EXPLORING THE SOCIAL LEARNING THEORY OF AGGRESSION
AS AN EXPLANATION FOR THE INTERGENERATIONAL CYCLE OF DOMESTIC ABUSE
The aim of this study is to explore the social learning
theory of aggression as an explanation for the intergenerational cycle of
abuse. While exploring the topic of domestic abuse, it has become apparent
that there is a strong correlation between current abusers and previous exposure
to abuse. This paper will explore the possibility that the Social Learning
Theory may be an explanation for the intergenerational cycle of domestic
violence. Domestic violence pertains to three primary areas of abuse. These
types of abuse are violence against children, spouses, and siblings (Brown,
Esbensen, Geis, 2001). If this is actually the case, children that witness abuse
and experience abuse have the potential of becoming the abusive parents of
tomorrow. The children who are exposed to violence when they are young and
impressionable have the potential of developing into violent members of society
in the future.
Positivism is a paradigm of
criminology that focuses on criminals in society rather than the crimes that
they commit. Positivism makes the assumption that forces beyond the control of
the individual determine criminal behaviors. This paradigm seeks to establish
factors, which cause individuals to commit crimes and then find ways to control
these factors by using scientific methods. This determinism has been a dominant
theory in the criminology of the Americas for most of the twentieth century.
One way of explaining an observed
phenomenon is to develop a theory. Criminologists have developed the Social
Learning Theory to elucidate that techniques and skills necessary to engage in
deviant behaviors can be learned in a social context. This perspective assumes
that interaction with others may yield law-breaking values, norms, and motives.
These necessary skills and techniques are also learned at different levels.
Learning theories are considered as
part of the social process perspective. The fact that this theory involves a
process means that at an early age behaviors can be learned and these behaviors
can take root and develop later in life. A sleeper effect may occur as this
long-term process brews within the individual. The criminal behavior may not be
apparent until in the individual’s lifetime.
The micro debate in criminology is
highlighted in the social process theory. This theory focuses on the reasons
that individuals violate the law. This theory yields the assumption that groups
of people influence the actions of the individual. Crime is not seen as existing
mainly in the lower classes of society because researchers have been able to
determine that crime is equally shared among all classes of people.
LITERATURE REVIEW
In an effort to
explain observed phenomenon the Social Learning Theory has been developed. This
theory expresses the belief that the techniques and skills necessary to engage
in deviant behavior can be learned. The foundation of this theory is that
criminal behavior is learned. The Social Learning Theory shares a belief that
people are taught to misbehave through a social context. These behaviors are
primarily learned from interaction with those closest to them, such as family
and friends (Brown, Esbensen, Geis, 2001). Therefore, the Social Learning Theory
can be used to explain the beginnings of domestic violence and the development
of the intergenerational cycle of violence theory. This theory states that if
one grows up witnessing or experiencing violence, then they are predisposed to
being violent in their own committed relationships. The individual can learn
vicariously through observation, imitation, and modeling (Harris, Dersch, 2001).
Edwin Hardin Sutherland (1883-1950)
developed the differential association theory, which was the first sociological
means to explain the reasons for crime. Sutherland wanted to oust the biological
and psychological theories that had been predominant throughout the previous
century. His theory specifies “the process by which a particular person comes to
engage in criminal behavior” (Sutherland & Cressey, 1974: 75). This theory rules
out any possibility that heredity, human nature, and innovation cause criminal
behaviors. Sutherland believed that individuals are taught how to act whether it
is to behave or to misbehave. The following table gives the principles of
differential association as presented by Edwin Sutherland.
1. Criminal behavior is learned.
2. Criminal behavior is learned in interaction with other
persons in a process of communication.
3. The principal part of the learning of criminal behavior
occurs within intimate personal groups.
4. When criminal behavior is learned, the learning includes:
a. techniques of committing the crime, which are sometimes
very complicated, sometimes very simple;
b. the specific direction of motives, drives,
rationalization, and attitudes.
5. The specific direction of motives and drives is learned
from definitions of the legal codes as favorable or unfavorable.
6. A person becomes delinquent because of an excess of
definitions favorable to violation of law over definitions unfavorable to
violation of law.
7. Differential associations may vary in frequency, duration,
priority, and intensity.
8. The process of learning criminal behavior by association
with criminal and anticriminal patterns involves all of the mechanisms that are
involved in any other learning.
9. While criminal behavior is an expression of general needs
and values, it is not explained by those general needs and values, since
noncriminal behavior is an expression of the same needs and values.
Source: Adapted from E.H. Sutherland and D.R. Cressey (1974).
Criminology, Ninth Edition, pp. 75-76, Philadelphia, PA: J.B. Lippincott.
