This theory starts from the idea that we seek consistency in our beliefs and attitudes in any situation where two cognitions are inconsistent. Leon Festinger proposed cognitive dissonance theory, which states that a powerful motive to maintain cognitive consistency can give rise to irrational and sometimes adaptive behavior. According to Festinger, we hold many cognitions about the world and ourselves; when they clash, a problem is , resulting in a state of tension known as cognitive dissonance. As the experience of dissonance is unpleasant, we are motivated to reduce or eliminate it, and achieve
Importance of Social Bonds By definition exhibiting a behavior that breaks a norm, or rule, placed upon you by society, your situation, or those around you, is deviant. The same behavior could be considered deviant for one person and not another. It depends upon the person in the situation, when and where it’s taking place, and those around who know what’s happening. There are two major viewpoints of deviance, each having many theories to explain it. The humanist approach doesn’t describe deviance as a behavior, rather defining it by the reaction and it being a subjective experience.
Underreporting occurs due to individuals being dishonest regarding their behavior, therefore causing an error in the research done. A possible solution to this limitation is focusing on observed behavior, and correlating the findings with the self-reporting behavior, therefore developing a conclusion that is more in-depth. Furthermore, Article 2 emphasized that other factors can influence self-labeling as a victim in relation to work-place bullying, not just anxiety and anger. In addition, discovering a moderation effect regarding negative acts of violence and self-labeling is hard to discover due to the psychological way an individual may experience an event. Lastly, Article 3 honed on the lack of variances of deviant behavior.
This essay will criticise negative and positive freedom, outlining the concepts of them and their relevance to the concept of democracy. The argument as to whether negative freedom is functional can be motivated by looking at the ideological movement’s, namely freedom, sub- section’s strengths and weaknesses. Limitations on negative freedom are imposed by a person and not by the interference/ decisions made by the government. Coercive law manages to reduce the degree of people’s freedom (Pettit, 1989:1). These restrictions are seen in this case as external and limitations are brought forward by the actions and decisions made by other people.
The way that we think can make a situation appear negative or positive. As stated by Spoors et al two people in exactly the same situation can view the same situation entirely different depending on whether they have a positive optimistic outlook on life or a negative pessimistic outlook. Cognitive Therapy, a form of therapy which aims to replace negative or distorted thought with more positive and rational ones, by developing strategies to actively promote more positive thinking has proved to be effective in many cases of depression and anxiety. By replacing negative thoughts with more positive thoughts encourages more positivity and can often assist in reversing a downward spiral of negative thinking and result in a more positive and pleasant outcome. In a study conducted by Martin Seligman cited by Spoors et al, Seligman found that happiness levels increased in participants in the study when they were encouraged to focus on more positive things that had happened in their past, and to reflect on their own personal strengths and to write a daily list of things that had gone well and the reasons why.
The Self-Serving Bias One barrier to critical thinking is self-serving biases. I had this theory that if my actions do not need to be rationalized if the motives are good. The characteristics of others even post a threat. These situations can cause us to develop a self-serving attitude.
To further enforce this law would only be a waste of effort and “more dangerous” to those who are actually doing the enforcing. I think the second premiss is completely credible; “society” will not stop the use of marijuana if there are new laws passed stating the use of marijuana is prohibited. Therefore the conclusion that states “severe laws against marijuana are more dangerous to society than the activity which they are designed to prevent” is plausible due to the fact of reality that on a regular basis people don’t obey these laws. Getting in trouble with the law is more dangerous to society than just taking marijuana as an activity. For this particular argument it would have to be “Circular Reasoning”, it’s a fallacy that in which the premises include the claim that the conclusion is true or (directly or indirectly) assume that the conclusion is true.
The organization needs to consider how its activities will influence others and good results. In the detailed analysis it alludes to organizations who sidestep the law by offering the items independently and later join them to make the item that is illicit, despite the fact that this could be viewed as lawful it is just a terrible good decision. It is ethically wrong to settle on a decision to ensure one gathering of individuals while disregarding the wellbeing of an alternate, which is precisely what happens at the present time
Lastly, Cultural Relativists often argue that it is mere arrogance for us to judge the conduct of other societies, and that we should adopt an attitude of tolerance toward the practices of other cultures. Although it may be a display of arrogance to judge the conduct of other societies, it is sometimes necessary to do so and convey disagreement when the situation arises. Given these revised interpretations of the 5 claims commonly made by Cultural Relativists, individuals and cultures ought to be guided by a revised philosophy known as Centralized Cultural Relativism, where societies may have different moral codes, but they all inherit certain properties from a parent code, which is influenced by factors including human biology, physiology, and what is necessary for a society to
This element refers to attitudes or level of approval individuals hold regarding morals and laws in general as well as specific deviant behaviours. In Akers’ model, deviant behaviour does not require positive acceptance of the behaviour; instead, morals or conventional values that are weakly held or temporarily neutralised may be sufficient to generate deviance. Clearly, such a proposition has important implications for the intimate violence: the less likely they are to resort