Peace psychology

Topic:

 Types of peace psychology

 Aims of peace psychology

Psychological causes and effects of violence and non violence

 Nature of human aggression

 Cycles of violence

 Roots of hate and prejudice

 Cognitive/ affective perspectives of world views

 Emotional intelligence

 Learning theories on violence and peace

Types of peace

Peace is often recognized by its absence. Galtung has proposed the distinction

between two different typed of peace i.e. ‘positive’ and ‘negative’. Positive peace denotes the

simultaneous presence of multiple desirable states of mind, like harmony, justice and equity,

leading to transformations that rectify structural inequities. Negative peace denotes the

absence of war and other forms of violent human conflict. Comprehensively, peace creates an

equitable social order (positive peace) and eliminates the overt forms of violence (negative

peace).

Aims of peace psychology

Peace Psychology aims to encourage psychological research, education, and training

on issues concerning peace, nonviolent conflict resolution, reconciliation, and the causes,
consequences and prevention of war and other forms of destructive conflict. It works to

provide an organization that fosters communication among researchers, teachers, and

practitioners who are working on peace issues. It aims to apply the knowledge and the

methods of psychology in the advancement of peace, non-violent conflict resolution,

reconciliation, and the prevention of war and other forms of destructive conflict. As peace

psychologists, our vision is the development of sustainable societies through the prevention

of destructive conflict and violence, the amelioration of its consequences, the empowerment

of individuals, and the building of cultures of peace and global community. Theory, research,

and practice related to social conflict and violence, war and peace, structural (indirect) and

direct violence and its prevention/amelioration etc are a part of peace psychology.

Peace psychologists distinguish sharply between conflicts and violence. Conflict is

defined as the perception of incompatible goals (real or imagined), while violence refers to

coercive actions that are intentionally carried out with the intent of harming others.

Therefore, in peace psychology, the sources and consequences of conflict are often treated

separately from violence. Peace psychologists distinguish two general types of violence:

episodic and structural. An episode of violence is a discrete, observable event that is aimed at

inflicting physical harm on an individual or group. The episode may occur once or

repeatedly.

While episodes may be dramatic and deadly, structural violence is insidious and normalized

in societies; structural violence is just the way things are. Structural violence kills people just

as surely as violent episodes, but structural violence kills slowly and curtails lifespans

through the deprivation of human rights and basic human needs. Structural violence is

supported and justified by the dominant narratives of a society; put another way, structural

violence is supported by cultural violence, the latter of which refers to the symbolic sphere of

human existence. In regard to peace, negative peace interventions are designed to prevent and
mitigate violent episodes, while positive peace interventions are aimed at the reduction of

structural violence. To elaborate: Negative peace interventions can be tailored to various

phases of a violent episode: (a) conflict phase that precedes the violent episode, (b) violent

episode phase, or (c) post violence phase. In contrast, structural and cultural violence cannot

be prevented because all societies have some degree of ongoing structural and cultural

violence. Positive peace interventions involve social and cultural transformations that reduce

structural and cultural violence and promote a more equitable social order that meets the

basic needs and rights of all people. Peace psychology therefore deals with the patterns of

thoughts, feelings, and actions of individuals and groups that are involved in violent episodes

as well as the prevention and mitigation of violent episodes. Peace psychology also deals

with thoughts, feelings, and actions that (re)produce social injustices as well as socially just

arrangements between individuals and groups. Sustainable peace requires continuing efforts

to craft facilitative synergies between nonviolent means and social just ends, that is, the

pursuit of negative and positive peace.

Nature of Aggression

 Any harmful behavior that is intended to hurt someone.

 Aggression is behavior that is intended to harm another individual who does not wish

to be harmed.

 It is the set of behaviors that are likely to or have the potential to cause harm to other

or intended to cause harm and are goal directed.

We need first to define aggression. Bushman and Anderson defined aggression in the Annual

Review of Psychology 2002 as “any behaviour directed towards another individual that is

carried out with the proximate intent to cause harm.” Anderson et al argue that people are

more likely to react aggressively to aggressively stimulating situations. The level, severity
and intensity of the aggressive response vary with his personal factors that determine the

individual’s readiness to aggress. “Person factors include all the characteristics a person

brings to the situation, such as personality traits, attitudes, and genetic predispositions.’

(Anderson et al, 2010).

 Forms of Aggression

Aggression can take a variety of forms, including:

 Physical

 Verbal

 Mental

 Emotional

While we often think of aggression as purely in physical forms such as hitting or pushing,

psychological aggression can also be very damaging. Intimidating or verbally berating

another person, for example, are examples of verbal, mental, and emotional aggression.

 Purposes of Aggression

Aggression can serve a number of different purposes, including:

 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

 Types of Aggression

Psychologists distinguish between two different types of aggression:

There are two forms of aggression, hostile and instrumental. Hostile is where the

aggressive behaviour is driven by anger and is a thoughtless and unplanned action and is as

an end in itself, whilst instrumental is a premeditated and proactive action, resulting in a

desired goal.

To take this further, examples of hostile aggression include verbal (defiance, threats,

swearing and bossing), physical aggression (kicking, spitting and fighting) and vandalism

(destruction, damage to property and theft). An infamous example of this type of aggression

was demonstrated by French footballer, Zinedine Zidane’s at the 2006 world cup final match.

Zidane head butted Italian player, Marco Materazzi in the chest, and claimed that he had

reacted to insults directed at his sister and mother. As a consequence, this was his last ever

professional match. (Telegraph Sport, 2012)

 Impulsive Aggression: Also known as affective aggression, impulsive aggression is

characterized by strong emotions, usually anger. This form of aggression is not

planned and often takes place in the heat of the moment. When another car cuts you

off in traffic and you begin yelling and berating the other driver, you're experiencing

impulsive aggression. Research suggests that impulsive aggression, especially when

it's caused by anger, triggers the acute threat response system in the brain, involving

the amygdala, hypothalamus, and periaqueductal gray (PAG).

 Instrumental Aggression: Also known as predatory aggression, instrumental

aggression is marked by behaviors that are intended to achieve a larger goal.

Instrumental aggression is often carefully planned and usually exists as a means to an

 end. Hurting another person in a robbery or car-jacking is an example of this type of

aggression. The aggressor's goal is to obtain money or a vehicle, and harming another

individual is the means to achieve that aim.

 On the other hand, instrumental aggression is an aggression that is not performed with

the intention to cause harm but rather, it is used to achieve a “good” result Baron

(1977). Berkowitz, (1993), sees aggression as a set of goal-directed behaviours. An

aggressive team is more likely to be a winner and an aggressive player is more likely

to win the trophy”. In fact, Russel, (1993) concluded that we not only tolerate

aggression in sports events, but all people from the spectators, to media and sports

associations even encourage it and give it their blessings (Tenenbaum et al, 1997).