Sutherland’s theory states that deviance is a learned
behavior taken from significant others. In addition to learning techniques
necessary to commit crime, individuals must also learn the value system that
accompanies these behaviors. This will enable the individual to engage in
deviant behavior. When the definitions for committing a crime are favorable and
outweigh those that are unfavorable, criminal behavior will take place. This
must be a process to develop a value system with an underlying assumption that
crime is “normal” rather “pathological” (Brown, Esbensen, Geis, 2001).
Albert Bandura formulated a belief
that all learning results from direct experience, observing behaviors of others,
and the consequences of their actions. This observation allows organisms to
develop patterns of behavior without trial and error. Numerous studies have been
done of children that reveal that aggressive behaviors are learned through
modeling. It has been determined that they can even go beyond what they have
seen and heard to evolve new forms of aggression. Aggression is defined as a
behavior that results in personal injury and physical destruction. However, all
of these acts cannot be judged as aggression. It is necessary to identify the
intentions or causes of the behavior to determine whether or not aggression has
taken place (Bandura, 1977).
A classic study performed by Bandura,
Ross, and Ross in 1961 called the bobo doll experiment yields evidence of
violence being a learned behavior. These studies revealed that the individuals
that experienced interaction with the aggressive models reproduced a heightened
amount of aggression similar to that of the model. The mean scores of these
individuals were markedly different from those of the nonaggressive and control.
This experiment actually took this study one step farther and generalized the
imitative learning to a separate setting. The children were thus exposed to
aggressive and nonaggressive models and then tested in new situations without
the presence of the model. Not only did the children generalize their behaviors
but it also seemed that the subjects imitated save-sex models to a greater
degree than the opposite sex. This may be because parents seem to reward sex
appropriate behavior and discourage inappropriate sex imitative responses (Bandura,
Ross, & Ross, 1961).
Bandura presented three principle
sources of aggressive styles of behavior. One of these sources consists of
aggression modeled and reinforced by family members. Family members can use
aggressive methods to solve problems and may produce children that use the same
solutions. Another cause of aggressive behavior may be the subculture in which
people reside. Aggressive models abound and possessing a fighting prowess is
considered a valued attribute. The mass media also yields messages about
aggressive styles of behavior.
Frustrations and anger seem to be
facilitators rather than necessary conditions for aggression. People that have
learned to respond to aversive experiences with attitudes of aggression are
provoked by frustration and anger. In circles of aggression, a lack of fighting
back can create a heightened fear of future attacks and humiliation.
The word family is defined as a “bastion of love, support, and nurturance”
(Brown, Esbensen, & Geis, 2001). Ironically, this nurturing place called the
family is the most likely place that a person will be subjected to violence of
an interpersonal nature. These types of crime are less likely to be reported or
pursued because historically they have been considered justified. Recently, they
have come to the front and are being studied extensively. There are three
primary targets of domestic abuse: against children, spouses, and siblings. This
abuse can be physical, verbal, emotional, or sexual.
Children provide easy and handy
targets for abusers. They are not capable of offering much resistance when
violent situations arise. There are times when children can be a burden
emotionally and financially to caregivers. These frustrations can lead to
violence. Infanticide, the killing of infants, is the ultimate type of child
abuse. Historically, parent’s attitudes have been that they have the right or
even the obligation to use physical punishments to control and train their own
children. In the 1960s the social problem of violence against children was
recognized. Since that time child abuse laws have been passed in all fifty
states.
Another form of domestic violence is
that in which their husbands and male live-in friends perpetrate against women.
This form of violence was historically regarded by the male dominated legal and
social realms as private matters that were best left in the shadows or
unacknowledged. Myths have abounded over the years that women enjoyed being hit
and appreciated the attention as a sign of caring. The wife can initiate
domestic violence with physical or verbal aggression. Reports are that wives hit
husbands as much as husbands hit wives. The problem is that men hit much harder
and create much more damage than women. The factors of substance abuse and
economic insecurities lead to the abuse of spouses. The biggest danger for women
appears to be after splitting up.
There are extensive numbers of statistics on domestic violence. It is reported
that 40% of all calls to police are from women that feel endangered by their
spouses. Of all pregnant women, 37% are physically abused by their partners
(Brown, Esbensen, & Geis, 2001). Children are present for 80% of reported wife
assaults (Harris & Dersch, 2001). It appears from report that younger women are
more often abused physically than older ones. Overall one out of every five
women (18-36%) suffers an injury during their lifetime. One in every ten (7-!!%)
will be diagnosed with a severe injury. One out of every fourteen marriages
suffers from severe and repeated violence with an average of thirty five
incidents before report (Avis, 1992).
