Personal Space Research Paper

This can be applied to the behaviors of criminals. According to Fishbein (1990, pg.37), “behavior [is] primarily attributed to inherited predispositions and genetic influences.” Nurture is the environmental influence that shape human behavior (Fishbein, 1990, pg.37). Human genetics and environmental factors contribute to the uniqueness to a person’s behavior. However, there are underlying qualities in a criminal’s historical background. Aspects of the nature and nurturing of a criminal behavior includes some problems with earlier biological explanations and some recent biological explanations which have overcome the weaknesses of

Violence take multiple forms, many of which are covered in the nightly news. Murder, rape, familial abuse, bullying, workplace hostility, armed robbery—all of these are societal problems with far-reaching repercussions. There have long debates and discussions regarding whether nature or nurture influences individual violent behavior. People are concerned about what makes an individual to engage in violent behavior such murder or burglary among other types of crimes. They are also concerned about what makes people stop such behavior. However, there is no precise conception whether nature, nurture or both influence violence. Some people assume that, violent behavior results from individual’s life experiences or upbringing also known as nurture. Others feel that violent behavior is more complex and results from individual’s genetic character or nature. In other words, it is not clear whether violent behavior is inborn or occurs at some point in persons’ lives, but even it’s hard, emphasizing one and ignoring other influences is always an unwise way to go.

Nature vs Nurture is something that has been researched for many years especially when it comes to finding the reason for someone committing a crime. When talking about nature, I am talking about how you are born. The genes that you are born with that make you who you are. When referring to nurture I am talking about how someone is raised. Such as the environment you live in and what is taught to you. As humans we cannot control our nature it is simply what you are born with. When you are born you have all your genes that will decide what you look like, how tall or short you will be, so why do we not believe that our behavioral tendencies, and personality attributes come from our genes too. Psychological theories such as the biological approach, and psychoanalysis have helped to show us how are genetics predetermine our behavior. Researchers have found multiple facts that support each side and for years no one has been able to decide which one influences us over the other one. I believe that our nature has a greater impact on us then our nurture especially when it comes to criminal actions.

In today’s society, violence occurs every minute somewhere in some shape or form. It continues to be a plague that causes humans humility, pain, and death. Both the scientific and criminal justice fields have been stumped for years by the question of “where does the influence of violence come from?” Nature versus nurture has always been one of the most prevalent arguments relating to this topic. The nature argument is based on the belief that an individual’s biology/DNA contributes to their behavior, where the nurture argument believes that the environment one is exposed to is what actually influences their behavior. According to Hickey, biological positivism was the method of applying the scientific method to the task of determining who was a criminal (48).

“According to Kaj Bjorkqvist, a pioneer in the field of human aggression, the development of social and verbal skills allows for "sophisticated strategies of aggression," "with the aggressor being able to harm a target person without even being identified: Those strategies may be referred to as indirect aggression” ("Sex Differ- ences," 179).”

Aggression is a natural part of human behavior, and can even be adaptive in certain situations. However, when aggression manifests itself in violent behaviors, it becomes problematic. Patterns of aggression change throughout childhood, adolescence, and early adulthood, and these changes usually differ between males and females (Loeber, 1997). Physical aggression is typically greatest early in life and decreases during adolescence, whereas more serious violence tends to increase with age, particularly during adolescence (Loeber, 1997). Despite the changes that occur in aggressive tendencies throughout childhood and adolescence, aggression is seen as a very stable trait, almost as stable as

Theoretical Propositions: The question of why people are who they are and why they behave the in the way that they do was asked. The researchers wanted to understand if people develop into who they are primarily from factors in the environment or because of there genetic makeup. In the second half of the 20th century most psychologists agreed in the theory of behaviorism, human behavior is caused only by factors in the environment. This study would answer the common “nurture vs nature” question that many people still ask today.

The objective of this study is to examine whether it is nature or nurture who plays the most vital role in a human’s behavior, specifically an individual’s criminal behavior. Criminal behavior is defined as an act or failure to act in a way that violates public law. Some believe that criminal behavior can be identified as early as conception, meaning that criminal behavior is because of your genes. While others believe that one’s upbringing and social learning environment directly contributes to the individual’s criminal behavior. This paper will provide the history on the ongoing debate of nature vs. nurture and answer the question of whether it is

Research determines that signs of disorder or incivilities is positively associated with perceived risk and fear of crime for the female gender.

The first four factors, nicknamed the “big four”, are considered the major predictor variables. The first factor is history of antisocial behavior (Andrews & Bonta, 2010; Looman & Abracen, 2013). Major indicators of the presence of this factor include arrests at a young age and a “large number of prior offenses” (Andrews & Bonta, 2010, 58). The second factor is antisocial personality patterns. Characteristics of this factor include callous disregard for others, aggressive behavior, and feelings of pleasure seeking (Looman & Abracen, 2013). Next is antisocial cognition, which can be defined as “attitudes, values, beliefs, rationalizations, and a personal identity that is favorable to crime” (Andrews & Bonta, 2010, 59). The final factor within the big four is antisocial associates. This refers to the association with other individuals who are pro-criminal while avoiding anti-criminal individuals (Andrews & Bonta,

Ever since Plato and Aristotle, Locke and Descartes, and Charles Darwin,the controversy of nature and nurture has been ageless, its debate still continuing on today. Likewise, "the forces that produce those with antisocial behavior are still obscure to researchers; one end of the spectrum viewing the issue as largely the result of genetic or biological factors, whereas at the other end posit that it is entirely of social environment" (Hare 165).

The main focus was an evaluation of the impact prison has on a person’s tendency to behave violently. More specifically, the two major topics evaluated were the role solitary confinement has on violence among prisoners, and violence in prisoners that have been previously diagnosed as schizophrenic. In one empirical article evaluated, Association of Violence With Emergence of Persecutory Delusions in Untreated Schizophrenia (Keers, Ulrich, DeStavola, and Coid, 2014), researchers set out to study the prevalence in violence among schizophrenic prisoners during their time in prison and after their release. They also the presence of psychosis or delusions in the subjects during the time of their violent act. The researchers sought to compare the

Statistics indicate many aggressors at some point or another have witnessed acts of violence. During childhood, these observed behaviors can have a major impact and influence on adolescent and adult attitudes, perception of self and others. "Children become more susceptible and prone to negative and dangerous behaviors which can

The nature versus nurture debate is an ongoing debate among social scientists relating to whether ones personality/personal characteristics are the result of his/her inherited genetic traits or the result of environmental factors such as upbringing, social status, financial stability, and more. One of the topics that are discussed among psychologists is the study of violent behavior among people as a whole, and in particular, individuals. Social scientists try to explain why people commit acts of violence through explanation of either side of the nature or nurture schools of thought. However, the overwhelming amount of research done into the relation of violent behavior and the nature versus nurture debate indicated that nurture is the primary explanation to explaining violent behavior because violent traits are learned from adults, someone’s social upbringing is a major factor to why some people are more violent than others, and finally influences from news media, movies, and video games enhance the chance for someone to exhibit violent behavior. In conclusion, violent behavior is a complex issue without a clear explanation that is overwhelmingly supported by the nurture side of the debate.

Lavinia et. al. (2010) describes a study that calculated physiology factors on a person’s predisposition to aggression in intimate relationships. The study looked at physiological reactivity, which is defined as changes to a person’s body brought about by a stimulus. The study found that individuals that are antisocial and violent are