Based on your reading from Tuesday (Chapter 10 or 9), choose one specific topic from the chapter you read that you would like to know more about. Do some intensive googling to find high quality information about your topic. Provide a detailed summary of your topic, and include 3 high quality links to more information.
Topical Blog Due 3/10 10pm
No TrackBacks
TrackBack URL: http://www.psychologicalscience.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-t.cgi/2291
The area of chapter 10 that I am most interested in is regarding the relationship between violence and social norms. The first link is related to prevention programs and policy and procedures regarding social norms and violence - http://endabuse.org/content/news/detail/1265/
This website gives a significant amount of detail regarding policies that have recently been implimented to address the ongoing concerns and issues surrounding social norms and violence. The opening article related to a donation from the Nike foundation to support programs that challenge gender norms, engage men and boys in eliminating violence against women and girls, and various other identified concerns that relate to social norms. The website also provides the reader with resources for understanding current policy and procedures and discusses the role of social norms in relation to various identified violent issues, including family violence.
The second website I found was http://www.alanberkowitz.com/articles/BPI.pdf
This is an article that discusses utilizing a social norm approach to preventing violence. It focuses on engaging men to be allies to reduce violence against woment. This article identifies the social norms that are typically present and disputes the underlying issues that may cause individuals to act based on those social norms. For example the article identifies that most men act based on what they believe other men's expectations are. By identifying these inconsistencies you can incorporate more effective prevention programs. The article gives several implications for the benefits of social norm focused prevention programs. It encourages individuals to provide an atmosphere for men and boys to be honest about their feelings to increase their ability to intervene when they believe something is inappropriate. It also identifies the need to understand the cultural implications that may be present when encouraging this behavior and change of attitude, this notion also directly relates to the chapter 10 text.
The third website I reviewed was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime. I referred to this website to gain a further understanding of the definitions associated with violence in relation to and the effects of social norms. One of the more interesting concepts I read about on this website was regarding the Natural-law theory and how it relates to violence and social norms. Wikipedia indicated that the natural law theory was a way to justify the State’s use of force to coerce compliance with it’s laws. I found this very interesting and yet very alarming. This website provided me with a greater understanding of the effects social norms have on violence on both the cultural and individual level.
The concept of chapter 10 that interested me most was the idea of violence in a cultural context. The first website is from Wikipedia and explores in detail the areas of structural and cultural violence. It states that “cultural violence highlights the way in which the act of direct violence and the fact of structural violence are legitimized and thus made acceptable in society.” As discussed in the chapter, different cultures are more accepting of particular types of violence and are excused or expected based on the circumstance. There are so many cultures throughout the world that have found their own way to manage and handle violence, as well as what is deemed punishable or acceptable. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural_violence
The second is an article on cultural violence by Johan Galtung who introduced the concept of structural violence in the sixties. The article discusses the relationship between direct, structural and cultural violence and how they are all interconnected. I feel it is important to be aware of what is accepted or legitimized in different cultures when it comes to violence. In a society where violence often seems to be surrounding us and politicians and legislators seem to be constantly attempting to lower crime rates, understanding how other cultures handle or manage violence may be beneficial for us. http://www.okan.edu.tr/UserFiles/File/galtung.pdf
The third website is from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and explores the issue of violence prevention. There are several links and articles available through this website that provide a vast amount of information regarding youth violence, child maltreatment, domestic violence, suicide, etc. The website offers links to articles and statistical information beneficial to those inquiring about how violence effects different individual, groups, and communities. Understanding violence from multiple arenas again allows us to better understand how violence can be prevented among different groups. http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/
After reading Chapter 9, I was interested in learning more about serotonin and the role it plays both in our brain, its functions, and aggression. According to http://www.webmd.com/depression/recognizing-depression-symptoms/serotonin, serotonin is not only made in the brain, but most of it is found in the digestive tract and in blood platelets. When serotonin is in the brain, it is known as a neurotransmitter that helps support nearly all of the 40 million brain cells. It also helps regulate things like mood, sexual desire and function, appetite, sleep (probably what it’s best known for), memory and learning, temperature regulation, and some social behavior (including aggressive behavior). Serotonin does more than just those things however. It is also active in regulating functioning of our cardiovascular system, endocrine system, and muscle system. In addition, some research has shown serotonin may play a role in milk production, and that a defect in serotonin in babies could possibly lead to SIDS. Furthermore, an imbalance in serotonin can lead to more than just aggression. It is believed to also lead to problems like depression, OCD, anxiety, and panic.
