Three Different Theories of Aggression

Summarize the three different theories of aggression.

Theories of Aggression:

Ever felt you need to kick some people’s butt, yet you couldn’t and had to kick the wall instead? Ever wondered why a three year old yells and screams like an adult? Every wondered why a parent of any kind (human/animal) would possibly kill for any sign of a threat?

It’s simple.

It’s aggression in three of its kinds;

Frustration-Aggression theory

Social Learning theory

Aggression as an instinct

I personally am very interested in aggression as I could be quite aggressive myself. Aggression: Is any action that’s intended to cause harm. Be it verbal or physical.

There are two types of aggression, and they are;

  • Hostile/hot aggression: Is to do something aggressive and get some sort of satisfaction from it. Perhaps, planning someone’s murder or robbing a bank. You get some sort of emotional reward from it.
  • Instrumental/cold aggression: Is basically to do act in an aggressive way to preserve some kind of environmental reward out of it, such as; fighting for survival in a war.

Aggression Theories

Frustration-Aggression theory

The frustration aggression theory states that aggression is caused by frustration. When someone is prevented from reaching his target he becomes frustrated. This frustration can then turn into aggression when something triggers it.

For example, if you failed in your final exam you will definitely become frustrated But What if someone you barley know told you “You are such a loser not to pass that exam”. In this case, your stored frustration will surely turn into aggression. Note that the frustration aggression theory does not provide explanation to all types of aggression but it rather focuses on aggression that results from not being able to reach your goals.


Your boss have just mistreated you and told you that you’re a no-good-doer in his/her company, and there was nothing you could do, after all, he/she is the boss, and you’re the employee.

You meet your friend for dinner at night, and the two of you talk, and your friend talks about how good his/her day was, and you suddenly stand up off your chair, it falls back, and you start yelling at your friend about how selfish, and full of themselves and their so-called good life!

What happened in this scenario is that you have been frustrated from the situation you have been earlier today with your boss, so what you ended up doing is displace your anger toward a a safer target. This is called Displacement.

This is the Frustration-Aggression theory.

Social Learning theory

“Learning would be exceedingly laborious, not to mention hazardous, if people had to rely solely on the effects of their own actions to inform them what to do. Fortunately, most human behavior is learned observationally through modeling: from observing others one forms an idea of how new behaviors are performed, and on later occasions this coded information serves as a guide for action.”

-Albert Bandura, Social Learning Theory, 1977

What is Social Learning Theory?

The social learning theory proposed by Albert Bandura has become perhaps the most influential theory of learning and development. While rooted in many of the basic concepts of traditional learning theory, Bandura believed that direct reinforcement could not account for all types of learning.

His theory added a social element, arguing that people can learn new information and behaviors by watching other people. Known as observational learning (or modeling), this type of learning can be used to explain a wide variety of behaviors.

Basic Social Learning Concepts

There are three core concepts at the heart of social learning theory. First is the idea that people can learn through observation. Next is the idea that internal mental states are an essential part of this process. Finally, this theory recognizes that just because something has been learned, it does not mean that it will result in a change in behavior.


A (lets say 6 years old) kids lives in an environment where he hears adults screams all the time, and hit one another. The next day he goes to school, and yells at the kids in his classmates, and shove them up the wall.

Kids tend to learn and observe adults that they copy what they do inside and outside their homes.

This is the Social Learning theory.

Aggression as an instinct

The theory that human aggression is an innate biological drive similar to sex and hunger. As such, it cannot be eliminated, but must be controlled, for the good of society. The theory is based on observations of non-human species in which aggression is used to maintain territory and fighting is necessary for survival. The theory supports the contentious notion that sport acts as a catharsis providing a safe and socially acceptable outlet for aggression.

An issue which continually plagues social scientists is whether mankind behaves according to environmental or genetic factors. One aspect of behavior that has considerable impact on global society is that of aggression. Thus, the question becomes, is aggression an instinct? Human aggression not only plagues society within, in such aspects as crime, but without in the guise of war. Some have gone so far as to state that man is the cruelest and most ruthless species that has ever walked the earth.1

Political scientists often argue that by its very nature, the modern bureaucratic state engenders war. They believe that man’s inherent aggression and competitiveness has been increased by political systems which thrive on conflict in order to express their hegemony.2

Of course, mankind has been engaged in warfare for as long as recorded history documents. Psychologically, scholars such as Sigmund Freud believed that humans are born violent, while others, Carl G. Jung for instance, have shown that violent expressions within society are often mirrored within the psyche itself.3

Because war is such an integral part of the contemporary world, this paper will discuss the experience of war from the perspective of a national politician, and average citizen, and the President of the United States. To conclude the work, the paper will synthesize common attitudes about warfare and ask some pertinent questions about the future of man’s aggressive behaviors.


Eventually, the last theory is known to be instinctive, and innate, and part of our genes. For example, you have two male mammals fighting for one female, and the best gets the female mammal. In terms of human beings, it’s fighting for survival. You’re being attacked by someone, or getting raped, it’s only natural you’ll fight back for your life and maintain your existence.

This is the Instinctive-Aggression Theory.

Some of the things that could cause aggression;

  • Watching Violent movies
  • Heat
  • Alcohol
  • Gender

In terms of gender, men are more likely to be aggressive physically as they would be fighting with their fists. But women are more likely to be aggressive verbally, in terms of gossiping, spreading rumors…etc.


