Social Cognition and behavior

Core Assumptions and Statements: The social cognitive theory explains how people
acquire and maintain certain behavioral patterns, while also providing the basis for
intervention strategies (Bandura, 1997). Evaluating behavioral change depends on the
factors environment, people and behavior.

Environment; refers to the factors that can affect a person’s behavior. There are social and
physical environments. Social environment include family members, friends and
colleagues. Physical environment is the size of a room, the ambient temperature or the
availability of certain foods. Environment and situation provide the framework for
understanding behavior (Parraga, 1990). The situation refers to the cognitive or mental
representations of the environment that may affect a person’s behavior. The situation is a
person’s perception of the lace, time, physical features and activity (Glanz et al, 2002).

The three factors environment, people and behavior are constantly influencing each other.
Behavior is not simply the result of the environment and the person, just as the
environment is not simply the result of the person and behavior (Glanz et al, 2002). The
environment provides models for behavior. Observational learning occurs when a person
watches the actions of another person and the reinforcements that the person receives
(Bandura, 1997). The concept of behavior can be viewed in many ways. Behavioral
capability means that if a person is to perform a behavior he must know what the behavior
is and have the skills to perform it.

Factors of Social cognition and behavior

Environment: Factors physically external to the person; Provides opportunities and social
support

 Situation: Perception of the environment; correct misperceptions and promote

healthful forms

 Behavioral capability: Knowledge and skill to perform a given behavior; promote

mastery learning through skills training

 Expectations: Anticipatory outcomes of a behavior; Model positive outcomes of

healthful behavior

 Expectancies: The values that the person places on a given outcome, incentives;
Present outcomes of change that have functional meaning

 Self-control: Personal regulation of goal-directed behavior or performance; Provide

opportunities for self-monitoring, goal setting, problem solving, and self-reward

1
  Observational learning: Behavioral acquisition that occurs by watching the actions
and outcomes of others’ behavior; Include credible role models of the targeted
behavior

 Reinforcements: Responses to a person’s behavior that increase or decrease the

likelihood of reoccurrence; Promote self-initiated rewards and incentives

 Self-efficacy: The person’s confidence in performing a particular behavior;

Approach behavioral change in small steps to ensure success

 Emotional coping responses: Strategies or tactics that are used by a person to deal
with emotional stimuli; provide training in problem solving and stress management

 Reciprocal determinism: The dynamic interaction of the person, the behavior, and
the environment in which the behavior is performed; consider multiple avenues to
behavioral change, including environmental, skill, and personal change.

Conceptual Model

Source: Pajares
(2002). Overview of social cognitive theory and of self-efficacy. 12-8-04.

Unit-IV: Attitude and its Nature

2
Attitudes can be defined as evaluations of ideas, events, objects, or people. Attitudes are
generally positive or negative, but they can also be uncertain at times. For example,
sometimes we have mixed feelings about a particular issue or person. Regardless, attitudes
are an important topic of study for social psychologists because they help determine what
we do - what we eat, how we vote, what we do with our free time, and so on.

… an association in memory between a given object and a given summary evaluation

of the object” – Fazio, 1995
…a psychological tendency that is expressed by evaluating a particular entity with
some degree of favour or disfavour” – Eagly & Chaiken, 1993
… a general and enduring positive or negative feeling about some person, object, or
issue – Petty & Cacioppo, 1981
…the categorisation of a stimulus object along an evaluative dimension – Zanna &
Rempel, 1988

… an association in memory between a given object and a given summary evaluation

of the object” – Fazio, 1995
…a psychological tendency that is expressed by evaluating a particular entity with
some degree of favour or disfavour” – Eagly & Chaiken, 1993
… a general and enduring positive or negative feeling about some person, object, or
issue – Petty & Cacioppo, 1981
…the categorisation of a stimulus object along an evaluative dimension – Zanna &
Rempel, 1988

An overall evaluation of an object that is based on cognitive, affective, and behavioural

information

The Function of Attitudes

Attitudes can serve functions for the individual.  Daniel Katz (1960) outlines four
functional areas:

• Knowledge. Attitudes provide meaning (knowledge) for life.  The knowledge function
refers to our need for a world which is consistent and relatively stable.  This allows us to
predict what is likely to happen, and so gives us a sense of control. Attitudes can help us
organize and structure our experience.  Knowing a person’s attitude helps us predict their
behavior. For example, knowing that a person is religious we can predict they will go to
Church.

• Self / Ego-expressive. The attitudes we express (1) help communicate who we are and
(2) may make us feel good because we have asserted our identity.  Self-expression of

3
attitudes can be non-verbal too: think bumper sticker, cap, or T-shirt slogan.  Therefore,
our attitudes are part of our identify, and help us to be aware through expression of our
feelings, beliefs and values.

• Adaptive.  If a person holds and/or expresses socially acceptable attitudes, other people
will reward them with approval and social acceptance.  For example, when people flatter
their bosses or instructors (and believe it) or keep silent if they think an attitude is
unpopular.  Again, expression can be nonverbal [think politician kissing baby].  Attitudes
then, are to do with being apart of a social group and the adaptive functions helps us fit in
with a social group. People seek out others who share their attitudes, and develop similar
attitudes to those they like.

• The ego-defensive function refers to holding attitudes that protect our self-esteem or
that justify actions that make us feel guilty.  For example, one way children might defend
themselves against the feelings of humiliation they have experienced in P.E. lessons is to
adopt a strongly negative attitude to all sport.

People whose pride has suffered following a defeat in sport might similarly adopt a
defensive attitude: “I’m not bothered, I’m sick of rugby anyway…”.  This function has
psychiatric overtones.  Positive attitudes towards ourselves, for example, have a protective
function (i.e. an ego-defensive role) in helping us reserve our self-image.

The basic idea behind the functional approach is that attitudes help a person to mediate
between their own inner needs (expression, defense) and the outside world (adaptive and
knowledge).

Functions of Attitudes Example

Imagine you are very patriotic about being British.  This might cause you to have an
ethnocentric attitude towards everything not British.  Imagine further that you are with a
group of like-minded friends. You say:

“Of course there’s no other country as good as Britain to live in.  Other places are alright in
their own way but they can’t compare with your mother county.”

(There are nods of approval all round. You are fitting in - adaptive).  The people in the
group are wearing England football shirts (This is the self-expression function).

Then imagine you go on to say:

4
“The trouble with foreigners is that they don’t speak English.  I went to France last year and
they were ignorant. Even if they could speak our language they wouldn’t do so.  I call that
unfriendly.

(Others agree with you and tell you of their similar experiences.  You are making sense of
things. This is the knowledge function).  Then someone who has never travelled takes
things a stage further…

“I don’t mind foreigners coming here on holiday…but they shouldn’t be allowed to live
here….taking our jobs and living off social security. Britain for the British is what I
say….why is it getting so you can’t get a decent job in your own country.”

(Now the others in the room join in scapegoating foreigners and demonstrating the ego
defensive function of attitudes).

Attitude (In psychology, an attitude is an expression of favor or disfavor toward a person,

place, thing, or event (the attitude object). Prominent psychologist Gordon Allport once
described attitudes "the most distinctive and indispensable concept in contemporary social
psychology.".Attitude can be formed from a person's past and present. Key topics in the
study of attitudes include attitude measurement, attitude change, and attitude-behavior
relationships.

The definition of attitude allows for one's evaluation of an attitude object to vary from
extremely negative to extremely positive, but also admits that people can also be conflicted
or ambivalent toward an object meaning that they might at different times express both
positive and negative attitude toward the same object. This has led to some discussion of
whether individual can hold multiple attitudes toward the same object. An attitude can be
as a positive or negative evaluation of people, objects, events, activities, and ideas. It could
be concrete, abstract or just about anything in your environment, but there is a debate
about precise definitions.

Eagly and Chaiken, for example, define an attitude as "a psychological tendency that is
expressed by evaluating a particular entity with some degree of favor or disfavor."

Though it is sometimes common to define an attitude as affect toward an object, affect (i.e.,
discrete emotions or overall arousal) is generally understood to be distinct from attitude as
a measure of favorability. Attitude may influence the attention to attitude objects, the use of
categories for encoding information and the interpretation, judgement and recall of
attitude-relevant information. These influences tend to be more powerful for strong
attitudes which are easily accessible and based an elaborate knowledge structure. Attitudes
may guide attention and encoding automatically, even if the individual is pursing unrelated
goals.

5
Whether attitudes are explicit (i.e., deliberately formed) versus implicit (i.e., subconscious)
has been a topic of considerable research. Research on implicit attitudes, which are
generally unacknowledged or outside of awareness, uses sophisticated methods involving
people's response times to stimuli to show that implicit attitudes exist (perhaps in tandem
with explicit attitudes of the same object). Implicit and explicit attitudes seem to affect
people's behavior, though in different ways. They tend not to be strongly associated with
each other, although in some cases they are. The relationship between them is poorly
understood.

Components of attitude

Every attitude has three components. Conents that are represented in what is called the
ABC model of attitudes: A for affective, B for behavioral, and C for cognitive. Although
every attitude has these three components, any particular attitude can be based on one
component more than another.

In other words, each component can also be the answer to the question: where does an
attitude come from? There are affectively-based attitudes, behaviorally-based attitudes,
and cognitively-based attitudes. Let's take a closer look at some examples.

Affective Component

First, the affective component refers to the emotional reaction one has toward an attitude
object. Think of someone - we'll name her Alice - who has ophidiophobia (a phobia of
snakes). A snake is an attitude object. Whenever Alice is exposed to a snake - whether she
sees one or thinks about one - she feels extreme anxiety and fear. This is only one
component of this specific attitude, though; we will discuss the other two components a
little later in this lesson.

Now, an attitude that is stemmed from or originally created by an emotion is called an

affectively-based attitude. Attitudes about hot-button issues - such as politics, sex, and
religion - tend to be affectively-based, as they usually come from a person's values. This
type of attitude is used to express and validate our moral belief or value systems.

Behavioral Component

The next component of an attitude is the behavioral component, and it refers to the way
one behaves when exposed to an attitude object. Think about Alice and her snake phobia
again. We already identified the affective component of her attitude towards snakes - fear
and anxiety. How do you think she behaves when it comes to snakes? Most likely, she
avoids them whenever possible. If she does see one, she probably screams or cries. This
behavior is the second component of that particular attitude.

6
As for attitudes that are rooted in behavior, think again about the question: where does an
attitude come from? Sometimes, we are unsure of our feelings about a particular topic.
Imagine a friend asks if you like hummus. Since you don't regularly eat hummus and can't
immediately recall what it tastes like, you think back about the times that you have eaten it.
You remember that you normally eat all of the hummus you are given, so conclude that you
must like it (or at least, that you don't dislike it). Because your attitude is determined by
observing your own behavior, this is an example of a behaviorally-based attitude.

Cognitive Component

The third and final component of an attitude is the cognitive component, and it refers to
the thoughts and beliefs one has about an attitude object. We've already determined that
Alice avoids snakes and is scared when she is exposed to them. But, what does she think
about snakes? It's likely she believes that all snakes are dangerous and gross. Beyond the
physical and emotional reactions of her phobia, there is also this cognitive component of
her attitude.

Attitudes based on facts, such as computer speed, are cognitively-based

Types of attitude:

Daniel Katz classified attitudes into four different groups based on their functions.

1. Utilitarian: provides us with general approach or avoidance tendencies

2. Knowledge: help people organize and interpret new information
3. Ego-defensive: attitudes can help people protect their self-esteem
4. Value-expressive: used to express central values or beliefs

7
Utilitarian People adopt attitudes that are rewarding and that help them avoid
punishment. In other words any attitude that is adopted in a person's own self-interest is
considered to serve a utilitarian function. Consider you have a condo, people with condos
pay property taxes, and as a result you don't want to pay more taxes. If those factors lead to
your attitude that "increases in property taxes are bad" your attitude is serving a utilitarian
function.

Knowledge People need to maintain an organized, meaningful, and stable view of the
world. That being said important values and general principles can provide a framework
for our knowledge. Attitudes achieve this goal by making things fit together and make
sense. Example:

 I believe that I am a good person.

 I believe that good things happen to good people.
 Something bad happens to Babi.
 So I believe Bob must not be a good person.

Ego-Defensive This function involves psychoanalytic principles where people use defense
mechanisms to protect themselves from psychological harm. Mechanisms include:

 Denial
 Repression
 Projection
 Rationalization

The ego-defensive notion correlates nicely with Downward Comparison Theory which
holds the view that derogating a less fortunate other increases our own subjective well-
being. We are more likely to use the ego-defensive function when we suffer a frustration or
misfortune.

Value-Expressive

 Serves to express one's central values and self-concept.

 Central values tend to establish our identity and gain us social approval thereby
showing us who we are, and what we stand for.

An example would concern attitudes toward a controversial political issue.

Attitude-Behavior Link

Strength: Reggie, who feels very passionately about the death penalty, is quite likely to
volunteer his time with an organization devoted to this cause.

8
Accessibility: Although E.J. believes that it is a good idea to vote, he wasn’t sure if he was
going to make the time to vote in the presidential election. However, on Election Day, he was
repeatedly asked by others whether he had voted, which finally led him to make a trip to his
local polling place.

Specificity: Anna’s attitude toward studying on a Saturday night while her friends are
partying is a much stronger predictor of her studying behavior on Saturday night than her
general attitude toward studying.

Social norms: Stefan’s negative attitude toward drinking and driving typically leads him to
refuse to drive after drinking. However, when he is with his high school friends, who do not
share this attitude, he sometimes drives after drinking.

Although we often describe attitudes as leading to behavior, at least under some

circumstances, the link between attitudes and behavior can go in both ways. I other words,
in some cases our behavior can lead to our attitudes. In one of the first studies to
demonstrate how effort justification can lead to attitude change, Elliott Aronson and Judson
Mills (1959) conducted a study with college women on the impact of severity of initiation
on liking for a group. Women were invited to participate in a discussion group on sex
(which was seen as an exciting thing to do), but in order to be in the group, you had to go
through a sort-of initiation

Attitudes are mainly used to sort things into good” and “bad” categories. Th e world is full
of information, but just fi guring things out and understanding them isn’t enough. You can
only make your way through a complicated world if you can sort things into good and bad.
Sure enough, ngood and bad are among the most basic categories of thought. Although
these categories are abstract, children understand them very early in life, especially the
category “bad.” In one study of children 2 to 6 years old, bad pictures were more readily
identify ed than good pictures at all ages beyond 2 years, 5 months (Rhine, Hill, &
Wandruff , 1967). Th is probably refl ects one of the most basic psychological principles:
bad is stronger than good (Baumeister, Bratslavsky, Finkenauer, & Vohs, 2001; Rozin &
Royzman, 2001). As soon as you know what something is, you start to know whether you

9
like or dislike it (Goleman, 1995a). This initial evaluation is immediate and unconscious,
occurring in the fi rst microsecond of thought. This initial evaluation even occurs for things
people have never encountered before, such as nonsense words. For example, one study
found that among English speakers the nonsense word juvalamu is very pleasing, the
nonsense word bargulum is moderately pleasing, and the nonsense word chakaka is very
displeasing (Bargh, Chaiken, Raymond, & Hymes, 1996). Although people can easily
override the initial evaluation with further thought, the initial evaluation stands if no
further thought is given. According to John Bargh, the lead author on the study (and no
doubt the inspiration for the word bargulum!), “We have yet to fi nd something the mind
regards with complete impartiality, without at least a mild judgment of liking or disliking”
(cited in Goleman, 1995a). Put another way, people have attitudes about everything.
Attitudes are tremendously helpful in making choices. Perhaps it doesn’t matter which
person you think ought to be chosen to win the prize on American Idol. When you have to
choose what courses to take next semester, however, you will fi nd that attitudes come in
very handy. Without attitudes, you face a be wildering array of options, all respectable
intellectual endeavors.

Unit V. Social Influence and Behaviour

Social Influence and Behaviour

10
 Think about the clothes you are wearing, the music you listen to, and the way you wear your
hair. All of these choices are influenced by social norms, meaning unspoken but shared rules of
conduct within a particular formal or informal group. Although these examples describe
relatively minor ways in which the social world impacts our attitudes and behavior, in some
cases the social world exerts a powerful and direct impact on our behavior. For example,
teenagers may feel pressure from others in their social groups to drink alcohol or smoke. This
type of conformity, meaning changing our opinions or behaviors to meet perceived group
norms, can occur because people fear the consequences of deviating from the norm. In some
cases the social world can even lead us to obey orders that may harm or kill people—or
ourselves (as described in the tragic case of Scott Kruger). This type of social influence
describes compliance, meaning behavior that is elicited by direct requests, and obedience,
meaning behavior that is produced by the commands of authority figures. This chapter will
examine how these different types of social influence impact our attitudes and behavior.

Social influence occurs when one's emotions, opinions, or behaviors are affected by
others. Social influence takes many forms and can be seen in conformity, socialization, peer
pressure, obedience, leadership, persuasion, sales and marketing. In 1958, Harvard
psychologist, Herbert Kelman identified three broad varieties of social influence.

1. Compliance is when people appear to agree with others, but actually keep their dissenting
opinions private.
2. Identification is when people are influenced by someone who is liked and respected, such
as a famous celebrity.
3. Internalization is when people accept a belief or behavior and agree both publicly and
privately.

Morton Deutsch and Harold Gerard described two psychological needs that lead humans to
conform to the expectations of others. These include our need to be right (informational
social influence), and our need to be liked (normative social influence). Informational
influence (or social proof) is an influence to accept information from another as evidence
about reality. Informational influence comes into play when people are uncertain, either
because stimuli are intrinsically ambiguous or because there is social disagreement.
Normative influence is an influence to conform to the positive expectations of others. In
terms of Kelman's typology, normative influence leads to public compliance, whereas
informational influence leads to private acceptance.

11
Sources of Social Influence

Taking a broad perspective, we can think of social influences at the three levels of analysis
recognized by sociologists. In a nutshell, people are influenced in many different ways by:

 Social Institutions: Organized religions, political parties, and labor unions are social
institutions that influence our attitudes, beliefs, values, and behavior.
 Interactions with Other People: The people we interact with, at home, at work, or at play
are sources of social influence.
 Individual Socialization: Individuals are as unique as fingerprints. Nevertheless, the
degree to which people will be open to social influence depends on how they are socialized.
Socialization begins in infancy. It is the process by which we are inducted into a culture or a
society. The language we speak, the ideas we hold to be true, and all the ways we are likely
to behave are products of socialization.

