Response to Bystander Effect, Prejudice, Aggression and Deterrence Theory Essay

The Bystander Effect states that the greatest number of bystanders who find an emergency the less likely any unitary of them volition assistance. What ar your views about the bystander entrap?            The phenomenon of the bystander picture became recognized and found its niche in social psychology studies after the murder of Catherine Kitty Genovese in 1964.  As it is one and only(a) of the most shocking murders in the history, the emphasis on the psychological phenomenon that occurred in March 13, 1964 at about 315 am (Gado 2007) is overrated. Trekking cover to the murder of Genovese, we smoke none that at the very hour when the hatred occurred mint argon still usu solelyy asleep.According to the accounts on the incident, the victim did scream for armed service, and since it was a fatal assault, surely, the victims persistence to postulate few aid should non be doubted, -this screaming and shouting for inspection and repair may cancel out the fact that the tribe in her propinquity argon still deeply asleep (as accounts say in that respect are 38 witnesses to this murder), notwithstanding at those very hours we requisite not save dig deeper to unravel the mysterious apathy of the witnesses all we need to do is take note of the epoch the assault happened some of the witnesses may turn out actually heard the screams exactly still has the need to sleep to brass instrument a Saturday-workday ahead of them.            We can complement this further with what Abraham Maslows pecking order of postulate states that the greatest need of an individual is his/her physiological needs in which sleeps or rest falls under. Moreover, since the violent scene broke the supposedly that sleep-times peace, it is understandable that the witnesses had chosen not to leave the sanctuary of their homes, panicing that they could be the next victim. -the need fo r safety and security comes as the atomic number 16 priority in Maslows renowned pyramid model. These two needs therefore may have overridden any pep ups to be a cuneus or a Good Samaritan among the witnesses at those moments.            The belief that occurs each time a bystander exercise happens is that both witness thinks that someone else among the other witnesses is more(prenominal) capable to help. Let us simulate a likely scenario in observance of the supposition a 79 year old gentlewo patch was tripped by a rock on a crowded and industrious street. In an instance like this you may likely see that not only one mortal leave alone rush in to help the old lady get back on her feet.            A bystander effect though always has a chance to occur and cast its whirl to shroud a cloud of confusion that may blur the cunning of witnesses to response to an emergency. On one hand, som e factors may actually trigger off a witnesss or a bystanders urge to help.            First, the affinity or degree of relation the bystander has with the individual in need of help. This will define the unconditioned will to help and would trigger a certain sense of responsibility on the bystanders side to help that someone he/she knows or that someone whom he/she at least(prenominal) have something-in-common with (for example, supporting the equivalent basketball team, someone in the same organization).Second, would be the empathy factor that may come from ones re telephone calling of a previous experience that will move him/her to be of help. Third, would be the effect of mood and condition of a bystander (Bordens & Horowitz 1973), this however considers the ruling of Maslows hiearned run averagerchy of needs over the urge to help base on mood.How can diagonal be cut back?          &nb sp through with(predicate) quick referrence to a dictionary, prejudice would simply be defined as preconceived or  premature judgement. First, let us see the nature behind prejudice according to the Gale cyclopedia of Psychology (2005), People are not innate(p) invidious mankindy prejudices are sorted against groups with which a person has never had any contact. In basic analysis, we can thuslyce perceive that the organism of prejudice pre-requires innocence or even ignorance, -that ones oral sex must be a pail that should be empty or yet has to be filled (by information and initially with opinions of other people).            Through fundamental interaction and confabulation with other individuals, one would naturally absorb the prejudices of another(prenominal) individual he/she gets contact with. According to the communication model (Laswell 1948) in every communication process there is the presence of 1) a source, 2) a mes sage, 3) a channel, 4) a receiver, 5) an effect, and 6) a feedback.Applying this process in tracing the ontogeny of prejudice, if an individual has yet zero knowledge or background towards a molarject, as a receiver of a message he/she had to undergo the next step of the process, which is the effect. The effect here now since the receiver is yet an empty pail would be to digest the message, and if the message transmitted is prejudiced it will pour a content in that empty pail that may soon serve as the receivers stark(a) material in generating his/her own prejudices. In psychology, this model resembles the social acquaintance pattern which in any case explains the development of prejudice.             If we are to reduce prejudice, the direct equivalence we can derive from Laswells Model would be to reduce the interaction and communication with other individuals. This in reality however, is improbable as communication be twain infinite and spontaneous processes cannot be reduced in terms of amount. The number of communication sources can forcibly be reduced only if the messages that a receiver had already received will touch to develop and be repeatedly analysed in his/her mind which then will be used by him/her when its his/her turn to communicate as a speaker.            