Psychology Research Paper Example – Antisocial Behavior

Which are the Cognitive and Social Mechanisms Underlying Antisocial Behaviour?

The investigation of determinants of antisocial behavior is aimed to bring light and, if at all possible, the resolution to one of the very common dilemmas of social structures. Antisocial behavior contributes to numerous conflicts and harmful consequences, including a simple individual inability to building healthier social relationships to serious crimes. While currently there's absolutely no clear consensus on the mechanisms behind the antisocial behavior, you will find multiple approaches and instructions of study. Two of the very successful perspectives are cognitive and social, as they attempt to explain the matter through entirely different determinants: internal cognitive processes and external social influence respectively. There is a need certainly to analyze the character of antisocial behavior and review the argumentation of both of the above perspectives.

Defining antisocial behavior

Antisocial behavior is really a broad term that describes aggressive, selfish, manipulative, as well as other behavioral patterns that may profoundly disturb individual’s social interactions and engagement. The studies and definitions of antisocial behavior vary, depending on perhaps the subject is just a child or an adult. For children, this behavior is associated with “aggression, stealing, lying, truancy, firesetting, and other actions that reflect major social rule violations” (Kazdin, Bass, Siegel & Thomas, 1989). However , all through an individual’s development, these kind of behavior frequently lead to worse and harmful actions all through adulthood. Such measures include criminal behavior, alcoholism, drug use, antisocial disorders.

More over, there are even suggestions that antisocial behavior is a trait that could be transmitted to further generation (Kazdin, Bass, Siegel & Thomas, 1989). Therefore , knowledge of the determinants of antisocial behavior can be an important step not only to boost the quality of one’s social engagement, but it can be a significant scientific direction which could serve to make a community with fewer crimes, conflicts, and their consequences. Although this scientific field is abundant with paradigms and trends, both most fundamental approaches have emerged through the entire last handful of decades. These approaches are cognitive, focusing on brain’s activity that stimulates antisocial behavior, and social, which emphasizes the importance of socialization and environment of an individual in explanation of his or her antisocial activities.

Cognitive explanations of antisocial behavior

Cognitive perspective to antisocial behavior views an individual’s inner genetically determined qualities whilst the primary sourced elements of his or her behavioral patterns. This method emphasizes various brain activities and brain structure and their consequences (e. g., learning abilities, empathy skills) as the most influential factors of an individual’s likelihood to interact in antisocial behavior.

Cognitive approach is comprehensive, since it includes studies of different brain parts and learning abilities that describe antisocial behavior from various angles. One way to know how cognition influences our antisocial behavior is by using neuro-imagery technologies to understand how brain work and structures differ in people who have been practicing antisocial behavior in comparison to those who have to such record. For example , advanced of aggression (even around committing murder) is connected with low calorie burning of glucose and blood circulation in prefrontal and orbitofrontal areas of the mind (Raine & Yang, 2006). Another essential aspect may lie in temporal lobe volume. Dolan and his colleagues have figured a lower quantity of temporal lobe leads to an increased risk of aggressive and destructive behavior (Dolan, Deakin, Roberts & Anderson, 2002). Other significant elements of the brain which are associated with more aggressive behavior are “parietal lobe (particularly the angular gyrus) and anterior/posterior cingulate gyrus” (Raine & Yang, 2006). The irregularities in these regions’ work and structure influence an individual’s predisposition to activate in violent behavior and commit acts of aggression toward other folks. Of course, antisocial behavior is really a complex term that may change in various contexts, but such neurobiological approach reaches to the most basic conditions that play a huge role in the intensification of particular forms of behavior and stimulus.

Yet another significant term within the cognitive approach is empathy and human ability to produce empathetic and sympathetic behavior. Understanding identifies the human ability to comprehend the feelings of other folks and predict the consequences of one’s action on people around her or him. Cognitive determinants directly influence individuals empathy potential, and therefore our brain activity drives our capability to engage in empathy. A study by Miller and Eisenberg shows that understanding highly correlates with aggressive and antisocial behavior, meaning that the more a person is with the capacity of understanding, the less probability of his or her engagement in antisocial behavior is (Miller & Eisenberg, 1988). Therefore , our inability to feel socially-connected emotions and understand them may be one of many cognitive determinants of antisocial and aggressive behavior.