Another link, http://www.crimetimes.org/97d/w97dp4.htm, uses 3 recent studies that measured serotonin to link it not only to aggressive behavior, but to criminal behavior as well. Interestingly, the first study they used found a correlation between high blood-serotonin levels and aggression/criminal behavior, while the second study found a correlation between low blood-serotonin levels and aggression/criminal behavior. The third study corresponded with the second study. Another interesting thing was that the second study included women and found no correlation with higher/lower serotonin levels and aggressive or criminal behavior.
The last website that I went to, http://www.dana.org/news/brainwork/detail.aspx?id=13182, detailed a study done that measured serotonin levels and aggression in 20 healthy adults. To lower the level of serotonin, the researchers manipulated the volunteer’s diets. They then had the volunteers play a game called “Ultimatum Game.” The game lets a partner either accept or reject an offer to spilt money, with some of the offers reasonable and others not. The researchers found that the volunteers who had lower levels of serotonin acted more aggressively than those that had normal levels. Interestingly, the article suggests that diet can have a big role in the amount of serotonin we produce. Apparently, foods like turkey, chocolate, oats and bananas are rich in tryptophan, which the body uses to make serotonin. The article also mentions that SSRIs (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors) are used to treat mood disorders like depression. From all of these websites, I can conclude a few things. One, people who eat a healthy diet are much more likely to have normal levels of serotonin, which is beneficial for both physical and psychological health. Second, SSRIs may be able to be used with people who have higher levels of aggression. I didn’t read that this is done currently, but I believe that it would be a good study for the future. Finally, people who have lower levels of serotonin are much more likely to have aggressive behaviors, so perhaps finding ways to elevate their levels of serotonin would be a good way of lowering their aggression.
After reading chapter 10, I was interested in learning more about culture in the United States, and how it relates to violence.
http://www.ouruf.org/d/grad/Violence%20and%20US%20Regional%20Culture.pdf
This link is an article about the violence preferences in America, especially the differences in the North and the South. The research shown in the article shows five explanations why the North is more violent than the South. The explanations as to why the South is more violent than the North are: it is warmer, more poverty, it’s relation to slavery, white people imitating the violence of African Americans (which goes back to slavery, and the way they were treated by the white people), and that the South is derived from a culture focused on violence. I think that these all play a role in why America’s culture focuses on violence. I have never really though of it, but slavery does contribute to the way we are violent today in more ways than just being racist. Also, the article noted that the South usually do violent acts because of dignity and honor; more than what the North practices.
http://www.allaboutcounseling.com/culture.htm
This website focuses on culture, and how especially the media and sex contributes to the culture in the United States. The article claims that the media continually normalizes violence, reinforces racism, and creates myths of who we are as Americans. I believe that- to an extent. We are influenced by the media, but we are also influenced by other things such as our environment, and the person that we actually are as well. I think that everything does have to be taken into perspective by using the CuPS approach, which does incorporate the person, situation, and the culture. Halfway through researching for this blog, I was surprised to see the amount of impact that race has on violence. African Americans are shown to be more violent, so after reading through research it is hard to not hold a stereotype. This website encourages us to learn from other cultures rather than ignore them, and even gives an example of how early U.S. leaders were even influenced by the Native American’s ideas of democracy.
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/08/12-8
This article discusses America’s violence and the use of gun control. Again, this can but doesn’t have to be related to race. Since African American’s are shown to be more involved in gangs, then gun use can be related to them. But, groups such as the KKK and other white supremacist groups use guns as well. The article discusses the murders done by George Sodini. He walked into an aerobics class in Pennsylvania and killed three women and injured 9 more. Some of his reasoning behind that was because he was rejected by women, which goes back to the amount of sexuality in America and how it is related to violence.
The topic in chapter 10 that most interested me was different cultural norms can play a role in violence. The first website I found pertaining to this topic is the website of the PAHO (Pan American Health Organization). http://new.paho.org/hq/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=91&Itemid=220
This organization promotes awareness of cultural differences and how we can all work together to increase standards of health in other cultures. This includes increasing standards of less violence. http://new.paho.org/hq/index.php?option=com_joomlabook&Itemid=259&task=display&id=159 This is the specific page dealing with violence prevention among different cultures. If you click on 'read more' under the first topic of violence, it lays out the goals and directives of this organization in preventing violence in different cultures.
http://www.marshall.edu/wcenter/?page_id=524 This is a page from an university website. The visual they use for showing the relationship between violence and culture is very interesting. They explain how culture plays a role in violence, "These cultural factors are ingrained in us from the day we are born, and can play a role in either ending or perpetuating violence." It gives a great portrayal of how many intervening factors play a role in violence, but in particular culture.
