User:Apmichot/sandbox

Hey guys here are my proposed changes.

Attitudes towards aggression:

Justifying aggression has a dramatic effect on the level of aggressive behaviors seen, as well as the attitudes towards aggression. Researchers have found a significant difference in aggression levels after an unjustified frustration than that seen after a justified one.[131] An unjustified frustration is caused by someone who has control over an adverse event and still allows that event to take place. However, a justified frustration is caused by someone with no control over a negative event that happens. According to the frustration-aggression theory, frustrations, whether justified or unjustified, are unpleasant stimuli that automatically tap into cognitions of aggressive-related thoughts and impulses.[131] As a results, these frustrations can lead to an increase in external aggressive behaviors towards the person responsible for the frustration as well as a third innocent party. Research has shown that levels of aggression after unjustified frustrations are greater than those seen after a justified frustration.[131] However, levels of external aggression are still elevated after a justified frustration than would be seen after no frustration at all.[131]

Often times, there appears to be a difference in tactics used to justify aggression between men and women. Aggressive acts committed by women are usually a result of losing one’s self-control due to being overwhelmed by anger or arousal. Additionally, women are often willing to admit the wrongfulness of their actions and rather quickly offer up extenuating circumstances. In terms of society, this is commonly viewed as an excuse. Men on the other hand typically use instrumental aggression, or aggression that is used to exert one’s control over another. All too often aggressors that use instrumental tactics propose that their actions were necessary and are view as justified in the eyes of society. It was once thought that female aggression was condemned more so by society than those aggressive acts committed by their male counterparts, ultimately giving rise to this gender difference seen.[132] However, researchers now know that this line of though is completely unfounded. In fact, reactive situations often seen in women aggression seem to elicit higher levels of justification than the instrumental aggression used by males.[133] Also, researchers found that women judge their aggression to be more morally acceptable.[132]  This could be the result of women often finding themselves in scenarios in which they are required to use self-defense in order to protect themselves. Additionally, there seems to be a trend towards acceptance for aggressive acts when committed by woman than if committed by men.[134] Physical aggression performed by a man is potentially more harmful and could possibly account for the difference seen in justifying aggression. In terms of psychological aggression, women were viewed as more justifiable when using verbal aggression whereas men were more justified when using dominant behaviors, such as control tactics.[134]

In terms of romantic relationships, there is a distinct gender difference in the patterns of justifying aggression. Research has shown that males have a more generalizable, or relationship-specific, pattern whereas females have more of a specific, or partner-specific, pattern.[135] This means that males have more aggression and attempt to justify that aggression in romantic relationships in general. Females on the other hand have aggression and justification patterns that are more geared towards their current partner, rather than romantic partners in general. In males, this pattern of repeated aggression and justification against dating partners possibly occurs for two reasons. First, there are similar patterns of behaviors in romantic relationships because of the similar patterns of interaction with different romantic partners.[135] Second, earlier romantic relationships may serve as “training grounds” for subsequent relationships.[135]  According to the training ground hypothesis, aggression towards one dating partner increases the possibility that there will be aggression with subsequent dating partners.[135]  In essences, males appear to have some continuity in behavior, not found in females, from one romantic relationship to the next. Women’s pattern of behaviors could possibly be the results of previous interactions with same-sex peers. It has been proposed that aggression from peer-to-peer interactions could be “spilling” over into romantic relationships and could possibly explain the aggression and justifying patterns seen in women.[135] Additionally, female patterns appear to be more situational and less proactive than their male counterparts.[135]