Newbery, BBC Sport Reporter, January 24 2012: “Federer is the more naturally

aggressive and Murray a counter-puncher. I think it will be a very aggressive match.

Roger is going to attack him a lot, Andy is a great defender, but he cannot defend all

the time. He also needs to step in and go for it.”

Factors That Can Influence Aggression

A number of different factors can influence the expression of aggression, including:

 Biological Factors: Men are more likely than women to engage in physical

aggression. While researchers have found that women are less likely to engage in

physical aggression, they also suggest that women do use non-physical forms, such as

verbal aggression, relational aggression, and social rejection.

 Environmental Factors: How you were raised may play a role. People who grow up

witnessing more forms of aggression are more likely to believe that such violence and

hostility are socially acceptable. Bandura's famous Bobo doll experiment

demonstrated that observation can also play a role in how aggression is learned.
 Children who watched a video clip where an adult model behaved aggressively

toward a Bobo doll were more likely to imitate those actions when given the

opportunity.

 Physical Factors: Epilepsy, dementia, psychosis, alcohol abuse, drug use, and brain

injuries or abnormalities can also influence aggression.

Theories related to aggression

 Biological Approach of the Nature Theory

The Nature theory states that behaviors, such as aggression, are due to innate dispositions

such as physiological, hormonal, neurochemicals and genetic make-up. The people who

support this argument are known as nativists. The nativists accept that all characteristics of

the human species as a whole are products of evolution, and that individual differences are

due to a person’s genetic code. Nativist theorists such as, Bowlby (1958) and Dollard et al

(1939) have conducted studies that provided evidence t hat human behaviour is innate.

 Genetic basis of Aggression

Clearly, much behaviour is innate, such as a mother’s attachment to her children, the

bond of partnership and love. John Bowlby (1958), a psychoanalyst, developed the

evolutionary theory of attachment which suggests that children from birth are “biologically

pre-programmed to form attachment with others as it is a basic survival instinct” (Saul

McLeod, 2007). Bowlby believed that attachment behaviors will be automatically activated

by any conditions that seem a threat, such as fear, anxiety and separation. According to this

theory, babies who stay close to their mothers are more likely to survive to adulthood and

have children. We can presume that both attachment and aggression are inherited.

 Dollard (1939) assumed that behaviour is created by an innate human need. He

was an American Psychologist and social scientist, who formulated the

 frustration-aggression hypothesis. The hypothesis assumes that whenever a person

is inhibited from reaching their goal, an aggressive drive is provoked which

motivates behaviour that causes the individual to injure another or the object that

is causing the frustration. This basic drive is like behavioural units of ability that

are switched on or off as an appropriate challenge or task presents itself. In other

words, we act on instinct. The “Fight or Flight” mechanism is an example of a

behaviour that can be switched on or off as a self-defence mechanism. These

responses are hormone-mediated, and are therefore controlled by specific genetic

expressions.

 In further support that aggressive behaviour is inherited (Nature theory) there have

been several animal experiments have been conducted by scientists that provide

evidence that aggression is innate. In 1995, researchers at Hopkins University

discovered a gene that was responsible for excessively violent and overly

aggressive sexual behaviour in male mice. The researchers observed that once

they removed a gene, the mice became more aggressive (Nelson, 1995). Nelson

and his team believed that the removed gene helped the mice moderate their levels

of aggression and once it was removed the behaviour was difficult to control. This

indicates that genes have a significant role to play in the level of aggression.

Numerous other experiments have been carried out on animals and especially

mice to prove this trait. They all show a direct correlation between testosterone

and aggression. (Svare 1983; Monaghan and Glickman 1992). However, it is

important to note that whilst research carried out on animals clearly provides a

better understanding of the effect of genes in aggression, caution must obviously

be taken in extrapolating the results when trying to relate it to human behaviour.

 After all, human and animal brains are different, and human behaviour is far too

complex for one gene to fully explain all aggressive behaviour.

 However, genes need the right environment to express their phenotype

characteristics. For example, an individual will grow to the height that is coded in

the genes, given that the individual is well nourished and healthy. Malnourishment

causes stunt growth and will stop the individual reaching the ‘coded’ height. The

children of Guatemala have the highest rate of malnutrition in the Western

Hemisphere. Their diet lacks of vital nutrients during the critical period of

development from two years old, and as a result, all the children are at least six or

eight inches shorter that they should be. (Gowen et al, 2010)

 Role of Dopamine in Aggression

Dopamine is a neurotransmitter that is responsible for movement, formation of

memory, mood, motivation and behaviour. Ingo Vernaleken et al (Society of Nuclear

Medicine, 2012) investigated the effects of varying levels of dopamine on aggressive

competitive behaviour in participants playing a video game. The results showed that

participants who had a lower capacity to synthesize dopamine in the brain were more likely

to act with aggression, which is the opposite of what the researchers initially hypothesised.

Despite the surprising result, the study does support the Nature approach regarding the effect

of the role that dopamine plays in aggression but it yet to be understood why it act as it does.

 Role of hormones in Aggression

Testosterone in men, affects their sexual features and development. There have been

other studies conducted on humans that focus on hormones and their affect on behaviour.

Increased levels of testosterone in men are associated with aggressive and antisocial

behaviour. This was demonstrated by Olweus (1988) who has shown that adolescent boys
who have higher levels of testosterone were more likely to behave aggressively when

provoked. In men there is a high correlation between the level of testosterone and dominance

rather than aggression (Mazur et al, 1997, Seltzer, 2009) whereas in women, high levels of

testosterone and aggression are strongly correlated.

 According to Dalton (1961), testosterone in some women leads to antisocial

behaviour, especially during the premenstrual period. The ratio of oestrogen and

progesterone during the menstrual period has been proven to cause physical and

psychological problems such as aggression, irritability and changes in mood.

However, the assumption is too vague to generalise that all women are capable of

violent crimes during menstruation and it discards external factors such as,

environmental causes (e.g. family problems) that may have resulted in the aggressive

behaviour. His research found a significant difference in the number of women who

have committed crimes and jailed during the premenstrual phase. The offenders were

more aggressive and irritable during this time. In support of Dalton’s research,

Reinisch (1981) found that daughters of mothers, who were treated with a similar

hormone to testosterone while pregnant, grew up to be more aggressive.

 A sudden drop of progesterone level is known to be a primary trigger for post-natal

depression (PND). Other factors that contribute to the onset of PND are anxiety in

pregnancy and lack of support after the delivery. PND causes severe anxiety,

irritability, negative thoughts and low moods among other depression symptoms.

