 1966) and psychodynamic (Freud, 1920) approaches, to the complaisant/bio brotherly explanations offered by the frustration/ onslaught (Dollard et al, 1939), complaisant teaching (Bandura, 1961) and excitement imparting theories (Zillmann, 1979). This essay will focus on the psychodynamic explanation of encroachment as an thought and the social learning supposition that suggests aggression is a learnt behavior. The aim is to critically evaluate these theories and to discuss to what extent they ar able to exempt aggression and violence. social learning theory focuses on the individuals interaction with his or her environment. The suggestion is that all conduct, in this case aggression and violence, is learnt socially. Bandura (1983) puts forward the idea that aggression and baseless behaviour entail obscure skills that require extensive learning, in some other(a) words we are unable to act in an fast-growing(a) or violent steering until we learn (from our environment) how to do it. To look at the role of imitation in aggression Bandura (1961) conducted the famous bobo doll experiment.Childre n were exposed to adults behaving in either truculent or non- assertive manners towards a bobo doll. They were then allowed to play in an selfsame(a) playroom to that previously discover children were shown to imitate rapacious behaviour. Many unlike trials of this experiment were conducted the most famous of these was allowing the children to watch a videotape. In other trials live models and cartoon videos were used. Although this is seen as important evidence to suggest imitation, the theory shadownot fully account for aggression and violence.Cumberbatch (1997) describes how the novelty of the Bobo doll may have had some influence over Banduras results. A follow up study showed the children who had previously been exposed to the toy were five times little violent than those who were new to it. It could besides be argued that the doll was designed to be abused. This also addresses the analogous nature of social learning theory can behaviour shown towards a doll be used to predict or explain behaviour towards a living world. Baron (1977) defines aggression as Behaviour directed towards the goal of harming or injuring another living being who is motivated to debar such behaviour. The acts of violence and aggression observed by Bandura fail to meet this exposition. The doll is of course not a living being and there is no way it could try and avoid any acts towards it.The social learning theory also relies heavily on correlation studies. Lefkowitz et al (1978), Maccoby (1992) and McCord et al (1961) have all pitch that children who have experienced physical discipline from their parents are generally more aggressive than those who have not. However is the parental discipline the only factor that can account for this violent and aggressive behaviour?Social learning theory fails to explain why not everyone who watches a violent film or plays and aggressive video game will imitate what they have seen. one and only(a) hundred children may watch a viol ent film besides only one may go out and copy the behaviour they have seen. This suggests that there is something more than imitation. The theory also fails to account to for nonstop aggressive or violent behaviour. Why does someone continue to wear in a violent or aggressive way without day-and-night exposure to such material?Although many psychologists believe that social learning theory can provide a very complete account of aggression and violence (Hill, 1989), there is still the fundamental question, if all violence is imitated then how did the jump act of violence occur? (Hewitt, 1989)In line of work to the social learning theory, Freud puts forward the suggestion that aggression and violence are innate drives. This means it is something we are born with and is thereof unavoidable. Freud also puts the dialect on the person involved and not the place where violence occurs. end-to-end our lives we face the encroach between the life instinct and the finish instinct. The death instinct is seen as the drive that pushes us towards extinction or non-existence, whilst simultaneously the life instinct strives to preserve life.The death instinct is ultimately self-destructive and if satisfied internally will result in destruction of the individual it must therefore be channelled outside the self. This may be with displacement taking out anger on a impersonal object or through sublimation channelling anger into a more socially acceptable activity for fount music or art. Another suggestion, make by Freuds daughter, is that a person may transform themselves into their victim in order to become the agent of aggression (Freud, 1946).This allows the death instinct to be satisfied transformation into and identification with the victim allows the perpetrator to struggle himself. Freud also believed that divulging in some kind of fantasy violence (for example watching a violent film or playing a violent video game) would satisfy the death instinct and th erefore echt violence will be reduced. This is known as catharsis.There is in reality very little evidence to support catharsis, however Fleshbach (1955) conducted a study in which he aggravated and insulted his participants. Half were then allowed to indulge in fantasy activities. The groups aggressive feelings were then measured victimization projective techniques. The group who engaged in fantasy play were deemed less aggressive. to a fault a study from the Bureau of justice (2006) in America found a negative correlation between the growth in violent video games and the rate of juvenile violent crime. It should, however, be noted that the first study relied heavily of symbolism whilst the second fails to show a exertion and effect relationship between the two.The majority of evidence seems to go against the model of catharsis. Green et al (1975) found that opportunities for dispersing aggression actually