disadvantaged beliefs lead to stereotyping, which are natural tendencies to categorise the realness in order to shake off sense of it (NAT.org 2003). In an attempt to make the complex world organized as we perceive it, we tend to enjoin labels on objects, events, and individuals that has same characteristics which send to us stimuli that are alike.            A mode to reduce stereotyping and generalization as set upd by prejudice is to detect a prejudiced person to individuals capable of dispelling it (Gale Encyclopedia2005), these individ uals include those that contradict the classifys. This glide path to reduce and neutralize stereotyping, though somewhat indirect, will help in thawing whatever barriers prejudices had formed within ones propensity which eventually is good, as sooner or later this prejudiced person will have the chance to interact with a person who belongs to a grouped he/she had stereotyped.            In the treatment to reduce prejudice in the form of stereotyping, immersion could be a vital antidote. In the same manner as Edward Saids Travel Theory (1983), a culture or an idea (which in some cases can be a prejudiced idea) is bound to loose its original potency, its strength, and even its form as it gets contact with other cultures.   A stereotype can likewise be tamed if the ignorance and the innocence where it was founded over will finally be bridged by discovering the truth (which may include interacting with the people whom you had a ste reotype on) -this first-hand, actual, and direct encounter will not just reduce prejudice but also dispel it.            More than the more common but not-at-all easily done idea to be openminded, interaction would be the best achievable solution in reducing stereotypes.Write a two-page essay in which you bring out Freuds theory on assault. Additionally, describe Banduras theory on aggression and what strategies would he recommend utilize to diminish aggressive behaviour. Do you think that aggression is innate or learned? Why?            Sigmund Freud explained that the theory of aggression begins at the early ages when a son begins to develop his intimate relationship with his mother, being the natural supplier and nurturing entity for the boy -this intimate relationship will come to a efflorescence that the boy will have sexual desires for his mother. In the family picture however, there is the presence of the father -whom the boy will treat as his pertain in getting his mothers affection and attention. But eventually, the boy will realize that he cant win over his father, as the chances of winning in physical terms is impossible collectable the boys inferior size, the boy will concede is this competition and soon will realize that his mother is not a suitable object of make out and sexual urges (cited in Freud & Smith 1999).            This sexual-desire idea is called the Oedipus complex man as for the girls, they also undergo the same condition and it is termed Electra complex. Freud claims that these are manifestations of the modifiers that dictate human behaviour instinct and sexual urges called libido. Libido is energy derived from the Eros, or heart instinct (cited in Freud & Smith 1999). Aggression is the outcome when the urges of libido are not released.             Eros, is present in every man, so as what Freud had introduced thereafter the concept of Thanatos or death pressure. This energy from this death force seeks to deliver death and destruction, which also bounds a man to put down his own self. Thanatos does not entirely pour its energy towards self-destruction, some of which are channelled to other objects and individuals which explains the presence of aggression.            Even before technology, liberal thinking, and come science, and even before the man who gave name to the concept was born, the world had rest with the survival of the fittest. Scientist Charles Darwin used the phrase to term the endless struggle of beings against one another for existence. The energy from Thanatos may support what sends a being to take aggression upon another.            Bandura (1973) claimed that human behaviour is determined by the environment. to a fault mans behaviour also dictates his environment.  This means that a man learns his aggression on what he perceives on his environment, while with the presence of aggression or the absence of it around, affects what the environment will become.            Banduras approach in dealing with and along the process diminishing behaviour is through self-regulation or simply to control ones own behaviour. This begins with self-observation (watching and analyzing our own behaviours), then with judgement (setting a standard or an ideal measure were we can compare our behaviours with and pattern it to them), and finally with self-response (your manner of affirming yourself whether you are satisfied or not with what was your behaviour in a particular occasion).            Aggression is innate to man, I agree for solid reasons. First, I would refer to what Abraham Maslow (1954) refer as the second im mediate need safety and security.  From which threats do we seek vindication against? Harsh weather? -We got our concrete homes and thick winter suits. Wild Animals? Thats what technology and urbanization is for, putting the dangerous forage-and- hunt club lifestyle locked in oblivion, then what?The best answer would be human threats -which are manifestations of the presence of aggression in man. Second man is the superior specie of all but we are still classifiable as animals -beings which are programmed from birth to seek, hunt and fight for survival. An aspect of aggression is learned by man but this mainly covers the manners of aggression like the idea of how to use weapons and sub due impending opponents.What is determent theory? Why do people make crimes?            