Toward a general theory of psychosocial deviance: The case of aggressive behavior

Sot. Sci. & Med. 1972, Vol. 6, pp. 593-617. Pergamon Press. Printed in Great Britain

TOWARD A GENERAL THEORY OF PSYCHOSOCIAL DEVIANCE: THE CASE OF AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOR HOWARD B. KAPLAN Professor of Sociology, Department of Psychiatry, Baylor College of Medicine. Texas Medical Center Houston, Texas 77025 Abstrad-The outline of a general theory of psychosocial deviance is described. The core of the theory consists of two propositions. First, antecedent self-derogation increases the probability of subsequent adoption of modes of psychosocial deviance. Second, adoption of deviant patterns tends to decrease the degree of preexisting selfderogration. The emerging theoretical model is discussed with reference to studies relating to several specific modes of deviant behavior. A partial confirmation of the generality of the theory was provided by a consideration of the literature relating to agressive behavior. Two sets of propositions were discussed: those concerning the reciprocal relationship between self-attitudes and aggressive behavior; and, those dealing with influences toward the adoption of aggressive behavior patterns in particular given the general predisposition to adopt some form of deviant behavior.

THE FOLLOWING presentation proposes the outline of a general theory of psychosocial deviance. The theoretical model postulates common elements in the genesis of any of a wide variety of srructured patterns of psychologically or socially defined (psychosocial) deviance.* Although the particular forms of the deviant patterns may vary-paranoid schizophrenia, drug abuse, suicidal behavior, alcoholism, theft, assaultive behavior, Bohemianism, vandalism, homicide, homosexuality, etc.-individuals who have adopted any of these or other deviant patterns are said to have previously undergone similar life experiences. The explanation of why one rather than another deviant pattern is adopted deals &th an analytically distinct set of concepts. The present communication will attempt to achieve three objectives. First, it will briefly describe in outline form a general theoretical model for the study of patterns of deviant behavior; a model which may be concisely characterized in terms of “Self-attitudes and psychosocial deviance”. Second, the literature dealing with particular deviant patterns, those which might be characterized as aggressive behavior, will be considered within the framework of this theoretical model. Since the model was derived without particular reference to the literature dealing with aggressive behavior, the “goodness of fit” between the model and this literature would serve as a partial test of the generality of the theory in the study of deviant behavior. Third, having considered those influences in the genesis of aggressive behavior which are shared with the development of other deviant patterns, we will attempt to isolate those influences which appear to be uniquely associated with the adoption of aggressive behavior patterns. * Structured patterns of psychosocial deviance contain elements of relatively stable cognitive and conative (goal oriented) patterns, and are to be distinguished from deviant patterns which are primarily expressions of subjective distress such as anxiety, depression, or any concomitant behavioral disorganization. They are also distinguished from non-volitional forms of “deviance” such as physical disability or illness. For interesting discussions of disability and illness as deviant behavior, see references Ptlanz and Rohde [I] and Freidson 1671below. 593

HOWARDB.

594

SELF-ATTITUDES

AND

KAPLAN

PSYCHOSOCIAL

DEVIANCE

The present model is derived primarily from the academic tradition which assigns the concepts of self-esteem, -worth, -acceptance, etc. (or, negatively stated, self-derogation, -depreciation, or -rejection) central positions in theories of personality [2-131. Implicit or explicit in these theories is the assertion of the universality and primacy of the self-esteem motive. Self-esteem motive The nature of the human socialization process is such that the child characteristically learns to associate satisfaction of his basic biological needs with human agents (parents or parent-surrogates) and, more particularly, with specific kinds of responses by these human agents. These agents, in the process of satifying the child’s needs, tend to display characteristic sounds, gestures, and other behaviors; and, in the process of frustrating the child, tend to display other behavioral responses. These responses, which the observer may conceptualize as approving and disapproving responses respectively, come to have emotionally rewarding (punishing) stimulus value for the child independent of their original association with the (dis) satisfaction of his biological needs. The child has acquired new needs: to evoke approving responses; and, to avoid disapproving responses. When the child, reflexively, has learned to apply these (dis) approving behaviors to himself and his own behaviors, and to respond to these behaviors in a similar fashion (in terms of rewarding or punishing feelings) as when the behaviors were applied to him by others, he may be said to have acquired still other needs: to evoke self-approving responses; and to avoid selfdisapproving responses*. At this point in the personality development of the child, the model asserts, the major motivational goals of any individual, regardless of cultural context of personal circumstances, are the maintenance, restoration, or attainment of positive self-attitudes (self-esteem, etc.) and the avoidance of negative self-attitudes (self-derogation, etc.). In support of the assertion

of the universality and primacy of the self-esteem motive one might offer the observations of (1) the paucity of cases of severe self-derogation in the population at any given point in time and (2) the speed with which defense mechanisms are activated in the face of potentially self-devaluing experiences. However, perhaps the most convincing empirical support is offered by the consistent observations of significant associations between negative selfattitudes on the one hand and such indices of subjective distress as anxiety, depression, or concomitant psychopathological responses [14-271. Antecedents of negative self-attitudes The development of relatively stable negative self-attitudes is said to be the consequence of specifiable psychosocial experiences. Several of the studies of antecedents or correlates of

more or less negative self-attitudes have been reviewed or collected by Wylie [28], Hamachek [29], and Gordon and Gergen [30]. Among the more inclusive studies (either in terms of sample or range of variables considered) are the investigations of adult, adolescent, and pre-adolescent samples by Kaplan [31-331, Kaplan and Pokomy [22,34-361, Rosenberg [24] * This sketch of the human socialization process is presented as characteristic of the species. Although this is not an appropriate place to consider such exceptions in detail, it is recognized that highly abnormal circumstances (such as extremes of response inconsistency) associated with the childrearing process might interrupt the “normal” development of the motivations to achieve approval by others and self-approval.

Toward a General Theory of PsychosocialDeviance

595

and Coopersmith [37], respectively. These investigators considered the relationship between the subjects’ self-attitudes on the one hand and such variables as broader social group memberships, personal qualities and achievements, family structure, parental child-rearing attitudes, attitudes toward the subject expressed by significant others, etc., on the other hand. In general, the observed relationships (although frequently statistically significant) were relatively weak in terms of portions of the variance in self-attitudes explained primarily because of failure to consider the conditional nature of the relationships and interaction effects of the independent variables. The more consistent of the relationships observed in the literature on antecendents of self-attitudes relate to three broad areas. First, the attitudes of otherpeople toward the subject infIuence the subject’s self-attitudes. This generalization is the result of the findings in three types of studies: reports of the relationship between subject changes in self-attitudes and prior induction of attitudes by others toward the subject 138-431; reports of associations between subject self-attitudes and current evaluation-relevent behavior expressed by others toward the subject [24, 44461; reports of correlations between subject’s self-attitudes and the subject’s reports of others’ attitudes toward him (47-511. The attitudes of others in addition to being expressed within the normative range of social relationships might also be manifested in the context of less usual institutional contexts such as the hospitalization experience [53-S]. The degree to which the attitudes of others influence self-evaluation appears to be a function of such factors as the discrepancy between self- and other-evaluations [56], the communication of others’ evaluations to the subject [45], and, the importance of the other people to the subject [45, 57-591. Second, a related area of agreement in the literature leads to the conclusion that the nature of the individual’s self-attitudes is a function of the subject’s possession of any of a number of ascribed or achieved qualities or the subject’s success in particular performances, where the quality or performance is highly valued by the subject [24, 40, 60-641. Among the salient qualities are those related to physical characteristics, experiences, and (dis) abilities [65-741. Third, the literature is observed to be fairly consistent in suggesting that the subject’s self-attitude is a function of his ability to utilize controls and defenses which enhance his “capacity to define an event firred with negative implications and consequences in such a way that it does not detract from his sense of worthiness, ability, or power” [37]. Among defenses and adaptive mechanisms mentioned in the literature which might be employed in potentially self-devaluing circumstances and function to increase positive (or decrease negative) self-feelings in those circumstances are (recognixing the frequently overlapping meanings) denial, avoidance, rationalization, rejection of others, devaluation of the circumstances, selectivity of standards, selectivity in interpersonal relationships, etc. [24,40,42,56,62,63, 75-791. Goffman [80] discusses a number of mechanisms which are employed by those suffering from stigmatized physical disabilities in interpersonal contexts. The selection’ of a particular mechanism and its successful employment in the service of self-esteem appear to be a function of such factors as early childhood environment, the range of options currently available to the subject, the degree to which the situation is unstructured or unambiguous, and the availability of social support 145, 75, 81, 821. Negative self-attitudes and the adoption of deviant patterns Up to this point it has been proposed that the development of relatively stable negative self-attitudes at any point in time is a function of numerous specifiable sociocultural and social-psychological circumstances including being the object of rejecting attitudes by