The largest number of domestic
violence cases occurs among siblings. Squabbling and rough housing are accepted
as normal behavior or as a part of growing up. Therefore, there are few reports
of this type of violence made unless one of the children is badly injured or
totally out of control. These types of violence are training grounds for future
physical violence (Brown, Esbensen, & Geis,2001).
The following factors are causing an
increase of violence against women and children in Canada and the United States:
1. better reporting
2. more accurate research
3. incidence of male violence in our society
4. global backlash against women because of their moving into
nontraditional roles which are perceived as threatening to traditional male
dominance (Avis 1992).
RESEARCH METHODS
Subjects
Two groups of participants were chosen for this study. Both groups of individuals were identified while seeking services from a local marriage and family therapy clinic. (A) The first group was selected from a cluster of battering males that had experienced or witnessed domestic violence as children. For this group there were a total of 43 subjects. (B) The second group chosen was a cluster of male participants that were abusive to their significant others but they had not been exposed to any forms of violence in there childhoods. There were 41 subjects chosen for this grouping. These subjects all admitted to having committed acts considered assaultive against their domestic partners. The acts were at a level of at least a minimum shoving or pushing. The study was limited to males because battering behavior is largely held as a male-to-female phenomenon. These participants were either married or nonmarried. If they were nonmarried they had to have been involved in a committed relationship for a minimum of six months before the study began. They were chosen very carefully so as to eliminate any individuals that abused alcohol. None of the participants were given any compensation for their involvement.
Participants were asked a number of questions during interviews that lasted approximately two hours. These interview questions were designed to determine their beliefs regarding violence in their intimate relationships. The interviews consisted of the following questions:
1. How did you learn to interact with others in such a violent manner?
2. Could you explain what contributes to your decision to be violent with your partner now?
3. Describe the relationship between your parents as a child.
With the permission of the participants, the interviews were audio taped and transcribed to enable later analysis. The transcribed interviews were analyzed using inductive research techniques (Bogdan & Biklen, 1992). This research operates from the position that it is unknown what information will come from the collected data. This information helps give the observer a view of what gives meaning to the participant’s life. The current research was developed to gain insight that could possibly help researchers and clinicians understand how individuals can make choices to be violent because of being exposed to violence as children. By analyzing the notes taken during the interview and transcription process, certain coding categories and themes were developed.
Results
Reviewing the transcript and field notes of the interviewer revealed several explanations for violent lifestyles. These themes included (a) values and beliefs, (b) personal characteristics, (c) role of others, and (d) consequences of violence.
Table 1
Themes and Categories
Themes Categories
Beliefs and values Conscious decisions that violent behaviors
were acceptable, tolerance of violence toward
women, an approval of hurting others,
violence can accomplish anything.
Personal traits “I’m just like that,” physical strength is enough
to be violent, enjoyment of the battle, difficulty
with verbal skills for problem solving, a lack of patience,
refusal to accept nontraditional gender roles.
Effects of Others Partner to blame, modeling the behavior of the parents,
respect felt for the abuser.
===============================================================
Beliefs and values. The participants in this study seemed to have strong beliefs about the use of violence and they did not seem to understand the harmful effects of such violence in intimate relationships. Their conflict resolution seemed to lie in the realm of violence. Under this theme, four categories appeared to develop. The first category shows the individual’s decision to be violent. This conscious choice is indicated through statements such as, “I just decided that that’s the way I’m gonna be.” Another category was the subject’s tolerance of violence toward women. One participant stated, “Men have to keep women in line by whatever means.” The third theme indicates approval of hurting others. An example of this belief is shown by the comment, “I don’t mind hurting anybody or anything.” The last category to come forth in this theme is a belief that violence can accomplish anything. Several of the subjects stated that, “Violence can accomplish anything.” These themes show that individuals control their behavior to comply with goals and standards that are self-imposed.
Personal Traits. This theme shares the personal characteristics of the subject, which credit him with a sense of violence. The participant’s interviews revealed six distinct categories, which seemed to center around this theme. The first attitude was that “I’m just like that.” They claimed that violence was just a part of who they were and that it was a basic part of their lives. The next category was a feeling that the individuals saw themselves as physically stronger than most other people. Their self-concept was a bit Herculean, which indicated that they felt they were larger than life. The third part of this category displays an enjoyment of the battle. “I just get a rush from the hit.” There seemed to be another sense of power achieved with the contact involved in the brawl. The next grouping exposed the fact that it was difficult for the subject to use verbal skills to talk their way out of a jam. Their social skills were hampered and it seemed that the best way out of tough situations was to beat it out. Their solutions always seemed to lie in violence instead of diplomacy. The fifth class in this theme pertains to patience or the lack of it. The participants realized a tremendous deficiency in this area. They detected that they were anything but tolerant and calm in situations of discord. The final category in this theme pertains to nontraditional gender roles. It seemed to be debilitating for the individuals in this study to consider women in career roles, which surpassed them. The idea that the women might make more money exacerbates violence against women.