(Royal College of Psychiatrist). This combination of personal factors could lead to

aggressive behaviours. An example of this is where Felicia Boots, mother of two,

killed her young children. (BBC News, 30 October 2012)

  Overall, these studies have demonstrated that there exists a strong a link between

hormones, testosterone in particular, and aggressive behaviour. However, the extent to

which those hormones influence aggressive behaviour remains controversial.

 The studies discussed so far have demonstrated that aggression has a chemical,

hormonal, or genetic basis. Moyer (1976) further supported this speculation when he

observed that a cat hissed and stroked at any object in its cage, when electrical

impulses were given to specific parts of the hypothalamus ( De Souza, 2007). It has

been observed that a Laboratory rat bred in isolation that has never seen the

aggressive behaviour of a wild rat can live in harmony with a mouse. However, when

the hypothalamus is electrically stimulated, the rat attacked and killed the mouse,

using a similar technique that its untamed kin uses. When the rat was injected with a

neurochemical blocker in the same area of the hypothalamus that was previously

stimulated, the rat then became temporarily peaceful. These responses provide

evidence that animals have an innate aggressive drive that can become active or

inactive, provided with the right stimulus (De Souza, 2001). Therefore, this may

suggest that we react in the same way towards a stimulus when provoked.

Even though studies have shown that genetics can influence aggression, there are limiting

factors. Aggression is more second nature to people than an uncontrollable outburst and is

likely to be used as a self-defense mechanism. Situational factors are also significant, in

attempting to explain how much discomfort was caused that resulted in the aggressive

behaviour.

 At the other end of the spectrum is Nurture. Those who adopt nurture as an idea,

empiricists or environmentalists, presume that at birth, the human mind is a blank

 slate (tabula rasa), and this is constantly filled as a result of experience (i.e.

behaviourism). In other words, the behaviour is learned and not innate.

 Behavioural Approach of the Nurture Theory

The theory of nurture suggests that human behaviour is not innate but is learned. It

involves aspects of human life that surround societal reasons for why aggression is

demonstrated. The National Centre of Child Abuse and Neglect (NCCAN) estimated that

approximately 23 per 1,000 children are victims of maltreatment, including physical abuse,

sexual abuse, and neglect (Sedlack &Broadhurst, 1996), as described by Margolin and Gordis

(2004). Margolin and Gordis studied the psychological development of children exposed to

violence in the family and community. They concluded that children who are in a damaged

and abusive environment are more likely to become aggressive and become low achievers in

their schools and communities. Therefore, family factors, peer influences and cognitive

factors seem to contribute to the control and development of aggression (Sarah McCawley

2001). Bandura (1961), Rayner et al and Heusmann et al (1986) are theorists that have

gathered supporting evidence to suggest aggressive behaviour is learned by observing others.

The following sections will describe the behavioural approach of the Nurture theory, by

looking at the Social Learning Theory and The Script Theory.

 Social Learning Theory (SLT)

Albert Bandura was a psychologist who developed the Social Learning Theory (SLT). He

believed that “most human behaviour is learned observationally through modelling: from

observing others one forms an idea of how new behaviours are performed, and on later

occasions this coded information serves as a guide for action (1977).” (Law et al,

Psychology, IB Diploma)
The theory assumes that individuals do not inherit behavioural tendencies, but learn by

observing models, such as their peers and parents, and imitating their behaviour. In other

words, individuals learn behaviour vicariously. In order to verify his Social Learning Theory,

Bandura et al (1961) conducted a laboratory experiment to investigate if social behaviours,

for example, aggression, can be acquired by imitation.

To support his theory, Bandura and his team showed young children, aged 3 to 6

years, a video of an adult model behaving aggressively towards an inflatable Bobo doll. He

wanted to see if the children would imitate this behaviour. The children showed directly

imitative behaviour, especially when the adult was rewarded (Law et al, Psychology, IB

Diploma). This empirical study supported Bandura’s theory as it showed that behaviour is the

result of learning. However, it is difficult to conclude whether the child has learned the

behaviour because of demand characteristics, as the child may have only imitated the

behaviour in order to be acknowledged as they were being observed. However, it can be

argued by those supporters of the nature theory, nativists, that without inherited

characteristics, the act of learning would not be possible.

Nevertheless, Bandura’s study has intrigued and inspired much research, such as

Heusmann et al (1986) and Anderson et al (2001). These researchers investigated if exposure

to media violence caused long-term effects and a longitudinal Meta analysis of the exposure

to media violence respectively.

 Media influence and aggression

Huesmann et al (1986) investigated if exposure to media violence caused long-term

effects in children. Forty-eight boys and girls in grades 1 and 3 in the Chicago metropolitan

area participated. Also, participants of similar ages in Finland, Israel and Poland were

included in this research. The study reinforced Huesman et al (1986) findings and concluded
that children exposed to violence at an early age are very likely to demonstrate aggressive

behaviour later on in life, regardless of initial levels of aggression, gender, social class, and

IQ. In addition, children who “identify more with characters and perceive TV violence as

more realistic are influenced more (Heusmann et al 1986, Socio-cultural level of Analysis,

pg. 28).” This suggests that the more the individual observes violence, while growing up, the

more he is likely to become violent. This could lead to a higher chance of them committing

crimes as an adult. However, the conclusion fails to address the possible effects of the

environment on the individual’s behaviour. It would not necessarily have an impact on

someone who has been raised in a secure and safe environment, and in this case, media

violence may have little psychological or emotional impact, enough to create aggressive

behaviour. The sample size was also inadequate and that would mean that the results cannot

be generalized to an overall population.

 In a second study, Anderson et al (2002) conducted a longitudinal meta- analysis on

the effects of exposure to media violence for around 5,000 participants. Although this

analysis collated data from several other experiments based on several types of media

violence such as online games and films, the television violence was by far the most

researched. The results of forty-two independent tests show a significant positive

correlation of 0.17. Given these results, Anderson concluded that “high levels of

exposure to violent TV programs in childhood can promote aggression in later

childhood, adolescence, and even young adulthood”. (Influence of Media Violence on

Youth, 2003). The study supports the Nurture theory as it confirms that children learn,

model and imitate aggressive behaviour. However, further studies across cultures

need to be conducted in order to compare and contrast results obtained in Western

cultures.
A recent major study by Anderson et al, addressed this cross cultural concern. They

specifically looked at the effects of violence in video games on aggression and prosocial

behaviour. The results concluded that there is short term and long term effect of violence in

video games and aggression. These findings were consistent across all cultures studied and

gender.

All these studies show that Nurture influences and impacts aggressive behaviour but without

the influence of genes, hormones or neurochemicals, the behaviour cannot be demonstrated.