Continue Reading

Juries’ verdicts influenced by their individual dispositions

How are the Juries’ verdicts influenced by their individual dispositions and by their working together? Explain with examples from Pakistani Society.

It is impossible for a single juror to comprehend all of the facts, events, and nuances contained in a courtroom case presentation. No matter how intelligent or experienced a juror is in making important decisions, every juror, like every person, has limitations. For example, individual jurors engage in a variety of coping mechanisms which “filter” information and shape perceptions so as to create understanding and comfortable feelings and to minimize dissonance. Individual jurors are also limited in their decision making abilities by varying emotional reactions, differing assessments of attribution, varying intellectual capacities, varying abilities to recall, differences in cultural views and sensitivities, widely varying life experiences, and many other factors.

As a result, jurors construct different stories or assessments of court cases even though every juror was exposed to the same facts, evidence and arguments in the case. They construct their own version of the facts and motivations of each of the trial participants. This process of applying a juror’s understanding of life and the creation of a narrative or story for the case being presented to them in court is the driving force behind an individual juror’s decision about the case. Once a narrative has become firmly visualized, jurors will rarely change their opinions about what happened, although they will occasionally change their minds about how the events in the case should be legally classified.

Ironically, the same limitations and characteristics of jurors which give meaning to individuality are also strengths with which the jury group as a whole can arrive at a fair and equitable decision. Differing insights and differing views of events and motivations provide the group with a more complete perspective out of which better quality decisions can be made.

There are a number of ways in which various processes within a jury influence another juror’s individual decision making. For example, in the context of group decision making, information is exchanged as a byproduct of the social interaction which occurs within the group. Knowledge may be acquired that might not have otherwise occurred to individuals without the interaction because of inexperience or lack of knowledge. It is in this critical point in the jury deliberation process, for example, that jurors with any relevant life experience will generally speak up, and sometimes become instant experts.

It is human nature for jurors to talk to each other about the case during the trial and certainly during deliberations despite court admonitions. But regardless of when the substantive interaction begins, each member of the group typically begins with a set of ideas about his or her own goals and the alternative choices. As discussion emerges, individuals share their ideas with others, and in a larger jury 8-12 people, they are especially likely to share their ideas with other members of a subgroup with whom they share characteristics. Gradually, the sharing of ideas through their social interaction influences the development of each individual’s cognitive representations of the case and the decision to be reached, as well as those of the entire jury or any subgroup.

The information exchanged by members of the group includes both cognitive and affective information ( i.e. how each of the jurors thinks and feels about the issues in the case). The differences in the effects of each are interesting and profound. As a practical matter, it is also impossible to separate one’s thinking about a set of circumstances from one’s emotional reaction to them. However, in the process of sharing cognitive and affective information, the recipient of a shared idea will likely react differently than the originator, although the recipient may be motivated to act in complete concert with the originator. As a result, jurors will often (if not usually) arrive at the same conclusion, although their thoughts and feelings (rationale) about it may be different.

Similarly, in the quest to comprehend and solve any dilemmas presented in a case, jurors almost always learn and understand the case more completely only after discussion within the group. There are many reasons which underlie this principle. For example, the group as a whole usually has a more complete data base than any of its members for problem-solving. It is not likely than any individual member of the jury has acquired or has access to all of the pieces of information needed to solve the group’s problem.

One of the most important lessons for us is that as a general proposition, the knowledge presented in a case in court is not developed or presented in an explicitly stated and usable form for individuals to easily adapt in making a complete decision. For this reason, one of the most important challenges for any trial attorney is to arrange the case into a simple and easily digestible story form that conforms with the way jurors go about resolving the case.

The interaction of a group can provide motivation to arrive at a more complete and morally supportable decision than one individual juror acting alone. Interpersonal energy among jurors, either positive or negative, tends to enliven and stimulate more complete and acceptable discussion and results.

Because of the limitations that an individual experiences in the formation of a story which explains the case, a narrative which at first appears to be complete to those of us on the trial team, is often determined to be inadequate or inappropriate once expressed before the rest of the jury group. The checks and balances offered by a multiple person jury helps to insure what is often referred to as justice. Whether there is more justice dispensed by a 6 person jury or a 12 person jury, we will leave to the philosophers.

Abstract – A trial by jury is possibly the single most defining feature of the common law legal system. As a people we hold a trial by jury as the ideal form of unbiased judicial procedure. However, one should be concerned with this belief, especially due the the preponderance of experimental evidence that suggests the jury system is failing in almost every one of its goals. This review considers evidence that portrays the ‘jury of one peers’ as a group that is highly susceptible to stereotypes, manipulation, and influences, all of which go far beyond the scope of legally relevant information.

A trial by jury is one of the most characteristic aspects of common law criminal procedures. The origin of a jury of one’s peers resides as far back as 1215 to the concessions of King John toward his nobles in the Magna Charter. Since then many countries have incorporated this procedure into their criminal law systems, with the United States using trials by jury more so then any other country (Fairchild, 1983).

