Abstract This paper will attempt to explore two different viewpoints on the use of deception in human participants for social psychological experiments. The paper will compare and contrast two different articles that have conflicting views on the topic. Alan C. Elms, the author of a pro- deception article views deception as just, ethical, and even necessary tool of social psychology; however he does assert a very strong degree of caution, and care when implementing deception in an experimental design (1985). Opposite Elms, Diana Baumrind views deception as unethical and unfair to unsuspecting subjects who are unaware of such “trickery”. She debates that the harm done to the individual, society, and to the profession are at times irreversible or to great and outweigh possible benefit from the study.
This moral balance sheet can also be thought as a demerit system. When a person acts out of a norm and is blamed, then something negative is revealed in their character. When something negative is revealed in a person’s character, their moral record is considered negative, suggesting they have lowered their moral worth. This works in the other way as well. When a moral act is performed, something positive is revealed in one’s character.
Discuss the role of neural and hormonal mechanisms in aggression (24) Aggression is deliberate anti-social behaviour that is often intended to cause harm, usually observed through verbal or physical acts. There are two mechanisms said to be involved in aggression, neural and hormonal. Neural mechanisms such as the amydgala and the prefrontal cortex are thought to be involved in aggressive behaviour. The amygdala is a group of nuclei in the frontal lobe of the brain which is associated with primitive aggressive responses of instinct fear and aggression. The prefrontal cortex is in charge of thought analysis and regulated behaviour.
The perception of exchanging can be accepted either negatively or positively, which is called violation valence. This depends on the level of common interests between the two people, and can also impact the outcome of communication. If the exchange is received negatively, then it will obstruct future communication. If the exchange is received positively, it will enrich the communication. This is the communicator reward valence.
It can almost be unapparent when others have a subconscious hold on the actions of an individual. However, the ability to not only influence but also completely control another person can be incredibly destructive. Sigmund Freud developed this idea of human psychological behavior, which allows one to analyze the unconscious conflicts of individuals. He came to see the human’s personality as having three aspects, which together make up the cause of our actions- the Id, the Ego, and the Superego. The Superego in particular, is created through the moral and ethical restraints placed on a human and reflects the values of and individual’s family and society.
I would like to make the argument whether prosocial behavior is selfish or selfless. Firstly, What does it mean to be prosocial? Prosocial behavior is an act that is positively valued by society (A. Trace, Lecture 2, 2012), or they can be acts that intentionally benefit another human being. Secondly, I believe that prosocial behaviour can be both selfish and selfless, completely depending on the person who is doing the act.
Readers can learn to follow the examples of the good parent and they can now avoid doing bad things to their own children. Atticus and Calpurnia had done their part as great parents and surely Jem and Scout would grow up to be good parents themselves. But for Bob Ewell, his children would probably grow up thinking that what their father did to them was a good act and they will follow his examples, thus making them bad parents and bad examples for their future children. A good parent will never let their children be astray from the right path and will always try to teach them the right ways and how to be good parents themselves in the
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.
Aggression in Sport Aggression can be defined as ‘intent to harm outside the laws of the game’ and revolves around behavioural misconduct. This can have a negative or positive effect on a performer depending on the individual, but when the aggression is considered to be channelled for a positive purpose it becomes assertion. However the distinction between whether conduct is aggressive or assertive can be difficult to distinguish in some cases. The causes of aggression can be divided into nature or nurture. Nature is suggested in the instinct theory where aggression is a characteristic shared by all humans as an innate biological drive which is expressed through sport.
Since the origin of the first complex organisms on Earth, creatures have depended on other living things, plants and animals, as means of sustenance. Although taking an organisms life is technically killing, it is done in the justification of the food chain and order as defined by nature. Because humans rarely kill other humans out of necessity however, the circumstances under which killing or murdering is viewed as acceptable, are often very controversial. If killing is done as a form of self-defense is not wrong, because it is an act that values life, and is meant to protect life. In an industrialized society, particularly one that is consistent with and operates on Judeo-Christian beliefs, it is generally accepted that every individual has the fundamental right to protect himself or herself.