This article is about honor killings and violence in Turkey. http://www.turkishculture.org/lifestyles/lifestyle/the-women/honor-killings-426.htm
I chose this for this blog because it shows real violence driven by culture. The article states, "There is a consensus over the fact that crimes of honor emanate from cultural and not religious roots and that they can be found worldwide, mainly in patriarchal societies or communities." The handbook also talks about cultures of honor; this article is a good portrayal of how violence can occur in a culture based on honor.
After reading Chapter 10 in the textbook, I would like to know more about how certain cultural norms and ideas contribute to violent behavior. More specifically, I would like to know more about how a culture that emphasizes individual difference and dignity can contribute to murder. Before continuing, I think it is important to define individualistic and collectivistic cultures. An individualistic culture is one that emphasizes the importance of solely taking care of one's self and close relatives. On the contrary, a collectivistic culture emphasizes strong networks in which the members all care for one another. Honor and loyalty are also highly emphasized in these cultures.
One article that I found was about how narcissism and trauma can affect the individual in an individualistic culture. The article also discussed how trauma can affect the entire collective group in a collective society. Furthermore, this article examined how serial killers, terrorists, and mass murderers are consumed by narcissism. One major example that this article gives is that of Hitler and the Nazis exterminating Jewish people. Hitler was one narcissistic man with one idea of who the "enemies" were, and that they must be taken out.
http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/10-20-2002-28564.asp
The second article that I read was about different parts of cultures; the article called these parts "personalities" of culture. I think this article relates because there are other aspects of culture that could possibly contribute to violence and murder that were not discussed in the textbook. I think doing further research and studies on these parts of culture could potentially help us better understand violence. One part that I think is particularly important is what the article calls "power distance." In some cultures, there is little difference between the power of a lower class person and the power of a higher class person. In other cultures, there is a great difference between these powers. Occasionally, these powers may collide and a "class warfare" may break out.
http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/culturepersonalities.html
This map shows the top ten countries in the world with the highest crime rates. It is interesting to note that the top countries with the highest crime rates are also some of the most individualistic countries in the world. The United States is the most individualistic culture in the world, and also has the highest crime rate in the world. I think this brings up an interesting point that would be beneficial for further research.
http://www.mapsofworld.com/world-top-ten/countries-with-highest-reported-crime-rates.html
In regards to Chapter 10, I chose to look at violence on a cultural level. I found an essay that was very informative about the influence of cultural structures on violence acceptability. http://www.essayvtm.netfirms.com/Cultural_violence.htm This website goes over several factor that may contribute to the acceptance of violence in a given culture. It talks about the traditions of violence such as war and aggressive behaviors. The author talks about courage and honor of dying, which directly relates to the themes discussed in the chapter. They also tell about different ways that violence is displayed in cultures, including carnivals, executions, and religious masses. The authors also tell about the relationship of animal respect and violence, how a culture treat animals may be tied to the level of violence in a culture. They also talk about other things including biology and human rights in certain cultures.
In a second website, I looked at our culture and its views on violence. http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=6891 This website, shows many statistics about the amount of violence that occurs in the United States including rape, violence crimes, war, crimes against women, domestic crime, ect. This website talks about how our culture is a culture ingrained with violence acceptance. It was interesting because when you are not experiencing violence, its hard to really see how much violence is occurring around you.
The third source I looked at was for definitional information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural_violence I looked at what people have defined cultural violence as. It tells about in the 1960's Johan Galtung coined the term structural violence from the idea of social structures.The basis of the theory is that structural violence produces conflict and often direct violence, including family violence, racial violence, hate crimes, terrorism, genocide, and war. Telling how culture of a direct impact on violence within the culture.
In chapter 9. the thing that most interested me was when they talked about peer social rejection. The handbook describes social rejection as very painful and also says that peer rejection during kindergarten through grade 2 is predictive of aggressive behavior is grade 4. The handbook also says that this even controls for early aggressive behavior.
I decided to look into this topic a little further for our assignment tonight.