In a perfect, just world, the jury system would provide a fair and elaborate procedure through which a defendant’s potential guilt in the violation of criminal laws would be determined in an unbiased manner. However, empirical evidence suggests that this “fair and unbiased” procedure is failing. Baldwin and McConville (1979) found that as many as 5 percent of jury trials in England came up with disturbingly questionable convictions. And this conclusion is not limited to investigators, Kalven and Zeisal (1966) noted that judges and jurors disagreed regarding the verdicts in as many as 20 percent of cases. An ever growing body of evidence, some of which will be reviewed here, suggests that juries may be, both consciously and unconsciously, using a number of extra-evidential factors in order to come to their decisions. This review will culminate the data from a number of psychological studies in an attempt to outline how the attributes of the defendant, juror, attorney, judge, and the crime, can manipulate a juries decision processes.

Influence of Defendants Attributes

The majority of experiments considering the psychological implications of the common law jury system focus on the influential effects of defendants characteristics. Foley and Chamblin (1982) show that jurors are influenced, beyond the scope of evidence, by race. In their study white and black male subjects were exposed to cases with defendants and victims of varied race. Two main patterns emerged: (1) white subjects showed a stereotypical bias with the placements of higher guilt against black defendants, especially in those cases that involved white victims. (2) Black subjects did not show any significant interracial biases, however they did present a strong bias against intra-racial cases with defendants and victims of the same race. This pattern may be due to the black communities increased awareness of interracial violence. The data shows that defendants are being evaluated by jurors beyond the scope of the evidence, and at least in the case of black defendants it may not be possible to get a fair trial by either white or black jurors.

Wolfgang and Reidol (1973) showed that racial differences could even be strong enough to influence the imposition of something as serious as the death penalty. Blacks convicted of raping a white woman (rape at the time was punishable by death in the southern states) were executed at 18 times a greater rate then any other racial combination. Even in today’s pro-equality environment most psychologists would not be surprised by this finding. What might not be quite as expected is the great number of additional attributes that can influence jurors decisions. Landy and Aronson (1969) exposed mock jurors to identical cases, with only the status of the defendants being manipulated. Jurors were led to believe that the defendants were either of high, average, or low status. Upon making their decisions it became clear that jurors were giving low status defendants much harsher decisions then medium and high status ones.

Dowdle, Gillen, and Miller (1974) replicated the status experiment, but instead manipulated the defendant’s overall characteristics. They found that the defendants who had been attributed with positive characteristics were treated with extremely significant leniency as compared to those with negative characteristics. A final replication carried out by Sigal and Landy (1972) showed identical results with likeable and unlikeable defendants.

One very interesting experiment showed the complexity that the defendant-attribute effect could obtain (Sigal & Ostrove, 1975). This study showed that juror’s attributions of guilt upon a defendant, and thereby their sentencing recommendations, vary depending on how well the defendant fits the juror’s stereotype of the crime and the criminal that they believe is typical of that particular crime. Two conditions were manipulated by the experimenters, defendant’s attractivity and the type of crime they were accused of, theft or swindle. Two clear effects occurred. First, unattractive defendants got larger sentences when being charged with theft. Secondly, attractive defendants received more severe sentences, then unattractive ones, when accused of swindling. The authors believe that these effects occur because of how well the defendants fit the stereotype for the particular crime. When attractiveness is related to the crime, like swindling, the defendant appears to the juror to be a more typical fit for that crime, and is thereby easier to perceive as guilty. The same effect occurs for theft, where unattractive defendants are perceived as being more typical.

It seems clear that a defendant’s characteristics have a strong influence on a jurors decision making processes. It also appears that, for completely irrelevant reasons, jurors will in some situations actually empathize with the defendants. Austin, Walster, and Utne (1976) exposed jurors to cases where the defendants received no, moderate, or excessive harm while attempting to escape capture. It was clear that jurors gave increased leniency to defendants with increased suffering. DeJong, Morris, and Hastorf (1976) looked at whether irrelevant empathy would go beyond the somewhat understandable “already payed for it” idea. In their experiment, the relevant condition was whether or not the defendant’s accomplice was captured or had escaped without the possibility of capture. The empathy effect occurred again, with the greater number of years of punishment being sentenced to those whose accomplice had been captured.

Influence of Jurors Attributes

Beyond the effects of a defendant’s characteristics on jury decision making, it appears that a number of aspects of the juror as an individual are significantly relevant. A three-factor juror personality construct implicates the relevance of juror authoritarianism, belief in an internal or external locus of control, and a believe in a just world.

Berg and Vidmar (1975) examined the effect of jurors degree of authoritarianism on the severity of verdicts and the type of trial information that was being attended too. Their results indicated that high authoritarians are significantly more severe jurors than low authoritarians, particularly so with low-status defendants. When tested, high authoritarian subjects recalled mainly legally-insignificant information regarding the defendant’s characteristics.

The relationship between jurors beliefs regarding internal and an external locus of control (the belief that individuals do or do-not have complete control over their lives and actions) and their deliberation decision processes were investigated by Phares and Wilson (1972). The author’s found that mock-jurors that scored high on a measure of internal control attributed more responsibility to the defendants than jurors that scored high on a measure of external control. Sosis (1974) believes that these effects occur because of projection. In other words, it appears that jurors apply their own self-perceptions of responsibility onto their judgements of others. This finding may be of significant importance to cases regarding criminal neglect, recklessness, and other offences of a typically non-lethal manner.