Effects of others. This theme had several different categories that emerged as influences for violence in their lives. The subjects credited their partners with egging them on. “She makes me so angry and she won’t stop until I show her whose boss.” Showing whose boss seemed to be with the fist. There is an external shift of responsibility that places the blame on the spouse. The next category in this theme shows the way that the participants modeled the behaviors of their parents. This is the best evidence for SLT since the individuals are able to choose which behaviors of the models they wish to imitate. Another category that falls under this theme is that of the respect felt for the abuser. This respect has been demanded at such a price as to be ingrained in the subject. Even though the subject may have been abused or witnessed abuse at the hand of the abuser, there was still an undying respect for the abuser.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
This study was done with the intent of
understanding more about the men who had witnessed domestic violence when they
were children. We found support for a social learning explanation of the
intergenerational cycle of abuse. The participant’s beliefs and values seemed to
indicate that they had learned to accept violent behaviors as the norm rather
than out of the ordinary. They had learned to problem solve with might rather
than words and they actually seemed to enjoy the battle. They also expressed a
sense of external locus of control. The subjects tended to blame everyone else
for their difficulties without accepting any responsibility for their actions.
In the investigation process, it was noted that the men in this study had a difficult time discussing the violence that they had experienced in their homes. Some were unsure if what they had witnessed as children qualified as violence. It was obviously a very difficult task for the participants to talk about the violence that they had observed and their own violent behaviors. This could be because violence has been a normal part of their lives. Growing up immersed in a violent family culture with themes of violence and domination would make it unclear to the batterer what is right and wrong. This may produce a struggle for the batterer and make it difficult for them to take responsibility for their actions.
Summary
There seems to exist a strong correlation between
current abusers and previous exposure to abuse. There is evidence that the
Social Learning Theory may be an explanation for the intergenerational cycle of
domestic violence. This theory expresses the belief that the techniques and
skills necessary to engage in deviant behavior can be learned. Children that
witness abuse and experience abuse have the potential of becoming the abusive
parents of tomorrow. Young and impressionable children that are exposed to
violence can learn from observation, imitation, and modeling. They have the
potential of becoming violent members of society in the future.
Little is still known about why men that witnessed domestic violence when they were children act violently later in their own intimate relationships. Much more research is needed to validate these claims. The nature of the sample should be handled with caution due to the homogeneous nature of the men involved. It is recommended that future studies should include a larger sample of heterogeneous males.
REFERENCES
Avis, J. M.(1992).Where are all the family therapists? Abuse and violence within families and family therapy’s response. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 18, 225-232.
Bandura, A. (1978). Social learning theory of aggression. Journal of Communication, 28, 12-29.
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.
Brown, S. E., Esbensen, F., & Geis, G. (2001). Criminology: Explaining crime and its context. Cincinnati, Ohio: Anderson.
Fergusson, D. M., & Lynskey, M. T. (1996). Adolescent resiliency to family adversity. Ournal of child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 37, 281-292.
Harris, S. M. & Dersch, C. A. (2001). “I’m just not like that”: investigating the intergenerational cycle of violence. The Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families, 9, 250-258.
Hastings, J. E., & Hamberger, L. K. (1988). Personality characteristics of spouse-abusers: A controlled comparison. Violence and Victims, 3, 31-47.
Kaufman, J., & Zigler, E. (1987). Do abused children become abusive parents? American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 57, 186-192.
Leifer, M., Smith, S. (1990). Towards breaking the cycle of intergenerational abuse. American Journal of Psychotherapy, XLIV, 116-128.
McCord, J. (1988). Parental behavior in the cycle of aggression. Psychiatry, 51, 14-23.
Silver, L. B., Dublin, C. C., & Lourie, R. S. (1969). Does violence breed biolence? Contributions from a study of the child abuse syndrome.
[Comments: You turned in an outline instead of an Introductory
section. You were not required to turn in an outline. I kept it for
you in case you want it back. I had little to work with in grading the
assignment of turning in an Introductory section. The outline looked good
however, but I reserve the right to downgrade your grade I have recorded until I
see that you can write an Introductory section.]
[Comments: I added your Intro and Lit Review sections. They appear to be
adequate.]
[Comments: I added your Research Plan section. It also appears to be adequate.]
[Comments: I added Part 4. Students have one last chance before the last day of
class to edit the overall paper.]
Last updated: 11/26/02