Eventually, the person chooses a response & acts, then the result of that response is observed & evaluated in terms of its effectiveness. If the response is reinforced, it's likely to be used again.

Tavris (1984), a spokesperson for this point of view, argues that anger is a social event, a way of saying "Hey, I'm hurting & you're in my way." She criticizes:

• the ethologists' instincts
• the Freudians' unconscious motives
• the clinicians' unresearched opinions based on sick people
• the therapists' & pop-psych idea of expressing "built up" anger

She says all these views erroneously suggest that anger is beyond our control & overlook the real causes of frustration. Tavris believes in human choice & self-control. She thinks we continue to use our violence because "aggression pays" & because the other theories provide excuses for being angry.

There's no doubt that aggression pays off. Parents who yell & threaten punishment get results.

The child who hits the hardest gets the toy.

The brother who is willing to be the most vicious in a fight wins.

The teacher who gives the hardest tests & threatens to flunk the most students gets the most study time from students.

The spouse who threatens to get the maddest gets his/her way. The male who acts the most macho & aggressive gets the praise of certain groups of males.

It's not necessary that the aggressor be especially mean to get his/her way. The slightest overt hint of anger can communicate.

Suppose you & your boy/girlfriend want to do different things some evening. The brief frown, the "roll" of the eyes, the comment "Oh, all right" may clearly communicate, "okay, have it your way but I'm going to be pissed all evening."

Such a message is a powerful threat & often an effective one, proving once again that, unfortunately, "aggression pays off."

Human nature vs. learned behavior

I'm sure you recognize the old nature-nurture issue in these discussions. The difficulty, as I see it, is that both sides over-simplify & want to claim all the influence, i.e., on the one hand, the genes / instincts / hormones (biological determinism) theorists imply that hostility is "human nature."

Indeed, 60% of Americans buy this idea, saying "there will always be wars, it's human nature." How sad that we're not better educated. No wonder the U.S. has used military force 150 times since 1850. There is, of course, a lot of fighting between countries, tribes, religions, spouses & parents & children.

But there's no evidence that we humans have inherited more of a tendency to dislike, fight, be violent, or to make war than to like, trust, be cooperative, or to make friends. Just because humans are biologically capable of being selfish & mean doesn't mean it's inevitable; we can control our lives.

Too many people believe humans are violent because we're naturally & unavoidably aggressive. This widely held theory provides us with harmful expectations, self-fulfilling prophesies & with excuses for being aggressive (Kohn, 1988).

On the other hand, the currently popular cognitive-environmental theorists emphasize that behavior is a result of a process of learning from observing what actions pay off, what works.

This theory over-simplifies human behavior in another way, namely, by:

• neglecting the biological-physiological aspects
  • the emotions & needs
  • the unmindful "thought" processes (traditions, habits, unthinking routines)
  • the unconscious processes (perceptual distortion, childhood experiences, unconscious resentments, motives, defense mechanisms - like displacement) 
• perhaps other significant factors influencing our behavior.

i.e., Berkowitz (1993) says sudden unpleasant situations automatically generates negative emotions, including primitive anger feelings & hostile or flight impulses, even before the person has time to think about what's happened or what to do about it. Moreover, I'm not ready to dismiss the many social-sexual needs that create conflicts for us as being purely "cognitive."

And, I refuse to believe that the prejudice, violence, hatred & greed that abounds in the world (& the love, acceptance & altruism) are simply a result of our cognitive processes.

How do you cognitively explain the raging parent who beats his/her 3-month-old infant to death? Nevertheless, cognitive theory is a very hopeful theory if not a complete one.

Sorry for making things complicated but you need to prepare for a complex world. The good news is that there's overwhelming evidence that humans can, in the right circumstances & with appropriate training, be kinder & gentler by using their higher cognition. But, thus far, we seem to be loosing the battle against violence, as we'll see in the next topic.

Child rearing practices

By the time we're 5 years of age, we've learned to be kind & caring or aggressive. What's associated with an angry, aggressive child?

4 factors are:

• a child with a hyperactive, impulsive temperament

• a parent who has negative, critical attitudes towards the child

• a parent who provides poor supervision & permits the child to use aggression as a means of gaining power

• a parent who uses power-tactics (punishment, threats & violent or loud outbursts) to get their way (Olweus, 1980)

Once a peaceful or hostile way of responding is established (by 5) it tends to remain stable. Olweus (1979) suggests aggressiveness is about as stable as intelligence.