Cognitive perspective also uses a problem-solving approach to explain the origins of antisocial behavior. In accordance with this approach, people (especially children) struggle to learn how to solve daily issues, like the need to face small defeats, react to conflicts with parents, peers, and supervisors. Due to individual’s cognitive lack of problem-solving skills, she or he acts to such problems in aggressive, antisocial, and deviant ways, both expecting the problems to be solved in this expressive way and because of inability to handle the frustration and anger. Kazdin and his colleagues have figured problem-solving skills training (PSST) technique used to help antisocial children ended up being more effective compared to the more conventional relationship therapy (RT), which emphasizes the empathetic component in the treating antisocial behavior (Kazdin, Bass, Siegel & Thomas, 1989). Therefore , out of this perspective, among the primary cognitive mechanisms behind antisocial behavior lies in low ability to solve problems. To improve an individual’s social engagement and acceptance, one must develop and train the problem-solving skills, from probably the most uncomplicated causal training to more complex social conflicts.

Cognitive approach gifts an essential take on antisocial behavior, proposing most deeply situated processes as explanations for such an unlikely phenomenon. While this perspective has resulted in a deeper understanding of the topic, it does not are the complexity of social contexts and facets that emerge during individual development and interaction with the world beyond our body. To see yet another angle of determination of antisocial behavior, there is a have to focus on environmental and external factors, which are presented in a social perspective.

Social determinants of antisocial behavior

The social perspective views antisocial behavior because of the environment of an individual, who's highly influenced by their social interactions and experience. Sometimes this method is referred to as a developmental perspective because it emphasizes the circumstances in which someone develops.
Social mechanisms that underlie antisocial behavior are mainly various socialization agents, which include relatives, peers, school, media, referential group. Socialization refers to the assumption that both “normative and deviant behaviors are learned social behaviors, services and products of the interaction of social, psychological, and cultural characteristics” (Oetting & Donnermeyer, 1998). Consequently , antisocial behavior is a direct consequence of socialization agents’ influence, which shapes a person throughout the lifetime course, but especially through the earliest age. To understand the bond between these agents’ influence, it is better to evaluate their actions in chronological order – from individual’s earliest years to adulthood.

Family members are significant in the context of antisocial behavior. Parenting style affects a child’s knowledge of basic principles and patterns of interaction with other people. If aggressive, conflicting, strict, and also abusive behavior prevails in parents’ communication with each other and their offspring, the child is more likely to learn it and use it in his or her daily social interaction (Snyder, Schrepferman & St. Peter, 1997). Inconsistent discipline and insufficient positive reinforcement from parents may influence an individual’s the communication with peers, as young ones of abusive and aggressive families transmit this behavior into school and other institutions, which affects other young ones and their process of understanding how to cooperate. Bullying, constant peer pressure, and lack of one’s engagement with other young ones originally result from poor parenting and only reinforce the perspective of antisocial behavior in younger age. As time passes, antisocial young ones engage in much more serious deviant activities, especially those connected to minor criminal acts and drug use. Individuals who start to take part in such activities earlier in the adolescent period will continue this behavior in adulthood (Hawkins, 1996). Negative attitude from teachers, parents, and other peers only reinforce individual’s self-perception as a bad, immoral, and irresponsible person, making him or her a lot more likely to accept and keep on antisocial behavior patterns. In this manner, family’s influence gradually results in peer influence that reinforces the antisocial potential of an individual. Through the adolescence, affiliation with antisocial peers and susceptibility to peer influence are the key social mechanisms that stimulate antisocial behavior, as individuals find peer groups and subcultures that value and appraise such behavior (Monahan, Steinberg & Cauffman, 2009). These people are highly more likely to commit crimes, get arrested, and obtain into prison. After experiencing imprisonment, they truly are less likely to have successful careers and fulfilling families of their very own, making their situation a lot more at risk of individual’s alienation, drug, and alcohol abuse.