The first item I found was an article that talks about peer social rejection in a little bit more depth. It can be found through the following URL: http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1007&context=reid_fontaine. The authors of this article actually did several studies to help conceptualize the idea of peer rejection. To summarize the results of their studies, they discovered the following:
1) Social rejection that lasts a long period of time is a more likely detemining factor of aggressive behavior
2) Social rejection serves as an early marker of later behaviors
3) A low social preference by peers has a great impact on later processing patterns, which is also an outcome of early social rejection
and
4) These effects do not seem to be any different between boys and girls.
These findings, in my opinion, are both interesting and shocking. This just goes to show that if teachers do not play a more active role in combating bullying and other forms of social rejection, children could have greater difficulty in school, which you lead to a whole other host of problems down the line.
A second resource I found in my search looked at how peer rejection could potentially predict early adolesent disorders. This article can be found at the following URL:
http://data.psych.udel.edu/abelcher/Shared%20Documents/4%20Developmental%20Psychopathology%20and%20Risk%20(24)/Coie,%20Lochman,%20Terry,%20Hyman%201992.pdf.
The authors of this article conducted a three-year longitudinal study. The results of this study supported the idea that early social rejection can lead to eraly adolescent disorders. Children that are rejected early in their school lives, according to the article are likely to suffer from poor adjustment when they enter middle school.
A final resource I found online was something that I feel parents and school teachers/officials can use if they fear a child/student is being rejected by their peers. The information present in this resource comes from the Guidance Channel website and can be found at the following URL:
http://www.guidancechannel.com/default.aspx?index=1664&cat=13
This website, although admittedly not very easy to look at due to the font size and non-attention gabbing colors and graphics, does a great job with showing parents and teachers how to identify a child that is being rejected. One thing that I was really pleased with them adding was about how home lives and school lives should be more collaborative and parents especially should spend more time talking to their kids about what is going on and school and about the friends they have. When the parents have more involvement by learning what their kid is doing in school by both keeping in contact with their child's school as well as talking with their child, many negative effects of social rejection can potentailly be overridden. By identifying potential social rejection early, parents and teachers can intervene.
This website also helps to identify the students that are socially rejected. Many adults may not be able to see when a child is truly being rejected by their peers, so it is nice that they added warning signs.
Overall, I thought the resources out there on peer social rejection was very informative and insightful. They really complemented the reading very well. In fact, I actually intend to use some of the information I found when working on information for my expert topic. With the growing reports of bulling, the negative influences of social media, etc., etc....it is nice to know that there are ways that have been looked at that can help students that are bullied and rejected unfairly by their peers.
When I read chapter 9, one thing that stuck with me was the concept of “hostile attribution”. The book defines this as, “In response to ambiguous provocation by another person, when a respondent infers that the act was committed with hostile intent.” I found this very intriguing because I have seen this first hand, very often. I’m sure we all know someone or have conversed with someone who “flies off the handle” very easily. They may seem to do it even if you were not “attacking” them or saying anything wrong. They may very well have what I searched, “Hostile Attribution Bias”.
The first website that I looked at was http://www.psychwiki.com/wiki/Hostile_Attribution_Bias. While I know that Wikipedia is typically not a reliable site, I felt that this had a good example, description, and citations of studies conducted on the phenomena, even though it was brief. I think with this concept, examples are important. This website gives the example of a man, Tim, driving his car when there is a car swerving over the lanes in front of him. He gets nearer to the car and eventually decides to merge away. This example shows that Tim perceived the car swerving as the other person intentionally driving recklessly, thus he sped up and got closer, becoming hostile and aggressive. What he didn’t know was that the passenger in the car was in labor and they were swerving around cars to get to the hospital as soon as possible. Tim’s reaction is a common occurrence when driving and has been termed, “road rage”. I’m sure everyone can say they have felt that another driver/pedestrian has intentionally gone slower, been in the way, etc., and has gotten angry and maybe done something aggressive towards them. I can’t deny that I have flipped off a car or two because I thought they pulled out in front of me on purpose. It actually happened today! I was coming up through an intersection where I did not have a yield or stop. There was a big truck to my right, who had a stop sign. They did not stop, but pulled through the sign and turned right, directly in front of me, almost hitting me. I got quite upset, because I thought that he purposefully did this. It isn’t like he couldn’t see me. It is possible he was busy with his radio or cell phone or something, but it is hard to not put intention there. Just like these two examples, the site discusses a recent study that showed that men could perceive a friendly or platonic encounter with a female and assume that there was a romantic or sexual basis for the encounter. This sounds pretty common. The part where hostile attribution bias comes in is when he is approached by a female and assumes she wants more than small talk. When she rejects his advances, he becomes angry because of the mistaken attribute of intent. I think this was important for the site to discuss because it can directly relate to things we have discussed in class. One area I think this example relates to is our discussion of rape and how aggression is related to it. If a guy has hostile attribution bias and perceives the woman’s intent as sexual and romantic but is rejected, he may become quite angry and aggressive. This to him seems like a loss of control and humiliation. This could lead him to physical aggression and even rape. In order for him to gain that control back, he needs to “show her”. Besides relating directly to rape, I think it is quite obvious that this can relate to murder and overall general aggression. If you think someone hit you on purpose, you may be more likely to hit them or start hitting them repeatedly, resulting in severe physical damage and murder. This site also mentions that there are some techniques to prevent HAB. The authors of the site believe that an important prevention strategy would be to change their traits and teach them positive ways of thinking. If we can do that and create a more rational person, the likelihood that these situations will be perceived wrong will decrease, as well as the likelihood of aggression and violence. I believe we discussed the importance of this as well last week. They also say that you should try to teach individuals that fighting and aggression is not always the answer. I believe we discussed this as well. This is important because teaching them better ways to handle situations that may be perceived wrong can obviously avoid physical altercations.