In addition to gender differences, there are also age-related and cultural differences pertaining to the patterns of justifying aggressive acts. Researchers have observed a directly proportionate relationship between age and justification of aggression.[133] Therefore, as an individual gets older they have the tendency to attempt to justify aggressive behaviors less. These findings seem to coincide with an evolutionary perspective of aggression. Social position has dire consequences on a person’s reproductive history, resulting in males and females being more aggressive at younger ages[133] and calling for more justification for such aggressive acts. However, as adults our culture plays more of an important role than age when determining our justification patterns of our aggressive behavior. In one study, Japanese students showed a higher justification of direct verbal aggression and less acceptance of indirect verbal aggression than did their American and Spanish counterparts.[136] One possible reason could be that Japan has more of a collectivistic society and places higher emphasis on belonging and fitting in. Western cultures have more of an individualistic society, with an independent view point that coincides more with the use of indirect verbal aggression. However, American students showed higher justification for physical aggression used in self-defense than did Japanese and Spanish students.[136] These results could be greatly influenced by individual societies and their laws seeing as owning a firearm is legal in America but illegal in Japan and Spain.[136]  These results also show a pattern of morally that could be in part universal to all humans, but also greatly influences by individual cultures and societies.[136]

131. Dill, J. C., Anderson, C. A. (1995). Effects of frustration of justification on hostile aggression. Aggressive Behavior 21: 359-369.

132. Astin, S., Redston, P., Campbell, A. (2003). Sex differences in social representations of aggression: Men justify, women excuse? Aggressive Behavior 29: 128-133.

133. Pena, M. E., Andreu, J. M., Grana, J. L. (2008). Moderate and severe aggression justification in instrumental and reactive contexts. Social Behavior and Personality 36: 229-238.

134. Munoz-Rivas, M. J., Gamez-Guadix, M., Fernandez-Gonzalez, L., Lozano, M. P. G. (2011). Validation of the attitudes about aggression in dating situations (AADS) and the justification of verbal/coercive tactics scale (JVCT) in Spanish adolescents. Journal of Family Violence 26: 575-584.

135. Chase, K. A., Treboux, D., O’Leary, K. D., Strassberg, Z. (1998). Specificity of dating aggression and its justification among high-risk adolescents. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 26: 467-473.

136. Fujihara, T., Kohyama, T., Andreu, J. M., Ramirez, J. M. (1999). Justification of interpersonal aggression in Japanese, American, and Spanish students. Aggressive Behaviors 25: 185-195.

Request review at WP:AFC
Attitudes Towards Aggression

Justifying aggression has a dramatic effect on the level of aggressive behaviors seen, as well as the attitudes towards aggression. Researchers have found a significant difference in aggression levels after an unjustified frustration than that seen after a justified one.[131] An unjustified frustration is caused by someone who has control over an adverse event and still allows that event to take place. However, a justified frustration is caused by someone with no control over a negative event that happens. According to the frustration-aggression theory, frustrations, whether justified or unjustified, are unpleasant stimuli that automatically tap into cognitions of aggressive-related thoughts and impulses.[131] As a results, these frustrations can lead to an increase in external aggressive behaviors towards the person responsible for the frustration as well as a third innocent party. Research has shown that levels of aggression after unjustified frustrations are greater than those seen after a justified frustration.[131] However, levels of external aggression are still elevated after a justified frustration than would be seen after no frustration at all.[131]

Often times, there appears to be a difference in tactics used to justify aggression between men and women. Aggressive acts committed by women are usually a result of losing one’s self-control due to being overwhelmed by anger or arousal. Additionally, women are often willing to admit the wrongfulness of their actions and rather quickly offer up extenuating circumstances. In terms of society, this is commonly viewed as an excuse. Men on the other hand typically use instrumental aggression, or aggression that is used to exert one’s control over another. All too often aggressors that use instrumental tactics propose that their actions were necessary and are view as justified in the eyes of society. It was once thought that female aggression was condemned more so by society than those aggressive acts committed by their male counterparts, ultimately giving rise to this gender difference seen.[132] However, researchers now know that this line of though is completely unfounded. In fact, reactive situations often seen in women aggression seem to elicit higher levels of justification than the instrumental aggression used by males.[133] Also, researchers found that women judge their aggression to be more morally acceptable.[132]  This could be the result of women often finding themselves in scenarios in which they are required to use self-defense in order to protect themselves. Additionally, there seems to be a trend towards acceptance for aggressive acts when committed by woman than if committed by men.[134] Physical aggression performed by a man is potentially more harmful and could possibly account for the difference seen in justifying aggression. In terms of psychological aggression, women were viewed as more justifiable when using verbal aggression whereas men were more justified when using dominant behaviors, such as control tactics.[134]