Nature of social influence

Informational influence happens when people change their behavior in order to be

correct. In situations where we are unsure of the correct response, we often look to others
who are better informed and more knowledgeable and use their lead as a guide for our
own behaviors. In a classroom setting, for example, this might involve agreeing with the
judgments of another classmate who you perceive as being highly intelligent.

Informational social influence occurs when one turns to the members of one's group to
obtain and accept accurate information about reality. A person is most likely to use
informational social influence in certain situations: when a situation is ambiguous, people
become uncertain about what to do and they are more likely to depend on others for the
answer; and during a crisis when immediate action is necessary, in spite of panic. Looking
to other people can help ease fears, but unfortunately they are not always right. The more
knowledgeable a person is, the more valuable they are as a resource. Thus people often
turn to experts for help. But once again people must be careful, as experts can make
mistakes too. Informational social influence often results in internalization or private
acceptance, where a person genuinely believes that the information is right.

Normative influence stems from a desire to avoid punishments (such as going along with
the rules in class even though you don't agree with them) and gain rewards (such as
behaving in a certain way in order to get people to like you).

Normative social influence occurs when one conforms to be liked or accepted by the
members of the group. This need of social approval and acceptance is part of our state of

12
humans. In addition to this, we know that when people do not conform with their group
and therefore are deviants, they are less liked and even punished by the group. Normative
influence usually results in public compliance, doing or saying something without believing
in it. The experiment of Asch in 1951 is one example of normative influence

In a reinterpretation of the original data from these experiments Hodges and Geyer (2006)
found that Asch's subjects were not so conformist after all: The experiments provide
powerful evidence for people's tendency to tell the truth even when others do not. They
also provide compelling evidence of people's concern for others and their views. By closely
examining the situation in which Asch's subjects find themselves they find that the
situation places multiple demands on participants: They include truth (i.e., expressing one's
own view accurately), trust (i.e., taking seriously the value of others' claims), and social
solidarity (i.e., a commitment to integrate the views of self and others without deprecating
either). In addition to these epistemic values, there are multiple moral claims as well: These
include the need for participants to care for the integrity and well-being of other
participants, the experimenter, themselves, and the worth of scientific research.

Deutsch & Gérard (1955) designed different situations that variated from Asch' experiment
and found that when participants were writing their answer privately, they were giving the
correct one.

Normative influence, a function of social impact theory, has three components. The
number of people in the group has a surprising effect. As the number increases, each person
has less of an impact. A group's strength is how important the group is to a person. Groups
we value generally have more social influence. Immediacy is how close the group is in time
and space when the influence is taking place. Psychologists have constructed a
mathematical model using these three factors and are able to predict the amount of
conformity that occurs with some degree of accuracy.

Baron and his colleagues conducted a second eyewitness study that focused on normative
influence. In this version, the task was easier. Each participant had five seconds to look at a
slide instead of just one second. Once again, there were both high and low motives to be
accurate, but the results were the reverse of the first study. The low motivation group
conformed 33% of the time (similar to Asch's findings). The high motivation group
conformed less at 16%. These results show that when accuracy is not very important, it is
better to get the wrong answer than to risk social disapproval.

An experiment using procedures similar to Asch's found that there was significantly less
conformity in six-person groups of friends as compared to six-person groups of strangers.
Because friends already know and accept each other, there may be less normative pressure

13
to conform in some situations. Field studies on cigarette and alcohol abuse, however,
generally demonstrate evidence of friends exerting normative social influence on each
other.

Informational influence: Hassan is trying to decide which candidate to vote for in

the upcoming school election. In order make his selection, Hassan asks some of his
friends what they think of the different candidates.

Normative influence: Aviva smokes when she is with her high school friends
because everyone else is doing it.

Types of Social Influence

Conformity

Conformity involves changing your behaviors in order to "fit in" or "go along" with the
people around you. In some cases, this social influence might involve agreeing with or
acting like the majority of people in a specific group, or it might involve behaving in a
particular way in order to be perceived as "normal" by the group.

"Conformity is the most general concept and refers to any change in behavior caused by another
person or group; the individual acted in some way because of influence from others. Note that
conformity is limited to changes in behavior caused by other people; it does not refer to effects of
other people on internal concepts like attitudes or beliefs... Conformity encompasses compliance
and obedience, because it refers to any behavior that occurs as a result of others' influence - no
matter what the nature of the influence."
(Breckler, Olson, & Wiggins, Social Psychology Alive, 2006)

Conformity is a type of social influence involving a change in behavior, belief or thinking to

align with those of others or to align with normative standards. It is the most common and
pervasive form of social influence. Social psychology research in conformity tends to
distinguish between two varieties: informational conformity (also called social proof, or
"internalization" in Kelman's terms ) and normative conformity ("compliance" in Kelman's
terms).

In the case of peer pressure, a person is convinced to do something (such as illegal drugs)
which they might not want to do, but which they perceive as "necessary" to keep a positive
relationship with other people, such as their friends. Conformity from peer pressure

14
generally results from identification within the group members, or from compliance of
some members to appease others.

Conformity is sometimes in appearance only - publicly appearing to conform (compliance)

or it may be a complete conformity that impacts an individual both publicly and privately
(conversion).

Compliance (also referred to as acquiescence) demonstrates a public conformity to a group

majority or norm while the individual continues to privately disagree or dissent, holding on
to their original beliefs or an alternative set of beliefs differing from the majority.
Compliance appears as conformity but there is a division between the public and the
private self.

Conversion includes the private acceptance that is absent in compliance. The individual’s
original behaviour, beliefs, or thinking changes to align with that of others (the influencers)
both privately as well as publicly. The individual has accepted the behavior, belief or
thinking, internalizing it and making it their own. Conversion may also refer to individual
members of a group who move from their initial (and varied) positions to the same
position which differs from any of the initial positions. The resulting group position may be
a hybrid of various aspects of individual initial positions or it may be an alternative
independent of the initial positions reached through consensus.

What appears to be conformity may in fact be congruence. Congruence occurs when an

individual’s behavior, belief or thinking is already aligned with that of the others and there
is no change.

In situations where conformity (including compliance, conversion and congruence) is

absent, there are non-conformity processes such as independence and anti-conformity.
Independence (also referred to as dissent) involves an individual, through their actions
and/or inactions, or the public expression of their beliefs or thinking, being aligned with
their personal standards but inconsistent with that of other members of the group (either
all of the group or a majority). Anti-conformity (also referred to as counter-conformity)
may appear as independence but lacks alignment with personal standards and is for the
purpose of challenging the group. Actions as well as stated opinions and beliefs are often
diametrically opposed to that of the group norm or majority. The underlying reasons for
this type of behavior may be rebelliousness/obstinacy or it may be to ensure all
alternatives and view points are given due consideration.

Conformity is the act of matching attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors to group norms. Norms
are implicit, unsaid rules, shared by a group of individuals, that guide their interactions
with others. This tendency to conform occurs in small groups and/or society as a whole,
15
and may result from subtle unconscious influences, or direct and overt social pressure.
Conformity can occur in the presence of others, or when an individual is alone. For
example, people tend to follow social norms when eating or watching television, even when
alone.

People often conform from a desire for security within a group—typically a group of a
similar age, culture, religion, or educational status. This is often referred to as groupthink: a
pattern of thought characterized by self-deception, forced manufacture of consent, and
conformity to group values and ethics, which ignores realistic appraisal of other courses of
action. Unwillingness to conform carries the risk of social rejection. Conformity is often
associated with adolescence and youth culture, but strongly affects humans of all ages.

Although peer pressure may manifest negatively, conformity can have good or bad effects
depending on the situation. Driving on the correct side of the roacould be seen as beneficial
conformity. With the right environmental influence, conforming, in early childhood years, allows
one to learn and thus, adopt the appropriate behaviours necessary to interact and develop correctly
within one's society. Conformity influences formation and maintenance of social norms, and helps
societies function smoothly and predictably via the self-elimination of behaviors seen as contrary to
unwritten rules. In this sense it can be perceived as a positive force that prevents acts that are
perceptually disruptive or dangerous. "Conformity can be defined as yielding to group pressures,
something which nearly all of us do some of the time. Suppose, for example, you go with friends to
see a film. You didn't think the film was very good, but all your friends thought that it was
absolutely brilliant. You might be tempted to conform by pretending to agree with their verdict on
the film rather than being the odd one out." (Eysenck, Psychology: An International Perspective,
2004)

Examples of Conformity

 A teenager dresses in a certain style because he wants to fit in with the rest of the guys in
his social group.
 A 20-year-old college student drinks at a sorority party because all her friends are doing it
and she does not want to be the odd one out.
 A woman reads a book for her book club and really enjoys it. When she attends her book
club meeting, the other members all disliked the book. Rather than go against the group
opinion, she simply agrees with the others that the book was terrible.
 A student is unsure about the answer to a particular question posed by the teacher. When
another student in the class provides an answer, the confused student concurs with the
answer believing that the other student is smarter and better informed.

16
Factors Influences on Conformity

Group size

Jill always voices her opinion about which type of food she prefers to eat when she is going
out to dinner with one or two friends, but when she goes out with a large group of people,
she typically defers to whatever the others seem to want.

Although conformity pressures generally increase as the size of the majority increases, a
meta-analysis suggests that conformity pressures in Asch's experiment peak once the
majority reaches about four or five in number. Moreover, a study suggests that the effects
of group size depend on the type of social influence operating. This means that in situations
where the group is clearly wrong, conformity will be motivated by normative influence; the
participants will conform in order to be accepted by the group. A participant may not feel
much pressure to conform when the first person gives an incorrect response. However,
conformity pressure will increase as each additional group member also gives the same
incorrect response.

Standing alone

After Juan saw someone cheating during the final exam in his physics class,he wasn’t sure
what to do because no one else seemed to be reporting this act. But after hearing that
another student had come forward to report the cheating, he decided to go talk to the
professor about what he had seen.

In 1961 Stanley Milgram published a study in which he utilized Asch's conformity

paradigm using audio tones instead of lines; he conducted his study in Norway and France.
He found substantially higher levels of conformity than Asch, with participants conforming
62% of the time in France and 50% of the time in Norway during critical trials. Milgram
also conducted the same experiment once more, but told participants that the results of the
study would be applied to the design of aircraft safety signals. His conformity estimates
were 56% in Norway and 46% in France, suggesting that individuals conformed slightly
less when the task was linked to an important issue. Stanley Milgram's study demonstrated
that Asch's study could be replicated with other stimuli, and that in the case of tones, there
was a high degree of conformity.

17
Demographic:

Culture : Stanley Milgram found that individuals in Norway (from a collectivistic culture)
exhibited a higher degree of conformity than individuals in France (from an individualistic
culture). Similarly, Berry studied two different populations: the Temne (collectivists) and
the Inuit (individualists) and found that the Temne conformed more than the Inuit when
exposed to a conformity task.

Bond and Smith compared 134 studies in a meta-analysis and found that Japan and Brazil
were two nations that conformed a lot whereas Europe and the United States of America
did not as much. Bond and Smith also reported that conformity has declined in the United
States over time.

Gender

Societal norms often establish gender differences and researchers have reported
differences in the way men and women conform to social influence. For example, Alice
Eagly and Linda Carli performed a meta-analysis of 148 studies of influenceability. They
found that women are more persuadable and more conforming than men in group pressure
situations that involve surveillance. In situations not involving surveillance, women are less
likely to conform. Eagly has proposed that this sex difference may be due to different sex
roles in society. Women are generally taught to be more agreeable whereas men are taught
to be more independent.

The composition of the group plays a role in conformity as well. In a study by Reitan and
Shaw, it was found that men and women conformed more when there were participants of
both sexes involved versus participants of the same sex. Subjects in the groups with both
sexes were more apprehensive when there was a discrepancy amongst group members,
and thus the subjects reported that they doubted their own judgments. Sistrunk and
McDavid made the argument that women conformed more because of a methodological
bias. They argued that because stereotypes used in studies are generally male ones (sports,
cars..) more than female ones (cooking, fashion..), women are feeling uncertain and
conformed more, which was confirmed by their results.

Age

Research has noted age differences in conformity. For example, research with Australian
children and adolescents ages 3 to 17 discovered that conformity decreases with age.
Another study examined individuals that were ranged from ages 18 to 91. The results
revealed a similar trend – older participants displayed less conformity when compared to
younger participants.

18
In the same way that gender has been viewed as corresponding to status, age has also been
argued to have status implications. Berger, Rosenholtz and Zelditch suggest that age as a
status role can be observed among college students. Younger students, such as those in
their first year in college, are treated as lower-status individuals and older college students
are treated as higher-status individuals. Therefore, given these status roles, it would be
expected that younger individuals (low status) conform to the majority whereas older
individuals (high status) would be expected not to conform.

Researchers have also reported an interaction of gender and age on conformity. Eagly and
Chrvala examined the role of age (under 19 years vs. 19 years and older), gender and
surveillance (anticipating responses to be shared with group members vs. not anticipating
responses being shared) on conformity to group opinions. They discovered that among
participants that were 19 years or older, females conformed to group opinions more so
than males when under surveillance (i.e., anticipated that their responses would be shared
with group members). However, there were no gender differences in conformity among
participants who were under 19 years of age and in surveillance conditions. There were
also no gender differences when participants were not under surveillance. In a subsequent
research article, Eagly suggests that women are more likely to conform than men because
of lower status roles of women in society. She suggests that more submissive roles (i.e.,
conforming) are expected of individuals that hold low status roles. Still, Eagly and Chrvala's
results do conflict with previous research which have found higher conformity levels
among younger rather than older individuals.

Isabellina, a sophomore in high school, conforms to the behavior of her friends. However, her
younger brother, Brian, doesn’t conform to Isabellina’s friends’ behavior or to his own friends’
behavior.

Motivation

Allen often agrees with his friends when they are talking about their favorite sports teams,
even when he disagrees with their opinions. However, when they are discussing politics,
Allen adamantly expresses his opinion even when it goes against those of his friends.

Minority influence Jasmine’s strong views about the importance of distribution

requirements at her school were originally opposed by other students, but after she
forcefully and consistently described the benefits of her plan, many people came to share
her views.

Although conformity generally leads individuals to think and act more like groups,
individuals are occasionally able to reverse this tendency and change the people around
them. This is known as minority influence, a special case of informational influence.

19
Minority influence is most likely when people can make a clear and consistent case for their
point of view. If the minority fluctuates and shows uncertainty, the chance of influence is
small. However, a minority that makes a strong, convincing case increases the probability
of changing the majority's beliefs and behaviors. Minority members who are perceived as
experts, are high in status, or have benefited the group in the past are also more likely to
succeed.

Another form of minority influence can sometimes override conformity effects and lead to
unhealthy group dynamics. A 2007 review of two dozen studies by the University of Washington
found that a single "bad apple" (an inconsiderate or negligent group member) can substantially
increase conflicts and reduce performance in work groups. Bad apples often create a negative
emotional climate that interferes with healthy group functioning. They can be avoided by careful
selection procedures and managed by reassigning them to positions that require less social
interaction

Factors That Influence Conformity(Catherine Anderson)

 The difficulty of the task: Difficult tasks can lead to both increased and decreased
conformity. Not knowing how to perform a difficult task makes people more likely to
conform, but increased difficulty can also make people more accepting of different
responses, leading to less conformity
 Individual differences: Personal characteristics such as motivation to achieve a.nd
strong leadership abilities are linked with a decreased tendency to conform.The size of
the group: People are more likely to conform in situations that involve between three
and five other people.
 Characteristics of the situation: People are more likely to conform in
ambiguoussituations where they are unclear about how they should respond.
 Cultural differences: Researchers have found that people from collectivist cultures are
more likely to conform.

Compliance
Compliance is the act of responding favorably to an explicit or implicit request offered by
others. Technically, compliance is a change in behavior but not necessarily attitude- one
can comply due to mere obedience, or by otherwise opting to withhold one’s private
thoughts due to social pressures. According to Kelman’s 1958 paper, the satisfaction
derived from compliance is due to the social effect of the accepting influence (i.e. people
comply for an expected reward or punishment-aversion).

20
What Is Compliance?

In psychology, compliance refers to changing one's behavior due to the request or direction
of another person. It is going along with the group or changing a behavior to fit in with the
group, while still disagreeing with the group. Unlike obedience, in which the other
individual is in a position of authority, compliance does not rely upon being in a position of
power or authority over others.

 "Compliance refers to a change in behavior that is requested by another person or group;

the individual acted in some way because others asked him or her to do so (but it was
possible to refuse or decline.)" (Breckler, Olson, & Wiggins, 2006).
 "Situations calling for compliance take many forms. These include a friend's plea for help,
sheepishly prefaced by the question "Can you do me a favor?" They also include the pop-up
ads on the Internet designed to lure you into a commercial site and the salesperson's pitch
for business prefaced by the dangerous words "Have I got a deal for you!" Sometimes the
request is up front and direct; what you see is what you get. At other times, it is part of a
subtle and more elaborate manipulation." (Kassin, Fein, & Markus, 2011)

Techniques / Used to Gain Compliance

Compliance is a major topic of interest within the field of consumer psychology. This
specialty area focuses on the psychology of consumer behavior, including how sellers can
influence buyers and persuade them to purchase goods and services. Marketers often rely
on a number of different strategies to obtain compliance from consumers. Some of these
techniques include:

 The "Door-in-the-Face" Technique

In this approach, marketers start by asking for a large commitment. When the other person
refuses, they then make a smaller and more reasonable request. For example, imagine that a
business owner asks you to make a large investment in a new business opportunity. After
you decline the request, the business owner asks if you could at least make a small product
purchase to help him out. After refusing the first offer, you might feel compelled to comply
with his second appeal.
 The "Foot-in-the-Door" Technique
In this approach, marketers start by asking for and obtaining a small commitment. Once you
have already complied with the first request, you are more likely to also comply with a
second, larger request. For example, your co-worker asks if you fill in for him for a day.
After you say yes, he then asks if you could just continue to fill in for the rest of the week.
 The "That's-Not-All" Technique
Have you ever found yourself watching a television infomercial? Once a product has been
pitched, the seller then adds an additional offer before the potential purchaser has made a
decision. "That's not all," the salesperson might suggest, "If you buy a set of widgets now,

21
 we'll throw in an extra widget for free!" The goal is to make the offer as appealing as
possible.
 The "Lowball" Technique
This strategy involves getting a person to make a commitment and then raising the terms or
stakes of that commitment. For example, a salesperson might get you to agree to buy a
particular cell phone plan at a low price before adding on a number of hidden fees that then
make the plan much more costly.
 Ingratiation
This approach involves gaining approval from the target in order to gain their compliance.
Strategies such as flattering the target or presenting oneself in a way that appeals to the
individual are often used in this approach.
 Reciprocity
People are more likely to comply if they feel that the other person has already done
something for them. We have been socialized to believe that if people extend a kindness to
us, then we should return the favor. Researchers have found that the reciprocity effect is so
strong that it can work even when the initial favor is uninvited or comes from someone we
do not like.