Punishments are pre-emptive instruments set by established jurisprudences and rules meant to discourage and terrify would-be offenders. An ever-existing idea bas ed on what is called the Deterrence theory. Deterrence theory is based on the concept that, if the consequence of rendting a crime out considers the benefit of the crime itself, the individual will be deterred from ripting the crime. (Summerfield, 2006, p. 1).            By default, deterrence theory lies on the business a punishment can enter to the subjects of a law.     Ideally, a law applies to everyone in a state both the government and the subjects. But in reality, since deterrence theory was put to practice in an organized- gild nation, it has revealed some serious flaws in itself.            Write Morgan Summerfield traced the origin of the deterrence theory -stemming out the roots of its practice from old England from the Dark Ages, feudal Era, the Tudor period, when feudal lords, kings, and queens, where the first to introduce the system of punishment.   &n bsp        Although crimes at that era meant heavy punishment, as Summerfield would collectively describe as brutal and repelling, an individuals economic status would determine his vulnerability to the good consequences of the crime Someone wealthy or influential could often commit offences with impunity, while someone of lesser birth would be severely penalize for the same offence.            Between this statements lines lies an implication the power of money, and the call to have it, which is avarice, is also encouraged.   Money, power, and influence has been the bridges to punishment-evasion several centuries ago. These gives commentary to deterrence theory as the imperfect concept where present laws and subjects-controlling policies are taken from.            The answer to the question wherefore do people commit crimes lies in the failures of deterre nce theory. By default, law enforcers assume that making it know to the people that crimes are met with punishments is not enough.            First reason not every criminal are caught, hence the crime = penalty equation is not absolute. Second, every criminal does not have the same level of fear the fear variable is defined by how hard the criminal/law offender is (a repeatedly imprisoned individual may not fear the conditions of being in jail as much as a first-time convict would. Third would be how able the criminal is in defend/saving himself/herself from the legal repercussions of the crime.            If we are to directly relate the question why do people commit crimes with the fear-dependent deterrent theory, we can conclude that the inconsistency of fear among the subjects of a law do explains why not all individuals are stopped by impending punishments and thus, go on and commit crime s.            Another premise that may explain why do people commit crimes is the existence of free will When they act in a criminal manner, they do so out of free will and weigh the consequences of their actionsthey know what they are doing and choose to do it (Summerfield 2006).  Along with it is the belief of Chinese Philosopher, Kong Zi (Xun-Zi) that man is by nature evil. -reflected in the oldest book of all time, the Bible, in the chapter of Genesis where the first man used its free will to drop the rule set by God in the Garden of Eden.            Kong Zi retardation acknowledges too that man is capable of doing good but for a man to do a good act it has to be done consciously. The societys means of increasing mans awareness and sensibility to do conscious good acts, to teach what is correct and to do right is by establishing institutions  (schools, churches) to teach norms, an d make laws and policies (to assure that the norms are followed).  -Which brings us to an mere(a) cycle the naturally evil man is straightened out and taught what is good being covered by different laws and policies which is based from the deterrence theory.On a research done by Richard Lebow and Janice Stein (1995), they claimed thatDeterrence theory seldom succeeds. Although their work underwent waves of criticisms and was thoroughly scrutinized for gaps and flaws, the spirit of deterrence theory, which is carried over by the laws in present time seems to testify on the findings of Lebow and Stein.ReferencesContributors Bandura, A. (1973). Aggression A kindly Learning Analysis. p. 183. Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Prentice-Hall.Bordens, K. Sm, Horowtiz, I, A.(Eds.). (2001) Social Psychology (second edition). Lawrence    Erlbaum AssociatesGado, M. (2007) A Cry in the dark The Kitty Genovese Murder  Retrieved February 26, 2008 from discourtesy Library, Courtroom Televis ion Network, LLC.Gale Group, (2001). Gale Encyclopaedia of Psychology, 2nd Ed..  Retrieved February 27, 2008from http//findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_g2699/is_0002/ai_2699000270Huitt, W. (2006). Social cognition. Educational Psychology Interactive. Valdosta, GA Valdosta            maintain University. Retrieved February 28, 2008 from         http//chiron.valdosta.edu/whuitt/col/soccog/soccog.html.Jervis, R., Lebow, R., Stein, (Eds.). (1985) Psychology and Deterrence . Baltimore The Johns   Hopkins Press,Laswell, H.D., (1948). The structure and function of communication in society -in the communication of ideas, ed. Bryson, L. New York Harper.Maslow, A (1954). Motivation and Personality.NAT.org. (February 2003). The Psychology of Prejudice Retrieved February 28, 2008 from        http//www.e-alliance.ch/media/media-4301.pdf.Said, E. W. (1983) Travelling Theory, The World, the Text, and the Critic.            Cambridge Harvard   University Press.Smith, A. K. (1999) Theories of Aggression. Biology 202 1999 Final Web Reports-Biology.      Retrieved February 28, 2008 from Serendip database.Summerfield, M. (2006). Evolution of Deterrence Crime Theory, a journey with an End. Retrieved             February 27, 2008 from Associated Content, Inc.