596

HOWARD B. KAPLAN

significant others, self-devaluation of personally relevant qualities (including social positions and group memberships) and behaviors, the failure to employ adequate defensive or adaptive mechanisms in order to forestall or adjust to personally devaluing experiences, and any other variables which, in turn, influence the preceding three conditions. Given the primacy of the self-esteem motive and circumstances leading to the development of negative self-attitudes, the individual may be expected to display severe subjective distress (anxiety, depression, and any symptoms of behavioral disorientation associated with these) and will be motivated to behave in ways which will restore or attain positive self-attitudes, thus assuaging the feelings of distress. The model now proposes that individuals who have developed negative self-attitudes will be more likely to adopt* deviant behavior patterns than will individuals with positive selfattitudes, particularly to the extent that the individual (1) associates the causes of his selfdevaluation with the normative environment, (2) does not perceive the availability of alternative normative (socially appropriate) patterns which have a reasonably high subjective probability of resulting in improved self-attitudes, and (3) perceives the availability of alternative deviant patterns which have a reasonably high subjective probability of resulting in more positive self-attitudes.7 The deviant patterns are expected to function to decrease the level of self-rejection or the subjective distress associated with self-rejecting attitudes in any of a number of ways: reality distortion toward the goal of self-approval of one’s behaviors, achievements, and personality characteristics; attacking the validity of the social system within which the individual failed; avoidance of potentially self-devaluing experiences ; acceptance of a new set of standards which the individual feels capable of approximating, thus earning the approval of those who share the standards, etc. Any of a range of deviant patterns might be adopted in the service of these routes to greater self-esteem.: The research literature is consistent with the expectation that individuals with selfrejecting attitudes are more likely to adopt modes of structured deviance than individuals with self-accepting attitudes and that individuals who have adopted any of a variety of structured deviant patterns share in common the antecedent experience of severe and * The present model attempts to account for the adoption of deviant patterns where the individual had not previously behaved in’this fashion. Where a “deviant” pattern is part of a subculture and where the individual learns the pattern as a socially appropriate mode of behavior, the deviant behavior is regarded as a way of maintaining a positive self-attitude (rather than as a way of achieuing a more acceptable self-attitude) as in the case of the “socialized delinquent’*. In this case it is conceivable that an individual who develops a negative self-attitude, perhaps because of being an incompetent delinquent, may be led to adopt a deviant (from the viewpoint of his subculture) pattern in an attempt to achieve a more positive self-attitude. In this instance the “deviant” response might be the acceptance of the normative structure of the broader society. t In any case the probability of an individual adopting a deviant career pattern (starting from a deviancefree state) is much greater if he had developed a relatively stable negative self-attitude than if he had developed a relatively stable positive self-attitude since under the latter condition the individual is not motivated to change his situation. $ This general theoretical model attempts to account for the predisposition to adopt any of a range of deviant patterns. It does not attempt to account for the adoption of a particular mode of psychosocial deviance. A different set of concepts are necessary to account for the adoption of a particular pattern. For example, the predisposition to adopt a particular pattern of deviance appears to be a function of the judgements the subject makes with regard to the self-enhancing and threatening correlates of the pattern in question in comparison with perceived alternative patterns. Thus, the inclination to take drugs in the service of self-esteem is a function of restraints (such as fear of lack of control and fear of bodily damage) which might be operating [83]. The predisposition to adopt delinquent patterns might be a function, in part, of the failure to perceive available normative patterns which might be adopted toward the goal of self-enhancement; and, indeed, Scarpitti 1841does suggest that delinquents perceive limited opportunities to achieve the rewards available to the middle class youths. Other such concepts will be noted below when considering possible influences in the adoption of anti-social aggressive patterns.

Toward a General Theory of PsychosocialDeviance

597

pervasive self-rejecting attitudes. Two types of studies are relevant: those comparing groupings of subjects with positive and negative self-attitudes respectively with regard to the subsequent adoption of structured deviant patterns (or with regard to current predisposition to adopt-attitude toward-the deviant pattern); those studies comparing “normal” and (actually or potentially) “deviant” groups with regard to prior experience of intense and pervasive self-derogation (or with regard to prior experiences associated with the genesis of self-derogation). These types of studies may be illustrated with the deviant patterns of cheating, delinquency, drug addiction, alcoholism, and suicide. With regard to cheating, Aaronson and Mettee [85], through the vehicle of false feedback, experimentally varied level of self-esteem among their subjects. They were then permitted to participate in a game of cards under circumstances in which it was apparently possible to cheat without being detected. Significantly more people cheated in the low self-esteem condition than in the high se&esteem condition. With regard to delinquency, self-rejection appears to be an antecedent condition to the adoption of juvenile delinquency as a new pattern: Schwartz and Tangri [86], studying the relationship between self-attitude and being nominated by school personnel as being likely to have contacts with police or courts, reported that among sixth-grade Negro boys, the nominated “bad” boys were more negative in their self-concepts than nominated “good” boys; Gunderson and Johnson [87] reported correlations between self-evaluation measures and delinquency proneness for Navy enlisted men: Scarpitti [84] reported that delinquent boys have lower feelings of personal worth than non-delinquent middle- or lower-class ninth grade boys; Reed and Cuadra [88], studying student nurses, reported that high scorers on a delinquency scale indicated their expectations of peer descriptions of them in terms of more unfavorable adjectives despite the fact that there were no objective differences in the adjectives actually used by the group to describe high and low scorers; Horrocks and Gottfried [89] reported that a delinquent grouping indicated more dissatisfaction with attainment of their “approval” need than did a non-delinquent grouping; Shinohara and Jenkins [90] observed that runaway delinquents, as compared with socialized delinquents who presumably learned their delinquent patterns early in life as part of their sub-culture, reported less self-acceptance relative to their siblings, had a poorer masculine identification, and a poorer self-image. With regard to drug uddiction, Brehm and Back [83, p. 3131, studying college students, conclude that “ The conditions which influence the inclination to take drugs can be summarized as dissatisfaction with one’s self and lack of restraints to use this route of change”. Kaplan and Meyerowitz [91], comparing a previously institutionalized addict population with a comparison group, conclude that the social milieu of the addict increases the probability of experiences of interpersonal rejection and personal failure which are productive of a pervasive sense of self-devaluation. With regard to alcoholism, Williams [92, p. 5921 states that his finding that college problem drinkers have low self-evaluation “may be an important one indicating that this personality characteristic precedes the development of alcoholism” (on the assumption, of course, that persons with high scores on the problem-drinking scale do eventually become alcoholics); Tahka [93], comparing 50 Swedish male alcoholics with a matched control group of 50 males free of alcoholism or psychiatric disorder, reported that among the premorbid personality characteristics of alcoholics were inhibitions of aggressive and sexual impulses with a tendency toward feelings of guilt or inferiority; Maddox and Borinski [94] report findings suggesting an association between low self-esteem and both preoccupation 8.S.K615-E

598

HOWARDB.

KAPLAN

with alcohol and drinking for effect among 49 Negro male collegians; Wahl [95] inferring negative self-attitudes from such variables ‘as reports of sibling rivalry, parental separation or loss, rejecting attitudes by parents, etc., suggested that such self-attitudes were significant factors in the genesis of alcoholism. With regard to srticide, numerous studies report that suicidal behavior is associated with variables known or suspected to be related to the presence of self-derogation such as experiences of parental rejection [96-981, downward status mobility [99], rejection or lack of warmth by spouse [lOO-1021, failure of available adaptive techniques for coping with problems [98], parental remarriage [103], subject rejection of significant others [104], neuroticism [105, 1061, interstatus (males) or intrastatus (females) role conflict [107], high performance standards {lOS, 1091, ego defense [llO], or depreciation by significant others [ill]. Among the studies dealing more or less directly with the self-attitudes of suicidal individuals relative to an apparently non-disturbed group is that of Hattem [lOO]. Compared to the spouse, the suicidal individuals had a greater discrepancy between their self and ideal-self on the dominance scale of the Leary Interpersonal Adjective Check List. One of the author’s conclusions was that the suicidal individual was more characterized by feelings of weakness, dependency, and inferiority. Braaten and Darling [112], comparing suicidal college students with a non-suicidal group, suggested that the former were characterized by self-hate as well as such other traits as anger, hostility, and dependency. Wilson, et al. [113] reported lower self-ideal-self discrepancy scores for normal subjects relative to psychiatric patients and suicidal individuals. Miller [114], comparing attempted suicides with a group of suicide prevention workers, observed much more negative self-attitudes among the former group. The consequences of deviant patterns for self-esteem Implicit in the expectation that deviant patterns would be adopted toward the goal of more positive self-attitudes is the proposition that the adoption andpersistence in aparticular pattern of structured psychosocial deviance will be accompanied by more self-accepting attitudes than were observedprior to the adoption of the deviant pattern. Insofar as the pattern results in a more positive self-attitude, the deviant pattern would be resistant to change unless it ceases to be effective in establishing a higher level of self-acceptance than previously and/or when the pattern becomes the occasion for new devaluing experiences such as rejecting responses by others. Studies and commentaries asserting the functional role of structured deviant patterns in the enhancement of self-attitudes have appeared in the literature regarding virtually every conceivable mode of structured psychosocial deviance including forms of functional psychoses (notably, paranoid schizophrenia), drug addiction, homosexuality, delinquency, alcoholism, and suicide. With regard to psychotic forms, it has been noted that, although several studies report diagnosed neurotic and/or mixed patient groups to have significantly lower self-regard than normal non-patient or medical patient subjects, studies dealing with psychotic patients (notably, paranoid schizophrenics) tend to reveal self-attitudes which are similar to those of “normal” subjects. These findings are compatible with the conceptualization of schizophrenia as “a defense against the terrifying and injurious self-image” [I 15, p. 4531. In this connection, Ibelle [116], for example, hypothesized that defensiveness on the part of paranoid schizophrenics would lead to discrepancies between self-concept and ideal selfconcept (measured by the Q-sort self-ideal coefficient) which would be similar to that manifested by normal subjects. The results supported the hypothesis, and the author states that

