Philosophy Dictionary of ArgumentsHome
| |||
|
| |||
| Aggression: aggression in psychology refers to behavior intended to harm or injure another person physically or verbally. It can manifest as hostile actions, threats, or expressions of anger. See also Behavior, Social behavior, Social cognition, Social skills._____________Annotation: The above characterizations of concepts are neither definitions nor exhausting presentations of problems related to them. Instead, they are intended to give a short introduction to the contributions below. – Lexicon of Arguments. | |||
| Author | Concept | Summary/Quotes | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Gender Studies on Aggression - Dictionary of Arguments
Slater I 185 Aggression/Gender Studies: Bandura et al. (1961)(1) distinguished between physical and verbal aggression. Researchers today still make that distinction but have also added a distinction between direct aggression and indirect aggression (sometimes called social or relational aggression). Relational aggression has been defined as harming others through purposeful manipulation and damage of their social relationships (Crick & Grotpeter, 1995)(2). Relational aggression can take many forms, such as spreading rumors about someone, saying mean things behind someone’s back, and excluding someone from a peer group. >Social groups, >Group behavior, >Social relations, >Resentment, >Social competence, >Social behavior, >Gender. Early work suggested that girls were more likely to engage in relational aggression than boys (Crick & Grotpeter, 1995)(2), but more recently, there has been controversy in the literature regarding whether there are gender differences in relational aggression (Delveaux & Daniels, 2000(3); Salmivalli & Kaukiainen, 2004(4); Underwood, Galenand, & Paquette, 2001(5)). 1. Bandura, A., Ross, D., & Ross, S. A. (1961). Transmission of aggression through imitation of aggressive models. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 63, 575—582. 2. Crick, N. R., & Grotpeter, J. K. (1995). Relational aggression, gender, and social-psychological adjustment. Child Development, 66, 710—722. 3. Delveaux, K. D., & Daniels, T. (2000). Children’s social cognitions: Physically and relationally aggressive strategies and children’s goals in peer conflict situations. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 46, 672— 692. 4. Salmivalli, C., & Kaukiainen, A. (2004). “Female aggression” revisited: Variable- and person-centered approaches to studying gender differences in different types of aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 30, 15 8—163. 5. Underwood, M. K., Galenand, B. R, & Paquette, J. A. (2001). Top ten challenges for understanding gender and aggression in children: Why can’t we all just get along? Social Development, 10, 248—266. Jenifer E. Lansford, “Aggression. Beyond Bandura’s Bobo Doll Studies“, in: Alan M. Slater and Paul C. Quinn (eds.) 2012. Developmental Psychology. Revisiting the Classic Studies. London: Sage Publications_____________Explanation of symbols: Roman numerals indicate the source, arabic numerals indicate the page number. The corresponding books are indicated on the right hand side. ((s)…): Comment by the sender of the contribution. Translations: Dictionary of Arguments The note [Concept/Author], [Author1]Vs[Author2] or [Author]Vs[term] resp. "problem:"/"solution:", "old:"/"new:" and "thesis:" is an addition from the Dictionary of Arguments. If a German edition is specified, the page numbers refer to this edition. |
Gender Studies Slater I Alan M. Slater Paul C. Quinn Developmental Psychology. Revisiting the Classic Studies London 2012 |
||
> Counter arguments against Gender Studies
> Counter arguments in relation to Aggression
Ed. Martin Schulz, access date 2024-04-19