The second site I found was actually part of a book, available on Google, about the influence of media violence on aggression. http://books.google.com/books?id=asY2jmXp0XwC&pg=PA147&lpg=PA147&dq=what+is+hostile+attribution+bias&source=bl&ots=V9TYKzvmhP&sig=L58s0i9boiCmYXROZvneUN3SjPg&hl=en&ei=oYF5Tdy9Mcj0rAGGg6mABg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CDQQ6AEwBDgK#v=onepage&q=what%20is%20hostile%20attribution%20bias&f=false is the long actual site. In the part I read, the authors discuss how short-term exposure to violent comic books can have a significant affect on the creation of hostile attribution bias. Just as the chapter did, this part of the book discusses how reading these violent comic books affect social information processing which is responsible for HAB. They use much of the same studies for their data and information as chapter 9, but I think that there are some important specificities that are unmentioned in our chapter. One thing that I think is very important to note that studies done by Dodge have found that both aggressive and non-aggressive children interpret obviously hostile and benign situations the same way. The only time they differ in the HAB is when the situation is ambiguous in the intent. This is very important because it helps to give us insight into how these social information processes and HAB are formed. It seems that when situations are ambiguous people have certain traits that tell them to perceive it as negative or positive, but if they are clear-cut good or bad situations, we have traits that tell us that. They also discuss how socialization leads to the formation of HAB. They concluded that frequently aggressive children (those who display HAB) are raised by parents who discipline them with physical aggression and show little warmth towards them. When they looked further into the role that violent media plays on the socialization of HAB, they discovered some interesting things. They had two groups, those who read violent comic books and those who read non-violent comic books, answer a set of hypothetical questions after reading the comic books. The hypothetical scenarios would contain things such as a child being hit with a ball. They made sure that the intent was ambiguous. They then asked about the provocateur’s intent, potential retaliation towards the provocateur, and the provocateur’s emotional state. They found that those who read the violent comic books responded more aggressively than those who read the non-violent comic books. What these results go to show is that violent media has a significant effect on males’ social information processes and eventually the way they attribute hostility in ambiguous situations. There has been much controversy about the effects of violent media on aggression, but studies like these tend to support the hypothesis that these forms of media lead to the creation of real-life violence.
The third site I found is one that I think is even more important that the first two. This site is about a program “The Brain Power Program” that is targeted for prevention and intervention of HAB. Looking through the site, I found that I really believe this program can help change the information processes that contribute to HAB. This program is a 12-lesson program, with each lesson consisting of homework, materials, and activities that last about an hour each. They are geared towards upper elementary students grades 3-6. The 12 lessons are broken up into 3 units. According to the website:
1. The first unit strengthens children's ability to accurately read and understand the intentions of others. A variety of instructional activities (role play, discussions, unfinished stories, games) teach students to attend to social cues and not jump to predetermined conclusions when they interact with their peers.
2. After the participants gain some skills in the interpretation of social cues, the second element explains the distinction between accidental, helpful, and hostile behavior. Students are taught to initially define the absence of clear cues (as would be the case when a situation is ambiguous or unclear) as an accidental situation while they gather additional information.
3. By the third phase of the intervention students have gained some skills in assessing the social scene and competently judging a peer's intent. Now they practice the appropriate behaviors to accompany their new social understanding. Targeted skills include asking adults for help, asking questions, and making requests in a nonaggressive manner.