Toward a General Theory of Psychosocial Deviance

599

his measure might be a useful index of the degree of effectiveness of the self-system in dissociating unfavorable aspects of the self, thus protecting the individual from feelings of severe anxiety and self-dissatisfaction. With regard to drug addiction, Sharoff [ 117, p. 1921 argues that people who use narcotic drugs are trying to resolve problems related to the lack of achieving self-esteem. Their solution (through use of narcotics) constitutes a withdrawal from society and living as well as an attack on society by the problems they create for it. People who use hallucinogens also have problems related to the achievement of self-esteem. The use of the drug allows them to “substitute love for competition and at the same time feel through perceptual distortions that they have become in reality what they believe they are in imagination”. Hoffman [I 181 asserts that the drug addict and the hypersexual share in common that both have failed to maintain an adequate sense of self-esteem by structuring the latter on symbolic modes, and both maintain self-esteem by direct use of physiological modes. The addict supports his self-esteem artificially by drug use. The hypersexual overcomes his depression (evoked by a person who reminds him of occasions in which he experienced self-devaluation) by transforming the disturbing individual into one who can provide sexual gratification, thus gaining mastery through sexual control. The function of drug addiction in producing a greater sense of personal worth is also indicated by results of the comparison of two previously institutionalized groups (one of which went through a rehabilitation program successfully, the other of which was released directly into the community) regarding changes along a number of psychosocial dimensions since leaving the institution (hospital or prison). The fact that the group released into the community was significantly more likely to increase egostrength scores and were significantly more likely to decrease in self-estrangement relative to the “rehabilitated group” suggested that the re-adoption of drug-culture patterns was functional for increasing self-acceptance levels [ 1191. With regard to homosexuality, E. A. Kaplan [I201 suggests that the dynamics of some homosexual behavior involves the search for an ego ideal by individuals whose self-images are devalued. Identification (with individuals who are covertly admired for possession of highly valued characteristics) can be achieved vicariously within the context of the homosexual relationship. Data collected from a survey of overt homosexuals do indicate that the latter feel less conflicted in the acceptance of a homosexual self-image [121]. With regard to juvenile delinquency, it is assumed that the individual who adopts the evaluative standards of the delinquency subculture does so in response to his failure to obtain positive self-evaluation by the standards of the conventional culture. It is further assumed that as the individual more closely identifies with the delinquent standards, the standards of the conventional culture (by which he failed) will become less relevant for self-evaluation and so the individual’s self-attitudes would improve. In support of this reasoning, Hall [122] reports that delinquents with a high “delinquency orientation” (identification with the delinquent subculture) tend to manifest high self-evaluations to a significantly greater extent than the delinquents with a low delinquency orientation. The function of deviant patterns in enhancing self-attitudes appears relevant in discussions of alcoholism as well, as in Borowitz’ [123] assertion that alcohol has the psychological effect of dulling disruptive emotions thereby permitting the ego to repair shattered defenses and to achieve a relatively stable level of integration. In this connection Williams [92, p. 5921, discussing his finding that college problem drinkers have low self-evaluation, recalls an earlier finding that alcohol consumed at all-male cocktail parties temporarily elevates self-evaluation and speculates : “It seems likely that problem drinkers-having low

600

HOWARD B. KAPLAN

self-evaluation-would appreciate this effect of alcohol more than those with relatively high self-evaluation, and thus would have stronger and most insistent motivations for drinking.” With regard to uncompleted suicidal behavior, some studies do suggest that attempted suicide tends to enhance self-attitudes. Farnham-Diggory [I241 reported that non-suicidal patients manifested the highest self-evaluation score with the overt suicidals (physical attempt to kill themselves) scoring next highest and the covert suicidals (talked about suicide but no attempt) scoring lowest. The difference in self-evaluation between the nonsuicidal and the covert patients was statistically significant, but the difference between the nonsuicidals and the overts was not significant. Whether this is due to the cathartic effects of the suicidal attempt or to gratifying responses from others evoked by the attempt cannot be determined. In any case, those who acted out suicidal tendencies approximated the nonsuicidal level of self-evaluation while the covertly suicidal subjects were significantly lower than the nonsuicidal level of self-evaluation. Tucker and Reinhardt [97], studying differences between servicemen who had attempted suicide and those who were nonsuicidal psychiatric patients, noted that the attempted suicides were significantly less anxious and immature possibly as a result of the cathartic effect of the attempted suicide. This might be taken as support for the thesis, in view of the association of anxiety with negative selfattitudes. Consistent with the above findings, Farberow [I251 reported that threatened suicides indicated significantly more negative feelings on the Hildreth Feeling and Attitude Scale than attempted suicides and non-suicidal patients. In addition to that portion of the literature which offers support for the proposition by asserting the self-enhancing potential of deviant patterns, those commentaries and studies also lend support to the thesis which asserts that the disruption of a previously established deviant pattern would result in a decreased level of self-acceptance. On the assumption that adoption of the deviant pattern elevated self-esteem, it is to be expected that the self-attitude would remain at an improved level only as long as the defensive pattern remains intact. The chronic schizophrenic is enabled to display a higher correlation between his actual and ideal self-concept to the extent that minimal demands are made upon him and, therefore, that he is not reminded of his inadequacies [126]. The psychopath can maintain his sense of self-worth as long as the conduct of the therapeutic interview permits him to discuss the externalized aspects of his behavior 11271. The homosexual maintains more positive selfattitudes as long as the rationalization of contentment in the homosexual role is permitted to exist [128]. When the deviant pattern is disrupted, a decrease in positive self-attitude might be expected. White and Gaier [129], for example, report for 104 alcoholic subjects that cathexis toward the self was relatively high in the beginning period of sobriety (possibly reflecting a “pseudo-evaluation of confidence and strength of ego brought about by the residual effects of alcohol”) but gradually decreased until the alcoholic reached about a year of recovery from alcohol. In summary, the research by other investigators in the area of self-attitudes and psychosocial deviance, while it does not provide a direct test of the theoretical outline derived from a portion of the literature, and while it is not highly structured, does appear to be congruent with the present theory of psychosocial deviance. Indeed, when reexamined within this framework, the literature appears to take on more of a structure of mutual reinforcement of findings. The end result is to increase the credibility of the propositions that (1) the development of negative self-attitudes predisposes an individual to adopt any of a range of deviant patterns and (2) the adoption of, and persistence in, the deviant pattern will be accompanied

Toward a General Theory of Psychosocial Deviance

by a higher level of self-ac_ceptance, two propositions emerging theory of psychosocial deviance. SELF-ATTITUDES

AND

601

which constitute the core of this

AGGRESSIVE

BEHAVIOR

The present section considers the applicability of the general theoretical model to the understanding of the genesis of patterns of agressive behavior. Since the literature on aggressive behavior was not of particular interest in the derivation of the model, as was stated earlier, the congruence of this literature with the model will provide partial confirmation of the generality of the theory in studying the development of patterns of psychosocial deviance. Aggressive behavior will be broadly defined as any behavior which has as its objective doing injury to another’s person or property. In general, the interest will be focused upon, but not exclusively so, patterns of physical aggression. To anticipate the remainder of this section, the literature on aggression appears to be consistent with the view that the overt expression of aggression (physical violence in the extreme) in common with numerous other modes of psychosocial deviance is a response to a preexisting history of more or less intense self-derogation and is functional in reducing the severity of self-rejecting attitudes. Negative self-attitudes and aggression Although the literature concerning the background of individuals who characteristically employ aggressive patterns is not abundant, there appears to be general agreement that, regardless of cultural context or mode of aggressive response, such individuals are more likely to have previously experienced seljkkvahdng circumstances than individuals who do not employ such patterns. One study noted that the more notorious of the bandits who committed crimes characterized by an excess of aggression and cruelty during the period known as Lu Violencia in the recent history of Colombia [130] manifested contemporary interpersonal patterns and earlier socialization experiences which were strongly suggestive of the existence of selfrejecting attitudes. The vulnerability of their self-evaluation to potentially devaluating experiences is attested to by their apparent intense suspiciousness, boastfulness, susceptibility to flattery, and quickness to react to the slightest provocation. These bandits also were said to share in common two kinds of constraints in their early upbringing: social, economic, religious, and cultural restraints which prevented them from achieving selfexpression and self-realization; and, the constraint of a father who frequently uses brutal punishment in order to assert his dominance over the other family members. In addition, the size of the family is not conductive to the child’s obtaining individual attention or satisfaction of his need for affection. In these circumstances the male child finds it difficult to acquire a satisfactory self-image. Leon [130, p. 15711 speculates that the repressive load, heavy in the areas of aggression and sexuality, “leads to a lack of self-assurance and ultimately to feelings of inadequacy, impotence, bitterness, helplessness, and worthlessness.” The association between aggressive, antisocial deviance and negative self-attitudes is suggested also by data reported by Wood [I311 for Ceylon. Several variables which might be expected to be associated with self-attitudes serve to differentiate offenders (cases of assault and economic crime) and non-offenders. Such variables include both objective and subjective indices of position in the prestige hierarchy. By the objective criteria of title to arable

602

How-

B.

