Aggression in Youth Linked to Moral Development

van Goozen, S. H. M., Fairchild, G., Snoek, H., & Harold, G. T. (2007). The evidence for a neurobiological model of childhood antisocial behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 133. 149-182.

In today’s progressive and scientifically advanced world, new studies have occurred that explain how aggression in children can be easily understood. In Alison Gopnik’s article, “Aggression in Children Makes Sense- Sometimes,” she explained how recent scientific experiments have proven that children’s genes and environments, make an impact on their behavior. As human beings, it is hard to decipher the actual cause of aggression in fellow humans because we have not found any accurate evidence until now. Gopnik sufficiently conveys that recent scientific evidence has proven that aggression in children can make sense, by using the results of scientific studies to support her point, and by also using an essential metaphor to further explain a complicated subject.

While there seems to be much evidence supporting the negative impact these genes can have, it is notable to include that these genes are not “genes for violence,” but, as once combined with other factors, for example, one's environment, does make it harder to control violent urges. Learned restraint is discussed by Levitt as he finds that, except in the case of extreme insanity, one cannot claim to be forced to act in such as way. As someone matures, they develop some sense of restraint and the difference between right and

The three founding fathers of Biological theories are Cesare Lombroso, Raffaele Garofalo and Charles Goring which studied geneticists to explaining criminals. Therefore genes of children that display aggression or violent traits can be tendency of their parents’ genes. “Criminologist once again began to consider the possibility that there are indeed traits that predispose a person to criminality and that these traits may be passed from parent to child through the genes” (Adler, Muller & Laufer, 1991). This brings in play our genetics in which chromosomes we received from parents could produce higher probability of criminal offspring. Also studies have been conducted on adopted children to find genetic predisposition to criminality.

The causation of violent behavior within a person can be caused by the following causes; biological causes, psychological causes, sociological causes and anthropological causes. The biological factors refer to the wide array of neurological, physiological, or chemical influences on aggression and violence. Child development researchers have found links between aggression and brain damage resulting from a variety of environmental factors, these include toxic materials found in the environment, traumatic head injury, dietary deficiencies, alcohol and drug ingestion by the mother during critical fetal developmental stages, and birth trauma. The psychological causes of violence study the human mind and its functions, affecting behavior, such as

Incarceration, Illegal drugs, Social drama, Abuse, Aggression, Neglect, and Violence are just a few phrases that are mentioned in “Tracing the Roots of Violence,” by Robin Karr-Morse and Meredith S. Wiley. Their theories on youth crime are based on science, which explains the essence of a human being from their birth to who they grow up to become. Morse highlights that the root to criminal behavior starts straight from the crib. Babies are nurtured, cared for, held, fed, and consoled by others. Their brain structure, immune cellular patterns, and hormonal responses are informed by the way they are met and treated (Weisheit & Culbertson, 2000).

Further research found high scores of psychopathy to be associated with proactive aggression for both children and adults and therefore suggest that proactive aggression could possibly be an indicator of psychopathic behaviours (Kolla et al., 2013). This has been noted through all stages of development. The literature has also shown that proactive aggression tends to be related to behavioural problems, hyperactive behaviour and impulsive acts (Scarpa, Haden & Tanaka, 2010). In previous studies correlations have demonstrated that substance abuse and family violence is also related to proactive aggression (Connor et al., 2004; Frick & Marsee, 2006), while youth who have been a victim of sexual abuse display reactive aggressive behaviours (Connor et al., 2004).