So, the best way to predict that a young adult will behave aggressively is to observe his/her early behavior. Aggression at age 8 correlates with aggression at age 30!

Children who were "pro-social," i.e. popular & avoid aggression, at age 8 were, 22 years later, doing well in school & at work, had good mental health & were successful socially (Eron, 1987). Children who steal, aggress, use drugs & have conduct problems with peers, family or in school & then conceal the problems by lying, are the most likely to become delinquent (Loeber, 1990).

Of course, many such children become good citizens, so don't give up. But society, schools, parents & the children could prevent much of the later aggression if they made the effort to detect the problems early & offered help.

It's crucial that we all learn "pro-social" (nice) behavior, starting early in life. Physical punishment teaches that violence is an acceptable way to solve problems.

Aggressive children often come from aggressive homes, in which not only are their parents & others within the family physical with each other but even the child's own aggressiveness has been harshly punished (Patterson, 1976; Byrne & Kelley, 1981).

Research has documented similar aggression from grandparents to parents to grandchildren.

In addition, outside the family we learn more hostile ways of responding to frustration, such as in schools, on the play grounds, from friends & especially from TV, movies & books.

It's been demonstrated that we can learn to be aggressive by merely viewing a short film that shows aggressiveness as an acceptable response (Bandura, 1973).

So, one doesn't have to have hostile parents or be subjected to noticeable frustration prior to becoming aggressive. One can just see aggression & then imitate it. That's why TV is so scary.

The impact of TV has been studied extensively; it makes us more aggressive (Geen, 1978; Singer & Singer, 1981). This isn't surprising considering the average child of 15 has seen about 15,000 humans violently destroyed on TV.

Even though the bad guy (like the aggressive child) is often beaten up by the good guy (the parent), the implication is that aggression is acceptable if it's for a good cause (Derlega & Janda, 1981).

So, we're all exposed to a myriad of responses to frustration, but in many ways the message, again, is: "aggression gets results."

Examples: the handsome TV star is often quick & powerful w/ his fists; every night the news documents that the most powerful nations win the wars & that the giant corporations eliminate jobs or do whatever makes a profit.

this excerpt is from children101 - part of the emotional feelings network of sites... click here to read the entire article! ( Bonding & the Emotional Needs of Children  Janae B. Weinhold. Ph.D)

Insecurely Bonded Children

Children who are insecurely bonded tend to be:

• anxious
• withdrawn
• isolated
• aggressive
• lack confidence
• have low self-esteem
• function at less than optimal levels socially, emotionally, mentally & physically

Insecure bonding is an unsafe & unpredictable state that develops as a result of living in a fear-based environment.

It's the primary cause of addictions, “attachments” to things & the underlying cause of impaired mental health.

The 2 primary kinds of insecure bonding are

• avoidant 
• anxious/ambivalent

Children with avoidant bonding may appear:

• withdrawn & isolated 
• may act very competent
• independent 
• unperturbed when experiencing strange situations
• shy away from situations that involve dependency & trusting others to meet their needs

Instead, they learn how to:

• comfort themselves 
• usually don't seek solace from their caregivers when experiencing distress

This premature autonomy & emotional distancing, often disguised as hurt & anger, inhibit a child's long-term capacity for vulnerability & eventually become a barrier to intimacy.

Children with anxious/ambivalent bonding tend to pursue contact with others but also fear it. They tend to engage adults indirectly thru:

• manipulation
• opposition
• defiance
• aggression
• violence
• whining 
• complaining

Internally they feel caught between two conflicting needs:

• their desire for contact with their caregiver 
• their feelings of anger about her unavailability or inability to meet their needs in timely, appropriate ways

This internal conflict is expressed by an initial act of contact with the caregiver followed by a resistance to it.

The primary difference between these 2 types of insecure bonding is that the anxious/ambivalently bonded child desires contact with the caregiver, while the avoidant child guards against it.

if you have a child or children, visit children 101 - part of the emotional feelings network of sites for additional information that's pertinent to "just children!"

aggression & children

Aggression & Cooperation: Definitions & Emerging Features

"Aggression" is defined here as any