Factors That Influence Compliance

 People are more likely to comply when they believe that they share something in common
with the person making the request.
 When group affiliation is important to people, they are more likely to comply with social
pressure. For example, if a college student places a great deal of importance on belonging to
a college fraternity, they are more likely to go along with the group's requests even if it goes
against their own beliefs or wishes.
 The likelihood of compliance increases with the number of people present. If only one or
two people are present, a person might buck the group opinion and refuse to comply.
 Being in the immediate presence of a group makes compliance more likely.

Obedience;

During the 1950s, a psychologist Stanley Milgram became intrigued with the conformity
experiments performed by Solomon Asch. Asch's work had demonstrated that people could
easy be influenced to conform to group pressure, but Milgram wanted to see just how far
people would be willing to go. After the horrors of the Holocaust, some people explained
their participation in the mayhem by suggesting that they were simply following orders.
Milgram wanted to know – would people really harm another person if they were ordered
to by an authority figure?

22
Milgram's experiments set the stage for future investigations into obedience, and the
subject quickly became a hot topic within social psychology. But what exactly do
psychologists mean when they talk about obedience?

Obedience involves performing an action under the orders of an authority figure. It differs
from compliance (which involves changing your behavior at the request of another person)
and conformity (which involves altering your behavior in order to go along with the rest of
the group). Instead, obedience involves altering your behavior because a figure of authority
has told you to.

Obedience is a form of social influence that derives from an authority figure. The Milgram
Experiment, Zimbardo’s Stanford prison experiment, and the Hofling hospital experiment are
three particularly well-known experiments on obedience, and they all conclude that humans
behave surprisingly obedient in the presence of perceived legitimate authority figures.

Obedience, in human behavior, is a form of "social influence in which a person yields to

explicit instructions or orders from an authority figure".Obedience is generally
distinguished from compliance, which is behavior influenced by peers, and from
conformity, which is behavior intended to match that of the majority. Obedience can be
seen as immoral, amoral and moral. For example, in a situation when one orders a person
to kill another innocent person and he or she does so willingly, it is generally considered to
be immoral. However, when one orders a person to kill an enemy who will end many
innocent lives and he or she does so willingly, it can be deemed moral.

Humans have been shown to be obedient in the presence of perceived legitimate authority
figures, as shown by the Milgram experiment in the 1960s, which was carried out by
Stanley Milgram to find out how the Nazis managed to get ordinary people to take part in
the mass murders of the Holocaust. The experiment showed that obedience to authority
was the norm, not the exception. Regarding obedience, Milgram said that "Obedience is as
basic an element in the structure of social life as one can point to; Some system of authority
is a requirement of all communal living, and it is only the man dwelling in isolation who is
not forced to respond, through defiance or submission, to the commands of others." A
similar conclusion was reached in the Stanford prison experiment.

Factors affecting obedience

Obedience occurs in several situations; most often referred to is the obedience of soldiers to a
superior officer.

23
When the Milgram experimenters were interviewing potential volunteers, the participant
selection process itself revealed several factors that affected obedience, outside of the
actual experiment.

Interviews for eligibility were conducted in an abandoned complex in Bridgeport,

Connecticut. Despite the dilapidated state of the building, the researchers found that the
presence of a Yale professor as stipulated in the advertisement affected the number of
people who obeyed. This was not further researched to test obedience without a Yale
professor because Milgram had not intentionally staged the interviews to discover factors
that affected obedience. A similar conclusion was reached in the Stanford prison
experiment.

In the actual experiment, prestige or the appearance of power was a direct factor in
obedience—particularly the presence of men dressed in gray laboratory coats, which gave
the impression of scholarship and achievement and was thought to be the main reason why
people complied with administering what they thought was a painful shock. A similar
conclusion was reached in the Stanford prison experiment.

The research was also conducted with amazing verve and subtlety—for example, Milgram
ensured that the "experimenter" wears a grey lab coat rather than a white one, precisely
because he did not want subjects to think that the "experimenter" was a medical doctor
and thereby limit the implications of his findings to the power of physician authority.

Despite the fact that prestige is often thought of as a separate factor, it is, in fact, merely a
subset of power as a factor. Thus, the prestige conveyed by a Yale professor in a laboratory
coat is only a manifestation of the experience and status associated with it and/or the
social status afforded by such an image.

24
Factors Leading to Obedience

Participant: Very little evidence suggests that participant characteristics have a

strong influence on obedience, although people who are high in authoritarianism
are somewhat more obedient than others.

Authority: The nature of the authority figure clearly affected obedience in the
Milgram studies. Although rates of obedience were quite high when the authority
figure was seen as an expert, they dropped substantially when another participant
served as the authority.

Procedure: Another factor that contributed to the high rate of obedience in the
Milgram studies was the procedure used. When the participant and the learner
were in the same room, and when the experimenter simply gave instructions by
phone, obedience droppedsubstantially.

Summary

Two Types of Social Influence

Normative influence involves going along with the crowd in order to be liked
and accepted.

• People from collectivist countries are more likely to be infl uenced by group
norms than are people from individualist countries.

• Conformity increases as group size increases (up to a point, then it levels off ).

• People will conform to a group in which everyone agrees, but if there is any sort
of disagreement among group members, then people become willing to stand up
for what they believe and go against the majority.

• People who deviate from a group are often rejected by the group.

• Group norms are the beliefs or behaviors a group of people accepts as normal.

Informational influence involves going along with the crowd because you think the crowd
knows more than you do, such as when

• Th e situation is ambiguous, so people do not know how to behave.

• There is a crisis and people don’t have time to think for themselves.

25
Techniques of Social Influence

• Th e foot-in-the-door technique gets someone to comply with a large request by first

making a small request.

• Th e low-ball technique involves shifting from a smaller request to a larger request

after the person has committed to the small request.

• The bait-and-switch technique involves making a great off er and then switching to a less
desirable offer.

• The labeling technique involves assigning a label to an individual and then requesting

a favor that is consistent with that label. Th e legitimization-ofpaltry- favors technique

involves asking for a very small contribution in order to get a larger contribution.

• The door-in-the-face technique involves making an infl ated request (that will most

likely be rejected) and then retreating to a smaller request. (It only works if the fi rst request
is not too extreme and if the same person makes both requests.)

• The that’s-not-all technique begins with an infl ated request but is quickly followed

by a discount or bonus.

• According to the scarcity principle, rare opportunities are more valuable than plentiful
opportunities.

• With the limited-number technique, the customer is told that items exist in a limited

supply.

UNIT: VI

Aggression and Antisocial Behavior

How do social psychologists define aggression?

Aggression (psy defn) any form of behavior directed toward the goal of harming or injuring
another living being who is motivated to avoid such harm. Aggression as behavior
distinguishable from emotions that may or may not accompany it (anger); motives that may or
may not underlie it (the desire to inflict pain); or the negative attitudes that sometimes facilitate
its occurrence (prejudice)

Aggression and intention - acts intended to harm; difficulties inherent in determining intent -
inferred; however, if reference to intent was removed from the definition then we would have

26
 to include many non-aggressive acts as aggressive. Also, incidences of aggression do occur
where the intent to harm fails. That's why it is essential to define aggression, not only, as
behavior that inflicts harm or injury to others but rather as any action directed toward the
goal of harming (inflicting aversive consequences) aggression is directed at living beings that
are motivated to avoid the harm

 2 types of destructive aggression: instrumental - to attain a goal ;

Hostile - aggression as an ends in itself - thrill killing; comes from anger

What are the various perspectives on aggression and violent behaviour?

There is ample evidence of the long history of human involvement in aggression and
violence.  The 5,600 years of recorded human history, for example, include 14,600 wars, a
rate of more than 2.6 per year.  Perspectives on aggression and violence emerge from the
basic perspectives of psychology:

 Biological:  Aggressive behaviour is basically physiological and genetic in origin.  Humans

are pre-programmed to aggressively defend themselves, family and territory from
intruders.  Lorenz (1966) believed that aggression is an inherited instinct of both humans
and animals.  According to Dollard (1939) people who are frustrated, thwarted, annoyed or
threatened will behave aggressively, since aggression is a natural, almost automatic
response to frustrating circumstances (Gross and McIlveen, 1998, p. 544). 
 Socio-developmental influences:  Social learning theorists emphasize the roles that family
members, members of one's sub-culture and symbolic models provided by the mass media
play in producing conditions in which the child (1) has many opportunities to observe
aggression, (2) is reinforced for his or her own aggression, or (3) is often the object of
aggression.  Children learn not only how to aggress, but also when to aggress, and against
whom to aggress (Bandura, 1973).  Although reinforcement is important in the
development and maintenance of aggressive behaviour, children are capable of acquiring
aggressive behaviour simply by watching someone else do it.  Parents play at least four
different roles in the raising of children:
o They are usually the child's first partner in social interaction and teach the child
how to interpret the social environment.
o They are manager's of the child's behaviour, enforcing rules and setting standards of
conduct both within and outside the home.
o They provide models for the child to imitate.
o They serve as teachers, directly supplying information, imparting values and
encouraging particular attitudes and manners (Alcock et al., 1998, p. 302).
 Cognitive:  Huesmann and Guerra (1997) suggests that social behaviour in general, and
aggressive behaviour in particular, are controlled largely by cognitive scripts learned and
memorized through daily experiences.  A script suggests what events are to happen in the
environment, how the person should behave in response to these events, and what the
likely outcome of those behaviours would be.  Each script is different and unique to each
person, but once established through repetition they become resistant to change.
o A revised frustration-aggression hypothesis suggests the following steps:  (1) The
person is blocked from obtaining an expected goal; (2) frustration results
generating anger; and (3) anger predisposes or readies the person to behave

27
 aggressively.  Whether the person actually engages in aggressive actions will
depend in part on his or her learning history, interpretation of the event and
individual way of responding to frustration.
 Aggression as a personality trait:  Our personalities are influenced both by learning and by
genetic factors (for example, newborns differ in the degree to which they emotionally react
to loud noises).  The problem is that there is no single cluster of traits that describe the
aggressive person.  However, there are a number of individual characteristics that have a
bearing on aggressiveness:
o The lower the person's IQ the harder it may be to learn coping and conflict
resolution skills.  In fact, success at any endeavour may be more difficult for children
of lower intelligence, leading to more frustration and more aggression.
o Aggressive individuals often possess inflated self-esteem, and in consequence, are
more likely to view the feedback they receive from the world around them as very
inadequate, given their perceived self-importance, and then react with aggression.
o In most parts of the world, most males are concerned with being properly
“masculine”.  Being masculine or “macho” is often associated with being a “jock”. 
And indeed, organized sports may implicitly teach boys that masculinity and
aggressiveness go hand in hand. 
o Authoritarianism is a personality type characterized by cognitive rigidity, prejudice,
and an excessive concern for power.
o Self-control:  Having weak self-control leads to obvious problems of aggressiveness.
 Environmental:  Aggression is a result of population density or overcrowding.  Males in
same-gender, over-crowded groups were more aggressive and hostile than males in same-
gender, uncrowded groups.  The reverse was true for females.  There is also some tentative
evidence that population density within the home may play a role in aggressive behaviour
and crime (Alcock et al., 1998, p. 298-320).
 Mass media:  There are four scenes of violence portrayed on network television to every
one scene expressing affection.  On average, American children see more than 100 000
violent episodes and some 20 000 murders on television before reaching adolescence
(Meyers, 1996).  Other surveys indicate that news coverage of violence against women and
children was not used to educate the public but rather to fascinate and entertain.  Television
violence, in particular, has a significant effect on the frequency and type of aggressive
behaviour expressed by adults and children.  Aggressive children watch more media
violence, identify more with violent characters, and believe more that the violence they
observe reflects real life than non-aggressive children (Lefton et al., 2000, p. 480)

What influence does gender have on aggression?

Are males more aggressive than females?  The answer depends on what kind of aggression
and how much.  Statistics Canada confirms that, in this country, males are much more likely
than females to be arrested and convicted for violent acts.  Does this mean that large
differences actually exist between males and females with respect to overt aggression? 
One the one hand, males do seem to be more likely both to instigate aggression and to be its
target.  On the other hand, research reveals that the size of the difference is relatively small
– compared to what is shown in crime statistics.  The tendency for males to engage in
aggressive actions is greater for physical forms of aggression (hitting, kicking, use of
weapons) than for other forms of aggression (yelling at people, treating them in a
condescending manner).  In fact, recent findings indicate that females are more likely to

28
engage in various indirect forms of aggression, such as spreading rumours about another
person, rejecting someone as a friend, or ignoring or avoiding a target person (Baron et al.,
1998, p. 418).

What are the contemporary theories of aggression?

 Instinct theories:  According to Hobbes (1651) people are naturally competitive and hostile,
interested only in their own power and gaining advantage over others.  Two theories which
share Hobbe’s pessimistic views about people’s nature are those proposed by Freud and
Lorenz.
 Psychoanalytic approach:  According to Freud, the purpose of all instincts is to reduce
tension or excitation to a minimum and, ultimately, to totally eliminate them.  For Freud,
just as we need to eat, drink and express our sexual needs periodically, so we need to
express our hostile and destructive impulses periodically.
 Ethological approach:  Lorenz saw aggression as being instinctive, with aggressive energy
needing to be released periodically if it is not to build up to dangerously high levels.  Lorenz
(1966) argued that aggression is instinctive in all species because it is adaptive, that is, it
allows animals to adapt to their environment, survive in it, and successfully reproduce.
 Behavioural Approach:  Dollard (1939) argued that aggression would only be elicited in
specific situations, in other words, aggression is always a consequence of frustration and
conversely, the existence of frustration acts as a stimulus to aggressive behaviour. 
Berkowitz, however, pointed out that aggression, like any other behaviour, can be
reinforced.  Berkowitz proposed that frustration produces anger rather than aggression. 
For Berkowitz, then, whilst we might become angry as a response to frustration, aggressive
behaviour will only be elicited when certain environmental stimuli are present.
 Social Learning Theory:  According to social learning theory, aggressive behaviours are
learned through the reinforcement and imitation of aggressive models.  Imitation is the
reproduction of learning through observation and aggressive tendencies can be
strengthened through vicarious reinforcement (seeing others being rewarded for behaving
aggressively).
 Cognitive Theory:  According to Zillman (1982) arousal from one source can be transferred
to, and energise, some other response.  This is because arousal takes time to be processed
and dissipate.  When we are aroused, aggression may be heightened provided that that
aroused person has some disposition to act aggressively and according to the attributions
the aroused person makes.
 Social constructivist approach:  Mummendey (1996) has proposed that whether or not a
behaviour is aggressive or non-aggressive depends on whether the behaviour is judged to
be aggressive either by an observer or by the performer.  Mummendey's research suggests
that the intention to harm, actual harm and social or cultural norm violation are the main
criteria people use to label behaviour as aggressive (Gross and McIlveen, 1998, p. 542-548).

Aggression Definition:

The term aggression comes from the Latin aggressio, meaning attack. The Latin was itself a
joining of ad- and gradi-, which meant step at. The first known use dates back to 1611, in
the sense of an unprovoked attack. A psychological sense of "hostile or destructive

29
behavior: dates back to 1912, in an English translation of the writing of Sigmund Freud.
Alfred Adler had theorized about an "aggressive drive: in 1908. Child raising experts began
to refer to aggression rather than anger from the 1930s

In psychology, the term aggression refers to a range of behaviors that can result in both
physical and psychological harm to oneself, other or objects in the environment. The
expression of aggression can occur in a number of ways, including verbally, mentally and
physically.

Forms of Aggression

Aggression can take a variety of forms, including:

 Physical
 Verbal
 Mental
 Emotional

Purposes of Aggression

Aggression can also serve a number of different purposes:

 To express anger or hostility

 To assert dominance
 To intimidate or threaten
 To achieve a goal
 To express possession
 A response to fear
 A reaction to pain
 To compete with others

Researchers have suggested that individual who engage in affective aggression, defined as
aggression that is unplanned and uncontrolled, tend to have lower IQs than people who
display predatory aggression. Predatory aggression is defined as aggression that is
controlled, planned and goal-oriented.

Aggressive behaviors include physical aggression, and social/relational aggression (which

relates to behavior that is intended to harm another’s friendships, social status, or self
esteem).  In very young children, some level of physical aggression toward siblings, peers,
and adults is common.  However, children and youth who persist in aggressive behaviors
are at higher risk for alcohol and drug abuse, injuries, violent criminality, depression,
suicide attempts, and domestic violence (Tremblay, Nagin, Seguin, Zoccolillo, Zelazo,
Boivin, Perusse, & Japel, 2004; Goldstein, Young, & Boyd, 2008).

Aggression is overt, often harmful, social interaction with the intention of inflicting
damage or other unpleasantness upon another individual. It is a virtually universal

30
behavior among animals. It may occur either in retaliation or without provocation. In
humans, frustration due to blocked goals can cause aggression. Submissiveness may be
viewed as the opposite of aggressiveness.