As shown in the three units, the basis of the program is to teach kids to start their assumptions from those of accidental causes or innocence. However, the program does point out that it is important to teach kids that some situations are intentionally harmful. They say that it would be unwise, even dangerous, to teach kids that all situations are benign. I would have to agree. I think that it is vital to teach kids to assume things are accidents until they have reason to believe otherwise, but they do need to be aware that some things are not accidents. I think if they go in thinking EVERYTHING is an accident, this will cause them to be naïve and could even lead them to be targets for victimization. They do specify that the program should be lead by two leaders who are trained and competent in small group instruction. This is important because if anyone tries it, they could do things to actually harm the individuals more than help them. The site goes into more detail about the program. It also has results from 3 studies conducted with this program. They do show that this program, both in class and as an after-school program, helps to reduce HAB. Anyone interested in this type of work should really check out the program! Here is the site: http://www.brainpowerprogram.com/index.html.
I chose to look more into how some cultures are more acceptable of certain violent behaviors compared to other cultures.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=6891
This site talks about the United State’s views on violence. The site starts off by talking about the overall rate of violence that occurs in our country including sexual violence, war, domestic violence, etc. The website then goes into discussion on how the United States is considered by some people a culture that accepts violence. For example, the article discusses how war to many countries, including the U.S. is engraved within our society’s history and how our country was acceptable and typically is still acceptable of violence in the sense of protecting its citizens and ideals.
After browsing more about violent cultures, I thought to look more into cultures that are acceptable of rape.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_culture
This website gives a general overview of the topic of rape cultures. This website defines ‘rape culture’ as “a culture in which rape and other sexual violence are common and in which prevalent attitudes, norms, practices, and media condone, normalize, excuse, or encourage sexualized violence.” Behaviors that are common in rape cultures include blaming the victim and sexually objectifying women.
http://yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/2009/07/23/this-is-what-rape-culture-looks-like/
This site is a news article post referring to the rape case against Ben Roethlisberger. The site goes on to list ways in which the case can be described as one from a rape culture which I found to be quit interesting because I never had thought about the case in that way. According to this article, after the rape occurred, the victim told the head of security at the hotel who then told her to keep it from their boss so everyone could remain happy. When people in a position of power turn away from something like that, that’s rape culture. The writer also believes that having the media not talk about rape incidences such as this one, describes a rape culture. Also, the writer believes that when women are too afraid of being re-victimized by the courts and the media to come forward, that describes a rape culture.
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1906000,00.html
This article talks about the rape crisis found in South Africa. The South African’s Medical Research Council conducted a study which found a culture of violence against women in which men raped in order to feel more powerful. Men believed they were entitled to rape women in order deal with their frustrations. The study also found that the men who were most likely to rape were those who had obtained some level of education. According to this study, 1 in 4 men say they’ve committed rape. The study also showed that of f those who admitted committing rape, 73% said that they had committed their first assault before the age of 20. This article is just one illustration of how some cultures have very deep roots about accepting violence as a norm.
I was interested in the three subcategories of culture mentioned within the chapter and how they affect our actions. The three subcategories are known as honor, dignity and face cultures. I found a link for each type of culture to more adequately discuss each.
The first link I found described face culture: http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/face/. This article described how face cultures tend to be more associated (in importance) with Asian cultures, but how countries such as the United States still have some sort of face culture. Its basis is on whether the country is low-context or high-context. I find it extremely interesting that even though we are individuals and many will act differently in different situations, have a “set template” that as a collective we all start with. The website also describes what exactly a “face” culture is and how it can affect a person. Also, high-context face cultures are more interested in wanting to repair or build relationships, whereas low-context are more interested in problem-solving and then moving on. The importance of communication is often important in face cultures due to the importance of being seen as a competent individual. The article concludes with communications in different countries and how each would most likely interact in terms of ‘face.’ I think it would be interesting to have more topics discussing this idea of a face culture intertwined with collectivist cultures.
The second link concerns dignity cultures and is actually an article: http://psp.sagepub.com/content/36/4/537.full.pdf+html. It describes dignity cultures as more often coming from those considered Anglo-American. Also, in more western cultures where individualistic thinking is valued, a dignity culture is more common (due to believing in oneself more than what others have to say). However, the article explains that there is a positive and negative side to this. An example provided for this is how one would see a success or failure: through one’s own eyes or the eyes of others. However, I do feel the article does a good job of letting the reader realize that this is just a generalization, not a definite. The article also discusses how dignity, while having individualistic traits, is different from the others (such as not being amoral and interested in only self-preservation).