KAPLAN

land, occupation, employment for wages, and an English language education, the offender group consistently ranks lower than the non-offender group in socioeconomic status. In addition, it was observed that the offender group was losing status relative to their fathers’ position to a greater extent than non-offenders. It was also noted that the offenders’ expressed career ambitions were disproportionately higher in relation to achievement than was the case with nonoffenders; and, nonoffenders with relatively high educational achievement were twice as likely to be successful occupationally as the corresponding offenders. These and other observations led Wood [131, p. 7481 to state: “Cumulative evidence suggests a self-image of relative failure for the offender group”. Other studies make similar observations for homicide offenders, emergency room patients, and rioters in a penal institution : Tanay [ 1321in his study of 53 homicide ofinders reported that only seven per cent of the offenders could be described as having a supportive superego as indicated by interview and history data of a positive self-image and absence of selfpunitive behavior. However, 68 per cent were classified as having a severe superego. In these individuals “Self-punishment was usually easily detected in the nature of interpersonal relations and self-abusive behavior”. Lion and his associates [133, p. 17101 commenting upon violent patients seen in the emergency room over a g-month period stated that the patients’ problems included “defective self-images and impulsivity”. Indirect support for the proposition that aggressive, anti-social behavior is a response to earlier self-rejecting attitudes is provided by Skelton’s [134, p. 3611 study comparing inmates who assaulted and those who defended officers during a riot at a federal institution for male offenders in Oklahoma. The assaultive group was significantly more likely to have been judged to display paranoid trends than the group of defenders; and the paranoid defense “has long been interpreted as the projection of unacceptable aggressive drives or derogatory self-appraisals onto others.” Consequences of aggressive behavior for self-esteem Still consistent with the general theoretical model for the study of psychosocial deviance, such literature as exists suggests that aggressive response patterns are more or less functional in reducing the severity of self-rejecting attitudes and the subjective distress associated with such attitudes. These studies deal with a number of different aggressive patterns: criminal assault, preschizophrenic aggression, urban revolt, school rebelliousness, and aggressive responses by apparently clinically normal subjects. Criminal assault. The hypothesized consequence of criminal assault for raising selfesteem levels may be illustrated by two studies. The functions of the acts of atrocity committed by Colombian bandits during the period known as La Violencia in enhancing these bandits’ self-attitudes is suggested by their boastfulness about their aggressive ability and the occasional great prestige enjoyed by them, both within the areas they operated and outside of them [130, pp. 1570-15711. Indeed, only the greater atrocities may be adequate to increase the bandits’ self-acceptance: Criminal behavior of a conventional type may not contribute in any way to modify the crippling feeimgs of inadequacy and worthlessness that the subject experiences. The continuance of these feelings may indeed generate pressures toward the commission of atrocious acts as a form of self-assertion and achieving distinction. The crimkal in this way gains notoriety and steps out of the limbo of mediocrity and anonymity in which he feels immersed. ‘Rds amounts to achieving self-assertion through outdoing others in cruelty (p. 1572).

Toward a General Theory of Psychosocial Deviance

Leon [130, p. 15731 summarizes his formulation Colombia by postulating

603

of the causes of criminal atrocities in

that the most ferocious of these criminals are probably individuals overwhelmed by fear and guilt, who perceive themselves as weak and worthless and hate themselves and their environment for that. The rage and cruelty they display are miscarried reparative maneuver8 to counteract crippling insecurity and fear. The more atrocious the crimes, the more fear-ridden the criminal. (p. 1573).

The self-enhancing functions of aggressive anti-social behavior is suggested also by a study of the differences between inmates who assaulted officers and those who defended the officers during a riot in a maximum security federal reformatory for male offenders in Oklahoma [134]. Among the findings was the report that, although they accounted for only between four and five per cent of the general population, Indians ma& up over 35 per cent of the assaultive group and none of the &fender group. It is said that Indians sent to prison are frequently judged to be heroes in standing up to the white man; and, indeed, post-riot interviews with Indians who did not participate in the riot indicated that most of them felt pride concerning the large number of Indians involved in the riot. Thus in this study, as in the previous one, violent behavior was noted to evoke socially approving responses which might be expected, in turn, to induce more positive self-attitudes. Preschizophrenic aggression. Watt et al. [I 351 noting that a pattern of unsocialized aggression was the most prominent behavior pattern in their sample of preschizophrenic boys, discussed this observation in terms of Jacobson’s [136] argument that many psychotics are vulnerable to such an extent that they experience minor frustrations as severe personal insults. They thus repond with extreme hostility, attempting to change the external world by force if necessary to suit their needs. They reject and deny unacceptable aspects of external reality. Watt et al. [135, p. 6521 state: “From this point of view the hostility, de% ante, and acting-out of the pre-schizophrenic boys could be construed as preliminary attempts to defend against ego dissolution and thus to prevent manifest psychotic breakdown.” Urban revolt. Several studies have noted that civil disorder may become the vehicle for elevating one’s level of self-acceptance. For example, it has been asserted that [137, p. 15381 even when urban revolt is fomented in the name of a moral cause, such as the civil rights movemen& many of those who answer the call to action have no moral convickn and their involvement is to satisfy personal psychodynamic frustrations. Their needs may be to destroy, to rebel, to get caught and punished, to be one of the group, to secure attention, or to be mar&red by injury or imprisonment. The psychological equilibrium of many persons is maintained by compulsive action in this context, just as it may be maintained for some by other forms of acting out, such as hippiedom, compulsive involvement with civil rights actions, intolerance, or fanatical patriotism. It might be added that for those who do engage in urban revolt out of moral conviction as well as for those who engage in any of these alternate forms of “acting out behavior” the common motive in their behavior is to gain greater self-acceptance whether by avoidance of self-devaluating circumstances, by identifying with worthy values and thereby evaluating themselves as worthy, or by attacking the structure which they associated with the genesis of their self-rejecting attitudes. Thus, as Usdin [137, p. 15401 suggests, using the model of adolescent rebellion to understand student and Negro revolts, the students and Negroes feel rejected, as individuals, by society or by the adult members of the university community

604

HOWARD B. KAPLAN

respectively. By joining in mob violence, the Negroes and students experience a “sense of power” and cease to be a “miniscule part of the universe”. The function of aggressive behavior in enhancing self-attitudes is also suggested by these findings indicating that the more aggressive Negro youths tend also to display higher selfesteem. Boesel [ 1381cites a study [ 1391which notes contrasts between the attitudes of youths from two Negro ghettos. Youths from Harlem are more likely to have been born in New York City and are more likely to have come from the urban South while youths from the Bedford-Stuyvesant section are less likely to have been born in New York City and are more likely to report their origins from the rural South. Herman and Sadofsky [139, xiii-xv] note : The BedfordStuyvesant youth reports a vastly lower degree of self-esteem than does the Harlem youth, with less hope for his future, and appears much less aggressive than his Harlem counterpart with respect to civil rights issues, or his competitive chances in the job market. The Harlem youth represents a longer adjustment to the urban North, and exhibits more of the sophistication,frustration, and aggressivenessthat emerge from contact with a freer environment which fails to provide chances to use that freer environment in a constructive way. The higher levels of self-esteem associated with birth in the urban North is said to be “closely connected with racial pride and the inclination to favor black control of institutions affecting blacks . . .” [138, p. 2681. Congruent with the conclusions of the two preceding commentaries regarding the association of violent behavior with self-regard are the results of a survey of a “modified quota sample of 270 black residents of the Twelfth Street Area of Detroit shortly after the riots in 1967” [140, p. 5101. All of the respondents had been “personally affected by a serious riot”. The author states that “the violence seemed to inspire a stronger sense of community and a hope for increased participation in the development of public policy” [p. 5111. Substantial portions of the sample indicated that they would have “more power”, receive “more attention from city officials”, and have “ more to say about what should be done in this neighborhood”. School rebelliousness. Shipee-Blum 11411on the basis of school data divided a group of high school students into “rebels” and “cooperators”. The rebel students were observed to score higher on an adjective checklist measuring self-esteem and also manifested higher regard for themselves than for their parents. “Normal” aggressiveness. Data reported by Jones [142, p. 41 may be interpreted as supporting the proposition that aggressive response patterns are functional in reducing the subjective distress associated with self-rejecting attitudes. Such an interpretation requires the assumption that psychophysiological parameters such as the galvanic skin reflex (GSR) are indicative of anxiety. Jones reported that children who reacted strongly on the GSR measure tended to be well controlled, cooperative children, while children who were low in reactiveness tended to be characterized by their drive for aggression, and uninhibited expressiveness. Even more relevant, perhaps, are several experiments cited by Berkowitz [143, p. 51. In one of these, individuals in self-devaluating circumstances are given the opportunity to express aggression against an individual who was the occasion of the self-devaluing experience. The subjects after being insulted by the experimenter showed a marked increase in systolic blood pressure, and then showed a quick reduction in systolic blood pressure after having the opportunity to give the experimenter electric shocks. Apparently the rapid

