Final Draft
 
 

Throughout the world, it can be seen that /members of different cultures raise their children in such a way that they can be productive as a responsible, mature member/s of society. It is the parents' responsibility to mold them into a productive individual. Parents often try to shape the child into what they believe is best for that child. Sometimes, the children's development does not conform to the ideals of other cultures. It can also be seen that gender plays a big role in the development of these children. The years in which children learn to be aggressive, or not, is prior to the age of five. I will try and associate the factors of aggressiveness and child development to portray whether or not it influences the aggressiveness of that culture.

First of all, a definition of the variables to be discussed is at hand. In defining aggression, we run into problems with the cross-cultural variations between cultures. A positivist approach considers actions that cause harm to another--for example, murder or punches--to be clear examples of aggression in any cultural context. The relativist on the other hand tends to think on terms of the cultural or situational context of actions. Certain actions may not be actually aggressive but viewed in a different /way /nature/. For example, when punches are thrown in horseplay, they are restrained in their severity. Therefore, they are not aggressive in nature.

When employing aggressiveness, different venues are often used in the face of social conflict. These strategies include verbal insults or physical abuse, like murder or assault. Whether or not an individual chooses to be direct or indirect/,/ depends on their preference. One may choose the direct approach and confront another individual face to face, or /they may/ spread rumors about the individual, exclude them socially, or block them from achieving a certain goal. It should be noted that humans are not inevitably, innately violent. That is a learned trait that varies from culture to culture.

/NP/In contrasting the cultures of the Yanomamo and the Semai, /for example, one can see /that aggressiveness is culturally based. The Yanomamo of South Africa show high levels of physical aggression. Men that are strong, belligerent, and fierce are valued in their community. Disputes are resolved through duels. These duels entail chest pounding, club fights, and spear fights. The club fights end only when one of the two men collapse. Afterwards, the scars from the fights are displayed with pride, as signs of their aggressiveness. The aggressive nature of these people follow culturally prescribed patterns of their society. Very different from the Yanomamo people are the Semai of Malaysia. The Semai children learn through socialization processes to never strike another human being. Children in this culture are never hit by their parents. It is reported that the Semai people never feel anger, and those that do, do not express their feelings through physical attacks. In this culture, murders and violence are virtually nonexistent. Through the contrast of these two cultures, /one sees that human nature is flexible regarding how physical aggression is expressed by individuals and their cultures.

By defining, in part, what determines aggressive behavior, we can now see how it affects child development in cultural contexts. Early socialization influences adult behavior by shaping the personality of the individual. Early learning experiences prepare individuals for patterns of conflict and cooperation in their society. Several psychological approaches associate harsh and sever/e child-training practices with later aggressivity. A number of specific cross-cultural studies find a positive association between harsh socialization practices and physical aggression. Aggression seems to develop from severe punishment through internalized hostility to later behavioral forms of violence.
Another factor in the development of /an aggressive nature /in /of/ individuals is that of warmth and affection of the parents. The presence of low violence and conflict is associated with the child rearing practices of affection, warmth, and the display of love towards the child. Greater expression of affection toward children can be cited as a determinant of cooperation. Other factors of this type are the emphasis of values such as trust, honesty, generosity, and closer father-child ties. In Montuga, there are seven societies that portray a low level of internal conflict and aggression. In these societies, great affection is frequently directed toward the child, whose overall feelings of security are high. Overt expression of aggression is discouraged, but not through physical punishment. Persons with high levels of aggression, in which a child may imitate, are absent from these societies.

In male dominated cultures, frustration develops when boys grow up with strong ties with their mother due to the absence or aloofness of the fathers. These bonds must be severed in order to meet the society's expectations of the adult's male role. One particular way this is done is through initiation rites. Maternal ambivalence is also a contributing factor to a young man's frustrations. Women living in patrilocal, polygynous societies have neither strong ties to their natal families nor strong affective bonds with their husbands. Women in these settings develop strong bonds with their children, but also take frustration out on them. The result is that males in such cultures develop feelings of shame towards females. Egotistic personalities, which are preoccupied with early development tasks, pride, and self-enhancement and prone to aggressive actions, are common in these cultures. Distant father-child ties promote aggressivity, while close, affectionate bonds are associated with low over/t conflict. It is the contention that distant fathers produce children who are insecure in interpersonal relationships and are more ready to engage in open aggression against outgroups. A cultural study shows that early low adult male salience was most marked in the two cultures with the highest rates of physical assault and homicide. In this study, it is shown that there is a strong correlation between father absence and juvenile delinquency in /W/w/estern settings. Whiting and Whiting /date/ report that distant fathering is associated with training boys to be warriors, and West and Konner /date/ find a clear relationship between low father-child closeness and high warfare.

In the societies where the children's behaviors are more authoritarian and aggressive, the extended family is common, the father has a smaller role in child rearing, is present less, overt husband-wife conflict is often higher, and child-father contact is lower. Among both human and non-human primates, close father-child ties are associated with lower aggressivity and conflict. There is noticeably less stress among infants (particularly among males) and lower subsequent aggression; the more adult males are involved in child rearing.