The last link was one describing a simplified description of an honor culture: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_culture_of_honor. It was actually quite difficult finding information on ‘honor’ cultures, which I found to be interesting in itself. There seemed to be little information about honor cultures, which was strange considering how much was found about face cultures. Even the mention of the countries known to have honor cultures seemed sparse (with the mention of the American South). This website, however, also had similarities with dignity culture in the vein of positive and negative attributes of the subculture; For example, willingness to resort to retribution for one’s rights (as a negative). Being as this website was the most informative found (but still vague), it left many questions unanswered. It would be interesting to receive more information in the future on this subject.
Chapter 10 had a lot of great information on the cultural aspects involved with violence. Both chapter 9 and chapter 10 were closely related to my expert topic, so the information within each of them is really interesting and helpful to me. The discussion on culture and its aspects continues through the chapter, and is something that a lot of different branches and paths to research. Because of its complexity, it’s hard to pinpoint the true basis of violence within different cultures. It’s easy to say that one culture is more violent than another, but more difficult to discover how a certain culture got to that stance on violence, as well as the reasons behind why the views on violence remain different between cultures across the world. Chapter 10 breaks down the aspects of culture into three main aspects; honor, dignity, and face cultures. To simplify the three; I think of honor as society’s view of you as a person, dignity as your internal view of yourself and how you value yourself, and face as a more hierarchical perspective that has more to do with your fulfillment of the role you have acquired through your family or through your own personal beliefs. Each of these pieces has many different variables within themselves. Things such as shame, family expectations, and individualism vs. collectivism are all things that affect the use of each of the three fundamentals of a culture.
http://web.ebscohost.com.proxy.lib.uni.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?hid=122&sid=d70d3012-e612-481b-8e0e-d0863de09432%40sessionmgr110&vid=5
While reading this chapter, I started thinking about the effects that shame and moral can have on a society; as well as how cultural values can change through generations. The above article describes the differences in shame and guilt across cultures, and how that relates to education. They point out that there is a difference between “shame cultures” and “guilt cultures,” which can have an effect on the teaching styles that are used when raising children. The main bases of this discussion are more of a collectivist vs. individualist argument, rather than focusing on the different aspects of culture discussed in our text book. However, I think that introducing the education aspect in to the mix of cultural violence is very important when looking at how cultures come to value such different things. In addition, education is a good way to see how the values and morals of a culture are being perceived and continued on from generation to generation.
http://www.via-web.de/individualism-versus-collectivism/
After reading the first article, the aspects of individualism and collectivism really started to catch my attention. I found a website that further describes these ways of life, and it even refers to many of the references that are discussed in our textbook. This website also clarified some of the aspects discussed in the textbook, pointing out examples in order to create a better picture of how these aspects really shape a culture. The article points out how the two different types of cultures are raised to think differently, and how it affects more than one area of their lives. They provide an example of an experiment that tested the ability to solve a problem both individually and as a group. The American (individualistic) group scored very high when solving the problems alone and low when solving the problems as a group. The Asian test group reflected the exact opposite scoring. I think that this speaks volumes as to how each different culture lives their lives, and provides insight as to how someone character develops. This is also where the aspects of shame and guilt come into play when discussing violence.
http://objectivism101.com/Lectures/Lecture39.shtml
This site provides some good information on the basics of culture in general and how individualism and collectivism differ. It also gives some insight as to why these topics can be difficult for someone from the opposite culture can have a hard time relating to the other lifestyle. It doesn’t have any information as to how this relates to violence, however, so using this information to branch off of is important to our class. Violence is something that is viewed and generated by a society; so it’s important to realize where the morals and values of each society come from.
In chapter 9 the section on "Peer Social Rejection" is something I feel would be interesting to learn more about. It says that peer rejection at the kindergarten level is seen to lead to more aggressive behavior toward peers in early adulthood (ages 22-24). With the field I want to study in after my undergrad it could lead to a lot of answer if I were counseling someone with over aggressive behavior in their early adult years.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12705561
This site speaks on the same statement and prediction that peer rejection at a young age leads to antisocial and aggressive behavior. It also presents chars of the studies that were conducted on this conclusion.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/23989813/Children-s-Retaliation-Against-Peer-Social-Rejection
This link not only speaks on Peer Social Rejection leading to aggressive behavior, but it goes deeper by explaining how the aggressive behavior and ideas form (video games, TV, personal experiences). It even mentions how the Virginia Tech shooter was noted as being bullied and social rejected by his peers. This was an unfortunate thing that happened but it is a great example of what social rejection can lead to. This site/article goes into ways we can prevent aggressive behavior from forming in children who are being socially rejected. This was probably then most informative site out of the ones I looked at
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090121122936.htm
"People who feel socially rejected are more likely to see others' actions as hostile and are more likely to behave in hurtful ways toward people they have never even met, according to a new study."