Toward a General Theory of PsychosocialDeviance

605

decline in blood pressure was contingent upon the subjects’ believing that they had attacked and presumably hurt the person who had insulted them. To summarize the present section, the literature on aggressive response patterns is highly consistent with the general theory of psychosocial deviance outlined above. An aggressive response pattern appears to be one of a range of deviant patterns which might be adopted in response to severe self-devaluing experiences toward the goal of reducing the degree of self-rejection and the severe subjective distress associated with these negative self-attitudes.* The question now arises as to why, given the predisposition to adopt some deviant pattern, an aggressive response pattern rather than some other mode of deviance is adopted. Consideration of this question is the subject of the following section. THE ADOPTION OF AGGRESSIVE RESPONSE PATTERNS The literature relating to the influences toward the adoption of aggressive response patterns may be summarized in a series of propositions dealing with relatively few explanatory concepts. Cultural variability Individuals who are raised in cultural or subcultural settings in which the outward expression aggression is permitted or encouraged are more likely to manifest aggressive responses stressful circumstances than individuals who are reared in cultural or subcultural settings which the outward expression of aggression is prohibited or discouraged. Such cultural subcultural variability in the sanctioning of aggression has been noted frequently. McCandless [145], comparing different ethnic groups in Guyana notes that the African in Guyana has available to him a number of culturally sanctioned outlets for hostility. Hostility may be expressed in social and sexual acting-out, verbal quarrels, and competition. The Indian population in Guyana, in contrast, may not express rage (deriving from interpersonal conflict) outwardly and therefore turns the rage inward ontq the self. Thus, the Indian population is observed to have a relatively high suicide rate relative to the African population in Guyana. Hendin [146] has suggested that the child-rearing practices of Norway, compared to those of Sweden and Denmark, were such that they were most likely to positively sanction the outward expression of anger. This observation was in some measure supported by the results of a questionnaire study comparing responses by Danes and Norwegians [147]. The data indicated that Norwegians were more easily able to express aggression and were more likely to use more violent methods in suicidal behavior than the Danes. However, it should be noted that Block and Christiansen [148], in their study of student perceptions of maternal attitudes, did not find evidence in support of the observation of differential encouragement of outward expression of aggression. Breen [149] contrasts the Negro and Jewish subcultures in the United States. The Negro

of in in or

* This conclusion is congruent with Tech’s [144] study of 69 violent offenders. In typing the offenders by “primary theme” 55 per cent of his study group were classitledas either “Self-imagepromoting (28 per cent), “Self-imagedefending” (13 per cent), or “Rep defending” (14 per cent). This last category appears to imply conformity to role-obligations, i.e. maintenance of self-esteem. In addition to these 55 per cent, another 22 per cent (a total of 77 per cent) also fall into categories within the broad grouping “encompassing essentially self-preserving strategies, with violence used to bolster and enhance the person’s ego in the eyes of himself and of others” (p. 135).

606

HOWARD B.

KAPLAN

culture is described as a dispersive, aggression-expressing culture characterized by patterns of encouragement toward independence, aggressive assertion, bettering other persons in personal encounter, belief in the natural aggressiveness and undependability of others, and the expression of hostility and actual assault. The Jewish culture, in contrast, is described as a cohesive, aggression-controlling culture characterized by emphasis on the group, mutual aid, family ritual, display of affection, closeness among relatives, and prohibition of physical aggression. Breen goes on to suggest that schizophrenic symptomatology may be viewed as an exaggeration of normal coping styles of the particular culture in which it is observed. In the event of a schizophrenic break, the Negro would be most likely to fight while the Jewish schizophrenic would be most likely to cling; the Negro would be diagnosed as paranoid “because, in his deterioration, the fear of assault that he has always lived with will be exaggerated” [p. 2841 while the Jew would be diagnosed as simple, hebephrenic, or catatonic schizophrenic, all of which are regarded as forms of “dependency schizophrenia” since these patients “are usually in need of greater care and direction by the staff of the hospital than the more intact, independent, paranoid schizophrenic” [p. 2851. In testing these ideas on Boston State Hospital schizophrenics, Breen hypothesized and observed that Negroes were more likely to be diagnosed as paranoid and Jewish patients were more likely to be diagnosed as one of the dependency schizophrenia. In a similar vein, Figelman [Ml] cited several studies indicating that Negroes display relatively high rates of aggressive, anti-social behavior while Jews were less likely to manifest such behavior presumably due to cultural prohibitions against the outward expression of aggression. The author anticipated that these cultural differences in dealing with aggression would be reflected in patterns of psychopathology. Figelman hypothesized that Negroes would be more likely to display paranoid disorders “because the outward expression of aggression permissable in Negro culture allows for the frequent use of projection as a defense” [p. 2781 while Jewish subjects would be more likely to manifest affective disorders “because they are prone to internalize anger, strong taboos existing in Jewish culture against the overt expression of aggression” [p. 2781. Also testing these ideas on Boston State Hospital patients, Figelman observed that affective disorders were indeed relatively more frequent among Jewish patients while Negroes were more likely to manifest paranoid disorders or other disorders, many of which (sociopathic behavior, alcoholism, etc.) may be viewed as offering alternative outlets for acting out. Congruent with these findings are data offered by Dohrenwend [151, pp. 25-291 indicating variability in paranoid and sociopathic tendencies among Puerto Rican, Negro, Irish, and Jewish residents of the Washington Heights area of New York City. Indications of possible paranoid and sociopathic tendencies were most apparent among the less educated Negro and Puerto Rican respondents. The cultural patterning of the specific modes of aggressive patterns which are permitted in a society is illustrated by the Eskimo culture which is said [ 152, p. 6161 to handle conflict between people of the same settlement by allowing for “contests using witty and satirical songs accompanied by drumming to challenge the dignity of the opponent”. Thus, although the parties may damage each other’s reputations, physical violence is not tolerated by the community. The cultural context is influential in inducing individual aggression in two ways: by providing highly visible behavior patterns; and, by positively evaluating the behavior pattern in question. Pattern visibility. An individual is more likely to adopt an aggressive response pattern if he observes the pattern to be common in his society than if the pattern is rarely observed.

Toward a General Theory of Psychosocial Deviance

607

As Lachman and Cravens [153] state summarizing the history and fhrdings in ten patients examined by the authors both before and after the patients were charged with homicide: an unstable individual brought up in an environment in which violent behavior is the most &&al response to stress, with weapons at his disposal, is more likely to commit homicide than an unstable individual unfamiliar with weapons, reared in a more restrained environment (P. 10.

The homicidal act was seen as more influenced by an “environment of violence than by specific dynamic mechanisms of individual psychopathology” (p. 11). Similar conclusions might be reached by referring to experimental studies. Berkowitz [143] cites several experimental investigations indicating that under certain conditions the witnessing of aggression can heighten the probability that the observer himself will behave aggressively. This observation is relevant in interpreting not only the observed relationship between cultural expectations and the expression of aggression but also in accounting for the apparent association between differential exposure to violence and the expression of aggression in the same cultural or subcultural setting. Among the processes mediating between the witnessing and expression of aggression is imitative learning of new aggressive patterns. Pattern evaluation. Imofar as a culture positively sanctions the outward expression of aggression, then, the effect is to legitimize the individual expression of aggression: and, of course, where the expression of aggression is legitimized it is more likely to be infact expressed. This principle is illustrated by several studies cited by Berkowitz [143]. In one experiment, the subjects saw a filmed prize fight in which the protagonist was badly beaten. Some of the subjects were led to regard the protagonist benevolently and the beating as ethically unjustified. Other subjects were led to perceive the protagonist less sympathetically and the beating as justified. When the subjects were later given the opportunity to attack the person who had angered them, the subjects who had been shown the “justified” film violence generally manifested the strongest aggression. It was as if the justified screen aggression made these subjects perceive their own aggression as morally proper, “thereby temporarily lessening their inhibitions against aggression” [p. 31.

