Essay on Evolutionary Theory and Aggression

After viewing Origins of Human Aggression (The Nature of Things), I learned a lot about origins of human aggression. In the first part of the video, it focused on 2 year old children and how aggression is derived. The video states a study shows that signs of aggression start within the first couple months of a newborn’s life (Maher, Origins of Human Aggression (The Nature of Things). This study within the video I believe is accurate. I was told by my parents that as I grew I began to be more aggressive. The older I got, I began to do things such as: throw objects, hit people, and throw a tantrum if I could not get my way. One time I cried for an hour just so my mother would buy me a pair of shoes. Throwing that tantrum got me my way, but

Social Psychological Theories of Aggression Social learning theorists propose that behaviour, such as aggression is learnt through observation, imitation and behaviour shaping. This behaviour is learnt automatically through observation of male and female role models, for example parents, peers and media characters. Whether or not this behaviour is imitated depends on the type of reinforcement that the role model receives. Vicarious reinforcement involves the outcome of a role models behaviour, for example if a child observes a parent acting aggressively and receiving positive rewards for they are more like to be imitate this behaviour in the future, than they would be if the role model

For many years, girls have been bullying other girls. However, this bullying isn’t usually physical like the type of bullying seen in boys. Girls tend to bully each other through types of alternative aggression. These alternative aggressions are invisible to most, except by the bully and the victim. Along with alternative aggression, girls use relational aggression to bully one another. They ruin each other’s social statuses, sometimes to raise their own. Girl bullies are sneaky, they find ways to avoid confrontation. These girls will cyberbully and gang up on someone with other girls. Girls know how to sneak around and have awful outcomes.

What causes people to commit crime? This million dollar questions has place many criminologists and researchers searching for answers. In the past decades, people have tried to explain crime by referring to the earliest literature of criminal’s atavistic features to human biology. Recent studies have shows that crime is described in the social environment. While, no one theory can prove the causes of crime, strain theory has gain support in academic research for its five mode of adaptation.

The world we live in, we like to depend on scientific findings to reason our claims. This reaction paper will analyze the findings by Mathew Jones and will critique specific sections on "Genetic Research Summarized" and "The Resulting Concern". Now if we solely depend on genetics to defend or accuse individuals of being a criminal it will not be an efficient strategy in the criminal justice system. Furthermore, although American Criminal Justice upholds the notion of free will, it has been discriminatory towards a marginalized population of the United States itself. So being dependent on such findings there will be a higher probability of wrong people being trialed because then the idea of free will and genetically findings will be in conflict.

The objective of this study is to examine whether it is nature or nurture who plays the most vital role in a human’s behavior, specifically an individual’s criminal behavior. Criminal behavior is defined as an act or failure to act in a way that violates public law. Some believe that criminal behavior can be identified as early as conception, meaning that criminal behavior is because of your genes. While others believe that one’s upbringing and social learning environment directly contributes to the individual’s criminal behavior. This paper will provide the history on the ongoing debate of nature vs. nurture and answer the question of whether it is

The cognitive-neoassociation theory of aggression, otherwise known as the negative affect theory, was proposed by the American social psychologist Leonard Berkowitz. The theory suggests that certain experiences, or affects, can contribute toward the onset of aggressive feelings or behaviour. These affects can range from weather conditions (e.g. high temperatures) to unpleasant external stimuli (e.g. odours and sounds). Concurrently, the theory advocates that merely observing different types of aggressive behaviour can prompt aggression within the viewer. Given these points, an intriguing question comes to mind: might the implications of this theory be that repetitive exposure to catalysts of aggression increases a person’s inclination to be confrontational?

Many vulnerable individuals perform or act according to the dominant norms of the society, however, biological positivism specifies unlawful acts to be the cause of inherited characteristics. The biological positivist theory of criminology consists of different concepts, mainly focusing on whether genetic factors are influences to criminals and anti-social behaviour. The first concept, ‘biochemical abnormality’, designates abnormalities inside the organs and the

When looking at criminal activity and the direct connection to the criminal behavior we see that there have been many research trials that have taken place over the history of humankind (Mishra & Lalumiere, 2008). Two of these research areas that have been developed to attempt to understand the causes of criminal behavior are known as biological and psychological perspectives of crime causation. These two sectors have their principles that are held in their theories as a standard scientific understanding of the basics that each evaluation of criminal behavior is built on (Dretske, 2004).

However, while the overstimulation of the Id and the failure to acquire and develop the the Ego and SuperEgo leads to criminal tendencies, while aggression may be out of adaptive values, and while genetic studies have pointed towards the influence of genes and criminal behaviour, these theories alone are insufficient to account for crime. Evolutionary theory does not explain or predict for the extreme degrees of aggression in individuals nor has the genetic theory proven for 100% heritability; which raises the need for us to examine the Nurture camp of crime theories as well.

There has always been a fascination with trying to determine what causes an individual to become a criminal? Of course a large part of that fascination has to do with the want to reduce crime, and to determine if there is a way to detect and prevent individuals from committing crime. Determining what causes criminality is still not perfectly clear and likewise, there is still debate as to whether crime is caused biologically, environmentally, or socially. Furthermore, the debate is directly correlated to the notion of 'nurture vs nature'. Over time many researchers have presented various theories pertaining to what causes criminal behavior. There are many theories that either support or oppose the concept of crime being biological rather

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.

Criminologists and sociologist have long been in debate for century's to explain criminal behaviour. The two main paradigms of thought are between 'nature' and 'nurture'. Nature is in reference to a learnt behaviour where a multitude of characteristics, in society influence whether a person becomes deviant such as poverty, physical abuse or neglect. Nurture defines biological features which could inevitability lead to a individuals deviant or criminal behaviour, because criminality is believed by biological positivist to be inherited from a persons parents. However, I believe that criminal behaviour is a mixture of characteristics that lead to deviant acts such as psychological illness & Environmental factors. Therefore, this essay

Criminals are born not made is the discussion of this essay, it will explore the theories that attempt to explain criminal behavior. Psychologists have come up with various theories and reasons as to why individuals commit crimes. These theories represent part of the classic psychological debate, nature versus nurture. Are individuals predisposed to becoming a criminal or are they made through their environment. There are various theories within the biological explanation as to why individuals commit criminal behavior, these include: genetic theory, hereditary theory,.

Figuring out why people commit crimes is one of the central concerns of criminology. Do most criminals act rationally after weighing the costs of crime? Is society ever to blame for an individual to commit a crime? Do mental diseases or even genetics factor into whether a person will live a life of crime. Over the years, many people have developed theories to try to answer these questions. In fact, the number of theories of why people commit crimes sometimes seems to equal the number of criminologists. I explore these questions and much more in the paper that follow.