In terms of romantic relationships, there is a distinct gender difference in the patterns of justifying aggression. Research has shown that males have a more generalizable, or relationship-specific, pattern whereas females have more of a specific, or partner-specific, pattern.[135] This means that males have more aggression and attempt to justify that aggression in romantic relationships in general. Females on the other hand have aggression and justification patterns that are more geared towards their current partner, rather than romantic partners in general. In males, this pattern of repeated aggression and justification against dating partners possibly occurs for two reasons. First, there are similar patterns of behaviors in romantic relationships because of the similar patterns of interaction with different romantic partners.[135] Second, earlier romantic relationships may serve as “training grounds” for subsequent relationships.[135]  According to the training ground hypothesis, aggression towards one dating partner increases the possibility that there will be aggression with subsequent dating partners.[135]  In essences, males appear to have some continuity in behavior, not found in females, from one romantic relationship to the next. Women’s pattern of behaviors could possibly be the results of previous interactions with same-sex peers. It has been proposed that aggression from peer-to-peer interactions could be “spilling” over into romantic relationships and could possibly explain the aggression and justifying patterns seen in women.[135] Additionally, female patterns appear to be more situational and less proactive than their male counterparts.[135]

In addition to gender differences, there are also age-related and cultural differences pertaining to the patterns of justifying aggressive acts. Researchers have observed a directly proportionate relationship between age and justification of aggression.[133] Therefore, as an individual gets older they have the tendency to attempt to justify aggressive behaviors less. These findings seem to coincide with an evolutionary perspective of aggression. Social position has dire consequences on a person’s reproductive history, resulting in males and females being more aggressive at younger ages[133] and calling for more justification for such aggressive acts. However, as adults our culture plays more of an important role than age when determining our justification patterns of our aggressive behavior. In one study, Japanese students showed a higher justification of direct verbal aggression and less acceptance of indirect verbal aggression than did their American and Spanish counterparts.[136] One possible reason could be that Japan has more of a collectivistic society and places higher emphasis on belonging and fitting in. Western cultures have more of an individualistic society, with an independent view point that coincides more with the use of indirect verbal aggression. However, American students showed higher justification for physical aggression used in self-defense than did Japanese and Spanish students.[136] These results could be greatly influenced by individual societies and their laws seeing as owning a firearm is legal in America but illegal in Japan and Spain.[136]  These results also show a pattern of morally that could be in part universal to all humans, but also greatly influences by individual cultures and societies.[136]

131. Dill, J. C., Anderson, C. A. (1995). Effects of frustration of justification on hostile aggression. Aggressive Behavior 21: 359-369.

132. Astin, S., Redston, P., Campbell, A. (2003). Sex differences in social representations of aggression: Men justify, women excuse? Aggressive Behavior 29: 128-133.

133. Pena, M. E., Andreu, J. M., Grana, J. L. (2008). Moderate and severe aggression justification in instrumental and reactive contexts. Social Behavior and Personality 36: 229-238.

134. Munoz-Rivas, M. J., Gamez-Guadix, M., Fernandez-Gonzalez, L., Lozano, M. P. G. (2011). Validation of the attitudes about aggression in dating situations (AADS) and the justification of verbal/coercive tactics scale (JVCT) in Spanish adolescents. Journal of Family Violence 26: 575-584.

135. Chase, K. A., Treboux, D., O’Leary, K. D., Strassberg, Z. (1998). Specificity of dating aggression and its justification among high-risk adolescents. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 26: 467-473.

136. Fujihara, T., Kohyama, T., Andreu, J. M., Ramirez, J. M. (1999). Justification of interpersonal aggression in Japanese, American, and Spanish students. Aggressive Behaviors 25: 185-195.