Two broad categories of aggression are commonly distinguished. One includes affective
(emotional) and hostile, reactive, or retaliatory aggression that is a response to
provocation, and the other includes instrumental, goal-oriented or predatory, in which
aggression is used as a mean to achieve a goal. An example of hostile aggression would be a
person who punches someone who insulted him or her. An instrumental form of aggression
would be armed robbery. Research on violence from a range of disciplines lend some
support to a distinction between affective and predatory aggression. However, some
researchers question the usefulness of a hostile vs instrumental distinction in humans,
despite its ubiquity in research, because most real-life cases involve mixed motives and
interacting causes

Antisocial behavior

Definition

Antisocial behaviors are disruptive acts characterized by covert and overt hostility and
intentional aggression toward others. Antisocial behaviors exist along a severity continuum
and include repeated violations of social rules, defiance of authority and of the rights of
others, deceitfulness, theft, and reckless disregard for self and others. Antisocial behavior
can be identified in children as young as three or four years of age. If left unchecked these
coercive behavior patterns will persist and escalate in severity over time, becoming a
chronic behavioral disorder.

Description

Antisocial behavior may be overt, involving aggressive actions against siblings, peers,
parents, teachers, or other adults, such as verbal abuse, bullying and hitting; or covert,
involving aggressive actions against property, such as theft, vandalism, and fire-setting.
Covert antisocial behaviors in early childhood may include noncompliance, sneaking, lying ,
or secretly destroying another's property. Antisocial behaviors also include drug and
alcohol abuse and high-risk activities involving self and others.

31
Demographics

Between 4 and 6 million American children have been identified with antisocial behavior
problems. These disruptive behaviors are one of the most common forms of
psychopathology, accounting for half of all childhood mental health referrals.

Gender differences in antisocial behavior patterns are evident as early as age three or four.
There has been far less research into the nature and development pattern of antisocial
behavior in girls. Pre-adolescent boys are far more likely to engage in overtly aggressive
antisocial behaviors than girls. Boys exhibit more physical and verbal aggression, whereas
antisocial behavior in girls is more indirect and relational, involving harmful social
manipulation of others. The gender differences in the way antisocial behavior is expressed
may be related to the differing rate of maturity between girls and boys. Physical aggression
is expressed at the earliest stages of development, then direct verbal threats, and, last,
indirect strategies for manipulating the existing social structure.

Antisocial behaviors may have an early onset, identifiable as soon as age four, or late onset,
manifesting in middle or late adolescence. Some research indicates that girls are more
likely than boys to exhibit late onset antisocial behavior. Late onset antisocial behaviors are
less persistent and more likely to be discarded as a behavioral strategy than those that first
appear in early childhood.

As many as half of all elementary school children who demonstrate antisocial behavior
patterns continue these behaviors into adolescence, and as many as 75 percent of
adolescents who demonstrate antisocial behaviors continue to do so into early adulthood.

Causes and symptoms

Antisocial behavior develops and is shaped in the context of coercive social interactions
within the family , community, and educational environment. It is also influenced by the
child's temperament and irritability, cognitive ability, the level of involvement with deviant
peers, exposure to violence, and deficit of cooperative problem-solving skills. Antisocial
behavior is frequently accompanied by other behavioral and developmental problems such
as hyperactivity, depression, learning disabilities, and impulsivity.

Multiple risk factors for development and persistence of antisocial behaviors include
genetic, neurobiological, and environmental stressors beginning at the prenatal stage and
often continuing throughout the childhood years.

Genetic factors are thought to contribute substantially to the development of antisocial

behaviors. Genetic factors, including abnormalities in the structure of the prefrontal cortex
of the brain, may play a role in an inherited predisposition to antisocial behaviors.

Neurobiological risks include maternal drug use during pregnancy, birth complications,
low birth weight, prenatal brain damage, traumatic head injury, and chronic illness.

32
High-risk factors in the family setting include the following:

 parental history of antisocial behaviors

 parental alcohol and drug abuse
 chaotic and unstable home life
 absence of good parenting skills
 use of coercive and corporal punishment
 parental disruption due to divorce , death, or other separation
 parental psychiatric disorders, especially maternal depression
 economic distress due to poverty and unemployment

Heavy exposure to media violence through television, movies, Internet sites, video games,
and even cartoons has long been associated with an increase in the likelihood that a child
will become desensitized to violence and behave in aggressive and antisocial ways.
However, research relating the use of violent video games with antisocial behavior is
inconsistent and varies in design and quality, with findings of both increased and decreased
aggression after exposure to violent video games.

Companions and peers are influential in the development of antisocial behaviors. Some
studies of boys with antisocial behaviors have found that companions are mutually
reinforcing with their talk of rule breaking in ways that predict later delinquency and
substance abuse. Resources

Coloroso, Barbara. The Bully, the Bullied, and the Bystander. New York: Harper Collins, 2003.  

Summary

Aggression (psy defn) any form of behavior directed toward the goal of harming or
injuring another living being who is motivated to avoid such harm

Aggression as behavior distinguishable from emotions that may or may not accompany
it (anger); motives that may or may not underlie it (the desire to inflict pain); or the
negative attitudes that sometimes facilitate its occurrence (prejudice)

 Aggression and intention - acts intended to harm; difficulties inherent in

determining intent - inferred; however, if reference to intent was removed from the
definition then we would have to include many non-aggressive acts as aggressive. Also,
incidences of aggression do occur where the intent to harm fails. That's why it is
essential to define aggression, not only, as behavior that inflicts harm or injury to
others but rather as any action directed toward the goal of harming (inflicting
aversive consequences). Aggression is directed at living beings that are motivated to
avoid the harm.

2 types of destructive aggression: instrumental - to attain a goal ;

33
 hostile - aggression as an ends in itself - thrill killing; comes from anger

Why do people behave aggressively? What causes aggressive behavior?

There are many explanations but most fall into 3 distinct categories or theoretical
perspectives:

1) person centered (instinctual)

2) Situation centered (behavioral, environmental)

3) interactionist (cognitive)

 Theoritical Perspective on Agression

Instinctual theories

First given scientific prominence by Charles Darwin (1871/1948), the instinct theory of
aggression viewed aggressive behavior as an evolutionary adaptation that had enabled animals
and then humans to survive better. Th is instinct presumably developed during the course of
evolution because it promoted survival of the species. Because fighting is closely linked to
mating, the aggressive instinct helped ensure that only the strongest individuals would pass on
their genes to future generations Sigmund Freud argued that human motivational forces, such
as sex and aggression, are based on instincts. An instinct is an innate (inborn, biologically
programmed) tendency to seek a particular goal, such as food, water, or sex. In his early
writings, Freud proposed the drive for sensory and sexual gratification as the primary human
instinct. He called this constructive, life-giving instinct eros. 

Innate theories of aggression share a common link in that they describe something within the
person that is responsible for aggressive tendencies, and that this is not a learned behavior.
Let’s examine two of the most famous theories.

Lorenz’s instinct theory. Konrad Lorenz also saw aggression as a natural and instinctual
motivation (Lorenz, 1966, 1974). According to Lorenz’s instinct theory, people’s innate desire
to live leads to our desire to aggress against others. This instinct to aggress would develop
because only those animals that were aggressive would ensure that they (and their offspring)
would survive (e.g., by securing food, shelter, protection from predators, etc.). evolutionary
psychology, propose that the drive for aggression is evolutionarily adaptive because those who
are aggressive have a greater likelihood of living (for themselves and their offspring). These

34
theorists suggest that this is why in virtually all societies men are more aggressive than women
(because aggression is how men obtain status and hence the best females). Thi th also explains
why parents are much more likely to abuse and murder stepchildren wiwhom they don’t share
genes, than biological children (Daly & bWilson, 1996). It also explains why sexual jealousy,
caused by men’s concern that they will expend resources on another man’s child, often leads to
aggression (Buss, 1995; Buss & Shackleford, 1997; Wilson & Daly, 1996).

Role of Genetics for aggression

Considerable research points to the role of genetic factors in influencing aggression (DiLalla &
Gottesman, 1991). One meta-analysis suggests that up to 50% of the variance in aggression may
be caused by genetic factors (Miles & Carey, 1997). In support of the view that genetics
influences aggression, marked individual differences in rates of aggression are seen even by age
three (Deluty, 1985; Olweus, 1979). In one study, researchers examined interpersonal behavior
during school over an 8-month period in 50 children (22 boys, 28 girls) in 3rd, 4th, and 5th
grade (Deluty, 1985). Researchers were trained to identify and count particular types of
aggressive behavior, such as physical attacks (biting, hitting), verbal attacks (teasing,
ridiculing), shouting, and bossing other children. The children were then watched by the
observers (in unobtrusive ways) in a number of different types of school settings, including
reading silently during class, taking tests, rehearsing for a play, participating in art and music
classes, and playing at recess. Findings revealed that boys showed remarkable consistency in
their expression of aggression, meaning that boys who engaged in more of one type of
aggression also engaged in more of other types of aggression. Although girls showed less
consistency in the types of aggressive behavior they engaged in than did boys, relatively
consistent associations between different types of aggressive behavior were also seen in girls.
These findings reveal that the frequency of aggressive behavior is quite high across different
types of school situations as well as in different measures of aggression, and suggest that
genetic factors may be associated with the frequency of aggressive behavior. (See Rate Yourself
to test your nown level of aggression.)

Role of Hormones for aggression

In virtually all societies, males are more aggressive than females. One theory about the causes of
these gender differences in aggression is the presence of the male sex hormone testosterone
(Mazur & Booth, 1998; Olweus, Mattsson, Schalling, & Low, 1988; Susman, Inoff-Germain,
Nottelman, & Loriaux, 1987). In line with this view, people who are highly aggressive have
higher levels of testosterone than those who are less aggressive: boys ages 5 to 11 who are
aggressive show higher levels of testosterone (Chance, Brown, Dabbs, & Casey, 2000);
delinquent and violent people have higher testosterone levels than do college students (Banks
& Dabbs, 1996). Among inmates who commit homicide, those high in testosterone more often
knew their victims and planned their crimes ahead of time (Dabbs, Riad, & Chance, 2001). As
described at the start of this section, men with higher levels of testosterone are more likely to
commit personal crimes than property crimes, and are more likely to violate rules while they
are in prison (Dabbs et al., 1995).Testosterone rates are also correlated with level of violence in

35
 women.Researchers examined rates of testosterone and levels of aggression in femaleprison
inmates (Dabbs & Hargrove, 1997). As predicted, women who were ratedas highly aggressive
by guards (such as behaving physically aggressive to others and repeatedly breaking rules) had
higher rates of testosterone than those who were neutral or passive in their behavior. Research
Foc us on Gender describes other gender differences in aggression.

Biological Factors Leading to Aggression

Factor Example

Instinct and evolutionary theories Hong Li sees life as “kill or be killed,” and wants to make
sure that he comes out ahead. He reacts angrily when he sees his girlfriend talking to other
men, and tries to quickly interrupt such conversations.

Genetics As a child, Matt was aggressive—he was always fighting with other children on the
playground and frequently came home with black eyes and a bloody nose. Matt is now 16
and has just been arrested for assault.

Hormones Carla is high in testosterone. She experiences high levels of tension in daily life, is
easily frustrated, and responds very assertively to even mild provocation.

Social Learning Theory

According to social learning theory (Bandura, 1973, 1983; Mischel, 1973; Mischel & Shoda,
1995), aggression is not an innate drive like hunger in search of gratification. People learn
aggressive behaviors the same way they learn other social behaviors—by direct experience and
by observing others. In social learning theory, the shift is from internal causes to external ones.
When people observe and copy thebehavior of others, this is called modeling.

Modeling can weaken or strengthen aggressive responding. If the model is rewarded for
behaving aggressively, further aggression (both by the model and by the observer) becomes
more likely. If the model is punished for behaving aggressively, further aggression becomes less
likely. To demonstrate the social learning of aggression, Bandura and his colleagues allowed
preschool children to watch either an aggressive adult role model, a nonaggressive model, or no
model (Bandura, Ross, & Ross, 1961, 1963). The aggressive model abused a large, infl atable
clown called a Bobo doll. Th e model laid the Bobo doll on its side, sat on it, punched it
repeatedly in the nose, and said “Sock him in the nose.” Th e model then beat the doll on the
head with a mallet and said “Hit him down.” Th e model tossed the doll up in the air and said
“Th row him in the air.” Th e model kicked the doll about the room, saying “Kick him” and
“Pow.” In contrast, the nonaggressive model played with Tinker Toys the entire time, so
children in that condition saw no aggressive activity. After 10 minutes,the experimenter
entered the room, informed the child that he or she would now go to another game room, and
said good-bye to the model. The other room contained both aggressive toys (a Bobo doll, a

36
mallet and pegboard, dart guns, and a tetherball with a face painted on it) and some
nonaggressive toys (a tea set, crayons and paper, a ball, dolls, teddy bears, cars and trucks, and
plastic farm animals). Th e point of the study was to see whether children attacked the Bobo
doll or played in some nonaggressive manner. The children who had watched the aggressive
model showed the highest levels of aggression.

Nature and Nurture

Many experts on aggression favor a middle ground in this nature-versus nurture dispute. Both
learning and instinct are relevant (e.g., Baron & Richardson, 1994; Berkowitz, 1993). As already
noted, learning clearly plays a role. People can learn how to behave aggressively. Even more
important and more commonly, they learn how to restrain aggression. People learn and mostly
obey complicated rules about aggression. Some of the most remarkable evidence of this can be
seen in American football games. Th e defensive players have to charge at the quarterback as
ferociously as they can, eager to slam into him and knock him to the ground. But they have to be
able to stop this attempted aggression at a split-second’s notice when the quarterback steps out
of bounds, or he throws the ball, or the referee blows the whistle. As for nature, it is hard to
dispute that aggression is found all over the world, and indeed some of its patterns are
universal. For example, in all known societies, most of the violence is perpetrated by young
adult men (e.g., U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2008). In no society do the majority of
violent criminals turn out to be middle-aged women,

For example.

Most likely, the Freudian theory of innate aggression needs a major overhaul. Freud and others
thought aggression was like hunger: Th e need bubbles up from inside and has to be satisfi ed in
some way. In that view, the aggressive drive is independent of circumstances. In contrast,
perhaps natural selection has led to aggressive impulses as a way to respond to certain (social)
events, such as someone else’s getting something you want. To appreciate the diff erence,
imagine what life would be like if you always got everything you wanted. According to the
Freudian view, you would still have aggressive impulses, because the aggressive drive would
still bubble up and make you want to hit people or smash things. In contrast, if aggression is
merely an innate response to not getting what you want, you might in principle never have an
aggressive impulse if you always got everything you wanted. Humans don’t have to learn to
behave aggressively. Rather, aggression seems to come naturally. They learn how to control
their aggressive impulses.

Thus, it may be natural to feel aggressive impulses in response to certain provocations. But
cultural beings learn to bring those natural impulses under control so as to follow the rules. Th
is fi ts the theme that nature says go, whereas culture says stop. All known human societies
have rules against aggression, though they may consider some aggression acceptable. For
human beings who live in culture, aggression is subject to rules and limits.

37
Inner Causes of Aggression

Frustration

In psychology, frustration is a common emotional response to opposition. Related to anger

and disappointment, it arises from the perceived resistance to the fulfillment of individual
will. The greater the obstruction, and the greater the will, the more the frustration is likely
to be. Causes of frustration may be internal or external. In people, internal frustration may
arise from challenges in fulfilling personal goals and desires, instinctual drives and needs,
or dealing with perceived deficiencies, such as a lack of confidence or fear of social
situations. Conflict can also be an internal source of frustration; when one has competing
goals that interfere with one another, it can create cognitive dissonance. External causes of
frustration involve conditions outside an individual, such as a blocked road or a difficult
task. While coping with frustration, some individuals may engage in passive–aggressive
behavior, making it difficult to identify the original cause(s) of their frustration, as the
responses are indirect. A more direct, and common response, is a propensity towards
aggression.

38
In 1939 a group of psychologists from Yale University published a book titled Frustration
and Aggression (Dollard, Doob, Miller, Mowrer, & Sears, 1939). In this book, they proposed
the frustration-aggression hypothesis, which they summarized on the fi rst page of their
book with these two bold statements:

(a) “the occurrence of aggressive behavior always presupposes the existence of

frustration,” and

(b) “the existence of frustration always leads to some form of aggression.” (Note the strong
use of “always” in both sentences; social psychologists today hardly ever dare say “always”
or “never”!)

They defined frustration as blocking or interfering with a goal. The Yale group formulated
the frustration-aggression hypothesis based on the early writings of Sigmund Freud
(1917/1961). Freud believed that people are primarily motivated to seek pleasure and
avoid pain. People were presumed to be frustrated when their pleasure-seeking or pain-
avoiding behavior was blocked. Freud regarded aggression as the “primordial reaction” to
frustration. (As we saw earlier, Freud eventually revised his theory to include an aggressive
instinct, but the Yale group favored his earlier theory.) Neal Miller (1941), one of the
original authors of Frustration and Aggression, was quick to revise the second statement of
the frustration-aggression hypothesis. He recommended that the statement be changed to
“Frustration produces instigations to a number of diff erent types of response, one of which
is an instigation to some form of aggression”. Miller continued to hold that the fi rst
statement of the hypothesis (aggression is always preceded by frustration) was true. Most
experts today think Miller and his colleagues went too far by saying “always.” There can be
aggression without frustration, and frustration without aggression. Still, there is no
denying the basic truth that aggression is increased by frustration. The Rwanda genocide
was triggered in part by frustration on the part of Hutus that the Tutsis were so much
better off than they were, even though the Tutsis were the minority group. Th ey were also
sick and tired of having a Tutsi king. Of course, frustration does not justify the Hutus’
slaughtering the Tutsis.

Frustration can be considered a problem–response behavior, and can have a number of

effects, depending on the mental health of the individual. In positive cases, this frustration
will build until a level that is too great for the individual to contend with, and thus produce
action directed at solving the inherent problem. In negative cases, however, the individual
may perceive the source of frustration to be outside of their control, and thus the
frustration will continue to build, leading eventually to further problematic behavior (e.g.
violent reaction).

Stubborn refusal to respond to new conditions affecting the goal, such as removal or
modification of the barrier, sometimes occurs. As pointed out by J.A.C. Brown, severe

39
punishment may cause individuals to continue nonadaptive behavior blindly: "Either it
may have an effect opposite to that of reward and as such, discourage the repetition of the
act, or, by functioning as a frustrating agent, it may lead to fixation and the other symptoms
of frustration as well. It follows that punishment is a dangerous tool, since it often has
effects which are entirely the opposite of those desired".