The third juror personality construct, believe in a just world, concerns a subjects belief that we live in a world where people get what they deserve and deserve what they get. Lerner (1970) explained that under certain circumstances innocent victims can be blamed for their misfortunes so that the observer can maintain their just world beliefs. Auckerman and Gerbasi (1973) investigated Lerner’s hypothesis with a mock-jury of undergraduates. It was shown that subjects who ranked high on a just world scale held more respectable victims less responsible for crimes committed against them, after all, in their minds they did nothing to deserve it. While at the other end of the scale, unrespectable victims (e.g., prostitutes) were held highly responsible for their victimization. In summary, experimental data suggests that authoritarianism level, belief in internal-external control, and belief in a just world, all influence a jurors decision making processes to an extent where they ignore relevant pieces of information and focus on irrelevant ones.

Further investigations have suggested that juror characteristics may go beyond the clear influences of the aforementioned personality constructs. Evidence suggests that jurors with prior experience can show an increased disposition toward conviction (Reed, 1965; Jurow, 1971). Skolnick (1966) suggests that this is due to the courtroom experienced jurors tendency to believe, often falsely, that the authorities apprehend only guilty individuals, thereby creating a “guilty bias.” However, the evidence, from which Skilnick’s work is based on, is primarily inferential. A more methodologically sound study has shown that a guilty bias does not always occur. Nagao and Davis (1980) used criminal cases to display the many patterns of jury experience that do exist. Subjects were placed into one of two mock jury situations and presented with two criminal cases of varied severity, a rape (severe crime) case and a vandalism case (the non-severe crime). Jury one deliberated first on the rape case and secondly on the vandalism case. Jury two was presented with the same two cases, but in the opposite order. The juries displayed significantly different patterns of conviction. Jury one, which deliberated on the rape case first, convicted the vandalism defendants at a significantly higher rate then jury two. While jury two, which first deliberated on the vandalism case, convicted rape defendants at a significantly lower rate. The author’s suggested that these results can be experienced by Skolnick’s “guilty bias” along with the existence of an opposing “innocent bias.” The author’s believe that the pattern by which jurors found rape defendants guilty less often after experiencing a vandalism case may be due to a shift in the perceived burden of proof caused by an “innocent bias.” Vandals were found not guilty more often then the defendants in the rape case. Those who were exposed to the vandalism case first may have come to believe that innocent people do in fact get charged with crimes, which in turn increases the juror’s anxiety over the possibility of convicting an innocent person. At the opposite extreme a “guilt bias” lowers the burden of proof when subjects were first exposed to the rape case. The emotional severity of a rape case, along with the tendency of the prosecution proceeding with a greater amount of evidence then they might with a vandalism case, reinforces the idea that guilty people are the ones that get charged, thereby lowering the juror’s anxiety about finding defendants guilty.

Many of North America’s courts have now considered this issue and have thereby limited a juror’s term to one case, suggesting that this may now be a nonissue. However, this author believes that these patterns may not disappear as quickly as policymakers expect. In today’s multimedia world of Court TV and CNN we are being presented with entire criminal trials, with each viewer being given that opportunity of being on a worldwide jury.

As it has been shown, previous exposure to a judicial environment, whether actual or possibly even superficially via media-trial exposure, can potentially confound a subject’s general ability to be an unbiased juror. It also appears that exposure to publicity regarding a particular crime can effect the ability of potential jurors to enter the court without preconceived verdicts.

Moran and Cutler (1991) surveyed potential jurors in order to determine any effects that may be occurring as the result of pre-trial media exposure. Their findings showed that exposure to publicity regarding the crime and the accused was highly correlated to the existence of predetermined conclusions of the defendants guilt. Linz and Pinrod (1992) found that this effect goes far beyond the jurors preconceived beliefs, and that even after unbiased and judicially significant information was provided to the subjects during the trial, jurors who had received greater amounts of media exposure were more prone to convict the accused. Baron and Bryne (1997) suggest that pretrial publicity, which in its most dramatic form shows the suspect being taken away in handcuffs, forces us to form an impression of that suspect. This first impression is most often one of guilt. This first impression in turn influences the acceptance of all subsequent information, possibly leading one to accept questionable information that implies guilt, while rejecting information that favors innocence.

Influence of Attorney’s Attributes

One would most certainly expect that a defendant’s attributes, as well as a jurors personality characteristics, would have some sort of an effect on a jurors decision making processes. It is also to be expected that certain attributes of the defendant’s attorney, such as composure and persuasiveness, would influence the jury. Villemur and Shibley-Hyde (1993) preformed a dramatic experiment that showed that jurors can be biased by attorney attributes beyond those typically expected. In their experiment, jurors were exposed to a 50-minute audiotape of a rape trial, while looking at photographs of the female victim and male defendant. In the test conditions the defendant’s attorney was manipulated as either male or female. The study resulted in a strikingly significant finding. The defendant’s acquittal rate under the female defense attorney condition was 71%, while under the male attorney condition the acquittal rate was 49%. The author’s provided three possible explanations for this result: (1) it may be an instance of what has been termed the talking platypus phenomenon, through which jurors are so amazed that a woman can be a competent lawyer that her performance is over evaluated, similar to how we would be amazed by a talking platypus – it’s not what it says that’s important, it’s a wonder that it can say anything. (2) The female attorney may be more persuasive, because, as a woman, it seems not to be in her best interest to defend a person who is indeed guilty of rape. (3) the fact that the attorney is female may be shifting the jury’s attention away from the defendant’s gender, and the fact that this is a crime that tends to prey on females via a male predator. Regardless of which explanation is correct, this attorney-gender effect provides just another example of how a jury can be manipulated by irrelevant information and thereby fails at their assigned task.

