Understanding Social Learning Theory

10 Pages 2407 Words

criticizes (a) the ethologists' instincts, (b) the Freudians' unconscious motives, (c) the clinicians' unresearched opinions based on sick people, and (d) the therapists' and pop-psych idea of expressing "built up" anger. She says all these views erroneously suggest that anger is beyond our control and overlook the real causes of frustration. Tavris believes in human choice and self-control. She thinks we continue to use our violence because "aggression pays" and because the other theories provide excuses for being angry.

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. The brother who is willing to be the most vicious in a fight wins. The teacher who gives the hardest tests and threatens to flunk the most students gets the most study time from students. The spouse who threatens to get the maddest gets his/her way. The male who acts the most macho and aggressive gets the praise of certain groups of males.

It is not necessary that the aggressor be especially mean to get his/her way. The slightest overt hint of anger can communicate. Suppose you and your boy/girlfriend want to do different things some evening. The brief frown, the "roll" of the eyes, the comment "Oh, all right" may clearly communicate, "okay, have it your way but I'm going to be pissed all evening." Such a message is a powerful threat--and often an effective one, proving once again that, unfortunately, "aggression pays off."

Human nature vs. learned behavior

I'm sure you recognize the old nature-nurture issue in these discussions. The difficulty, as I see it, is that both sides over-simplify and want to claim all the influence, i.e. on the one hand, the genes-instincts-hormones (biological determinism) theorists imply that hostility is "human nature." Indeed, 60% of Americans buy this idea, saying "there will always be wars, it is human nature." How sad that we ar...