Conclusion

In conclusion, aggression is the result of inborn and learned traits. It is convenient for some

people to believe that individuals

Studies such as Bandura (1961) have shown that aggression is a behaviour that can be learned

and modified. By the time a typical child finishes elementary school, he or she will have seen

approximately 8,000 murders and more than 100,000 other acts of violence on TV (Huston et

al., 1992), as demonstrated in the media studies that showed strong correlation between

violence in media and the behaviour.

This is not to say that without the gene, emotions such as anger would not occur in the first

place. Therefore, despite the above research showing only the nature or nurture aspects of

aggression, there is still ongoing research that addresses the question of how much each

aspect actually contributes to the behaviour. A classic example of this would be the measure

of intelligence via IQ. . Aggression is not universal and further studies across cultures need to

be considered.
Using the advances in modern technologies, with brain imaging and scanning, there is hope

that scientists will one day explain the reasons for aggression and why it is demonstrated,

relying on both nature and nurture theories of aggression.

Cycle of Violence

The cycle of violence is a model developed to explain the complexity and co-

existence of abuse with loving behaviors. It helps those who have never experienced

domestic violence understand that breaking the cycle of violence is much more complicated

than just “getting out” or leaving.

 The cycle of violence theory explains how and why the behaviour of a person who

commits domestic and family violence may change so dramatically over time.

 The cycle of violence theory also provides an understanding to why the person

affected by domestic and family violence continues to face a violent situation.

There are three phases in the cycle of violence: (1) Tension-Building Phase, (2) Acute or

Crisis Phase, and (3) Calm or Honeymoon Phase. Without intervention, the frequency and

severity of the abuse tends to increase over time.

Over a period of time there may be changes to the cycle. The honeymoon phase may become

shorter, and the tension and violence may increase. Some victims report that they never

experience an apologetic or loving abuser, but simply see a decrease in tension before the

start of a new cycle.

As the cycle starts, the victim starts going in and out of the relationship. It often takes many

attempts to make a final decision to leave for good. Feelings of guilt, insecurity, and concern

for children’s well-being play a strong role in the victim’s decision-making process.

The cycle of violence is a tool developed by researcher Lenore Walker and detailed in her

book, The Battered Woman, published 1979. Walker created this tool to describe the cyclical

nature of battering and its effect on victims.

PHASE 1: Tension-building Phase

Build Up: Tension between the people in the relationship starts to increase and verbal abuse,

emotional abuse, psychological abuse ans/or financial abuse occurs.

Stand-over: This phase can be very frightening for people experiencing abuse. They feel as

though the situation will explode if they do anything wrong. The behaviour of the abuser

intensifies and reaches a point where a release of tension is inevitable.

PHASE 2: Acute Explosion

The peak of the violence is reached in this phase. The perpetrator experiences a release of

tension and this behaviour may become habitual.

PHASE 3: Honeymoon Stage

 During the honeymoon phase of the cycle of violence, both people in the relationship

may be in denial as to how bad the abuse and violence was.

 Both people do not want the relationship to end, so are happy to ignore the possibility

that the violence could occur again.

After some time, this stage will fade and the cycle may begin again.

 Remorse: At this point, the perpetrator may start to feel ashamed. They may become

withdrawn and try to justify their actions to themselves and others. For example, they

may say: “You know it makes me angry when you say that.”

 Pursuit: During the pursuit phase, the perpetrator may promise to never be violent

again. They may try to explain the violence by blaming other factors such as alcohol

or stress at work. The perpetrator may be very attentive to the person experiencing

violence, including buying gifts and helping around the house. It could seem as

though the perpetrator has changed. At this point, the person experiencing the

violence can feel confused and hurt but also relieved that the violence is over.

At this stage, the person who uses domestic and family violence in relationships promises to

the other person affected, never to be violent again.

They may try to make up for their past behaviour during this period and say that other factors

have caused them to be violent, for example, work stress, drugs, or alcohol.

The violent offender may purchase gifts, and give the person affected attention.

Also, the violent offender may go through a dramatic personality change.

The person affected by the violence will feel hurt, but possibly relieved that the violence is

over.
  Denial phase: Both people in the relationship may be in denial about the severity of

the abuse and violence. Intimacy can increase during this phase. Both people may feel

happy and want the relationship to continue, so they may not acknowledge the

possibility that the violence could happen again.

Over time, this phase passes and the cycle may begin again.

 Roots of hate and prejudice

Define Hate

 Hate is intense emotion that is often linked to a complex web of other feelings and

states of mind, such as fear, disgust, aversion, rejection, shame humiliation, denial,

revenge, betrayal, helplessness, and anger.

 Hate is often a visceral and overwhelming experience both for the hater and for the

person who suffers the effect of hate. Even in its milder forms, hate can leave long-

lasting emotional wounds and scars.

 Hateful acts, include deliberately infliction of cruelty, whether emotional, physical,

mental or social. Direct acts of hate – from grotesques hate crimes and atrocities to

subtle mockery and slander-the purpose is to cause suffering and take away dignity

from a despised person or group. ( Gaylin,2003)

 The Roots of Hate

 In particular, chronic victims of aggression and prejudice may come to hate those who

they believe have victimized and oppressed them.

 Second, threatened egotism gives rise to aggression and may contribute to prejudice as

well, and it seems a very promising candidate as a source of hate. That is, people may
 come to hate those who threaten their self-esteem or otherwise impugn their favorable

images of self.

 Third, idealism contributes to both aggression and hate. Though idealism is often a

positive force, its very positivity lends it power to justify and legitimize a wide range

of actions, and it may also be used to legitimize hate, or even to make hating seem

obligatory under some circumstances.

 A fourth root of aggression, sadism, seemed less promising as a conceptual basis for

hating. It also lacked the convergence of findings from the study of prejudice. These

considerations lead to the following conclusions. Hate may be prone to arise among

people who feel that their self-esteem has been threatened, and in that case it would be

mainly directed at the source of those threats.

 Hate may arise out of either material or idealistic conflicts. Hate could be intensified if

idealism offers justification for hating or if losing a material conflict leads to

resentment toward the winners of those conflicts. (PsycINFO , 2016 APA,)

 HATE made its appearance early in man’s history. Abel fell victim to one of the most

common causes of hatred: jealousy. “The rage of an able-bodied man is jealousy”.

Fear and ignorance

 Today, jealousy over social status, wealth, resources, and other advantages continues

to pit people against one another. But jealousy is just one of the many causes of hatred.

Oftentimes, hatred is also fueled by ignorance and fear. “Before I ever learned to hate,

I learned to fear,” said a young member of a violent racist group. Such fear is most

often rooted in ignorance.

 According to The World Book Encyclopedia, prejudiced people tend to have opinions

that are “held without regard to the available evidence. Prejudiced individuals tend to

twist, distort, misinterpret, or even ignore facts that conflict with their predetermined
 opinions.”In the United States, for example, the slave trade has left a legacy of tensions

between many whites and people of African descent—tensions that persist to this day.