Influence of Judge’s Attributes

It appears that the opinion of the judge, although unstated, can influence the opinion of jurors (1995). In Hart’s ingenious study, judges’ instructions to the jury of a criminal case were videotaped, along with the collection of their written decisions regarding the defendants guilt or innocence. Jurors who had witnessed a completely different case were then shown the judges taped deliberation instructions, while being led to believe that these instructions were from the same criminal case that they had just viewed. Jurors were found to be significantly more likely to give a guilty verdict when the judge expected a guilty vote in the completely unrelated case. It would appear that the judge’s nonverbal behavior was influencing the juror’s decisions, a fact that shows just how malleable the jurors can be.

Procedural Concerns

A number of aspects of deliberation procedures also suggest that the jury process may be failing. James (1959) found that while deliberating jurors were not using their time effectively. Fifty percent of the jury’s time was used discussing opinions and personal experiences, often only indirectly related to the trial; about 35% of their time was used considering instructions and procedural issues, with only 15% of jurors time spent deliberating on testimonial evidence.

An investigation of jury deliberation by Hawkins (1962) looked at the amount of juror participation when more then one opinion was held within the group. He found that the larger faction spoke for a much greater amount of time, and that the minority opinion was stifled. Kalven and Zeisel (1966) hypothesized that jury deliberation does not accomplish its primary task of find facts, but rather allows the majority opinion to persuade the minority to shift toward agreement.

Group discussion can even lead to improper decisions when all the jurors’ opinions are in agreement. Social psychological theory predicts that once jury-members discuss their opinions, and find that they all share it, the group will use this information to further reinforce their decision and will often take it to an extreme level. In their study, Myers and Kaplan (1976) investigated this issue of group polarization. In their study subjects were exposed to high and low guilt situations, subsequently being asked to give their verdict and sentence. Subjects were then placed together into a mock jury and told to have an open discussion deliberation. As expected those who had originally made low guilt decisions became increasingly lenient after deliberating, while those who held high guild opinions made increasingly severe decisions.

It should be mentioned that open-discussion deliberation is not without benefits. A study by Izzet and Leginski (1974) showed that group discussion can lessen the effects of stereotypes regarding the defendants, and secondly eliminates the effect of these biased attitudes on sentencing recommendations.

General Discussion

As this review has shown, there is numerous areas of concern regarding the effectiveness of the common law jury system. Dozens of psychological studies have provided evidence for the influence of the defendants, jurors, attorneys, and judges characteristics. The majority of these studies imply that the unbiased nature of the jury system is a charade, and that the jury system is failing at its primary goal, to provide a fair trial. Is the jury system irreparable? Most do not believe so. One major advocate of change Adler (1994) has made three suggestions that he believes may save the jury system. First, he recommends the elimination of peremptory challenges. Secondly, the elimination of exemptions for the best-educated members of society (e.g., doctors and professors). Finely, Adler recommends that we change the rules so that jurors can both make notes and ask approved questions. This author personally believes that these suggestions would not be effective in solving the main problems of the jury system. I believe the only valid solution is to take the time to educate the jurors regarding the irrelevant information that can manipulate their decisions making processes. A common effect found in psychological studies is that when subjects are informed of variables that are unconsciously affecting them, they can often eliminate the influence of such effects. I propose that an effective program for solving the jury system faults would begin by briefly educating the jurors about these influences prior to the trial, perhaps in the form of a videotaped presentation. Secondly, I would suggest that prior to deliberation judges should remind jurors to focus on the evidence that has been presented and not the characteristics of the defendant that they have observed during the trial, with the exception of those that have been obtained from a defendant’s actions on the witness stand. A final step that may be pursued is to make the jury’s foreman responsible to reemphasize the importance of the juror’s to look beyond these irrelevant influences. Of course before considering implementing such a strategy it should be scientifically studied, so that its validity and effectiveness can first be determined.

Continue Reading

Historical Perspective of Sociology

Historical Perspective of Sociology

toward understanding the definition of Sociology — All inquiries were once a part of philosophy, that great mother of the sciences, and philosophy embraced them all in an undifferentiated and amorphous fashion. One by one, however, with the growth of Western civilization, the various sciences Cut the apron strings, as it were, and began to pursue separate and independent courses. Astronomy and physics were among the first to break away, and were followed thereafter by chemistry, biology, and geology. In the nineteenth century two new sciences appeared: psychology or the science of human behaviour; and sociology j or the science of human behaviour; and sociology, or the science of human society. Thus, what had once been cosmology, a subdivision of philosophy, became astronomy; what had once been natural philosophy became the science of physics; what had once been mental philosophy, became the science of psychology; and what had once been social philosophy, became the science of sociology. In the nineteenth century a.French philosopher named Auguste Cornte worked out, in a series of books, a general approach to the study of society and recommended that the study of society become the science of society .

Sociology” is composed of two words: Socius , . (Latin word) meaning companion or associate; and logos , (Greek word) meaning word. In the latter half of the Century, Herbert Spencer adopted the word “sociology” in the title of his work .


Continue Reading

Factors in The Process of PEACE MAKING

Some powerful forces can transform hostility into harmony. In the light of this statement, discuss the factors that can play an important role in the process of  “PEACE MAKING”.

Peace Making?

The term “peacemaking” is used in two ways. First, peacemaking is sometimes used to refer to a stage of conflict, which occurs during a crisis or a prolonged conflict after diplomatic intervention has failed and before peacekeeping forces have had a chance to intervene. In this context peacemaking is an intervention during armed combat.