Much of the behavior found in adolescence is rooted in biology combine with environmental influences that causes teens to have conflicts with their parents, take more risks, and in some cases experience low self-control. By understanding what is going on biologically during adolescence we can prevent some of that antisocial behavior in kids. Parents have a greater deal of control over their kid’s behavior but little or none beyond the genes they have pass on to them over their personality traits. Those personality traits could be fearlessness, aggressiveness, sensation seeking, empathy, and impulsiveness which could be associated with delinquent, and criminal behavior early in life. The environmental influences meaning what kind of people have

An estimated 20 people per minute in the United States are abused by an intimate partner each year (Breiding et al., 2014). Many reasons have been identified that prevent women from leaving and remaining out of abusive relationships. Such factors include economic, religious, cultural, and psychological (.e.g. fear, learned helplessness, self-esteem). Yet, there has been very limited research that examines the neurocognitive issues that influences a woman’s decision return to abusive situations, despite opportunities and resources to leave. The following study will explore possible implications of addictive behavior towards abusive situations in battered women— due to neurocognitive dysfunction. We hypothesized that battered women will present with decision making impairment similar to persons with substance dependency and other addictions. Findings will shed light on the need to develop more comprehensive prevention and intervention measures to decrease the number of women who return to abusive situations.

‘Research suggests that violence arises from interactions among individuals psychosocial development, their neurological and hormonal

Physical assault and aggression is the second leading cause of death among 14 to 17 year olds, next to vehicular accidents (Loeber). But why are humans so aggressive in the first place? There are two sides of the debate: Nature, and Nurture. Some say that it’s human nature, genetics that cause most behaviors, while others say that we act as we learned during childhood. This argument applies to aggression as well. Aggression is mainly caused by things during childhood and adolescence where people learn from various sources about aggression, although, human psychology plays a slight factor.

There are clearly no simple genetic or hormonal factors that can explain the variation in aggressive in males and females. Studies of human males suggest that there is at most a small genetic component to aggression, but a greater one for personality traits associated with such behavior. The biological mechanisms translating the message in the genes into antisocial or criminal behavior are not known. Therefore, there is clearly no simple aggressive gene effect. Many genes are likely to be involved, and each may have a weak effect on aggressive behavior. A direct genetic effect on aggression, for example, may determine how quickly an individual responds to aggravation. Aggression may also be influenced indirectly; for example, a man's size and strength may affect the way he behaves and how others react to him. (Turner, 253)

The nature versus nurture debate is an ongoing debate among social scientists relating to whether ones personality/personal characteristics are the result of his/her inherited genetic traits or the result of environmental factors such as upbringing, social status, financial stability, and more. One of the topics that are discussed among psychologists is the study of violent behavior among people as a whole, and in particular, individuals. Social scientists try to explain why people commit acts of violence through explanation of either side of the nature or nurture schools of thought. However, the overwhelming amount of research done into the relation of violent behavior and the nature versus nurture debate indicated that nurture is the primary explanation to explaining violent behavior because violent traits are learned from adults, someone’s social upbringing is a major factor to why some people are more violent than others, and finally influences from news media, movies, and video games enhance the chance for someone to exhibit violent behavior. In conclusion, violent behavior is a complex issue without a clear explanation that is overwhelmingly supported by the nurture side of the debate.

In regards to aggression, violent behavior and the environment plus genetics there is much discussion, and controversy due to the nature versus nurture debate. There are numerous known environmental factors that would result in more violent behavior in individuals such as child abuse, violence in the home, maltreatment, a violent neighborhood, and more. These influences have all been known to more likely result in more aggressive or violent behaviors in those who witness that behavior or environment.

The current categories of child psychopathology influenced the behaviors that are chosen by scientists for study. Fearfulness and conduct disorder predominate in clinical referrals to psychiatrists and psychologists. A cluster of behaviors that includes avoidance of unfamiliar events and places, fear of dangerous animals, shyness with strangers, sensitivity to punishment, and extreme guilt is called the internalizing profile. The cluster that includes disobedience toward parent and teachers, aggression to peers, excessive dominance of other children, and impulsive decisions is called the externalizing profile. These children are most likely to be at risk for later juvenile delinquency. The association between inability of a three-year-old to inhibit socially inappropriate behavior and later antisocial behavior is the most reliable predictive relation between a characteristic scene in the young child and later personality trait.