C. Nathan DeWall says that after researching numerous school shootings that have happened throughout the year, social rejection was noted in the majority of the cases for the shooters. He also states that although some people that we know have been socially rejected in their young age don't act out violently in public or toward others, they have other ways that are violent that we may not see or know about. In this site there was a study conducted where 30 participants took a personality test and they were all given 3 different bogus answers. The answers were (1) their personalities meant they would end up alone later in life, (2) they would have many long lasting relationships, (3) or no feedback at all. The test was how they responded in their feedback to what they were told their future would hold based off of their personalities. The ones told they would end up alone responded more aggressively in their feedback.
I decided to focus on the loyalty and respect of gangs in particular. I have not done much research on gangs before, but reading about the value of “face” and respect draws me straight to the gangs. I used to think associate more of gang violence toward purely seeming for people who are naturally aggressive and want to hurt others. Having never been around a gang environment, I had not really considered the motivation behind their violence.
On the website http://www.gangwar.com/dynamics.htm, they discuss different aspects of what makes a gang bond. Their explanation includes the 3 Rs: Reputation, Respect, and Retaliation/Revenge. Regarding Reputation, the members often have to go through an initiation of some sort involving them being beaten up by the other members. They then “hug it out” to show their bond. If you are able to successfully get through your beating, you then have earned the rep to be tough enough to belong. They then challenge you to prove that toughness out on the streets against other people.
The Respect comes from protection of what is yours as well as putting down other rival gangs. If you want to prove you have loyalty and respect for your crew, you will defend them no matter what by dissing other gangs. They take any threat to the gang as a whole as a personal attack and will be sure to renew their respect and make themselves known.
I feel the third R, Revenge, is the strongest factor in violent actions. Due to the loyalty and sense of unity gang members possess, they feel they must respond to any attack on their group. They not only want to reinstate the feeling of respect that their attacker is disrupting, but they want to out-do the original confrontation. They may go back to their hood and plan a bigger and better attack that will be superior to the first in order to show that they are better. This then can lead to that vicious cycle of escalation as each tries to go over and above the previous.
http://davadnai.users.omniglobal.net/crips.html
This website describes the CRIPS, one of the biggest gangs in the US, and how they have come to be through the years. The author identifies youth as the source of the loyalty as they want to be accepted into the group and liked by the older members. These adults then abuse the fact that juveniles can get away with more criminal activity, and they send them off to do the dirty work (often violent). Minors will get released sooner and with less punishment than adults, so having them do the drive-by shootings and robberies allows the older members to be the ones with even more control. While the adults are the ones handling all the money within the drug trade, the younger ones are often the ones distributing it into the dangerous neighborhoods and making the pickups for their fellow members.
A real-life example of this was found on http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2010/03/11/gang-loyalty-and-rivalry-led-to-death/
The cycle of violence had been occurring already in a Los Angeles neighborhood when a certain gang member was killed, supposedly by members of his own gang. As police investigated the murder, they started to realize that Ayala, the man killed, had been an informant for the police. Although this can smooth things over and build a better working relationship for you with law enforcement, this is a cardinal sin within your gang. No one likes a tattletale, and if you are found to be telling police any information, it can get you killed very easily. The case of Ayala seems to be so in that he was killed without drawing his gun, insinuating that he knew his killer, rather than being a surprise attack from an enemy.
Ayala was arrested along with a fellow gangbanger for the murder of a rival gang member two years earlier, but let off while his buddy was kept in custody. The friend was convicted of the murder, so the gang assumed that Ayala had tattled in order to be released. They took his assumed disobedience to the gang as a direct slap in the face, and something that needed to be taken care of with a fatal punishment. He is used as an example to others not to tattle or the same fate will be in store for them. Sadly, Ayala had not said a word to police as tattling, so (if) he was killed by his own gang, it was done for no reason at all. His loyalty to the gang was questioned, and rather than go about finding out facts, they just take him out.