Based on a social perspective, the above mentioned destructive environmental mechanisms that influence someone throughout their development can result in more severe psychological issues that only disrupt an individual’s social engagement. Adults who demonstrate antisocial behavior often developmental disorders, like schizophrenia, drug use, depression, which stimulate their deprivation from strong and caring relationships with others, their difficulties with building successful careers and reaching comfortable environment for starting a household. Moreover, these individuals get stigmatized in media discourse and sometimes receive little respect from more successful individuals, only intensifying the antisocial motivations.

For that reason social mechanisms that underlie the antisocial behavior compose a complex and interconnected system of factors which influence an individual’s actions, thoughts, and values. These mechanisms, including, family, peers, social institutions, media, and even more can gradually lead to quite unpleasant results, forming someone who has no easy and beneficial social engagement, no power to communicate with others successfully, develop a career, and so forth Social facets are one of the highly crucial subjects to incorporate when speaking about the reasons antisocial and destructive behavior.

Conclusion

Antisocial behavior is definitely an issue that features various types of destructive and harmful activities. This behavior reflects the aggressiveness, violence, as well as engagement in crime and drug use, making it not just an issue of specific individuals but a phenomenon which aggravates the relations within the whole society and the inclusivity of each and every in it. Cognitive and social perspectives would be the most prominent and well-studied directions of explaining the origins of antisocial behavior. Cognitive perspective focuses on the interior determinants of antisocial activity, concentrating on our brain work and structure. This approach claims that, first, variations in specific brain part structures and actions lead to more likelihood of the aggressive and harmful behavior. Second, it views human learning skills and abilities to feel empathy as significant facets that influence individual predisposition to antisocial behavior. Social, or developmental, perspective views aggressive and antisocial behavior as a result of the social environment in which someone develops and exists. Using this approach, relationships with parents, peers, as well as other socialization agents directly influence and teach individual specific types of values, behavior and communication skills. If the environmental surroundings is aggressive and saturated in conflicts, the in-patient is prone to engage in antisocial activities. Both of the explanations – cognitive and social – have impressive theoretical and empirical back ground, as well as flaws. While the cognitive approach lacks understanding of external context that shapes specific communication patterns, the social approach generally seems to leave aside biological determinants of human actions. Despite such differences, both perspectives play an important role in understanding and solving the matter of antisocial behavior, complementing one another and stimulating future scientific research in this field.

Works Cited

Dolan, M., Deakin, W., Roberts, N., & Anderson, I. (2002). Serotonergic and cognitive impairment in impulsive aggressive personality disordered offenders: are their implications for treatment?. Psychological Medicine, 32(01). http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0033291701004688
Hawkins, J. (1996). Delinquency and crime. Nyc: Cambridge Academy Press.
Kazdin, A., Bass, D., Siegel, T., & Thomas, C. (1989). Cognitive-behavioral therapy and relationship therapy in the treating children referred for antisocial behavior. Journal Of Consulting And Clinical Psychology, 57(4), 522-535. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-006x.57.4.522
Miller, P., & Eisenberg, N. (1988). The relation of empathy to aggressive and externalizing/antisocial behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 324-344. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0033-2909.103.3.324
Monahan, K., Steinberg, L., & Cauffman, E. (2009). Affiliation with antisocial peers, susceptibility to peer influence, and antisocial behavior during the transition to adulthood. Developmental Psychology, 45(6), 1520-1530. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0017417
Oetting, E., & Donnermeyer, J. (1998). Primary Socialization Theory: The Etiology of Drug Use and Deviance. I. Substance Use & Misuse, 33(4), 995-1026. http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/10826089809056252
Raine, A., & Yang, Y. (2006). Neural foundations to moral reasoning and antisocial behavior. Social Cognitive And Affective Neuroscience, 1(3), 203-213. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsl033
Snyder, J., Schrepferman, L., & St. Peter, C. (1997). Origins of Antisocial Behavior. Behavior Modification, 21(2), 187-215. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/01454455970212004