Oftentimes, negative racial views are passed on from parents to children. One self-

confessed white racist admitted that he thus developed negative racial feelings “in a

complete absence of even the slightest contact with black people.”

 While bigotry is ugly enough on an individual scale, when it infects an entire nation or

race, it can become lethal. The belief that one’s nationality, skin color, culture, or

language makes one superior to others can breed bigotry and xenophobia. During the

20th century, such bigotry was often expressed violently.

 Interestingly, hatred and bigotry need not necessarily be about skin color or

nationality. Researcher Clark McCauley of the University of Pennsylvania writes

that “arbitrary division of individuals into two groups, even by flipping a coin, is

enough to generate in-group preference.” One third-grade teacher demonstrated this

when, as part of a famous experiment, she divided her class into two groups—blue-

eyed children and brown-eyed children.

 Clark McCauley compiled an extensive bibliography of the research done on human

violence and aggression. He cites one study indicating that “violent crime is associated

with waging and winning wars.” The researchers found that “nations participating in

WWI and WWII, especially nations on the winning side in these wars, show increases

in homicide after the war is over.”

 Some of the perpetrators of some killing do indeed appear to be motivated, at least in

part, by genocidal hatred, but it is far from clear that genocidal hatred is the usual or

primary cause of genocide. Although genocides usually appear at first glance to be

intrinsically hateful, closer examination of the beliefs, motives, and social contexts of
 individual perpetrators shows genocidal hatred to be a more elusive phenomenon than

might have been expected. According to the Bible, we live in an age of warfare.

 Other researchers seek a biological explanation for human aggression. One research

study attempted to relate some forms of aggression to “low levels of serotonin in the

brain”. Another popular hypothesis is that aggression lurks in our genes. “A large part

of hate may even be hardwired,” argued one political scientist.

 Such observations argue that aggression, prejudice, and hate are primarily learned

behaviors! This apparent ability of humans to learn hate is being aggressively

exploited by teachers of hate.

Poisoning Minds

 The World Wide Web is a particularly powerful tool that some have used to foster

hate. According to a recent tally, there may be as many as 1,000 hate-mongering Web

sites on the Internet.

 The Economist magazine quotes the owner of one hate Web site as boasting: “The Net

has provided us with the opportunity to bring our point of view to hundreds of

thousands of people.” His Web site includes a “Kids’ Page.”When teens surf the Net for

music, they can happen upon links to sites for downloading hate music. Such music is

usually loud and violent, with lyrics expressing strong racist messages. These Web

sites, in turn, provide links to newsgroups, chat rooms, or other Web sites that promote

hate.

Cognitive perspective on Hate

 The cognitive perspective on hate and violence is consistent with a large body of

empirical research and with the detailed observations made in the course of

psychotherapy. It can easily be applied retrospectively to episodes of hate and

 violence by individuals and groups as long as sufficient information about thoughts

and feelings is available.

 Model of Hate ( 7 Stage Hate Model)

 According to the Encyclopedia of Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, Realistic

group conflict theory “states that competition between groups for finite resources leads

to intergroup stereotypes, antagonism, and conflict… Such conflicts of interest lead to

the development of in group norms that foster negative reactions to the outgroup,

backed by punishment and rejection of those in group members who deviate from

those norms.”

 This theory is about competition between groups leading to hatred, and I wonder to

what extent it can be applied to race or gender based hate groups. I think that often, a

large part of racist or sexist hate can come from the idea that this other race or gender

is competing for resources such as jobs, wealth, and political power (Jeo Navarro

2003).

 Theories of Hate.

1. The drive Theory of Sigmund Freud for Hate.

  Freud suggested that there are two different kind of drives, a preserving and unifying

one that he called EROS, and destructive and killing one that he named Thanatos

(aggression\ death drive). For Freud, hatred is an ego state that seeks to be realized in

the destruction of the source of its unhappiness.

 According to Freud, hatred is rooted in Thanatos. Thanatos seems to be less

emotionally involving but more destructive than hate.

2. Hate as a Result of Prejudice ( Gordon Allport)

 Gordon Allport’s explanation of the phenomenon of hatred in his book ‘’The nature of

Prejudice’’ (1979\1954) acknowledges the significance of prejudice for the

development of hatred. He views hatred as an emotion of extreme dislike or aggressive

or aggressive impulse toward a person or group of a persons. The perpetrators have a

desire to extinguish the object of hate. When people harm someone out of hatred, they

do not feel remorse because they are certain that the fault lies in other person.

 According to Allport, people hate entire groups because in some way this is easier than

to hate a single person. The reason lies in the fact that an unfavorable stereotype

against a group does not need to be tested against reality, but stereotypes against

individuals constantly must be tested if there are any numbers of the out group

available.

3. The Duplex Theory of Hate( Robert J. Sternberg)

 The duplex theory of hate (Sternberg,2003) is so-called because it consists of two

different subjects; a structural theory about the triangular structure of hate and a story

based theory about the development of hate this theory is specified in somewhat more

detail than many of the others .

Triangular Theory of Hate

 Typically hate is thought of as a single emotion. But there is reason to believe that hate

has multiple components that can manifest themselves in different ways on different

occasions. According to a triangular component of the duplex theory of fate, hate

potentially comprises three components. As with love, hate can be captured by both

feelings triangles and action triangles. Feelings may or may not translate themselves

into actions, and actions may or may not represent genuine feelings. People may

interpret actions as meaning different things, depending on their mappings of feelings

into actions and vice versa. There are three components of hate: negation of intimacy,

passion, and commitment.

 The first potential component of hate is the negation of intimacy. Negation of

intimacy in hate is characterized by repulsion and disgust. Whereas intimacy involves

the seeking of closeness, the negation of intimacy involves the seeking of distance.

Often distance is sought from a target individual because that individual arouses

repulsion and disgust in the person who experiences hate.

 A second potential component of hate is passion, which expresses itself as intense

anger or fear in response to a threat. Anger leads often leads one to approach, fear to

avoid, the object of hate. Propaganda may depict the targeted individuals as an

imminent threat to approved society, and one that should be feared because of this
 threat. Targeted groups may be depicted as rapacious warriors bent on defiling women

or attacking children or as monsters that threaten the very fabric of society (as well as

the individual rights of its members

 The third potential component of hate is decision/commitment, which is

characterized by cognitions of devaluation and diminution through contempt for the

targeted group. The hater is likely to feel contempt toward the target individual or

group, viewing the target as barely human or even as subhuman. The goal of those who

foment hate is to change the thought processes of the preferred population so that its

members will conceive of the targeted group(s) in a devalued way. Often these changes

are accomplished through some kind of instructional or otherwise “educational”

program, whether in school or without. In other terms, this kind of program could be

viewed as constituting “brainwashing.”