Cultural transmission Individuals are more likely to display aggressive response patterns if cultural patterns endorsing such behavior are transmitted to the child in the course of early parent-child interaction than if they are not thus transmitted. The fact that a particular pattern is part of an individual’s cultural context does not guarantee that the pattern will be consistently taught to the child. This principle might account for the frequently observed relationship between the subject’s aggressive behavior and that of his parents. Teele [Ml, within a population of former mental patients, compared those who were suicidal at the time of their last admission to a mental hospital with those who were assaultive. The investigator observed a clear relationship between the patients’ symptoms and their mothers’ social isolation scores (participation in social hobbies, visiting with friends, and participation in voluntary associations). The socially-isolated mothers were more likely to have assaultive children while the socially-participating mothers were more likely to have suicidal children. The finding was interpreted as supporting the hypothesis that “a commitment to broad cultural values, in contrast to a more traditional and narrowly-based orientation, is likelier to result in suicidal behavior than in assaultive behavior while the latter is more often exhibited by those with constricted orientations” [p. 5171.

608

HOWARDB.

KAPLAN

It was believed that people who themselves participate, or who have families who participate, in the voluntary system receive a good deal of exposure to broad cultural norms including respect for the rights of persons from “outgroups”. Having internalized such norms, these people would be inhibited from expressing aggression outward onto others and, therefore, will turn aggression inward upon themselves. The cultural transmission of aggression facilitating (or inhibiting) norms is also suggested by studies indicating associations between the outward expression of aggression in later years and reports of participation in early parent-child relationships in which one or both parents freely displayed patterns of physical aggression toward the child: Leon [130, p. 15711 reports that the more notorious bandits who committed numerous criminal atrocities in Colombia typically had fathers who asserted their dominance over family members by the exercise of despotic authority and the frequent use of brutal punishment; Tanay [132, pp. 1252-12531 reported that 67 per cent of the homicide offenders examined had histories of violent child-rearing; and, Anderson [ 1551comparing the MMPI responses of parents of neurotic, normal, and aggressive nine to eleven year old boys, reported that fathers of aggressive boys scored higher on the Pd scale, indicating difficulty with control of overt aggression. Although other interpretations (such as that relating to the genesis of antiauthoritarian attitudes) are possible, these results are also highly compatible with the cultural transmission hypothesis. There can be little doubt that patterns of adopting or inhibiting patterns of aggression are learned, functions of the prior rewards or punishments which the subject learns to associate with these patterns. This process may be illustrated by studies cited by Berkowitz [143, p. 51 which were referred to above. It will be recalled that the subjects after being insulted by the experimenter showed a marked increase in systolic blood pressure, and then showed a quick reduction in systolic blood pressure after having the opportunity to give the experimenter electric shocks. Apparently the rapid decline in pressure was contingent upon the subjects’ believing that they had attacked and presumably hurt the person that had insulted them. This physiological response following aggression, however, “comes about to the extent that the person had previously learned that injuring his frustraters is rewarding or gratifying”. When the subjects were rewarded for acting non-aggressively to attacks made on them, the quick decrease in vascular response was later noted only following friendly rather than hostile behavior by the subject. Social positions Individuals are more likely to display aggressive behavior tf they occupy social positions the roles of which endorse aggressive responses, than if they do not occupy such positions. An

individual is called upon to occupy any number of social positions and to play the appropriate roles associated with these positions during any period of his life. Among these positions are those related to sex. The social roles associated with these positions frequently include prescriptions and proscriptions relating to the display of aggressive behavior. Observations of a wide variety of populations suggest that, in western societies at least, aggressive behavior is more appropriate to the male than the female role : Kagan and Moss [ 1561have noted that aggressive retaliative behavior is disproportionately punished in girls. The belief that aggressive behavior is more appropriate to the male than the female status is said to be learned early in the developmental process with the result that girls tend to suppress overt aggression responses; Rau et al. [ 1571, observing the aggression of emotionally disturbed children vis-a-vis their mothers, reported that the boys displayed significantly more aggres-

Toward a General Theory of Psychosocial Deviance

609

sion than the girls; Phillips and Muzaffer [I%] investigating cases of self-mutilation in hospitalized psychiatric patients, observed that males tended to be more violent than females Tanay [132, p. 12521 reports that among his population of 53 homicide offenders, the male to female ratio was better than seven to one (comparable to the national ratio for homicide offenders of approximately six to one) and, Watt et al. [135, p. 6551 note these sex-related patterns of maladjustment in preschizophrenic children : “The boys show primary evidence of unsocialized aggression and secondary evidence of internal conflict or overinhibition, with a substantial component of emotional depression . . . . The preschizophrenic girls are primarily overinhibited, with the strongest evidence of sensitiveness, conformity, and introversion, and considerably better adjustment to the teachers’ expectations of appropriate behavior in school. This evidence was much weaker than that for the boys.” Although the empirical evidence is far less consistent, some reports suggest that the adoption of aggressive response patterns may be more appropriate to youthful roles. Boesel 1138, pp. 271-2741 cites several studies indicating that Negroes who are more likely to endorse the use of violence in achieving Negro objectives and are more likely to be actively involved in the early stages of rioting tend to be younger than those who do not endorse the use of violence or do not actively participate in riots. It is recognized, of course, that this relationship might simply reflect the process of general sociocultural change. Other instances might be cited in which the expression of aggression is inappropriate to occupants of particular social positions or statuses. For example, the roles of religious statuses seem to have an inhibitory effect on the expression of militant attitudes by Negroes. In a nationwide survey of Negroes, it was observed that as religiousity increased, militancy tended to decrease [ 1591. This relationship was observed regardless of the educational level, age, region, sex, or religious denomination of the subjects. At least two influences associated with Negro religiosity might be pointed to in attempting to explain the relationship. First, the various denominations and sects in effect supply supernatural support for the maintenance of the status-quo. The individual in refraining from militancy thus may think of himself as doing God’s will. Second, the religions offer promise to the downtrodden of improved positions in the afterlife thus arguing against the necessity for seeking self-aggrandizement in this life. The Negro religious institutions therefore offer alternatives to militancy in enhancing self-attitudes. The Negro may more readily accept himself insofar as he is doing God’s will and anticipates God’s reward in the afterlife. However, in any case, militant behavior appears to be inappropriate to those who identify strongly with their social position in the church. The above discussion is intended to illustrate the existence of social positions for which role prescriptions regarding aggressive behavior are appropriate. It is in no way meant to imply that these illustrations constitute an exhaustive list of such positions. Social relationships

Even in circumstances in which the individual has been reared in a culture which endorses the expression of aggression and occupies social positions the role definitions of which permit aggressive behavior, the willingness to express such behavior will still be contingent upon such factors as the nature of the social relationship within which the behavioral interaction occurs. This generalization might be illustrated with regard to two features of social relationship which are associated with the expression of aggression: the perceived legitimacy of aggressive behavior in the context of the relationship; and, the perceived power of the other party in the relationship.

610

HOWARD B.

KAPLAN

Perceived legitimacy of aggressive behavior. Even where aggressive behavior is sanctioned in a particular culture and for those who occupy particular social positions, the aggressive behavior may or may not be appropriate in the context of a particular social relationship, Thus, while it may be appropriate for a male to express aggression, it may not be appropriate for the male to express aggression when interacting with a woman. Thus, aggression is more likely to be expressed when the subject perceives that such behavior is appropriate in the context of the social relationship than when heperceives such behavior as inappropriate in the context of the social relationship within which he is interacting. In support of this proposition, reference may be made once more to a study cited above in which subjects were more likely to behave aggressively following the witnessing of “justified” aggression than following witnessing “unjustified” aggression suggesting that the subjects were better able to perceive their own aggression as morally proper in the former circumstance. The need to regard one’s aggressive behavior as appropriate in the relationship might also be suggested by the frequently made observation that an individual’s own aggressive behavior evokes further aggressive responses. Berkowitz [143, p. 41 cites studies indicating that experimentally provoked or frustrated subjects generally increased in intensity the electric shocks over the series of opportunities given them to punish their partners. Among the mechanisms which might explain this effect is that related to self-justification. That is, “people who voluntarily attack or derogate someone else often seek to justify their initial hostility by expressing further criticism of their victim, presumably when the initial hostility is inconsistent with the values they hold for themselves and they cannot compensate the victim” [p. 51. Perceptions of relative power. Individuals are more likely to behave aggressively in the context of a social relationship if they are not dependent upon the other party for need satisfaction, if they perceive themselves as exercising relatively great power in the relationship, and if they perceive the other party as being unwilling or unable to retaliate than under the mutually exclusive conditions. This proposition receives support from a number of studies. McCandless [145], comparing different ethnic groups in Guyana, suggests that the culturally sanctioned outlets for the expression of hostility among the Africans are made possible by the existence of social relationships characterized by reciprocal dependency. In contrast, the inability of the Indian population to appropriately express their rage outwardly is said to be associated with the existence of social relationships characterized by obedience to particular individuals and by relatively little reciprocal dependency. Thibaut and Kelley [160, p. 701 cite studies indicating that subjects interacting with a powerful person are less at ease and less willing to reveal bad things about themselves than subjects interacting with a nonpowerful person. These studies thus suggest the conclusion “that the amount of constraint a person exhibits in an initial contact with a stranger depends upon the extent to which the person may be dependent upon the stranger in future situations” [p. 701. We would suggest that such constraint would include constraint against the expression of aggression. With regard to perception of relative power, Thibaut and Kelley [160, pp. 182-1831 cite studies indicating that aggressive responses are more likely to be restrained where the perceived power of the frustrating agent is greater than where the perceived power of the frustrating agent is lesser [161, 1621. In one such study [ 1631, two groups were created one of which was consistently assigned good tasks and the other of which was assigned “related but servile ones” such as holding the target or picking up the bags in a bean-bag game. After a good deal of such treatment, the underprivileged group was encouraged to ask the experimenter to improve their conditions. In some cases, the experimenter granted and in