Frustration is an emotion that occurs in situations where a person is blocked from reaching
a desired outcome.  In general, whenever we reach one of our goals, we feel pleased and
whenever we are prevented from reaching our goals, we may succumb to frustration and
feel irritable, annoyed and angry. Typically, the more important the goal, the greater the
frustration and resultant anger or loss of confidence.

Frustration is not necessarily bad since it can be a useful indicator of the problems in a
person's life and, as a result, it can act as a motivator to change.  However, when it results
in anger, irritability, stress, resentment, depression, or a spiral downward where we have a
feeling of resignation or giving up, frustration can be destructive.

What Causes Frustration?

Frustration is experienced whenever the results (goals) you are expecting do not seem to
fit the effort and action you are applying. Frustration will occur whenever your actions are
producing less and fewer results than you think they should.

The frustration we experience can be seen as the result of two types of goal blockage, i.e.
internal and external sources of frustration.

Internal sources of frustration usually involve the disappointment that get when we cannot
have what we want as a result of personal real or imagined deficiencies such as a lack of
confidence or fear of social situations.  Another type of internal frustration results when a
person has competing goals that interfere with one another.

The second type of frustration results from external causes that involve conditions outside
the person such as physical roadblocks we encounter in life including other people and
things that get in the way of our goals.  One of the biggest sources of frustration in today's
world is  the frustration caused by the perception of wasting time. When you're standing in
line at a bank, or in traffic, or on the phone, watching your day go by when you have got so
much to do, that's one big frustration.

External frustration may be unavoidable. We can try to do something about it, like finding a
different route if we are stuck in traffic, or choosing a different restaurant if our first choice
is closed, but sometimes there is just nothing we can do about it.  It is just the way life is. 
Our goal in dealing with external sources of frustration is to recognize the wisdom of the
the Serenity Prayer..."God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change;

40
courage to change the things I can; and wisdom to know the difference."

One can learn that while the situation itself may be upsetting and frustrating, you do not
have to be frustrated.  Accepting life is one of the secrets of avoiding frustration.

Responses to Frustration

Some of the "typical" responses to frustration include anger, quitting (burn out or giving
up), loss of self-esteem and self-confidence, stress and depression.

Anger: There is a saying "Frustration begets anger and anger begets aggression." Direct
anger and aggression is expressed toward the object perceived as the cause of the
frustration. If a machine does not work, you might hit it or kick it. If someone gets in your
way, you could verbally threaten them or push them aside. If the source of the frustration is
too powerful or threatening for direct aggression, displaced aggression is often used. The
aggression is redirected toward a less threatening and more available object.

An angry person often acts without thinking.  The person has given in to the frustration and
they have given up restraint. Anger can be a healthy response if it motivates us to positive
action but all too often the actions we engage in when angry are destructive.  Indeed, if we
could see a videotape of ourselves getting angry, the humiliation might well help cure us of
anger. When you feel frustration building, you have to practice learned responses that lead
to healthy actions instead of destructive ones.

Giving Up: Giving up on a goal can be productive if the goal is truly out of reach.  However,
more often giving up (quitting or being apathetic) is another form of giving in to
frustration. When repeatedly frustrated, people can drop out of school, quit jobs, or move
away. Apathy is giving up all of your goals, so you cannot be frustrated by trying to reach
them.

We live in difficult time and we have to be persistent in order to accomplish.  Consider how
many projects you began, and then gave up, because you became frustrated and lost
patience. Make a list of things you started and quit because they seemed too difficult. Now
calculate the disappointment and loss you suffered by not dealing with the frustration in a
more healthy way.  Try to remember that quitters never win, and winners never quit.
Losing your temper means you're a quitter.

Loss of Confidence: Loss of confidence is a terrible frequent side effect of giving up and
not fulfilling your goal.  A loss of self-confidence and self-esteem means that If we quit once,
then the next time we plan a goal, we may not be able to accurately assess our ability to
carry it out and we stop trusting ourselves and our own abilities.  This became a self-
fulfilling and self-destructive attitude.  You  need to be able to learn that when the going
gets tough, you say to yourself  "It is worth it!" and by following through, it not only gets the

41
job done, but it builds self-confidence.

Stress: Stress is the "wear and tear" our body and mind experiences as we adjust to the
frustrations our continually changing environment.  Too frequently, extreme, or prolonged
frustration and stress strains us and generates distress signals. Our body experiences
distress signals in a variety of ways, often in the form of: irritability, anger, fatigue, anxiety,
headaches, depression, stomachaches, hypertension, migraines, ulcers, heart attacks, or
colitis.

Depression: Depression can affect almost every aspect of your life. It affects people of all
ages, income, race, and cultures. Depression can affect the way you eat and sleep, the way
you feel about yourself, the way one think about things, and the way you interact with
others. While we all feel depression at various appropriate times in our lives, excess or
inappropriate depression cannot be easily dismissed or wished away.

Other Reactions: Abuse of drugs or alcohol is self-destructive and usually futile attempt at
dealing with frustration, as are many eating and weight problems and addictive behaviors. 
Whenever the immediate effects of the addictive behavior wear off, users find themselves
back in the same, or even worse, frustrating situation.

Types of Reactions to Frustration

The reactions to frustration are also known as Defense Mechanisms. These defense
mechanisms are so called as they try to defend individuals from the psychological effects of a
blocked goal. When some employees get frustrated, they become tensed and irritable. They
experience an uneasy feeling in their stomach and also show various other reactions of
frustration.

Following are the various types of reactions to frustration :-

1. Withdrawal : Behaviours such as asking for a transfer or quitting a job.

2. Fixation : An employee blames others and superiors for his problems, without knowing
complete facts.
3. Aggression : Acting in a threatening manner.
4. Regression : Behaving in an immature and childish manner and may self-pity (to feel
sorry for oneself).
5. Physical Disorder : Physical ailments such as fever, upset stomach, vomiting, etc.
6. Apathy : Becoming irresponsive and disinterested in the job and his co-workers.

Following are the main sources or causes of frustration :-

1. Environment : The workplace environment and natural environment both may

frustrate the employees. For example, there may be break down in machinery, no

42
 canteen facilities, a wet rainy day or a hot sunny day may prevent the employees to
perform their duties efficiently.
2. Co-workers : Co-workers may be a major source of frustration. They may place
barriers in the way of goal attainment by delaying work, withholding work inputs,
poor presentation of work, affecting its quality, etc.
3. Employee Himself : The employee himself is rarely recognised as a source of
frustration. The employee may set higher goals than his abilities.
4. Management : Management may act as the source of frustration, they may block the
promotion of an employee due to change in organisation's promotional policies.

Being Bad Mood

“Every day may not be good, but there’s something good in every day.” 

Contrary to popular belief, even positive people get in bad moods.

Maybe you didn’t get enough sleep last night. Or you feel overworked and overwhelmed. Or
perhaps something happened and you keep dwelling on it, going over and over in your
head how you froze up in a meeting or spoke too aggressively to someone you love.

Whatever the case may be, you feel something you don’t want to feel and you’re not sure
how to change it. You just know you need to do something before acting on that feeling.

The reality is you don’t have to act on everything you feel. Still, emotional responses
happen so quickly that it becomes challenging to put space between feeling and
doing.

It may seem like the answer is to stop responding to life emotionally, but that’s just not
realistic. Paul Ekman, one of the foremost researchers on emotion, suggests it’s near
impossible to bypass an emotional response because of the way our brains are set up.

Perhaps the best goal is to identify negative feelings quickly and improve your state of
mind instead of responding to feelings with more feelings. Odds are, if you choose the
latter, you’ll do something you’ll regret later.

I’ve come up with ten ways to overcome a negative state of mind:

43
1. Get to the root.

If you’ve ever snapped at someone who didn’t say or do anything to offend you, you’re
familiar with this common dilemma: you feel something but you’re not entirely sure why.
So you start looking for explanations. The kids are too loud. Or the TV’s too small. Or the
car’s too dirty.

Maybe you’re afraid of acknowledging someone hurt you because you prefer to avoid
confrontation. Or maybe you’re disappointed in yourself but admitting it is too painful.
Whatever the case, it’s time to get honest. Lashing out won’t address the problems that are
creating your feelings.

2. Be real.

There’s no point in pretending you’re full of sunshine when internally you feel like crying
or screaming. You’re entitled to feel the full range of emotions and express what’s on your
mind when you need to. Don’t worry about bringing other people down; you’ll only do that
if you dwell in negativity.

If someone asks what’s wrong, be honest: “I’ve had a rough day, I don’t feel so great, but I’m
sure I’ll feel better when I…”

3. Complete the “I’ll feel better when I …” sentence.

Everyone has something that’s guaranteed to put a smile on their face. Playing with your
dog. Watching re-runs of Friends. Jump roping to bad eighties music. It’s helpful to have this
Ace in your pocket to pull out when you need a smile. (If you’re on Facebook, read more
ideas to make you smile here.)

I know yoga always enhances my mood. I also know when I feel bad I’m less motivated to
go to yoga. It helps to remind myself it will be worth it in the end if I push through my
discomfort, because yoga always helps, at least a little.

4. Take responsibility.

Sometimes when you’re down, it might feel like you have to stay there. But the truth is we
can influence how we feel by choosing what we do. Sitting around sulking causes prolonged
sadness. Doing something proactive will help you start to feel better.

When you realize you’re the only thing standing between you and a smile, you get
motivated to take action. That’s the thing about feelings: you can’t sit around waiting for
them to change. You have to do something to change them.

44
5. Think it out.

The best way to change how you feel is to change how you think about  what’s bothering
you. Instead of dwelling on what went wrong, identify what you learned and what you can
do with that knowledge to make your next moments better.

Instead of dwelling on everything that’s out of your hands, focus on things you can actually
control: how honest you are about your feelings, whether you take responsibility or blame
other people, whether you cling to pain or let go. You can’t avoid feelings, but you don’t
have to exacerbate them with negative thoughts.

6. Change the story in your head.

Sometimes when you’re in a bad mood, it’s tempting to cling to a story that justifies it, and
then retell it over and over like a picture book you’ve heard a million times. And then he
said this…And then I did this…And then I messed up…

Visualize yourself closing a book and taking a new one off the shelf. Then start telling
yourself a different story—one where you’re not a victim, one where you’re not powerless,
one where you’re accepting what happened and moving on so you don’t lose anymore time
to that other book.

7. Want to understand.

Even if something happened to create your bad mood, you’re responsible for maintaining it,
and it’s easy to do that if you refuse to see the other side of situations. If you want to believe
your best friend meant to hurt you, or the world is against you, or your boss didn’t promote
you because she’s out to get you.

Instead of fueling your anger for your friend, feel compassion for the pain she must be in;
she’d never hurt you on purpose. Instead of thinking the world is against you, put your day
in perspective; everyone has bad days. Instead of imaging your boss is out to get you,
realize she had a tough choice to make, and you’ll have more opportunities to advance
down the line.

8. Uplift yourself.

Diffuse your negative feelings by generating positive ones. Watch something funny and silly
on YouTube. Or watch something inspirational that reminds you people are good—life is
good. I recommend Validation. Every time I see it I feel good about myself and want to pay
that forward.

45
9. Use the silly voice technique.

According to Russ Harris, author of The Happiness Trap, swapping the voice in your head
with a cartoon voice will help take back power from the troubling thought.

When you start thinking about the interview that went downhill, do it as Bugs Bunny.
When you rehash the fight you had with your boyfriend, do it as one of those high-pitched
mice from Cinderalla. Sound ridiculous? It is. That’s the point.

10. Repeat.

You’ve tried everything but your mind is still being stubborn. Now it’s a battle of wills: the
part of you that wants to let go against the part of you that doesn’t.

Repeat this to yourself: “I still feel bad. I accept it. I know I won’t always feel bad, and it will
change as soon as I’m ready.” Simply affirming that you won’t always feel bad—that you’re
not destined to feel angry, sad, or frustrated forever—and that you are in control of your
feelings might motivate you to let them go.

Age and Aggression

Children do not commit many violent crimes, especially as compared to young men; this may mean
that the biological impulses to behave aggressively only emerge around puberty. This is true in
many species, where young adult males compete with each other, sometimes aggressively, to gain
status and thereby attract females for mating.

Then again, perhaps it is just that children can’t do much damage, being smaller, weaker, and more
subject to external control. Most 3-year-olds aren’t out roaming the streets afterdark, so it may be
hard for them to commit violent crimes even if they were so inclined. (It’s past their bedtime!) Yet
Richard Tremblay (2000) has provided evidence that the world’s most aggressive human beings
are very young children. His research team observed toddlers in day-care settings and recorded
that about 25% of interactions involve some kind of physical aggression (e.g., a child pushes
another child out of the way and takes her toy). No adult group, not even violent youth gangs or
hardened criminals, resorts to aggression 25% of the time. (Remember our definitions, though:
most toddler aggression isn’t severe enough to qualify as violence.) The high level of aggression
among toddlers again fits the theme that nature says go and culture says

stop. Human children naturally rely on physical aggression to resolve their disputes, including infl
uencing other toddlers to get what they want.

46
Toddlers may resort to aggression 25% of the time, but as they grow up, they learn to inhibit
aggression. Talk to them, sue them, or whatever, but don’t hit them! Although most people become
less aggressive over time, a subset of people becomes more aggressive over time. Th e most
dangerous years for this subset of individuals (and for society) are late adolescence and early
adulthood. Th is is because aggressive acts become more extreme (e.g., weapons are used more
frequently). Offi cial records show that violent criminal off ending is highest for both males and
females between ages 15 and 30 and declines signifi cantly after that (although the rates are much
higher for males than for females). For example, the average age of murderers is about 27 years old
(U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2008).

Interpersonal Causes of Aggression

Selfishness and Influence

Two social psychologists put forward a broad theory of aggression arguing that aggression should
be understood as a form of social infl uence (Tedeschi & Felson, 1994). Instead of a learned
response, or a reaction to frustration, or an eruption of innate drives, they suggested, aggression is
mainly a way by which people try to alter the behavior of others so as to enable the aggressors to
get what they want. This theory highlights the social rather than the antisocial nature of aggression,
because it depicts aggression as a way in which people relate to others. Creatures that don’t take
care of themselves tend not to survive and reproduce, so evolution has made most animals
(including humans) selfish (Dawkins, 1976/1989). Humans can rise above their selfi shness, but the
selfi sh core is still there. Social life inevitably breeds some degree of confl ict between selfi sh
beings, such as when two people want the same food or the same mate, when both want to have the
warmer or dryer place to sleep, or even when both want to watch diff erent television programs!
Aggression is one means that social animals use to resolve some of these disputes. When do people
resort to aggression to get what they want? Tedeschi and Felson (1994) cited several factors. The
more they want the reward (think of saving the life of someone you love), the more willingpeople
are to use violence to get it. People are more likely to resort to aggression when they believe it

will bring success, such as if the other person seems unlikely to retaliate. (If the other person is
bigger and stronger than you, then aggression does not seem a promising way to get what you
want.) Some people regard physical violence as immoral and will not engage in it under almost any
circumstances, whereas others are far less inhibited. Blaming someone for unfair actions can lead
to aggressive retaliation. The most commonly cited unfair things that people do include disloyalty,
disregarding the feelings of others, hostility, breaking promises and other agreements, selfi shness,
rudeness, lateness, and vicious gossip (Messick, Bloom, Boldizar, & Samuelson, 1985; Mikula, Petri,
& Tanzer, 1989). People use many means to strike back or punish someone who has wronged them,
ranging from directly hitting the person, to spreading nasty rumors, to committing property crimes
such as burglary or vandalism. In fact, one study of arson (setting fi res) in Houston concluded that
three out of every fi ve arsons were done as a way of getting revenge for some perceived unjust

47
mistreatment (Pettiway, 1987). People set fi res to punish a bar or restaurant that had thrown them
out, to get back at an ex-lover, or in retaliation for similar grievances.

In short, aggression is a strategy that many social animals (including humans) use to help them get
what they want. To learn about one particular case— namely, sexual aggression—sees Th e Social
Side of Sex. Human culture may invoke laws and moral principles to try to get people to resolve their
disputes using peaceful means, and most people probably agree that nonviolent means are better, but
every day, all over the world, many people fi nd themselves resorting to violence to get something or
just to get even.

Domestic violence

Domestic violence (also domestic abuse, spousal abuse, battering, family violence and
intimate partner violence) is a pattern of behavior which involves violence or other
abuse by one person against another in a domestic context, such as in marriage or
cohabitation. Intimate partner violence is domestic violence against a spouse or other
intimate partner. Domestic violence can take place in heterosexual or same-sex
relationships. Domestic violence can take a number of forms including physical, emotional,
verbal, economic and sexual abuse, which can range from subtle, coercive forms to marital
rape and to violent physical abuse that results in disfigurement or death. Globally, a wife or
female partner is more commonly the victim of domestic violence, though the victim can
also be the male partner, or both partners may engage in abusive or violent behavior, or the
victim may act in self-defense or retaliation.

Domestic violence often occurs because the perpetrator believes that abuse is justified and
acceptable, and may produce intergenerational cycles of abuse that condone violence.
Awareness, perception, definition and documentation of domestic violence differs widely
from country to country. There may be a cycle of abuse during which tensions rise and an
act of violence is committed, followed by a period of reconciliation and calm.

Victims of domestic violence may be trapped in domestic violent situations through

isolation, power and control, insufficient financial resources, fear, shame or to protect
children. As a result of abuse, victims may experience physical disabilities, chronic health
problems, mental illness, limited finances, and poor ability to create healthy relationships.
Victims may experience post-traumatic stress disorder. Children who live in a household
with violence show dysregulated aggression from an early age that may later contribute to
continuing the legacy of abuse when they reach adulthood. Domestic violence often
happens in the context of forced and child marriage.