Early experiences become critical in establishing an individual's capacity to cooperate with others and provide a framework for interpreting their behavior. Individuals who have experienced early lack of affection and harsh treatment will have much more trouble in establishing warm cooperative bonds with others as adults and will be more prone to view the behavior of others as hostile and threatening. The higher the male gender identity conflict in a society, the higher the level of internal conflict.

Child development with regards to cross-cultural studies began in the 1920's and has engaged in numerous psychological anthropologists. In 1925 in American Samoa, Margaret Mead began the first of several problem-oriented investigations in the South Seas. She came to the negative conclusion about previously accepted generalizations, arguing that emotional conflict seldom occurred among adolescent Samoan girls and that animistic thought was absent among the children of Manus Island in New Guinea. Her conclusions frequently proved controversial and her stance that a single exception was sufficient to overturn a generalization has become unacceptable in light of understanding of probabilistic rather than perfect regularities. Unlike most traditional societies, U.S. culture induces neurotic tendencies in the areas of responsibility, authority, and sexual behavior by discontinuous training of children vis-a-vis later expectations in adulthood./source? quote?/

Aggression is learned in two basic ways: (1) from observing aggressive models and (2) from receiving and/or expecting payoffs following aggression. The payoffs may be in the form of stopping aggression by others, getting praise, or achieving some status. Also, it may come in the form of getting self-reinforcement and private praise or reducing tension. The environment presents frustrating, unpleasant experiences as well as cues that suggest there would be certain payoffs for different courses of action. There are various emotional responses, such as anger, various motivations and urges to seek certain payoffs in every individual. The cognitive processes for weighing the pros and the cons for different alternative responses, including aggression or violence, passive withdrawal, depression, increases striving to succeed, reasonable "assertive" handling of the situation, and other possible responses also lie with us. Eventually, the person chooses a response and acts, and then the result of that response is observed and evaluated in terms of its effectiveness. If the response is reinforced, it is likely to be used again.
There is no doubt that aggression pays off. Parents who yell and threaten punishment get results. The child who hits the hardest gets the toy, generally. The brother who is willing to be the most vicious in a fight wins. The male who acts the most macho and aggressive gets the praise of certain groups of males. All of these are examples of aggressiveness in everyday life. It is not necessary that the aggressor be especially mean to get their way. The slightest overt hint of anger can communicate. For example, suppose two friends wish to do two different things on a particular evening. The brief frown, the rolling of their eyes, or the comment 'Oh, all right' may clearly communicate that they will go along with their plans but be upset about the decision all night long. Such a message is a powerful threat-and often an effective one, proving again that aggression pays off.

By the age of five, children have learned to be kind and caring or aggressive. The factors that contribute to this aggressive nature is that of: (1) a child with hyperactive, impulsive temperament, (2) a parent who has negative, critical attitudes towards the child, (3) a parent who provides poor supervision and permits the child to use aggression as a means of gaining power, and (4) a parent who uses power-tactics (punishment, threats, and violent or loud outbursts) to get their way.

So, the best way to predict that a young adult will behave aggressively is to observe their early behavior. Aggression at age eight correlate/s .46 with aggression at age 30. Children who are pro-social (popular and avoid aggression) at age 8 were doing well in school and at work, had good mental health, and were successful socially, twenty-two years later. Children who steal, aggress, use drugs, and have conduct problems with peers, family, or in school, and then conceal the problems by lying, are the most likely to become delinquent. Society schools, parents, and the children could prevent much of the later aggression if they made the effort to detect the problems early and offered help. Physical punishment teaches that violence is an acceptable way to solve problems.

Aggressive children come from aggressive homes, in which not only are their parents and others within the family physical with each other but even the child's own aggressiveness has been harshly punished. Research has documented similar aggression from grandparents to parents to grandchildren. We learn more hostile ways of responding to frustration outside of the family. These are picked up in school, playing with other friends at the playground, television shows, movies, and books. One does not even need hostile parents or be subjugated to noticeable frustration prior to becoming aggressive. Individuals can just see it and imitate it, as in "monkey see, monkey do."

Parenting is a mixture of love and frustration. Many parents, in some point in time, angry and dominated by this emotion. Most parents have in fact been furious at their child. The probability of spanking, hitting, or shaking of the child is likely. These urges are present but not always acted upon. It is very difficult to distinguish whether our actions are harmless or dangerous to the child. Certain warning signs are present when it comes to the aggressiveness of the parent. One warning sign of an overly aggressive, physical parent is that they were abused or neglected themselves. This takes form of isolation from other adults and have a passive, ungiving partner. These parents often do not like the person that they are and are depressed most of the time. Another sign is that they may have impossible expectations of their children. They have a tendency to live their lives through their children and push them too far. Also, the child is defiant or constantly demanding in their eyes. They have strong urges to hurt and may have acted on those urges to some extent.

Conflicts arise with parents throughout life. It is important to learn to deal with these conflicts in a manner that is acceptable to the society. From the day a child is born up until puberty, a child is close with at least one if not both of the parents. Conflicts usually start during the twelve to seventeen year old period. A separation from the parents in the form of friends being more important than them promotes and is even catalytic in conflict confrontations. These confrontations range from a quiet withdrawal from the parent to raging arguments on every issue.

/many problems with this paper:
1, not tied in with analysis of data
2. discussions,  while well written, seem to be quotes from texts without citations
3. all tables have v200 as control
3. no tie in with testing hypotheses