 Roots of prejudice. ( Define prejudice)

 Numerous attempts have been made to define prejudice. Most of these definitions see

prejudice as a negative attitude toward a particular social group and its individual

members. Individual members are prejudged because of their group membership.

 Prejudice is linked to, but can be distinguished from, stereotypes (which are typically

defined as beliefs about the characteristics of typical members of a group) and

discrimination (which is typically defined as negative behavior toward a group and its

members).
 In explaining the origins or causes of prejudice, social scientists have focused on four

important issues: (1) what universal social or psychological factors are responsible for

the ubiquity of prejudice in human societies; (2) what social and intergroup processes

result in certain groups and not others becoming particular targets for prejudice; (3)

what individual characteristics result in certain people being generally prejudiced

toward other groups and others less so; (4) why are certain societies, cultures, or social

groups more prejudiced or ethnocentric than others?

 When people hold prejudicial attitudes toward others, they tend to view everyone who

fits into a certain group as being "all the same." They paint every individual who holds

particular characteristics or beliefs with a very broad brush and fail to really look at

each person as a unique individual.

 Types: Prejudice can be based on a number of factors including sex, race, age, sexual

orientation, nationality, socioeconomic status, and religion. Some of the most well-

known types of prejudice include:

a) Racism

b) Sexism

c) Classism

d) Homophobia
 e) Nationalism

f) Religious prejudice

g) Ageism

h) Xenophobia

i) Prejudice and Stereotyping

 When prejudice occurs, stereotyping, discrimination, and bullying may also result. In

many cases, prejudices are based on stereotypes.

 Social and Intergroup Origins of Prejudice

 Prejudiced attitudes are typically widely shared or consensual within collectives and

directed against certain groups and not others. This consensually or normativity may be

due to particular relationships or conditions of contact and interaction between groups.

Research has focused on four kinds of intergroup relationships that seem particularly

conducive to prejudice against specific groups. These four factors are convergent group

boundaries, intergroup competition, intergroup threat, and intergroup inequality; they

are not independent and can mutually influence one another.

 When groups are characterized by convergent boundaries – the coincidence of many

possible distinctions, such as ethnicity, language, religion, social class, urban or rural

residence, political affiliation – social categorization is highly salient and pervasive.In

such conditions, group distinctions and differences will be accentuated. Moreover, cross

- cutting group categorizations, a common superordinate categorization, and

opportunities for individuated contact and interaction with members of the other group

– factors which all contribute to reducing prejudice – will be limited or absent.

 Individual Differences in Prejudice

 Although prejudice toward particular groups is typically widely shared within a

collective, there is also considerable variation in the degree to which individuals within
 this collective hold these prejudiced attitudes. Moreover, individuals who are prejudiced

toward particular groups are often also prejudiced toward other groups – a phenomenon

known as the generality of prejudice.

 How can these individual differences in prejudice be explained? A considerable body of

research has addressed this question by examining their correlates. A number of

individual difference variables have been shown to correlate significantly with

prejudice. The most prominent are cognitive style factors (rigidity, and needs for

structure, closure, and certainty), broad personality traits (low openness to experience

and low agree ableness), social world view beliefs (dangerous - world beliefs, belief in

a competitive - jungle world), personal values (conservation and self - enhancement

values), and the two ideological attitude dimensions of right - wing authoritarianism

(RWA) and social dominance orientation (SDO). However, when all these factors were

used simultaneously to predict prejudice, only the two ideological attitudes of RWA and

SDO remained strong and significant predictors

 Overview

Throughout this essay it has been evident that prejudice is a very complex

phenomenon. First, the concept itself comprises cognitive, affective, and behavioral domains

as well as personal and political aspects. Our discussion of the origins of prejudice
disregarded this complexity and treated different prejudice syndromes in an undifferentiated

way. It is likely, however, that different explanations pertain more to certain prejudice aspects

or syndromes than to others; for example, social and intergroup approaches may explain

collective aspects of prejudice better than personal aspects. This problem may be especially

relevant for implicit prejudice because most of the origins of prejudice we highlighted have

been investigated mainly with regard to explicit prejudice. Second, the explanations of

prejudice refer to multiple levels of analysis – individual, group, and societal – which need to

be integrated into a coherent framework. Although social psychology is well placed to take

different levels of analysis into account, this integration remains a major methodological and

theoretical challenge.

 Prejudices are often deeply held negative feelings associated with a particular group.

Prejudices are loaded with feelings about what is good and what is bad, what is moral and

immoral. e.g. “My religion is the only true one, and my God is the only true God.

Consequently, people with prejudices are very likely to end up with hostile encounters where

each side believes that their view is right. When this negative feeling of prejudice is

translated into an ability to act, we have discrimination.

 A prejudice is a sense of hostility and judgment.

 Prejudice can have a strong influence on how people behave and interact with others,

particularly with those who are different from them.

 Prejudice is a baseless and usually negative attitude toward members of a group.

 Common features of prejudice include negative feelings, stereotyped beliefs, and a

tendency to discriminate against members of the group.

  Ageism involves holding negative stereotypes about people of different ages. The

term ageism was first used by gerontologist Robert N. Butler to describe the

discrimination of older adults.

 Manifestations of ageism are frequently cited in workplace situations, where it can

lead to pay disparities or difficulty finding employment. Younger adults may have

difficulty finding jobs and receive lower pay due to their perceived lack of experience,

while older adults may have problems achieving promotions, finding new work and

changing careers.

Xenophobia and Hate

The desire to belong to a group is pervasive and primal. Throughout history, those

who have banded together in families, tribes or clans have thrived, while individuals who

were separated by choice or circumstances faced increased dangers and limited opportunities.

While strong identification with a particular group can be healthy, it can also lead to

suspicion of those who do not belong. It is natural and possibly instinctive to want to protect

the interests of the group by eliminating threats to those interests. Unfortunately, this natural

protectiveness often causes members of a group to shun or even attack those who are

perceived as different, even if they actually pose no legitimate threat at all.

Gender Prejudice

Gender stereotyping refers to the attitude that all members of a particular gender -- all

women, all girls, all men, and all boys are a certain type of person.From this stereotype

emerges sexism, which is the belief that members of one gender are inferior to another.

For example, the attitude that girls don't understand math and science as well as boys do is

based on a long-held stereotype about basic female intelligence. While schools don't exclude
math and science programs from students based on sex or gender, there are still unconscious

biases and prejudices that are present that can affect a girl's success in these areas.