48
Alcohol consumption and mental illness can be co-morbid with abuse, and present
additional challenges in eliminating domestic violence. Management of domestic violence
may take place through medical services, law enforcement, counseling, and other forms of
prevention and intervention. In general, the term ‘domestic violence’ refers to violence that
occurs in the home. Though domestic violence and Intimate violence are not the same,
domestic violence because of its nature can be perceived as intimate violence. In this
respect, all domestic violence is intimate violence though all intimate violence is not the
domestic violence. The concept of intimate violence is associated with the intimate relation
between the offender and victim. Hence, violence at workplace, at home, at school, at
dating, can be included but not necessarily the intimate violence. It means the intimate
violence is committed by the well known person of the victim; or who is sometimes
expected to be the protector. Although violence in the home can be directed toward
children, the elderly, or other household members, most often this term is used to
represent violence between adolescents and/or adults who are currently or were
previously involved in a romantic or intimate relationship. Domestic violence occurs
between spouses, ex-spouses, and couples who are dating or who dated previously. The
violence between these individuals is not limited to the home setting and may occur in
locations outside the home as well.

Family Structure
Another approach to understanding domestic violence moves attention away from the
individual and focuses on the structure of the family. In this approach, it is believed that
certain characteristics put a family or a couple at risk for violence. Individuals who have
witnessed violence within their own family as a child may be more likely to imitate similar
behavior in their relationships as adults. At the same time, conditions exist that produce
stress and conflict on the family. Factors such as low socioeconomic status; low-income
occupations, which may result in frequent unemployment; and little to no social support
from family, friends, or the community create high levels of stress. It is hypothesized that
individuals who have learned to resolve conflict with violence use violence as a method of
coping with these types of stressors (Flowers 2000).
Societal Perspective
A third approach takes a broader perspective than the previous two and examines
domestic violence in the context of society and societal values. Violence against women is
considered to be accepted by society as it has been supported through law and religion
since the beginning of recorded time. This approach examines the traditional dominance of
men in society, which has condoned and even encouraged men to act violently toward
women to maintain dominance and control over them. An unequal distribution of power in
the relationships between men and women assigns women a lower status. From this
position of subordination, women become dependent upon their spouses or partners and
are subjected to the demands and abuse of their mates.
The societal perspective may help to explain the lack of public attention to problems of
domestic violence and prosecution of abusers until the 1970s. Permission for violence by
men against their wives has been reinforced through Western religion and law for
centuries. Examples of spousal abuse can be found in the Bible and serve to justify a

49
husband's right to control the behavior of his wife. During the middle ages, English
common law allowed a husband to chastise his wife as long as he used a stick no larger
than the width of his thumb, a concept commonly known as the "rule of thumb." Although
legislation was enacted in the American colonies to outlaw domestic violence in 1641, with
later laws originating in the late 1800s, the laws were not usually enforced and served only
to curtail extreme cases of violence. It is purported that American society's apparent
acceptance of domestic violence resulted from long-held beliefs in Western society that
supported a husband's control of his wife and that discouraged intervention by the law.

50
The cycle of violence in domestic abuse

Domestic abuse falls into a common pattern, or cycle of violence:

 Abuse – Your abusive partner lashes out with aggressive, belittling, or violent behavior. The
abuse is a power play designed to show you "who is boss."
 Guilt – After abusing you, your partner feels guilt, but not over what he's done. He’s more
worried about the possibility of being caught and facing consequences for his abusive
behavior.
 Excuses – Your abuser rationalizes what he or she has done. The person may come up with
a string of excuses or blame you for the abusive behavior—anything to avoid taking
responsibility.
 "Normal" behavior — The abuser does everything he can to regain control and keep the
victim in the relationship. He may act as if nothing has happened, or he may turn on the
charm. This peaceful honeymoon phase may give the victim hope that the abuser has really
changed this time.
 Fantasy and planning – Your abuser begins to fantasize about abusing you again. He
spends a lot of time thinking about what you’ve done wrong and how he'll make you pay.
Then he makes a plan for turning the fantasy of abuse into reality.
 Set-up – Your abuser sets you up and puts his plan in motion, creating a situation where he
can justify abusing you.
Your abuser’s apologies and loving gestures in between the episodes of abuse can make it
difficult to leave. He may make you believe that you are the only person who can help him,

51
that things will be different this time, and that he truly loves you. However, the dangers of
staying are very real.
External Causes of Aggression

Weapons Effect

The weapons effect is a phenomenon described and evidenced for in the scientific field of
social psychology. It refers to the mere presence of a weapon or a picture of a weapon
leading to more aggressive behavior in humans, particularly if these humans are already
aroused.This should not be confused with the weapon focus, another social psychology
finding. This effect was first described by Leonard Berkowitz and Anthony LePage in 1967
in their paper "Weapons as Aggressions-Eliciting Stimuli" in the Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology. The paper outlines an experiment conducted by the authors at the
University of Wisconsin. The researchers tested their hypothesis that stimuli commonly
associated with aggression (like weapons) can elicit more aggressive responses from
people "ready to act" aggressively.

It is important to note that several psychology researchers have also criticized the weapons
effect, questioning the original research study’s findings. This is because subsequent
studies have been less successful at replicating the weapons effect, and alternative
explanations have been proposed. For example, more recent research has proposed that
there are more factors that influence aggression in a situation containing a weapon, such as
an individual's familiarity with the weapons present.

As work with the weapons effect progressed, researchers also demonstrated the weapons
priming effect. This variation refers to even weapon-related words leading to more
aggressive behavior in humans.

Guns not only permit violence, they can stimulate it as well. The finger pulls the trigger, but the trigger
may also be pulling the finger.

Weapons Effect the increase in aggression that occurs as a result of the mere presen
weapons effect, he would know that it is more likely that customer’s will fi ght and argue in
his restaurant than laugh.

the original study design by berkowitz and lepage is as follows: the researchers recruited
100 male university students for one in-laboratory session. the students were randomly
assigned to receive either 1 shock or 7 shocks, and were told that these shocks came from a
peer. following this, the researchers gave the students the opportunity to administer as

52
many shocks as they wanted to the peer. for about one third of the students, a rifle and
revolver were on the table near the shock key; half of these participants were told the
weapon belonged to the targeted peer and the other half of these participants were told the
weapon did not belong to the targeted peer. for the other two thirds of participants, there
was either nothing on the table near the shock key or there was 2 badminton rackets on the
table near the shock key. the dependent variable, or outcome measure, was how many
shocks the participant administered to the targeted peer.

the researchers found that the greatest number of shocks were administered by the
students who had initially received 7 shocks and then were in the presence of the weapons,
regardless of whether they were told the weapon belonged to the targeted peer or not. as
such, the authors believe this was evidence for their original hypothesis that an aroused
person would act more aggressively in the presence of weapons.

Weapons priming effect

In 1998, craig anderson and colleagues wanted to further test the mechanism behind the
weapons effect. at the time, the current explanation for the weapons effect suggested
priming, or that the cognitive identification of weapons automatically increased the
accessibility of aggression related thoughts. thus, the researchers tested if even weapon-
related words or images would be followed by speedier oral reading of an aggressive (vs.
nonaggressive) word. this was done in two experiments: the first experiment only
manipulated weapon-related words in a group of 35 undergraduate students of mixed
gender. that is, half the participants saw weapon-related words on what they thought was a
computer reading task and the other half saw animal-related words (control). the second
experiment manipulated weapon-related images in a group of 93 undergraduate students,
with half the participants seeing images of weapons and the other half seeing images of
plants. Results confirmed the weapons priming effect hypothesis; even just the presence of
weapons-related words or images increased speed in reading of an aggressive word. in
addition, the word-prime had a stronger effect than the image-prime.

in 2005, bartholow and colleagues extended on the weapons priming effect by examining if
individual differences in knowledge about guns predicted the strength of the weapons
priming effect on aggression-related outcomes. to do this, the researchers conducted three
experiments: (1) looking at emotional and cognitive reactions to visual gun cues in hunters
(individuals with prior gun experience) and non-hunters, (2) examining reactions to
pictures of different gun types (hunting firearms vs. assault firearms) in hunters and non-
hunters, and (3) comparing differences in aggressive behavior following weapons primes
with differences in emotional and cognitive responses to visual gun cues. [8 results
expanded on the weapons priming effect, finding that hunters reacted to visual gun cues
differently depending on the gun type. also, individual differences in emotional and
cognitive responses to gun cues were associated with individual differences in aggressive
behavior following a weapons prime.

53
Mass Media

Suppose you wanted to learn how to fly an airplane. What would be the best method to use:
read a book, watch a TV program, or use a video game fl ight simulator Second, players of
violent video games are more likely than others to identify with a violent character. If the
game involves a fi rst-person shooter, players have the same visual perspective as the
killer. If the game is third person, the player controls the actions of the violent character
from a more distant visual perspective. In either case, the player is linked to aviolent
character. In a violent TV program, viewers might or might not identify with a violent
character.Third, violent games directly reward violent behavior by awarding points or
allowing players to advance to the next game level. In some games, players are rewarded
through verbal praise, such as hearing the words “Nice shot!” after killing an enemy.

54
It is well known that rewarding behavior increases its frequency. (Would people go to work
if their employers did not pay them?) In TV programs, reward is not directly tied to the
viewer’s behavior. A recent study provided the fi rst evidence that violent games produce
stronger eff ects than television (Polman, Orobio de Castro, & van Aken, 2008). In this
study, some participants played violent games while others watched the games being
played. The effects on aggression were stronger for boys who played video games than for
boys who watched others play the games.

One type of media deserves special mention: violent media that contain sex, such as rape
depictions contributed to the rape and sexual assault of women and girls during the 1994
genocide in Rwanda. Several social psychological experiments have examined the impact of
violent sexual media on aggression against women. In one experiment (Donnerstein &
Berkowitz, 1981), college men watched one of four fi lm clips:

(1) A nonviolent non-sexually-explicit clip,

(2) A nonviolent sexually explicit clip of a couple enjoying making love,

(3) A violent sexual clip of a man raping a woman who resisted the rape, or

(4) A violent sexual clip of a man raping a woman who initially resisted the rape but then
seemed to enjoy it.

Afterwards, participants were insulted by either a male or a female confederate and were
then given the chance to punish the confederate using electric shocks. Th e results showed
that men who viewed a rape scene were more aggressive than men who did not view a
rape scene, especially when the aggression target was the female provoker. Men who saw
the clip showing the woman who enjoyed being raped had the highest levels of aggression.
Nonviolent sex did not increase aggression. In fact, the men who viewed nonviolent sex
were less aggressive toward the female provoker than toward the male provoker. Thus,
media depictions of pure sex reduced aggression, but fi lms showing some kinds of violent
sex led to more aggression. There are also long-term eff ects of viewing violent sexual
media, such as desensitization to the pain and suffering experienced by women who have
been the victims of sexual assault. Research has shown that even several days after
watching violent sex scenes in“slasher” fi lms, men still displayed an increased tolerance
for aggression directed toward women (Malamuth & Check, 1981; Mullin & Linz, 1995). A
few fi eld studies have also shown a link between viewingnviolent pornography and sexual
aggression (Kingston, Fedoroff , Firestone, Curry, & Bradford, 2008).

In the first ever conducted international survey on children and media violence, a UNESCO(1990)
study underlines television’s dominant role in the lives of young people around the world and its

55
impact on the development of aggressive behaviour, paving the way for a stronger debate between
politicians, producers, teachers and parents.

How do the world’s children spend most of their leisure time? The answer watching television may
come as no great surprise, but the UNESCO Global Media Violence Study, the largest ever
intercultural project on this topic, sheds light on the striking similarities of television’s impact in
vastly different cultural, economic and social contexts.

In the areas surveyed, from relatively peaceful environments like Canada or certain high-crime
neighbourhoods in Brazil to war-zones in Angola or Tajikistan, the study confirmed the dominant
role of television in the everyday lives of children around the globe: 93% of the students who
attend school and live in electrified urban or rural areas have regular access to television and watch
it for an average of three hours a day. This represents at least 50% more than the time spent on any
other out of school activity, including homework, being with friends, or reading. The result justifies
the assumption that television is the most powerful source of information and entertainment
besides face-to-face interaction.

With the advent of mass media, including television and more recently, video and computer games,
children and teenagers are exposed to increasingly higher doses of aggressive images. In many
countries, there is an average of five to ten aggressive acts per hour of television. Violence among
youth is also on the rise, making it plausible to correlate the two, even though we believe that the
primary causes for aggressive behaviour in children are to be found in their family environment,
and the social and economic conditions in which they are raised.

Nonetheless, media plays a major role in the development of cultural orientations, world views and
beliefs. Most studies show that the relation between media violence and ‘real’ violence is
interactive: media can contribute to an aggressive culture; people who are already aggressive use
the media as further confirmation of their beliefs and attitudes, which, in turn, are reinforced
through media content. As the basis for this study, we formulated the compass theory. Depending
on a child’s already existing experiences, values and the cultural environment, media content offers
an orientation, a frame of reference which determines the direction of one’s own behaviour.
Viewers do not necessarily adapt what they have observed, but they measure their own behaviour
in terms of distance to the perceived media models. For instance, if cruelty is ‘common’, ‘just’
kicking the other seems to be innocent by comparison if the cultural environment has not
established an alternative frame of reference.

56
Unit- VII

Application of Social Psycology

Gender/Generation Gap

The differences found between members of different generations. More specifically, a

generation gap can be used to describe the differences in actions, beliefs, tastes, etc.
between members of younger generations when compared to members of older
generations. While generation gaps have been prevalent throughout all periods of history,
the width (differences) of these gaps have widened in the 20th and 21st centuries.

Recently, in the ongoing supervision group that I have belonged to for almost 20 years,
there ensued a discussion about working with younger patients, and whether we were
speaking a different language. My colleagues and I all felt a generational gap, and wondered
together whether we had finally taken up the language that our parents spoke, and their
parents before them, in regard to the differences between one generation and the next. Are
we getting old we wondered? Well yes we are, inevitably. But all of us recognized that
getting old is only part of the story. This post is about some other possibilities.

In thinking about what constitutes and shapes the worldview of a “generation”, I started to
think about those things in our culture that shape perception, influencing our thoughts,
feelings, preferences, desires, choices, and perhaps the very wiring of our brain. I am not
speaking here about our personal history and experiences (although they too shape our
brain structure and are the shakers and movers of who we are), but rather of the cultural
and social context that shapes our worldview: industrial and economic upswings and
downturns, spiritual and religious movements, scientific discoveries and technological
advancements, to name a few. Each generation has been influenced by such events, molded
into believing certain ideas, consuming specific products, and making particular choices.
And this is as it should be. So perhaps what we experience as a generation gap has to do
with the particular adaptations that each generation has to make – the individual brain re-
wiring itself to absorb and survive the cultural and societal onslaught of information and
change. Yes, that is what I am proposing (and I am not alone in this belief): our brains
respond and adapt to the shifts and changes in our cultural context by rewiring themselves
in order to process and deal with current contexts and situations.* I am speaking here of
the sort of adaptation that is necessary in the Darwinian, survival of the fittest kind of way.
An adaptation that happens at the brain level and generates important change in learning
and communication patterns that affect behavior. An adaptation that occurs out of
immediate awareness, yet has deep personal and societal implications. A necessary
adaptation to the shifting nature of  the world and the way it is perceived, experienced and
communicated. Perhaps this is what is behind our experience of the gap between one
generation or the next: We are wired differently – at the brain level.

Cultural ideology impacts each generation anew and propels an evolution from the
previous one, an actual neuro-biological adaptation to the evolving cultural and social
context. We have made enormous progress say, since the generation of my grandparents,

57
who experienced two world wars, relied on newspapers and radio for their news, travelled
overseas by boat, and used telephones only occasionally and mostly for emergencies,
preferring written letters as a means of communication. That generation was also one that
believed in chivalry, assigned gender roles, heterosexuality, and the supremacy of one race
or religion or sex over the other. But things changed.

My parents’ generation began to see many industrial, technological and scientific changes.
They survived a world war, experienced the birth of the atomic bomb, bought televisions
and watched world news on them, and had a new kind of advertising infiltrate their
choices. Films became popular means of telling stories and expanding the possibilities of
the imagination. Automobiles became a popular form of transportation, and airplanes
shortened the distances that could be travelled. Chivalry and gender roles persisted, yet
things were changing quickly.

This generation, often referred to as baby boomers, became associated with a redefinition
of traditional values questioning many of the cultural and societal dictums of the previous
generation (sex differences, gender roles, racial and economic inequality). Widely
associated with privilege, mine was a generation that grew up in a time of increasing
affluence, where it appeared that anything was possible. As a group, this generation was
the wealthiest, most active, and most physically fit. It oversaw the boom of technology, the
introduction of computers, word processing, cable television and the early beginnings of
internet technology. This literally changed the way that we thought and conceptualized
things, as well as the way that we learned about and transmitted information. Everything
seemed to change in my generation.

Then came the so-called Generation X, born shortly before and/or during the general
introduction of digital technologies like personal computers and operating systems, video
games, MTV and the widespread use of the internet. They were the first to grow up with
computers in their homes. By interacting with digital technology from an early age Xers not
only have a greater understanding of its concepts, they embody them – think of the genius
bar at any Apple store.

One of the most significant developments in the current generation (Generation Y or “echo
boomers”) has been their use of social networking media. They are the first to grow up
with this new technology and are highly connected, having had lifelong use of
communication and media technology like the world wide web, Skype, text and instant
messaging, digital photography and video, mp3 players, cellular phones and a myriad of
applications which communicate wirelessly with home computers, automobiles, and yes,
people. This generation is always connected to whatever they want to be connected to.

You can see where I am going here. I am not attempting to give an exhaustive list of all of
the changes that the 20th and 21st centuries have seen. Rather, I am arguing that as human
beings we are continuing to develop, changing and adapting all the time, and that such
changes are catalyzed by culture, which amends and revamps the actual structures of our
brain. Adaptation requires these physical changes, which in turn bring about psychological
ones. Each generation has been impacted by the social, cultural and technological advances

58
of its time, and that impact has very likely shaped and rewired individual brains
(collectively) so that they could adapt to the changes in their environs.

In this generation it is technology, the internet, and in particular social media which are
changing the way people think, feel and act. This is inevitable and as it should be. Think of
the way information is available today, almost immediately and at our fingertips. If I want
to research something I can access many worldwide library sites, giving me access to
specific articles, videos, broadcasts and books. I can Google anything from recipes to dance
performances to references to maps to addresses. Colleagues tell me that it is possible to
find out not only where people are, but what they are reading and eating! And that is just
the internet. With social media we have Instant Everything in 20-second bytes, short
segments of information that do not exceed 140 characters, photographs of events and
people tweeted across continents. Social media allows people to share their lives with
others (known and unknown) on an ongoing basis. It moves across boundaries, doors and
walls at the touch of a send command.