Toward a General Theory of Psychosocial Deviance

611

other cases rejected the request. When a group was successful in gaining improved conditions, there was a marked increase in the expression of aggression toward the previously favored persons. The results were interpreted as indicating that “successful action causes a general expansion in the perceived area of own control . . . with a consequent release of hostility that had previously been inhibited” [163, p. 1831. An individual’s willingness to act aggressively is apparently influenced by his expectations regarding the aggressive capabilities of the other parties in the relationship. Under the conditions whereby one’s opponent is believed capable of delivering an extreme level of aggression (electric shocks) the subject’s own behavioral aggression is reduced but at the cost of “an increase in tension, suspicion, and sensitivity to temporary defeats” [164, p. 3231. Consistent with these observations, in a study of nursery school children described by Berkowitz [143, p. 61 it was noted that the frequency of aggression by one child after fighting with another child was affected by the latter’s reactions to the first attack. If the second child “had reinforced the aggressor’s behavior by showing &feat and submission, and perhaps some injury as well, there was an increased chance that the aggressor would again attack someone, particularly the first victim, later on”. Situational context Even given the knowledge of an individual’s cultural context, his social positions, and the context of the social relationship within which he was operating, there would remain some question about the probability of an individual adopting an aggressive response pattern. Part of the variability in the subject’s tendency to adopt such a pattern might be accounted for by features of the concrete situation (other than the social relationship within which the behavior occurs), particularly those features which are symbolically associated with aggressive responses. Aggressive behavior is more likely to occur in a concrete situation if symbolic cues consensually associated with the evocation of aggressive responses are present than lythey are absent. In this connection, a number of studies might be cited which indicate that stimuli which have frequently been associated with aggressive behavior (for example, painful sounds, the sight of weapons) may elicit aggressive responses from people who are ready to act aggressively. Thus in one experiment described by Berkowitz [143, p, 41 subjects who were insulted gave more electric shocks to their tormentor if weapons were nearby than if neutral objects or no other objects were present with the shock machine. In another study, men who heard a loud sound after seeing a filmed prize fight attacked their partner more strongly than did other subjects who had not heard the sound or watched the fight. Others have also noted the availability of weapons as possible influences in violent behavior [132, 1531. The possible stimulus value of the sight of these weapons in evoking aggressive responses cannot be discounted. Individual characteristics Although this paper is primarily interested in the sociocultural and social-psychological influences on aggression, the role of individual characteristics should also be mentioned. Two of these seem to be particularly prominent in the literature on aggressive behavior: prior history of aggressive behavior; and use of drugs or alcohol. In a given situation, an individual is more likely to behave aggressively ifhe has a long history of engaging in aggressive behavior, and if he is under the influence of drugs or alcohol than if these conditions are absent. The probability of a person engaging in violent, aggressive, anti-social behavior is greatly increased if the person has had a long history of such behavior. Grosz and his

612

HOWARDB.

KAPLAN

associates [165] studying delinquent girls who participated in and who abstained from participating in a riot in an Indiana correctional institution reported that rioters, compared with non-rioters, were younger at the time of their first court hearing, made more frequent appearances in juvenile court, were much more likely to have appeared for offenses involving physical violence, and were more likely to have been described by the staff prior to the riot as acting out in an aggressive, hostile manner. Similarly, Skelton [134] compared inmates who assaulted officers and inmates who &fended officers in the course of a riot at a maximum security federal reformatory for male offenders in Oklahoma and reported that the assaultive group was significantly more likely to have had previous records of assault and to have been sentenced for crimes against the person (as opposed to property crimes) than the defender group. There is also some suggestion that substances such as drugs or alcohol may be associated with the expression of aggressive anti-social behavior. For example, in a comparison of inmates who assaulted officers with those who defended them during a riot at a federal reformatory in Oklahoma, a (nonsignificant) tendency was noted for the assaulters to have a greater likelihood of prior drug abuse [134, pp. 361-3621. Further, of the eight assaulters who had been convicted of crimes against the person, five had been intoxicated at the time of the offense (with alcohol or drugs). Drugs are interpreted as lowering self-control and thus permitting the expression of aggressive drives. To summarize this section, given the predisposition to adopt any of a range of patterns of psychosocial deviance, the tendency to adopt an aggressive response pattern seems to be accounted for in terms of a relatively small number of explanatory concepts. Proceeding from the more general to the more specific, the probability of adopting aggressive response patterns is increased if the pattern is: provided for within the cultural context and transmitted to the individual; appropriate to the individual’s social positions; viewed by the subject as appropriate within the context of the social relationship: stimulated by symbolic cues in the concrete situation which are associated with aggressive behavior; part of the individual’s characteristic repertoire of responses and facilitated by lowering of selfcontrol. It should be emphasized, however, that this “explanation” of aggressive behavior is a result of a review of a quite scanty literature. Verification of these generalizations and more detailed predictions must await systematic empirical studies.

CONCLUSION

A review of the literature was accomplished toward the goal of explaining the adoption of aggressive behavior patterns. It appeared that two sets of propositions were relevant in this explanation. The first set of propositions dealt with the antecedents of forms of structured psychosocial deviance in general (including aggressive response patterns). Aggressive behavior was viewed within the outline of a general theory of psychosocial deviance. It was concluded that, in common with other modes of deviance, aggressive behavior was a consequence of a history of self-devaluing experiences, and served as a more or less effective attempt to reduce the severity of the subject’s self-rejecting attitudes (and associated subjective distress). The second set of propositions dealt with the question of why, given the predisposition to adopt some deviant pattern, an aggressive response pattern in particular was selected. This strategy of differentiating between general influences toward deviance and influences toward the adoption of particular deviant patterns appears to offer greater promise than