Sexual Orientation Prejudice

Prejudging someone because of their sexual orientation is called homophobia, and it's

often based on the stereotype that all LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender) people are

a certain way and thus inferior. Also commonly lumped in this category are people's attitudes

towards transgender or transsexual individuals, even though these are genders and not sexual

orientations. Individuals who exist somewhere along the gender continuum but who defy

being classified as either male or female are often the victims of prejudice.

Class Prejudice

Classism is the belief or attitude that those of a certain economic class are inferior to

another class. In some government structures, classism is employed by the ruling class as a

basis to limit the rights of the lower class. For instance, by not extending funding to repair

and renovate old schools or build new ones in low-income communities, the ruling class is

sending the message that lower-class individuals are not entitled to quality education

opportunities.

Disability Prejudice

Ableism refers to the belief that those with physical or mental disabilities or

handicaps are inferior to able-bodied people. Discrimination against the disabled is born of

this belief and involves limiting the rights of disabled individuals to basic things that able-

bodied people take for granted, such as adequate housing, health care, employment and

education.

Nationalism
 Is a system created by people who believe their nation is superior to all others. Most

often, this sense of superiority has its roots in a shared ethnicity. Other countries build it

around a shared language, religion, culture, or set of social values. The nation emphasizes

shared symbols, folklore, and mythology. Shared music, literature, and sports further

strengthen nationalism.

Religious prejudice

Means negative attitudes or behavior between people of different religious groups

because of their differing religious beliefs. Different religions have different beliefs,

practices, and leadership structure. In many regions of the world, religion is

the defining characteristic of a people. For example, A man who was Muslim needed to pray

five times a day so he asked his supervisor to schedule his breaks so that he could pray. His

supervisor said "We pay you to work, not to pray. Leave the religious observances for your

own time.

 Cognitive perspective of world views

A worldview or world-view is the fundamental cognitive orientation of an individual or

society encompassing the whole of the individual's or society's knowledge and point of view.

A worldview can include natural philosophy; fundamental, existential, and normative

postulates; or themes, values, emotions, and ethics. Worldviews are often taken to operate at

a conscious level, directly accessible to articulation and discussion, as opposed to existing at

a deeper, preconscious level, such as the idea of "ground" in Gestalt psychology and media

analysis.

Etymology

The term worldview is a calque of the German word Weltanschauung ( listen), composed of

Welt ('world') and Anschauung ('perception' or 'show'). The German word is also used in
English. It is a concept fundamental to German philosophy, especially epistemology and

refers to a wide world perception. Additionally, it refers to the framework of ideas and beliefs

forming a global description through which an individual, group or culture watches and

interprets the world and interacts with it.

Research strongly suggests that violence arises from interactions among individuals'

psychosocial development, their neurological and hormonal differences, and social processes.

Consequently, we have no basis for consider ingany of these "levels of explanation" more

fundamental than the others. Because existing studies rarely consider more than one of these

levels simultaneously, very little is known about the relevant interactions.

Serotonin is the neurotransmitter that has been most intensively studied in animal and

human research on violent behavior. Marked changes in serotonin synthesis, release, and

metabolism have been observed in individuals of many nonhuman animal species that have

repeatedly engaged in violent or aggressive behavior. But the substantial variation in

serotonin functions across species makes extrapolations from one species to another,

including humans, problematic.

Several kinds of indirect evidence suggest that abnormalities of brain functioning

increase the risks of violent behavior, although no specific neurophysiological marker has yet

been identified (see Mirsky and Siegel, Volume 2, on which the following discussion is

based). First, a large number of studies indicate that neuropsychological deficits in memory,

attention, and language/verbal skills—which sometimes follow from limbic system damage

—are common in children who exhibit violent or aggressive behavior (see, e.g., Mungas,

1988; Miller, 1987; Piacentini, 1987; Lewis et al., 1988). While this correlation could reflect

some direct relationship between limbic system damage and aggressive behavior, it is more

likely to reflect less direct results of distorted social interactions with peers resulting from
impaired communication skills, or to arise from frustration over the inability to compete

successfully with peers in cognitive tasks.

Links between Poverty and Violence

The interaction described above suggests that socioeconomic status, as measured using some

indicator of poverty, is a useful starting point for understanding and controlling violence.

More than 50 years ago, the classic work

of Shaw and McKay (1942) on the ecology of crime and delinquency led to the conclusion

that three structural factors—low economic status, ethnic heterogeneity, and residential

mobility

resulted in the disruption of community cohesion and organization, which in turn contributed

to variations in crime and delinquency among communities. This conclusion was buttressed

by the fact that high rates of delinquency persisted in communities characterized by these

factors over many years despite high population turnover in the communities, which changed

the ethnic and racial character of their residents.

Cognitive complexity

 Walker and Watson (1992) suggest that the cognitive mapping technique might be

useful in investigating the cognitive complexity of political leaders, in relation to

crises that end peacefully compared to those that do not. Bonham (1993) argues that

cognitive mapping can be made into a practical tool for negotiators to use throughout

the negotiation process. towards peacetime thinking. The authors conclude that rapid

changes in locational perceptions can occur in post-conflict societies, and that groups

may differ in their rate of change.

 According to Bar-Tal and Jacobson (1998), as individuals evaluate the level of

security via cognitive processes, the outcomes are subjective. They argue that beliefs

about security are formed on the basis of the perception of the threat in the

environment with which the individual perceives a difficulty in coping. The authors

conclude that while military, political and economic events are real, they have to be

perceived in order to become part of the individual’s reality. Events that are external

have to be subjectively interpreted by the individual. This approach gives special

importance to political psychology in studying security problems.

Social Learning

Social learning provides another important area of research into intimate violence.

Children who observe violence and/or are victims of violence in their family of origin are

more likely than others to engage in violent behavior or to become victims of violence as

adults (Herrenkohl, Herrenkohl, &Toeder, 1983; Steinmetz, 1977). In other words, through

modeling, individuals may develop an acceptance of, and propensity to engage in, violence

(O'Leary, 1993). The effects of witnessing violence as a child are more likely to predict

violence for men than 23 for women (Straus, 1980; Ulbrich& Huber, 1981). However,

Kaufman and Zigler (1993), Straus (1980), and O'leary (1988) warn that the effects of
observing violence are easily overestimated. Growing up in violent households does not

determine that an individual will become violent. As a result, understanding intimate violence

must extend beyond an modeling approach. While research on the psychological processes

involved in intimate violence are important, the problem of intimate violence spills beyond

individual characteristics and dispositions and relationship conflict into social structure. In

order to understand what ties people to violent relationships, it is important to consider

societal constructions of the family and gender. To fully explore the structural dimensions of

intimate violence, sociological approaches to intimate violence must be considered.