The second way the term is used is to mean simply “making peace.” Idea of making peace implies a certain devotion towards that goal. Peacemaking is necessary and important in cases of protracted violence that do not seem to burn themselves out and in cases where war crimes and other human devastation demand the attention of outside forces. In both cases, peacemaking always implies the threat of violent intervention as an act of last option. In the second case it may demand violent intervention sooner rather than later.

Social psychologists have focused on four strategies for helping enemies become comrades. We can remember these as the four C’s of the peacemaking: Contact, Cooperation, Communication, Conciliation.



Might putting people into close contact reduce their hostilities? There are good reasons to think so. yet, despite some encouraging early studies of desegregation, other studies show that in schools mere desegregation has little effect upon racial attitudes, like the one study by social psychologist Walter Stephan (1986). According to him, sometimes desegregation has led to increased prejudice (especially by Whites toward Blacks) and sometimes to decreased prejudice (especially by Blacks towards Whites). But on balance the effects are minimal for both Black and White students. In most schools, interracial contact is seldom prolonged or intimate. When it is structured to convey equal status, hostilities often lessen.

Here equal-status contact means the contact made on equal basis. Just as a relationship between people of unequal status breeds attitudes consistent with their relationship, so do relationships between those of equal status. Thus, to reduce prejudice, interracial contact should be between persons equal in status.


Although equal-status contact can help, it is sometimes not enough. Contacts are especially beneficial when people work together to overcome a common threat or to achieve a superordinate goal. A superordinate goal is a shared goal that necessitates cooperative effort; a goal that overrides people’s differences from one another.

In his boys’ camp experiments, Sherif used the unifying effect of a common enemy to create cohesive groups. Then he used the unifying power of cooperative effort to settle the conflicting groups. Taking their cue from experiments on cooperative contact, several research teams have replaced competitive classroom learning situations with opportunities for cooperative learning. Their heartening results suggest how to constructively implement desegregation and strengthen our confidence that cooperative activities can benefit human relations at all levels.

Extending these findings, Samuel Gaertner with his fellows (1990, 1991) reports that working cooperatively has especially favorable effects under conditions that lead people to define a new, inclusive group that dissolves their former subgroups. If, for example, the members of two groups sit alternately around a table, (rather than on opposite sides), give their new group a single name, and then work together, their old feelings of bias against the former outsiders will diminish. “Us” and “them” become “we”.


Conflicting parties can also seek to resolve their differences by bargaining either directly with one another or they can ask a third-party to mediate by making suggestions and facilitating their negotiations. Or they can arbitrate by submitting their disagreement to someone who will study the issues and impose a settlement.

When a pie of fixed size is to be divided, adopting a tough negotiating stance tends to gain one a larger piece (for example, a better price). When the pie can vary in size, as in the dilemma situations, toughness more often backfires.

Third-party mediators also help resolve conflicts by facilitating constructive communication. Their first task is to help the parties rethink the conflict and to gain information about the other party’s interests. By prodding them to set aside their conflicting demands and opening offers and to think instead about underlying needs, interests and goals, the mediator aims to replace a competitive “win-lose” orientation with a cooperative “win-win” orientation that aims at a mutually beneficial resolution. Mediators can also structure communications that will peel away misperceptions and increase mutual understanding and trust.


Sometimes tension and suspicion run so high that communication becomes all but impossible. Each party may threaten, coerce or retaliate against the other. Unfortunately, such acts tend to be reciprocated, thus escalating the conflict. In such times, small conciliatory gestures by one party may elicit reciprocal conciliatory acts by the other party. Thus tension may be reduced to a level where communication can occur. One such conciliatory strategy, GRIT (graduated and reciprocated initiatives in tension reduction), aims to alleviate tense international situations.

Those who mediate tense labor-management and international conflicts sometimes use one other peacemaking strategy. They instruct the participants in the dynamics of conflict and peacemaking. The hope is that understanding – understanding how conflicts are fed by social traps, perceived injustice, competition and misperceptions and understanding how conflicts can be resolved through equal-status contact, cooperation, communication and conciliation – can help us establish and enjoy peaceful, rewarding relationships.

Continue Reading

Increase Altruism and Different Measures to Help Others

How can we increase altruism? Describe different measures to help others.

Altruism or selflessness is the principle or practice of concern for the welfare of others. It is a traditional virtue in many cultures and a core aspect of various religious traditions, though the concept of “others” toward whom concern should be directed can vary among cultures and religions. Altruism or selflessness is the opposite of selfishness.

Altruism can be distinguished from feelings of duty and loyalty. Altruism is a motivation to provide something of value to a party who must be anyone but one’s self, while duty focuses on a moral obligation towards a specific individual (e.g., a god, a king), or collective (e.g., a government). Pure altruism consists of sacrificing something for someone other than the self (e.g. sacrificing time, energy or possessions) with no expectation of any compensation or benefits, either direct, or indirect (e.g., receiving recognition for the act of giving).

Much debate exists as to whether “true” altruism is possible. The theory of psychological egoism suggests that no act of sharing, helping or sacrificing can be described as truly altruistic, as the actor may receive an intrinsic reward in the form of personal gratification. The validity of this argument depends on whether intrinsic rewards qualify as “benefits.”