This generation assimilates information quickly and multitasks their way through life. It
takes in vast amounts of data in short amounts of time. This is not because they are
impatient but because they think differently, and necessarily so: Interacting with multiple
screens (and people, places and things) on their computers, or phones or iPads requires a
different way of processing information and a different way of relating. It requires a
different brain which accommodates to environmental demands and to the technology that
creates those demands. A brain that is re-wired on the basis of of what it interacts with. To
my mind, this is what the gap between generations is all about – gradual adaptations in
brain structure, from one generation to the next, based on cultural, scientific and
technological advances. Not ageism at all, but survival through adaptation and integration.
Darwin would feel vindicated.

For more, take a look at Jason Silva’s brilliant video below and prepare to be amazed.
Here’s to the next generation! You are awesome. (ByFirst Dr. Ceccoli’s blog, Out of My Mind,
on April 08, 2013). 

Understanding Generation Gap

Generation gap is nothing but certain psychological and emotional gap between parents or elder
people and the younger ones. Bulging generation gap creates misunderstanding and lack of
attachment between the parents and children. The success of parenting lies in how effectively they
avoid the generation gap or ignore the differences with kids.

Generation gap is the result of the fast paced development of the society. In earlier times
two or three generations live in the same lifestyle and environments as the development
was so slow. But today, nearest past is very much outdated and the world is more advanced
each day. Parents do not even know many of the modern technologies and equipments
children use.

59
Tips for parents to cope with generation gap

Being up to date is the only way to cope up with the generation gap. When you are asked a
doubt by your children, and if your answer is that you do not know, then you may be
counted an outdated man or person of the gone age. To avoid this situation, try to be
current and updated with information and technologies. Never make your kids feel that
you think in some old fashion. When children express their feelings, understand them in
the modern world context.

 Certain things considered a taboo have been changed into socially acceptable in the modern
world. Many parents do the mistake of evaluating children by comparing their age with that
of parent's when he/she was in the same age. When a parent was in fifteen, he/she might
need a bicycle, but their child of same age may ask for a motor bike. Understanding the
requirements of time and lifestyles of modern children will help evaluating children and
taking right decisions without making kids feel you an outdated parent.
 Make friendship with them instead of being rude parents. Let them express all their feelings
to you. This will help in both the ways. You can cope up with the generation gap by learning
the feelings and requirements of the children and also guide kids if you feel that they are
mislead. Friendship with kids will help you to maintain the smooth family relationship.
From deep friendly attachment with parents, kids will learn to respect them and obey them.
 In fact, there are no global standards of attitudes. Different people may have different
attitudes. People of same age may exhibit different attitudes. But, when such difference in
attitudes come under one roof, then it affects effective communications and active
relationships. Knowing it better is the right way of avoiding it.
 The world is a smart world today, being smart enough to cope up with the modern world
will help parents to be equal with the younger generations. However hard parents try to be
like younger generations, they can never become exactly equal, but can cope up with the
newer generations and dismiss the possible issues generated out of generation gap.
 Bridging the generation gap between parent and children is essential. Parents often
contribute their share in digging gap between parents and children by pushing the kid's
beyond their limits. This happens in two ways. Parents either demands higher than the
limits of the child or pushes the child beyond the economical or social limits of parents
themselves. This, in future, makes the child going astray from the lifestyle and status of
parents. If child grows higher, parents should, at least, grow in attitudes and thinking levels
to cope up with the child. Larger generation gap means greater lack of understanding.
 Never make your child feeling ashamed of the parents. If he expresses his desires on the
look or behavior or his/her parents, be ready to change for him/her, but of course
reasonably. For example, if your child says that his friend's parents come on a luxury car,
then you buying another luxury car is stupidity, but when your child says that you speak
more loudly or dress up in old fashion, then you can think about changing them. This way
you can cope up with the expectations of the kids and always be updated.
 Know that the age of your kids is more than a number. As they grow on passing through
ages, their thinking pattern changes; the way they look at the world change; the way they
express feelings change. Parents should learn to understand the growth of the kids. A
twenty year boy should not be dealt with same as when he was five year old.

60
Hunger and its Impact on Children

What are the effects of hunger and undernutrition on child development?

Prenatally 

 Maternal undernutrition during pregnancy increases the risk of negative birth

outcomes, including premature birth, low birth weight, smaller head size and lower
brain weight. 

 Babies born prematurely are vulnerable to health problems and are at increased
risk for developing learning problems when they reach school-age.

In infancy and early childhood 

 The first three years of a child’s life are a period of rapid brain development. Too
little energy, protein and nutrients during this sensitive period can lead to lasting
deficits in cognitive, social and emotional development. 

 Protein-energy malnutrition, iron deficiency anemia, iodine, zinc and other vitamin
deficiencies in early childhood can cause brain impairment. 

 Failure to thrive, the failure to grow and reach major developmental milestones as
the result of undernutrition,

 Hunger reduces a child’s motor skills, activity level and motivation to explore the
environment. Movement and exploration are important to cognitive development,
and more active children elicit more stimulation and attention from their caregivers,
which promotes social and emotional development.

In childhood 

 Families often work to keep their food-insecurity hidden and some parents may feel
shame or embarrassment that they are not able to feed their children adequately.
Children may also feel stigmatized, isolated, ashamed or embarrassed by their lack
of food. 

 A community sample that classified low-income children ages six to twelve as

“hungry," “at-risk for hunger,” or “not hungry” found that hungry children were
significantly more likely to receive special education services, to have repeated a
grade in school, and to have received mental health counseling than at-risk-for-
hunger or not-hungry children. 

 In this same study, hungry children exhibited 7 to 12 times as many symptoms of

conduct disorder (such as fighting, blaming others for problems, having trouble with
a teacher, not listening to rules, stealing) than their at-risk or not-hungry peers. 

61
  Among low-income children, those classified as “hungry” show increased anxious,
irritable, aggressive and oppositional behavior in comparison to peers. 

 Additionally, the multiple stressors associated with poverty result in significantly

increased risk for developing psychiatric and functional problems.

School-age children who experience severe hunger are at increased risk for the following
negative outcomes: 

 Homelessness 

 Chronic health conditions. 

 Stressful life conditions.

 Psychiatric distress. 

 Behavioral problems. 

 Internalizing behavior, including depression, anxiety, withdrawal and poor self-

esteem.

The effects of undernutrition depend on the length and severity of the period of hunger and
may be mediated by other factors. 

 Improved nutrition, increased environmental stimulation, emotional support, and

secure attachment to parents/caregivers can compensate for early undernutrition. 

 Babies who receive enough nutrition while in the womb appear to show higher
cognitive performance in later childhood. 

 The human brain is flexible and can recover from early deficits, but this also means
that brain structures remain vulnerable to further negative experiences throughout
childhood. 

 Breastfeeding, attentive caretaking and attention to environmental factors, such as

sleep cycles and noise, can also promote healthy development.

Health Consequences

  Childhood hunger and food insecurity are linked to a number of health problems that can
impede normal growth and development. These include:  

 Poorer overall health: Studies indicate that children who live in households lacking
access to sufficient food are more likely to be in poorer health than children from
other households.

62
  Compromised ability to resist illness and elevated occurrence of health problems:
Food-insecure children are more susceptible to certain infections and illnesses,
including iron deficiency anemia, sore throats, colds, stomach aches, headaches, ear
infections, and fatigue.

 Greater incidence of hospitalization and frequent doctor visits: Compared to their

peers, hungry and food-insecure children are more likely to have been hospitalized
since birth and to make frequent doctor visits.

    Psychosocial and Behavioral Impacts

  Recent studies indicate that children in food-insecure and hungry households experience
more psychological and emotional distress. Food hardships have been shown to adversely
affect children’s well-being in the following ways:  

 Increased behavioral problems: Food insecure children exhibit higher levels of

aggressive and oppositional behaviors (hyperactivity, aggression, irritability,
anxiety) as well as more withdrawn and distressed behavior.

 Difficulty getting along with other children: Impaired psychosocial functioning

associated with food insufficiency has been linked to social difficulties such as
getting along with peers and making friends.

 Increased need for special services: Food-insufficient children are more likely to
have received mental health counseling and educational services than their non-
hungry peers.

  Learning and Academic Outcomes   Even mild to moderate malnutrition can be a

developmental risk factor for children. In particular, undernutrition can limit a child’s
ability to grasp basic skills and can diminish concentration and overall learning potential.
Recent research provides evidence of the following impacts:  

 Lower test scores and poorer overall school achievement: Children from households
that report food insufficiency generally do not perform as well on tests of academic
achievement as children from food-sufficient households.

 Repeating a grade in school: Elementary school-aged children from food-insufficient

families are more likely to have repeated a grade in school.

 Increased school absences and tardiness: Elementary school-aged children from

food-insufficient families are more likely to have increased school absences and
higher rates of tardiness, factors that can ultimately affect overall academic
performance.

63
  Higher risk of school suspension: A recent study found that food-insufficient
teenagers were almost twice as likely to be suspended from school.

  References

Alaimo, K., Olson, C.M., & Frongillo, E.A., Jr. (July 2001). Food insufficiency and American
school-aged children’s cognitive, academic, and psychosocial development. Pediatrics
108(1), 44-53. Abstract available

The Poverty Cycle & Child Labor

The notion that children are being exploited and forced into labour while not receiving an
education crucial to development, concerns many people.

Children do extremely hazardous work in harmful conditions, putting their health,

education, personal and social development, and even their lives at risk.

Some of the circumstances they face are:

 Full-time work at a very early age.

 Dangerous workplaces.
 Excessive work hours.
 Subjected to psychological, verbal, physical and sexual abuse.
 Limited pay.
 Work and life on the streets in bad conditions.
 Inability to escape from the poverty cycle no access to education.

Most children work because their families are poor and their labour is necessary for their
survival. Children are often employed and exploited, compared to adults they are more
vulnerable, cheaper to hire and are less likely to demand higher wages or better working
conditions.

If given education and an environment conducive to success, children grow into valuable
assets, because as educated and successful adults they provide much more for society than
the mindless work outputted by a sweatshop slave. Only a horrible world would have any
person slaving away in a sweatshop, but we not only allow that to happen to adults… We
allow it to happen to children! This only invigorates the poverty cycle, because denying
children a healthy childhood causes them to never escape poverty. For that reason, most
children born into poverty remain in poverty for their entire lives.

64
Powerless victims

Ever since the 1960s, the share of children affected by poverty has only got bigger and
bigger. Children are those who have the least choice and ability to change what happens to
them. There isn’t much they can do to help their families, nor should they have to. Until
they can stand firmly on their two legs, usually by the age of 6, then they can be enrolled
willy-nilly in child labor.

Nearly all possible effects of poverty have an impact on children’ lives. Poor infrastructures,
unemployment, lack of basic services and income reflect on their lack of education,
malnutrition, violence at home and outside, child labor, diseases of all kinds, transmitted by
the family or through the environment.

Iko/

65
Recent Trends in Divorce and Custody court case

During the last six to seven years there has been a burgeoning of child custody court case.
This has been the result of two important changes in child custody determinations. The
first relates to the appreciation that the "tender years presumption" (in which the mother,
by virtue of being female, was automatically considered to be the preferable parent) was
criticized by fathers as being basically sexist. And the courts agreed. Accordingly, fathers no
longer passively accepted the fact that mothers would automatically be awarded custody
and began litigating for custody of their children. The second factor, which is even more
recent, relates to the increasing popularity of the joint custody concept. Designating one
parent as the sole custodial parent and the other as the visitor came to be appreciated as
inegalitarian and ego-debasing for the non-custodial parent. Although there is much to
argue for the joint custody concept, it has proved to be useful mainly for those who can
cooperate and communicate well and who are equally capable regarding parenting
capacity. When these criteria are not satisfied parents will commonly litigate in order to
win joint custody. As a result of these two developments the position of custodial mothers
has become much more precarious. Whereas previously they could rely upon the tender
years presumption and the sole custody concept to protect them from attempts on their
husbands' part to gain custody, they now have no such reassurances. Fathers know this

66
well and have been litigating at an ever-increasing rate. The psychological toll of this
burgeoning litigation on both parents and children has been formidable.

Of the many types of psychological disturbance that can be brought about by such
litigation, there is one that I focus on here. Although this syndrome certainly existed in the
past, it is occurring with such increasing frequency at this point that it deserves a special
name. The term I prefer to use is parental alienation syndrome. I have introduced this term
to refer to a disturbance in which children are obsessed with deprecation and criticism of a
parent -- denigration that is unjustified and/or exaggerated. The notion that such children
are merely "brainwashed" is narrow. The term brainwashing implies that one parent is
systematically and consciously programming the child to denigrate the other parent. The
concept of the parental alienation syndrome includes the brainwashing component but is
much more inclusive. It includes not only conscious but subconscious and unconscious
factors within the parent that contribute to the child's alienation. Furthermore (and this is
extremely important), it includes factors that arise within the child -- independent of the
parental contributions -- that contribute to the development of the syndrome.

Typically, the child is obsessed with "hatred" of a parent. (The word hatred is placed in
quotes because there are still many tender and loving feelings felt toward the allegedly
despised parent that are not permitted expression.) These children speak of the hated
parent with every vilification and profanity in their vocabulary, without embarrassment or
guilt. The vilification of the parent often has the quality of a litany. After only minimal
prompting by a lawyer, judge, probation officer, mental health professional, or other
person involved in the litigation, the record will be turned on and a command performance
provided. Not only is there the rehearsed quality to the speech but one often hears
phraseology that is identical to that used by the "loved" parent. (Again, the word loved is
placed in quotations because hostility toward and fear of that parent may similarly be
unexpressed.)

Even years after they have taken place, the child may justify the alienation with memories
of minor altercations experienced in the relationship with the hated parent. These are
usually trivial and are experiences that most children quickly forget: "He always used to
speak very loud when he told me to brush my teeth"; "She used to say to me `Don't
interrupt"'; and "He used to make a lot of noise when he chewed at the table." When these
children are asked to give more compelling reasons for the hatred, they are unable to
provide them. Frequently, the loved parent will agree with the child that these professed
reasons justify the ongoing animosity.

The professions of hatred are most intense when the children and the loved parent are in
the presence of the alienated one. However, when the child is alone with the allegedly
hated parent, he or she may exhibit anything from hatred to neutrality to expressions of
affection. Often, when these children are with the hated parent they will let their guard
down and start to enjoy themselves. Then, almost as if they have realized that they are
doing something "wrong," they will suddenly stiffen up and resume their expressions of
withdrawal and animosity. Another maneuver commonly utilized by these children is to
profess affection to one parent and to ask that parent to swear that he or she will not reveal

67
the professions of love to the other parent. And the same statement is made to the other
parent. In this way these children "cover their tracks" and avoid thereby the disclosure of
their schemes. Such children may find family interviews with therapists extremely anxiety
provoking, because of the fear that their manipulations and maneuvers will be divulged.

The hatred of the parent often extends to include that parent's complete extended family.
Cousins, aunts, uncles, and grandparents, with whom the child previously may have had
loving relationships, are now viewed as similarly obnoxious. Greeting cards are not
reciprocated. Presents sent to the child's home are refused, remain unopened, or even
destroyed (generally in the presence of the loved parent). When the hated parent's
relatives call on the telephone, the child will respond with angry vilifications or quickly
hang up on the caller. (These responses are more likely to occur if the loved parent is
within hearing distance of the conversation.) With regard to the hatred of the relatives, the
child is even less capable of providing justifications for the animosity. The rage of these
children is so great that they become completely oblivious to the deprivations they are
causing themselves. Again, the loved parent is typically unconcerned with the untoward
psychological effects on the child of the rejection of these relatives.

Another symptom of the parental alienation syndrome is the complete lack of

contradiction. All human relationships are ambivalent, and parent-child relationships are
no exception. The hated parent is viewed as "all bad" and the loved parent is "all good." The
hated parent may have been greatly dedicated to the child's upbringing, and a deep bond
may have been created over many years. The hated parent may produce photos that
demonstrate clearly a joyful and deep relationship in which there was significant affection,
tenderness, and mutual pleasure. But all these experiences appear to have been obliterated
from the child's memory. When these children are shown photos of enjoyable events with
the hated parent, they usually rationalize the experiences as having been forgotten,
nonexistent, or feigned: "I really hated being with him then; I just smiled in the picture
because he made me. He said he'd hit me if I didn't smile." This element of complete lack of
ambivalence is a typical manifestation of the parental alienation syndrome and should
make one dubious about the depth of the professed animosity.

The child may exhibit a guiltless disregard for the feelings of the hated parent. There will be
a complete absence of gratitude for gifts, support payments and other manifestations of the
hated parent's continued involvement and affection. Often these children will want to be
certain the alienated parent continues to provide support payments but at the same time
adamantly refuse to visit. Commonly they will say that they never want to see the hated
parent again, or not until their late teens or early twenties. To such a child I might say: "So
you want your father to continue paying for all your food, clothing, rent, and education --
even private high school and college -- and yet you still don't want to see him at all, ever
again. Is that right?" Such a child might respond: "That's right. He doesn't deserve to see
me. He's mean and paying all that money is a good punishment for him."

Those who have never seen such children may consider this description a caricature. Those
who have seen them will recognize the description immediately, although some children
may not manifest all the symptoms. The parental alienation syndrome is becoming

68
increasingly common and there is good reason to predict that it will become even more
common in the immediate future if custody conflicts become even more prevalent.

Richard A. Gardner, MD is Clinical Professor of Child Psychiatry, Columbia University, College

of Physicians & Surgeons.

Women in Nepal initiate divorce

Recently women in Nepali societies have been able to put aside social stigmas connected with the
breakdown of their marriages. Urbanization together with modernization and female
empowerment, have strengthened women to take bold and radical steps which were once
considered taboo. Financial security and job opportunities have enabled women to take decisions
and move forward rather than staying in an unwanted relationship.

The May 2011 figures from Kathmandu District Court indicate a rise in the number of divorces.
Eighty percent of cases are filed by women – predominantly in urban areas. Bala Ram Acharya in
his research, “Sociological Analysis of Divorce: A case study from Pokhara, Nepal” cites that the
major reasons for divorce are economic hardship; sexual maladjustments; unequal social, economic
and educational status; and the wife being barren.