Social learning theories on violence and peace

Introduction:
  Observing and cognition principles play a major role in the family environment

which is a crucial environment to growth and development of an individual. If

family environment has problems it is most likely that this individual will suffer

the consequences. The family environment either makes a person to be either

social or antisocial.

 Family environment with problems such as low literacy level, poor parenting

practices, and bad family structure will negatively affect the child psychological

environment. A research on the relationship between individual behavior shows

that family environment characterizes an individual’s well being.

 It is logical to making a conclusion that poor family environment have a greater

likelihood of promoting violence behavioral change in an individual. That will

eventually influence antisocial behavior.

A greater indicator of future violence behavior is the abuse during individual’s childhood.

Child abuse is said to cause anger and depression into a child’s mind that grows and develops

with unsuitable psychological environment. This makes an individual to have hatred against

other persons and strongly believe that other persons have hatred against them too. This

eventually leads to this individual becoming violent and antisocial.

Social learning theory is cited as way to explain how the environment can influence an

individual’s behavior. Using this theory to explain the violent or antisocial behavior of

an individual it means that an individual observes violent behavior between parents,

siblings, or both. This will eventually make an individual believe that this violent

behavior is normal and can therefore adopt it by emulating their family members.

Personality psychologist Eysenck happened to create a model based on three factors known

as:
  Psychotics

 Extraversion

 Neuroticism

Or which is now referred to as the PEN model.

Psychotism was associated with the traits of violence, antisocial, impulsive, cold,

impersonal, and not empathetic.

Extraversion had a strong relationship with the traits of sociable, lively, active,

sensation-seeking, carefree, dominant, and assertive.

Finally, neuroticism was associated with anxious, tense, low self-esteem, depressed,

irrational, emotional, and moody. Through researching and surveillance, Eysenck

found that these factors could be used as indicators of violent behavior.

Eysenck believed that this to be true of the psychoticism factor and that measuring it could

determine the difference between violent and non-violent.

Extraversion was a better determiner in the cases for young individuals, while neuroticism

was a better determiner for adult individuals.

Research has shown that criminality is strongly related with low arousal levels of the

individual’s brain. Characteristics related to low arousal levels are

 Sleepiness

 lack of attention

 lack of interest

 Loss of vigilance.
Social learning theories hold that criminal behaviors are learned in interaction with

others, particularly those within close personal circles such as family, friends, and

neighbors.

According to this perspective, criminality is not inborn, biological, or genetic, nor is it limited

to people of specific backgrounds, resources, or opportunities. Rather, all people are seen as

having the potential to engage in criminal or deviant acts, and criminality is a function of the

socialization process.

Social learning theories focus on: social structural theories, which as macro-
structural theories emphasize large-scale, often
interactions
abstract, social structures and institutions such as:
socializing processes
economy
between individuals, often in a close
labor market
face-to-face context.
education
Social learning theories tend to be government
micro-structural, focusing on culture
relationships within specific settings or
Structural theories speak of labor markets and
environments.
unemployment.
Social learning theories examine
relationships within specific workplaces
or between individuals and the
unemployment office.

The most significant social learning theories of crime are labeling theories, which follow

from the work of Howard Becker. These perspectives examine the development of criminal

careers from a first act of deviance, rather than the causes of crime itself.
Labeling theories are influenced by sociological and psychological theories of symbolic

interactionism.

According to symbolic interactionism, people interpret symbolic gestures from others and

incorporate them into their own self-image. Thus negative reactions, whether verbal or

expressed in body language, could cause individuals to view themselves in a negative light.

The formal beginnings of labeling theory date to the early works of Franklin Tannenbaum in

the 1930s, particularly Crime and Community. Tannenbaum pointed out that many forms of

juvenile delinquency are simply normal parts of adolescent street life. They are part of the

play, experiment, adventure, and excitement that represent crucial parts of individual and

social development.

According to Tannenbaum, individuals targeted in this way may eventually learn to view

themselves as delinquents. This process, which Tannenbaum refers to as the “dramatization

of evil,” leads to the child or youth being separated out of the surrounding group and

subjected to negative treatment.

Tannenbaum noted that the poor are more likely than the wealthy to get caught up in this

process. This point has been developed by critical criminologists and conflict theorists.

Building on these insights, labeling theory attempts to examine the social and interpersonal

processes through which acts, attributes, and beliefs come to be constructed as deviant. It

attempts to explain how cultural and individual perceptions create and sustain deviant

identities. For labeling theories, deviance results from the enforcement of rules rather than

specific acts.
The deviant person is simply someone to whom the label “deviant” has been successfully

applied, not someone who is fundamentally different. Even more, the deviant person is

someone who has come to believe the label as it applies to him or her.

Labeling theorists note that most people have engaged in deviant, even criminal, acts but do

not consider themselves to be criminals because those events pass without notice or regard.

This process often alters a person’s self-concept, disrupts personal relationships, and changes

life chances and opportunities, including negatively impacting employment, housing, and

education.

By assigning negative identities, conforming members of society–and those with the power to

assign labels–strongly influence offenders’ future behavior. People learn to take on behaviors

and attitudes consistent with the label. “Stigma” is the term used by Erving Goffman to refer

to the mark of disgrace that is associated with deviant or criminal labels.

For social learning theorists, reality is socially constructed or produced through the activities

of disparate and varying groups both internally and through their interactions with other,

more or less powerful, groups. They stress the importance of power relations within a given

society and suggest that it is essential to know who assumes the authority to do the labeling in

society. This information helps explain why less harmful acts, such as shoplifting or

squeegeeing, which are often carried out by less powerful members of society, are targeted

for criminalization and the deployment of criminal justice system resources, whereas more

harmful acts such as pollution, product safety, or unfair labor practices, which are typically

undertaken by corporate elites, are less likely to leave the perpetrator with a deviant or

criminal label.
Labeling theorists emphasize that some people have the power to make their labels stick,

while others cannot. The definition of deviance or crime is a form of social control exerted by

more powerful actors over less powerful actors. Labeling is part of a process that excludes

subordinate actors from social participation or from power.

Social psychologist Albert Bandura’s social learning theory emphasizes modeling and

the processes by which people learn not only through direct experience but also by

observing others whom they respect or admire.

Role models in the media, arts, sports, or music, for example, can influence people to act in

desirable or undesirable ways. As Bandura also noted, observation of violent acts, as on

television, could be reflected in violent acts by child observers.

Social learning theories are significant in showing that societies’ definitions determine

whether certain behavior is considered deviant or criminal, and in pointing out that these

definitions change over time and place. Often these definitions are the outcome of social

struggle, inequality, and exploitation. Furthermore, labeling theory shows that the act of

labeling–especially as associated with the

 activities of schools

 police

 criminal justice systems

 media

 prisons–may actually perpetuate crime rather than reducing it.