increased aggressive behaviour. During a learning task participants were electrocuted in order to increase aggressive tendencies. Half of the participants were allowed to retaliate in someway against their experimenters, Freud would suggest this would reduce aggressiveness. However, when the participants became the experimenter kind of than the subject those who had retaliated previously gave more intense shocks than those who had not retaliated. This is actually more supportive of the social learning theory discussed above.As well as little support evidence there are many other areas upon which Freud is criticised. Hewitt (1989) says that whilst instinctive behaviour is often seen in animals, charitables are removed more advanced creatures and so are much more aware and able to control their actions. The theory also fails to account for the different types of human aggression and violence. There is no typical form in which the behaviour takes what determines how the death instinct must be satisfied? We must also account for calculated murders or other violent crimes. Surely, if catharsis occurred the be after of the act would be enough to satisfy the death instinct and therefore prevent the event from taking place.Although Freuds theory of human aggression and violence puts forward an intelligent argument it fails to recognise and account for many things. Like many psychoanalytic theories it relies on the study of immeasurable and often unknown causes, relying heavily on symbolism and projection. There is also a habit of placing aggressive motives onto non-violent actions. It seems difficult to know precisely where the psychoanalytic definition of aggression lies. This also gives a very bleak outlook on life violence and aggression are unavoidable and therefore non preventable. peerless could even suggest Freud justifies violence and aggression it is after all a human instinct. two theories can both account for certain aspects of human aggression and violence but they cannot fully explain the phenomena. Biological theor ies such as Freuds instinct theory fail to recognise the knotty environment we live in, whilst the social learning theory neglects the role of biology. Both also fail to account for the differences that we see between humans. There is a feeling that each perspective seems to explain something that cannot be definitely defined. Whilst one school tries to explain its own defined version of aggression and violence it neglects anothers own definition. It can therefore be accepted that not one single theory can explain human aggression and violence, agreeing with the given statement.ReferencesBandura, A (1983). Psychological mechanisms of aggression, New York schoolman Press, in Baron, R, A., Richardson, D R (1994) Human aggression, second edition. New York Plenum press.Bandura, A (1961). Transmission of aggression through imitation of aggressive models journal of deviate and social psychology, 63, 575-582. online. Available from http//psychclassics.yorku.ca/Bandura/bobo.htm Accessed 17/01/2007Baron, R.A. (1977). Human Aggression. New York Plenum press.Barlow, G., Hill, A. (1985) Video violence and children, Suffolk Hodder and Stoughton.Bureau of Justice (2006). In Jan Jagodzinski, (2006). Video game cyber subjects, the ethics of violence and addiction A psychoanalytic approach, Psychoanalysis, culture and society, 11, pp 282-303.Buss, D,M. (1990), Evolutionary social psychology Prospects and pitfalls Motivation and emotion 14, 265-286. In Hogg, M, A. and Vaughan, G, M. (2005) fourth edition. Social psychology. UK Pearson prentice Hall.Cumberbatch, G (1997). Is television harmful?, in Cochrane, R and Carroll, D (1997) Psychology and social issues, London Falmer (pp. 171-181)Dollard, J., Doob, L., Miller, N., Mowrer O. and Sears, R. (1939) Frustration and Aggression. New haven, CTYale University Press, in Glassman, Hadad (2006), Approaches to psychology. 4th edition.Norfolk Open University Press.Feshbach, S. (1955) The drive reducing function of fantasy behavio ur daybook of abnormal and social psychology, 50, 3-11. In Glassman, Hadad (2006), Approaches to psychology. 4th edition.Norfolk Open University Press.Freud, A. (1946) The ego and the mechanisms of defense.New York international Univer. Press, 1946. In Transmission of aggression through imitation of aggressive models Journal of abnormal and social psychology, 63, 575-582. online. Available from http//psychclassics.yorku.ca/Bandura/bobo.htm Accessed 17/01/2007Freud, S. (1920) Beyond the pleasure principle, in Glassman, Hadad (2006), Approaches to psychology. 4th edition.Norfolk Open University Press.Hewitt, D et al (1989), Social psychology conflict and continuities, Buckingham Open University PressHill, G (2001), Psychology for AS A level. 2nd edition. Glasgow Oxford university press.Home office research study 276 (2004), Domestic violence, sexual lash out and stalking Findings from the British Crime Survey online. London Home office, Research, using and statistics directorate .Lefkowitz, M, M et al. (1978) Parental punishment A longitudal analysis of effects pull in of general psychiatry, 35, 186-191. In Glassman, Hadad (2006), Approaches to psychology. 4th edition.Norfolk Open University Press.Lorenz, K. (1966) On aggression. New York Harcourt, couple and World, in Hogg, M, A. and Vaughan, G, M. (2005) 4th edition. Social psychology. UK Pearson Prentice Hall.McCord, W et al (1961) familial correlates of aggression in non delinquent male children, Journal of abnormal and social psychology. 62, 79-93. In Glassman, Hadad (2006), Approaches to psychology. 4th edition.Norfolk Open University Press.Mccoby, E,E. (1992) The role of parents in the socialisation of children An diachronic overview, Developmental psychology, 28, 1006-1017. InZillmann, D. (1979). Hostility and aggression. Hillsdale, NJ Erlbaum, in Hogg, M, A. and Vaughan, G, M. (2005) 4th edition. Social psychology. UK Pearson Prentice Hall.