The first written legal code permitted a man to leave his wife by a method of sinko-kati chuttinu –
the husband breaks a small stick indicating a legal recognition of divorce.

Chapter 12 of the legal code, “On Husband and Wife,” permits divorce in Nepal on the following
grounds: if the couple have resided in different locations for the past three years; if either engage in
the conspiracy of their partner; if one has committed a crime of serious assault against their
partner; if the wife is found to have engaged in extra-marital affairs or has eloped; or if the wife has
confessed to an extra-marital affair. The rules of court allow a woman to directly file a case for
divorce, whereas men have to appeal through their Village rural municipality or municipality. In
September 2010, the Supreme Court issued a directive order to the Legislature to rectify divorce
laws that discriminate against men.

69
Women state that divorce laws are reasonable toward women and are becoming aware of their
rights. Twenty-five years ago the divorce rate in one divorce lawyer’s office was one a year and now
he has 6-7 cases a year. Across Nepal it has doubled over the past twenty-five years. The
Kathmandu District Court indicates that the average age of people divorcing is between 20-35
years. Acharya says in his research that this is the age when people are developing their careers and
have high expectations. It also says many lack crisis management skills. He also said one of the
current trends and major catalysts for the increased divorce rate was the increased rate of men
accepting foreign employment which resulted in a lack of trust between the spouses. In many ethnic
communities in which customary divorce practices take place without any legal formalities
divorces are not reported. Therefore, Acharya says that while the numbers are increasing, the
divorce rates are actually higher than officially recorded.

Beggary

Begging or panhandling is the practice of imploring others to grant a favor, often a gift of
money, with little or no expectation of reciprocation. Beggars may be found in public places
such as transport routes, urban parks, and near busy markets. Besides money, they may
also ask for food, drink, cigarettes or other small items.

According to a study in the journal of the Canadian Medical Association, "(70%) [of
beggars] stated that they would prefer a minimum-wage job, typically citing a desire for a
'steady income' or 'getting off the street.' However, many felt they could not handle
conventional jobs because of mental illness, physical disability or lack of skills."

Beggary a "Social Problem"

70
Beggary is a major problem which is today affecting large population of India. There are large
number of beggars in India who are forced in to doing begging because our societies fails in
providing any good alternative to them.

For the last few centuries India has suffered acute poverty. From the ancient times, the main cause
of poverty was various taxes. poverty, disability and unemployment is the problem of beggary
which is a social problem.

The other issue is slightly more serious where large numbers of beggars are in begging for earning
easy money. The major issues with this beggary problem are non awareness about this whole
business, society’s failure, no humanitarian solutions and failure of government in stopping beggary
because of which large number of children deprived from right to education & childhood. Indian
government never tried to rectify the faulty system by repealing anti-poverty or beggary laws. In
fact, poor women, children and elderly people need help from the government to obtain food and
shelter.

Nepal: Beggars in Nepal

Please Don't Give Anything!!

Nepal like many countries around the world has its fairshare of beggars. To many
westerners arriving in the streets of Nepal it can be a bit of a culture shock seeing such
obvious begging and the desire to help can be overwhelming. However, begging is slowly
becoming a major problem in Nepal as it sparks off a chain of events that ultimately
destroys self-worth and devalues Nepali culture.

Although it may not seem much to casually hand over a dollar or two to the dejected
looking boy in rags standing in front of you, you are wittingly or unwittingly encouraging
him towards a life of begging. 

In Nepal the goverment provides free schooling for every child between the ages of  2 and
15. The schools also give lunch to those who need it. However, like most children
everywhere school is often disliked and if visitors to Nepal give out money (and sometimes
large quantities of money) to kids, many children will choose to skip school and beg
instead. This obviously leds to children becoming uneducated, and later in their lives they

71
are unable to get a job so they are forced to beg to survive. It is a vicious cycle, but it can be
stopped by simply not giving!

To you the few dollars you want to give may not seem much, but to a Nepali it is a huge
sum. The average Nepali adult earns around 70rps a day (that is currently about one
dollar). Although this does not sound much, in Nepal, it is more than enough to survive.
Think what you are doing - you are actually giving a child, for doing nothing other than beg,
the equivilent of around a weeks salary for a hardworking adult! If you turn the situation
on its head imagine your child at home in the United States or Europe being given a few
hundred dollars by a stranger! would you be happy to let them accept the money!

On understanding the danger of giving money you may be tempted to give sweets or pens
or balloons instead. You may think to yourself there is no harm in that - they are just small
things. But again by offering something for nothing you are encouraging chidren to beg.
You are starting the cycle. 

As a quick example in Pokhara, there are a number of well known beggers who regularly
work the streets, visiting restaurants and shops trying to persude tourists to give money.
One elderly looking woman and her blind husband who she leads around the streets with a
stick are known to have used begging as a career that has contiunued for over 15 years!
This couple who diligently dress in their costumes of rags everyday are, unbeknownst to
tourists, actually some of the richest people in Pokhara! Over the years they have
accumlated so much wealth from generous tourists that they own vast tracts of land and
houses and make enough money from their tennants to put the average tourists income to
shame! 

A campaign has recently started in Nepal to try to educate tourists into the problems they
cause by giving to beggers, specifically children. The following is taken from the leaflets
that can be found around Nepal's tourist areas.

Kathmandu, NEPAL: It’s 7 a.m., and the morning bells are echoing throughout the
Hindu temple of Dakshinkali. People crowd the temple area. While some worship the idol
inside, others wait in a queue outside for their turn to visit the temple, located 20 kilometers
south of Nepal’s capital, Kathmandu.

For 12-year-old Sajani Mandal, those people visiting the temple are her means to survive. She
walks up to each person with her small, dirty bowl and asks for money. Sometimes she says
she is hungry, while other times she just remains quiet and holds out her bowl.

From some, she receives coins and paper money. Others get angry and raise their hands to
shoo her away. But she is not deterred. She just moves on to others in line.

Sajani is a thin girl with a dark complexion and unkempt, curly hair. Her dress is so dirty that
its color is unrecognizable, and one of the sleeves is torn.

72
Time and again, she scratches her head as she begs for money. As soon as she collects 20 to 25
rupees (22 to 28 cents), she runs to her mother, who sits in front of the temple entrance with
her 4-year-old sister.

Sajani says she must beg to support her mother and her siblings because her father died three
years ago.

“After my father died, I have been doing this to feed my brother, sister and myself,” she says,
showing a family photo with her father before his death.

After struggling to make a living as a laborer as well as collecting and selling junk in
Kathmandu, her father ventured to India to find work in restaurants and hotels. But he died
in a road accident six months after going away.

Her mother, Ram Kala Mandal, 39, is partially blind from a childhood accident. So once her
father died, Sajani became responsible for earning money to support her 8-year-old brother,
Lakhan, and her 4-year-old sister, Ratiya.

“Since my mother has poor eyesight, I keep her at one point to beg, and I go to places where
it’s more crowded,” Sajani says. “But wherever I am, I come to give her the money I make. She
becomes very happy when I come and give her the money. But at times, when I just make 50
rupees (55 cents) begging all day, I feel sad.”

Sajani’s daily income varies between 20 rupees (22 cents) on bad days and 200 rupees ($2.23)
on good days. But she says there is never a day that she goes homes empty-handed.

“Whatever money I get from people, I use it to feed my family in the evening,” she says.

The family used to rent a room on the ground floor of a mud house in the city. The rent was
600 rupees ($6.70) a month. But when her husband died, Mandal says they could no longer
afford it.

Since then, they have had to move from one temple to another – from Dakshinkali to
Pashupati – for shelter. They also wander from place to place – bus parks, temples and streets
– to beg. But since Mandal has to stay in one place because of her vision problems, she
laments that some days she can only make 10 rupees (11 cents) to support her children.

“I get out to beg starting 7 a.m. every day,” says Mandal, wiping tears from her face. “But I
can’t even feed them properly in the evening.”

Sajani says that her parents always struggled financially, but she and her siblings never had
to beg or to go hungry when their father was alive.

“We didn’t have to beg [un]til our father died,” she says. “They worked for us and, even if our
parents were hungry, they fed us. But after father died, mother couldn’t earn much and go out

73
to work because of her eyesight. So there was no other option than to beg. Who else would
have fed us all?”

Ram Lal Yadav stands in the queue at the temple where the Mandal family begs. He says that
he feels obliged to give money to many child beggars, especially when he is visiting the temple.
He says that it’s a good deed, showing the coins he exchanged for paper money in order to
give to child beggars.

But others say even though they sometimes give to beggars, it’s not sustainable.

Pabitra Khanal spares some change to a beggar in Kathmandu’s business district.

“Sometimes, I give them money,” she says. “But at times when I don’t have anything to give, I
just scold them.”

She says that the middle class can’t afford to support child beggars.

“Even if you give 1 rupee (1 cent) to beggars in the temple and streets, you end up giving 20
rupees (22 cents) every day,” she says. “It’s difficult for middle-class people like us who have to
struggle equally.”

Laxmi Prasad Tripathi, undersecretary at Nepal’s Ministry of Women, Children and Social
Welfare, says that the government has programs for street children, but they haven’t
materialized because of limitations in funding and infrastructure.

Mandal says many people don’t realize she is partially blind.

“Sometimes when I go to beg,” she says, “people yell at me and say, ‘Your hands and feet are
still intact, so why don’t you work?’”

But she says she wishes she could work.

“Who wants to beg?” she asks, her eyes full of tears. “If only my eyes were good, I could have
done some labor work too.”

Mandal tries to correct a common perception that people beg because they don’t want to
work.

“We’re not doing this because we want to,” Mandal says. “It’s because of our poverty. Since we
are from the south and have dark complexion, people think we come from India. Sometimes
they act like they will beat us and label us as foreign beggars.”

Mandal says that thinking about the future worries her most.

“Right now, I am very worried for my daughter,” she says. “She is 12 and is growing up, and
there are lots of perverts around as we have to live in the periphery of the temple.”

74
Sometimes she contemplates killing her family and committing suicide to save them from a
life of misery.

“Sometimes I think of poisoning them and then myself,” she says. “But I can’t do it because of
the love for my children.”

Like the Mandal family, many beggars say they weren’t born to beg.

Child beggars like Sajani say they need to earn money to support themselves and their
families. Some adults give them money out of sympathy or to do a good deed, but others argue
that middle-class families struggle to support their own children let alone street children too.

Government officials admit that not much has been done to help child beggars, promising to
develop a plan soon. Representatives from children’s rights organizations say that both the
government and nongovernmental organizations have failed these children and that
education is the only way to give them a future.

Krishna Subedi of Child Nepal, a nongovernmental children’s rights organization, says that
it’s difficult to collect statistics on the number of Nepali children who beg because of the
country’s open border with India, which makes it easy for many child beggars to come from
India to Nepal.

Like Sajani, 14-year-old Pramod Rokka also devotes his life to begging. He spends much of his
time asking for money in Kathmandu’s New Road area, the capital’s main thoroughfare.

“Sometimes I pick up and sell junk items,” Pramod says, “and at other times I go to beg.”

Pramod is from the neighboring district of Kavre. It’s been five years since he started living on
the streets of Kathmandu.

He says that his friends persuaded him to leave his home and come to the capital when he was
9 years old with the prospect of earning more money than his parents could support him with.
He then spent three years on the streets.

When he was 12, a microbus driver employed him as the money collector for his vehicle. But a
year ago, the driver accused him of laundering money and fired him.

He then resumed his old lifestyle, begging and sleeping in the streets. He says he doesn’t feel
sad because most of his friends also spend their lives on the streets. When he does feel
discouraged about his life, Pramod says he smokes cigarettes.

“Well, this is the lifestyle for people like us, vagabonds,” he says. “We have no present or a
future. We just live our life on the streets.”

Many passersby give money to street beggars, often out of sympathy or in the name of doing a
good deed.

75
Tripathi says that the government hasn’t done anything specifically for child beggars. But he
adds that the government is considering a plan for the future.

Subedi of Child Nepal says that there has been a lack of fully developed work done for street
children, both on the government’s behalf and in the nongovernmental sector.

“There are more than 1,400 organizations that work for street children,” Subedi says.
“Though they have been working for them, not much has been accomplished.”

He says progress is imperative.

“It’s a serious matter to think about – about those children who work and/or beg to fulfill
their family’s financial needs,” he says. “In regard to this, there is no necessary rule or policy in
Nepal.”

Child Nepal aims to educate child beggars about their rights as children.

Juju Kaji Maharjan, founder of Heartbeat, an organization that works on behalf of street
children and beggars, agrees with Subedi.

“There are very limited organizations in Nepal that work for street children – for their
betterment and education,” he says. “Though different organizations have and are working,
nothing much has been done for children who beg in order to feed their family or is there any
statistics on their number.”

He says that the solution is education. Instead of giving money to child beggars, he urges the
government, organizations and citizens to invest in education for these children.

“The organizations shouldn’t give them some money and make them dependent but instead
help to educate them,” he says. “Then only something could happen.”

Maharjan stresses that the government and nongovernmental organizations should address
this issue seriously because children are an integral part of the social structure and are the
future of the nation.

Heartbeat aims to educate child beggars as well as provide them tea and biscuits.

Sajani says she would like to receive an education. She and her siblings have never been to
school.

“We can’t afford to eat properly,” she says. “How can we go to school? Though my brother and
I want to go to school, we cannot afford to be admit[ted] and then spend [money] on books
and stationery.”

Sajani doesn’t even have leisure time, her mother says.

76
“She sits for a while to eat and then rushes out to beg again,” Mandal says.

#This report has been made by GPI journalist Ms. Kalpana Bhusal.

Global Employment Trends for Youth

1. The long-term impact of the youth employment crisis could be felt for decades.
2. 73.4 million young people – 12.6 % – are expected to be out of work in 2013, an
increase of 3.5 million between 2007 and 2013.
3. Behind this worsening figure, the report shows persistent unemployment, a
proliferation of temporary jobs and growing youth discouragement in advanced
economies; and poor quality, informal, subsistence jobs in developing countries.

Unemployment in Nepal

Unemployment is a problem generally in Nepal, but underemployment may be an even

bigger issue, especially in the informal sector. Throughout the world, youth are often forced
to take on temporary, part-time, casual and insecure jobs with poor and hazardous
working conditions and few legal provisions for their protection. Young women frequently
experience gender discrimination in the workplace, are often not allowed to work, or are
forced into subsistence activities. Young people who enter the labour market with
underdeveloped skills, limited or no education, and limited job prospects are most at risk of
underemployment throughout their working lives.

The definition of ‘youth’ varies across the globe; in Nepal, the population in the age group
15–29 years is considered youth. Following this definition, 26% of all people were youth in
2008, making up nearly half of the economically active population. In 2011, 28 percent of
the total population of Nepal are in the age group defined as youth, 54% of whom are girls
and women.

Coverage Type of Underutilization

Time Related Inadequate skills Total

Unemployment
Unemployemnt Earnings mismatch under utilized
Nepal 3.6 7.2 8.8 20.4 40

Male 4.2 8.3 12.8 24.1 49.4

Female 3.1 6.4 5.8 17.6 33

Urban 12.6 6.8 13.6 30.2 63.3

Rural 2.1 7.3 8 18.8 36.3

Source:CBS Nepal Labor Force Survey

77
The immediate problems driving youth underemployment in Nepal are families’ poverty,
hunger and deprivation. As a result, people have to start working at an early age rather
than using their time to develop human capital. This problem is more prevalent among
disadvantaged and discriminated communities.

The economy is not capable of creating productive employment for all those entering the
labour market. The education system remains static with a huge discrepancy between
market trends and prospects and actual supply. Nepali youth face two interrelated
problems: lack of access to relevant education and training, and lack of information.
Educational and training institutions lack a career guidance and counselling system that
could help youth to select prospective careers. The private sector remains the single largest
employer. However, it has not exhibited the capacity, dynamism and skills needed to
accelerate growth. It also faces a large number of problems including an unfavourable
investment climate, poor regulation, lack of incentives, growing labour militancy, weak rule
of law and, most prominently, a poor political environment and a long transition period to
peace leading to uncertainty.

Structural transition away from agriculture towards the industrial sector has been slow;
the contribution of manufacturing to GDP has declined continuously for more than a
decade, reflecting limited employment opportunities. Inflation, the balance of payments,
and energy and fuel crises show problematic trends. Enormous inequalities exist among
workers across sectors, geographic locations and gender. Employment opportunities are
mainly centred in urban areas, where only a fifth of Nepal’s youth live. The conflict
devastated traditional systems that ensured young people had livelihoods options and
employment. Youth from conflict areas were largely excluded from seeking relevant
education and training, and their mobility to obtain employment was limited.

The 2007 policy on technical education and vocational training focuses on expansion,
inclusion, integration, relevance and sustained funding to respond to market demand. No
concrete follow-up action seems to be in the offing, except for project-level efforts. The
Three-Year Interim Plan articulated objectives to encourage employment promotion and
outlined a strategy for training programmes on vocational skills development. A National
Plan of Action for Youth Employment 2010–18 has been prepared with support from ILO to
address various youth issues and identify activities and possible outputs. A Labour Market
Information and Analysis System will be supported by ILO to allow better linkages between
market developments and training institutions that will facilitate young people’s choices to
invest in a particular career path.

The people who are temporarily without job are called unemployed. The state of being unemployed
is unemployment. If people do not get apt job to be employed, it is called ‘the problem of
unemployment’. Nowadays, this problem is a burning challenge in Nepal. Many people are
unemployed in Nepal. The number of them is rapidly increasing. Therefore, it is a serious problem
in Nepal. There are many causes of unemployment in Nepal. Nepal is an agro-based country. Firstly

78
many people are employed in agriculture, but now days it is a trend of leaving agriculture is
increasing. People feel that agriculture is not economically beneficial. They go to towns to look for
good job but they can’t get any job easily and become unemployed. Secondly, some educated people
are extremely traditional. They think that educated people should not start simple job they stay at
home being jobless. Thirdly, most of the students in Nepal are getting general education. They do
not have apt knowledge and skill of technical and practical education. Fourthly, the job opportunity
in Nepal is very limited. So the problems of unemployment produced criminal activities in Nepal.

79