The term altruism may also refer to an ethical doctrine that claims that individuals are morally obliged to benefit others. Used in this sense, it’s usually contrasted to egoism, which is defined as acting to the benefit of one’s self.

The concept has a long history in philosophical and ethical thought. The term was originally coined in the 19th century by the founding sociologist and philosopher of science, Auguste Comte, and has become a major topic for psychologists (especially evolutionary psychology researchers), evolutionary biologists, and ethologists. Whilst ideas about altruism from one field can have an impact on the other fields, the different methods and focuses of these fields always lead to different perspectives on altruism. In simple terms, altruism is caring about the welfare of other people and acting to help them.

There has been some debate on whether or not humans are truly capable of psychological altruism. Some definitions specify a self-sacrificial nature to altruism and a lack of external rewards for altruistic behaviors.However, because altruism ultimately benefits the self in many cases, the selflessness of altruistic acts is brought to question. The social exchange theory postulates that altruism only exists when benefits outweigh costs. Daniel Batson is a psychologist who examined this question and argues against the social exchange theory. He identified four major motives for altruism: altruism to ultimately benefit the self (egoism), to ultimately benefit the other person (altruism), to benefit a group (collectivism), or to uphold a moral principle (principlism). Altruism that ultimately serves selfish gains is thus differentiated from selfless altruism, but the general conclusion has been that empathy-induced altruism can be genuinely selfless. The empathy-altruism hypothesis basically states that psychological altruism does exist and is evoked by the empathic desire to help someone who is suffering. Feelings of empathic concern are contrasted with feelings of personal distress, which compel people to reduce their own unpleasant emotions. People with empathic concern help others in distress even when exposure to the situation could be easily avoided, whereas those lacking in empathic concern avoid helping unless it is difficult or impossible to avoid exposure to another’s suffering. Helping behavior is seen in humans at about two years old, when a toddler is capable of understanding subtle emotional cues.


In psychological research on altruism, studies often observe altruism as demonstrated through prosocial behaviors such as helping, comforting, sharing, cooperation, philanthropy, and community service. Research has found that people are most likely to help if they recognize that a person is in need and feel personal responsibility for reducing the person’s distress. Research also suggests that the number of bystanders witnessing distress or suffering affects the likelihood of helping (the Bystander effect). Greater numbers of bystanders decrease individual feelings of responsibility.However, a witness with a high level of empathic concern is likely to assume personal responsibility entirely regardless of the number of bystanders.

Many studies have observed the effects of volunteerism (as a form of altruism) on happiness and health and have consistently found a strong connection between volunteerism and current and future health and well-being.In a study of older adults, those who volunteered were significantly higher on life satisfaction and will to live, and significantly lower in depression, anxiety, and somatization.Volunteerism and helping behavior have not only been shown to improve mental health, but physical health and longevity as well.One study examined the physical health of mothers who volunteered over a 30-year period and found that 52% of those who did not belong to a volunteer organization experienced a major illness while only 36% of those who did volunteer experienced one. A study on adults ages 55+ found that during the four-year study period, people who volunteered for two or more organizations had a 63% lower likelihood of dying. After controlling for prior health status, it was determined that volunteerism accounted for a 44% reduction in mortality. Merely being aware of kindness in oneself and others is also associated with greater well-being. A study that asked participants to count each act of kindness they performed for one week significantly enhanced their subjective happiness. It is important to note that, while research supports the idea that altruistic acts bring about happiness, it has also been found to work in the opposite direction—that happier people are also kinder. The relationship between altruistic behavior and happiness is bidirectional. Studies have found that generosity increases linearly from sad to happy affective states. Studies have also been careful to note that feeling over-taxed by the needs of others has conversely negative effects on health and happiness. For example, one study on volunteerism found that feeling overwhelmed by others’ demands had an even stronger negative effect on mental health than helping had a positive one (although positive effects were still significant). Additionally, while generous acts make people feel good about themselves, it is also important for people to appreciate the kindness they receive from others. Studies suggest that gratitude goes hand-in-hand with kindness and is also very important for our well-being. A study on the relationship happiness to various character strengths showed that “a conscious focus on gratitude led to reductions in negative affect and increases in optimistic appraisals, positive affect, offering emotional support, sleep quality, and well-being.”

Increase Altruism:

As social scientists, our goal is to understand human behavior, thus also suggesting ways to improve it. We therefore wonder how we might apply insights from research on altruism to increase altruism.



One way to promote altruism is to reverse those factors that inhibit it. Given that hurried, preoccupied people are less likely to help, can we think of ways to encourage them to slow down and turn their attention outward? If the presence of others diminishes each bystander’s sense of responsibility, how can we enhance responsibility?




Reduce Ambiguity, Increase Responsibility

If Latane and Darley’s decision tree (Figure 14-2) describes the dilemmas bystanders face, then assisting people to interpret an incident correctly and to assume responsibility should increase their involvement. Leonard Bickman and his colleagues (1975, 1977, 1979) tested this presumption in a series of experiments on crime reporting. In each, supermarket or bookstore shoppers witnessed a shoplifting. Some witnesses had seen signs that attempted both to sensitize them to shoplifting and to inform th6m how to report it. But the signs” had little effect. Other witnesses heard a bystander interpret the incident: “Say, look at her. She’s shoplifting. She put that into her purse.” (The bystander then left to look for a lost child.) Still others heard this person add, “We saw it. We should report it. It’s our responsibility.” Both face-to-face comments substantially boosted reporting of the crime.

The potency of personal influence is no longer in doubt. Robert Foss (1978) surveyed several hundred blood donors and found that neophyte donors, unlike veterans, were usually there at someone’s personal invitation. Leonard Jason and his collaborators (1984) confirmed that personal appeals for .blood donation are much more effective than posters and media announcements—if the personal appeals come from friends. Nonverbal appeals can also be effective when they are personalized. Mark Snyder and his co-workers (1974) found that hitchhikers doubled the number of ride offers by looking drivers straight in the eye. A personal approach makes one feel less anonymous, more responsible.

Henry Solomon and Linda Solomon (1978; Solomon & others, 1981) confirmed the benefits of reducing anonymity. They found that bystanders who had identified themselves to one another—by name, age, and so forth—were more likely to offer aid to a sick person than were anonymous bystanders. Similarly, when a female experimenter caught the eye of another shopper and gave her a warm smile prior to stepping on an elevator, that shopper was far more likely than other shoppers to offer help when the experimenter later said, “Damn. I’ve left my glasses. Can anyone tell me what floor the umbrellas are on?” Even a trivial momentary conversation with someone—”Excuse me, aren’t you Suzie Spear’s sister?” “No, I’m not”—dramatically increased the person’s later helpfulness.

Helpfulness also increases when one expects later to meet the victim and other witnesses again. Using a laboratory intercom system, Jody Gottlieb and Charles Carver (1980) led University of Miami students to believe they were discussing problems of college living with other students. (Actually, the other discussants were tape-recorded.) When one of the supposed fellow discussants had a choking fit and cried out for help, she was helped most quickly by subjects who believed they would soon be meeting the discussants face-to-face In short, anything that personalizes bystanders—a personal request, eye contact, stating one’s name, anticipation of interaction—increases willingness to help.

Personal treatment probably makes bystanders more self-aware and therefore more attuned to their own altruistic ideals. That people made self-aware by acting in front of a mirror or TV camera exhibit increased consistency between attitudes and actions. By contrast, “deindividoated” people are less responsible. Thus, circumstances promoting self-awareness—name tags, being watched and evaluated., undistracted quiet-should also increase helping. Shelley Duval, Virginia Duval, and Robert Net. (1979) confirmed this. They showed University of Southern California womer their own image on a TV screen or had them complete a biographical questionnaire just before giving them a chance to contribute time and money to people in need. Those made self-aware contributed more. Similarly, pedestrians who have just had their picture taken by someone became more likely to help as-other pedestrian pick up dropped envelopes (Hoover & others, 1983). To be  self-aware, yet not self-preoccupied, makes people more likely to put their ideals into practice.

Guilt and Concern for Self-Image

Earlier we noted that people who feel guilty will act to reduce guilt and restore their self-worth. Can heightening people’s awareness of their transgressions therefore increase desire to help? A Reed College research team led by Richard Katzev (1978) wondered. So when visitors to the Portland Art Museum obeyed a “Please do not touch” sign, experimenters reprimanded some of them: “Please don’t touch the objects. If everyone touches them, they will deteriorate.” Likewise, when visitors to the Portland Zoo fed unauthorized food • the bears, some of them were admonished with, “Hey, don’t feed unauthorized food to the animals. Don’t you know it could hurt them?” In both cases, 58 percent of the now guilt-laden subjects shortly thereafter offered help to another experimenter who had “accidentally” dropped something. Of those not reprimanded, only one-third helped.


People also care about their public image. When Robert Cialdini and his colleagues (1975) asked some of their Arizona State University students to chaperon delinquent children on a zoo trip, only 32 percent agreed to do so. With other students the questioner first made a very large request—that the students commit two years as volunteer counselors to delinquent children. After getting the door-in-the-face in response to this request (all Tefused), the questioner then counteroffered with the chaperoning request, saying, in effect, “OK, if you won’t do that, would you do just this much?” With this technique, nearly twice as many—56 percent—agreed to help.


Cialdini and David Schroeder (1976) offer another practical way to trigger concern for self-image: Ask for a contribution so small that it’s hard to say no without feeling like a Scrooge. When they had a solicitor approach suburbanites and say, “I’m collecting money for the American Cancer Society,” 29 percent contributed an average of $1.44 each. When the solicitor added, “Even a penny will help,” 50 percent contributed, averaging $1.54 each. When James Weyant (1984) repeated this experiment, he found similar results: The “even a penny will help” boosted the number contributing from 39 to 57 percent. And when 6000 people were solicited by mail for the American Cancer Society, those asked for small amounts were more likely to give—and gave no less on average—than those asked for larger amounts (Weyant & Smith, 1987). When approaching previous donors, bigger requests (within reason) do elicit bigger donations (Doob & McLaughlin, 1989). But with door-to-door solicitation, there is more success with requests for small contributions, which are difficult to turn down and still allow an altruistic self-image.


Labeling people as helpful can also strengthen a helpful self-image. After they had made a charitable contribution, Robert Kraut (1973) told some Connecticut women, “You are a generous person.” Two weeks later, these women were more willing than those not so labeled to contribute to a different charity. Likewise, Angelo Strenta and William Dejong (1981) told some students a personality test revealed that “you are a kind, thoughtful person.” These students were later more likely than others to be kind and thoughtful toward a confederate who dropped a stack of computer cards.

Continue Reading