Toward a General Theory of Psychosocial Deviance

613

has heretofore existed of increasing our understanding of the genesis of particular modes of psychologically and socially defined deviance. REFERENCES 1. PFLANZ,M. and ROHDE, J. J. Illness: deviant behavior or conformity. .Soc. Sci. & Med. 4, 645-653, 1970. 2. JAMJZS,W. Principles of Psychology. Holt, New York, 1890. MEAD, G. H. Mind, Se& mtd Society. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1934. :: HORNEY,KAREN. Our Inner Conflicts. Norton, New York, 1945. HORNEY,KAREN. Neurosis and Human Growth. Norton, New York, 1950. :: ADLER. A. The Practice and Theory of Individual Psychology. Harcourt. New York, 1927. H. L. and AN~BAC&R,-R. R. (Eds.) The It&viducrl Psychology of Alfred Adler. Basic 7. AN&HER, Books, New York, 1956. MURPHY, G. Personality: A Bisocial Approach to Origins ond Structure. Harper, New York, 1947. ;: SULLIVAN,H. S. Conceptions of Modern Psychiatry. William Alanson White Foundation, Washington, D.C., 1947. 10. SULLIVAN,H. S. lXe Interpersonal Theory of Psychiatry. Norton, New York, 1953. 11. Smoo, D. and COMBS,A. W. Individual Behavior: A New Frame of Reference. Harper, New York, 1949. 12. ROGERS,C. R. Perceptual reorganization in client-centered therapy. In Perception: An Approach to Personuiity (edited by BLAKE, R. C. and RAMSEY,G. V.) pp. 307-327. Ronald, New York, 1951. 13. ROOERS, C. R. Client-Centered Therapy: Its Current Practice, Implications, und Theory. Houghton Mifilin, Boston, 1951. 14. BERGER,E. M. Relationship among acceptance of self, acceptance of others, and MMPI scores. J. counsel. Psychol. 2,279284. 1955. 15. BILLS,R. E. Self-concepts and Rorshach signs of depression. J. consult. Psychol. 14135-137, 1954. 16. BLEDSOE,J. C. Self-concepts of children and their intelligence, achievement, interests, and anxiety. J. In&v. Psychoi. Z&55-58, 1964. 17. COOPERSMITH, S. A method for determining types of self-esteem. J. abnorm. sot. Psychol. 59, 87-94, 1959. 18. CoWaN, E. L., HEmZER, F., AXLROD, H. S. and ALEXANDER,S. The correlates of manifest anxiety in perceptual reactivity, rigidity, and self concept. J. consult. Psychoi. 21,405-411, 1957. 19. FIEDLER, F. E., DODGE, J. S., JONES, R. E. and HUTCHINS, E. B. Interrelations among measures of personality adjustment in nonclinical populations. J. ubnorm. sot. Psychol. 56,345-351, 1958. 20. ENGEL,l& The stability of the self-concept in adolescence. J. abnorm. sot. Psychol. 58,211-215, 1959. 21. HOROWITZ, F. D. The relationships of anxiety, self-concept, and sociometric status among fourth, fifth, and sixth grade children. J. abnorm. sot. Psychol. 65,212-214, 1962. H. B. and POKORNY, A. D. Self-derogation and psychosocial adjustment. J. nerv. ment. 22. -LAN, Dis. 149,421-434, 1969. 23. L~psn, L. P. A self-concept scale for children and its relationship to the children’s form of the manifest anxiety scale. Child Dev., 29,463-472, 1958. 24. ROSENBERG,M. Society und the Adolescent Sei@nage. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, 1965. J. consult. Psych& 21, 25. ZUCKERMAN, M. and MONASHKLN,I. Self-acceptance and psychopathology. 145-148, 1957. 26. CLIPFORD,E. Connotative meaning of self- and asthma-related concepts for two subgroups of asthmatic children. J. Psychosom. Res. c467-475. 1965. 27. DLIL, H. V. Test behavior differences between asthmatics and myocardial infarction patients on a self-evaluation test. J. Psychosom. Res. 11, 51-58, 1967. 28. WYLIE, R. C. The Self Concept. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, 1961. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cl& 29. HAMACHEK,D. E. (Ed.) The Self, in Growth, Teaching, andlearning. New Jersey, 1965. 30. GORDON,C. and GERGEN,K. (Eds.) i7re Self in Social Interaction. Volume I: C&sic and Contemporary Perspectives. Wiley, New York, 1968. 31. KAPLAN, H. B. Self-derogation and childhood family structure: Family size, birth order and sex distribution. J. nerv. and ment. Dis. 151, 13-23, 1970. 32. KAPLAN, H. B. Self-derogation and adjustment to recent life experiences. Arch. gen. Psychiut. 22, 324-331, 1970. KAPLAN, H. B. Social class and self-derogation: A conditional relationship. Sociometry 34,41-64,1971. ;:: KAPLAN, H. B. and POKORNY,A. D. Aging and self-attitude: A conditional relationship, Aging and Human Develpm. 1,241-250. 1970.

614

HOWARDB. KAPLAN

35. KAPLAN, H. B. and ~OKORNY,A. D. Age-related correlates of self-derogation: Reports of childhood experiences. Br. J. Psych&. 117,533-534, 1970. 36. KAPLAN. H. B. and P~KORNY. A. D. Self-derogation and childhood broken home. J. Marriage & Fam. 33,328-j37, 1971. 37. COOPERSMITH, S. The Antecedents of Self-Esteem. W. H. Freeman, San Francisco, 1967. 38. LUDWIG. D. J. and MAEHR, M. L. Changes in self-concept and stated behavioral preferences. Child Develpml 38,453-467, 1967; 39. COONS,W. H. and MCEACHERN,D. L. Verbal conditioning, accepetance of selfandacceptance of others. Psychol. Rep. 20,715-722, 1967. 40. TPPJIIT, J. S. and SILBER,E. Autonomy of self-esteem. Arch. gen. Psychiat. 14,372-385, 1966. 41. PAPAGEOROIS,D. and JOHNSON,G. J. Induced changes in self-perception of hospitalixed patients. J. clin. Psychol. 2@,515-517, 1964. 42. JONES,E. E., GERGEN,K J. and D~vrs, K. E. Borne determinants of reactions to being approved or disapproved as a person. Psychological Monographs 76, 17 pp., 1962. 43. PIPIToNE, A. and WILPIZESKI,C. Some consequences of experimental rejection. J. afmorm. sot. Psychol. 60,359-364,196O. 44. ZUUR, R. C. and GILDING, LYNN H. Politicalpersonality. Proc. 77th Ann. Convn. Am. Psychological Assoc. 441-442, 1969. 45. %iERWOOD, J. J. Self identity and referent others. Sociometry 28,66-81, 1965. 46. NUTHMAN,A. Conditioning of a response class on a personality test. J. abtwrm. sot. Psychol. 54, 19-23, 1957. LLI,E. L. and COOPER,J. Self-conceptions and others: A further test of Meadian Hypotheses. 47. QUARANTE Sociological quart. 7,281-297, 1966. 48. MEDINNUS,G. R. Adolescents’ self-acceptance and perceptions of their parents. J. consult. Psychol. 29, 150-154, 1965. 49. REFER, L. G., D~NOHIJE,G. A. and BIBLARZ,A. Conceptions of self and others. Amer. J. Sociology 66,153-159, 1960. SO. DAVIDSON,H. H. and LANG, G. Children’s perceptions of their teachers’ feelings toward them related to self-perception, school achievement, and behavior. J. exper. Educ. 29, 107-118, 1960. 51. JOURARD, 8. M. and R~MY, R. M. Perceived parental attitudes, the self, and security. J. consult Psychol. 19,364-366, 1955. 52. MEDINNIJS,G. R. Adolescents’ self-acceptance and perceptions of their parents. J. consult. Psychal. W, 105-154, 1965. 53. ANDERSON,N. N. Effects of institutionalization on self-esteem. J. Geron. 22, 313-317,1967. 54. KAPLAN. D. A. and SHANAN.J. Changes in self perception during hospitalization ln an open ward of a general hospital. Psychoth&. Psychoiom, 14, 133-143, 1966. 55. DEE, F. S., ARNDT, C. and MEYER, B. Self-acceptance of nurses and acceptance of patients-an explanatory investigation. Nurs. Res. 14, 346-350, 1965. 56. JOHNSON.H. H. Borne elIects of discrepancy level on responses to negative information about one’s self. Saciometry W, 52-66, 1966. 57. JOHNSON,H. H. and STEINER,I. D. The effects of source on responses to negative information about one’s self. J. sot. Psychol. 74, 215-224. IM, B. F. Reference groups, membership groups and the self image. Sociometry 29,265-279, 58. MANNAE 1966. 59. KDNIS, D. M. Changes in self-concept in relation to perceptions of others. J. Pers. W,44945. 60. GREENBERG,G. U. and FRANK, G. H. Personality correlates of attitude change-the tendency to alter attitudes toward self in other-directed and inner-directed people. J. gen. Psycho/. 76,8%X),1967 61. Boustow, B. Self-evaluation and academic achievement. J. counsel. Psychol. 9,246-254, 1962. 62. GERARD,H. B. Some effects of involvement upon evaluation. J. &norm. sot. Psychal. 57, 118-120 1958. 63. STOTLAND,E., THOWY, S., THOMAS,E., COHEN,A. R. and ZANDER. A. The effects of group expectations and self-esteem upon self-evaluation. J. abnorm. sot. Psychol. 54, 5563, 1957. 64. RASMUSSEN,G. and ZANDER, A. Group membership and self-evaluation. Human Rekztions 7, 239251, 1954. 65. NUSSBAUM,J. Self-concept of adolescents with cerebral palsy. Cereh Palsy J. 27, 5-7, 1966. 66. BIORCK, G. and MAGNU~~~N,G. The concept of self as experienced by patients with a transplanted kidney. Acta. med. Stand. 183, 191-192, 1968. 67. FRIEDSON,E. Disability as social deviance. In Sociology und Rehabilitation(edited by SUSSMAN,M. B.) American Sociological Association, 1965. 68. RUBIN, R. Body image and self-esteem. Nrus. Outlook. 16,20-23, 1968. 69. ROSEN,G. M. and ROSS,A. D. Relationship of body image to self-concept. J. consult. clin. Psychol. 32, 100,1968.

615

Toward a General Theory of Psychosocial Deviance

70. GUNDERSON,E. K. Body size, self-evaluation, and military effectiveness. J. Pers. sot. Psychol. 2,902906, 1965. 71. CORTES.J. R. and GAXTI.F. M. Phvsioue _ _ and self-descrintion of temperament. J. con&. Psychol. 29,432-439, 1965. 72. MCDONALD,R. L. and GYNTHER,M. D. Relations between self and parental perceptions of unwed mothers and obstetric complications. Psychosom. Med. 27, 31-38, 1965. 73. MENDELSON, M. Psychological aspects of obesity. Intern&J. Psychiat. 2, 599410, 1966. 74. RICHARDSON, S. A., HA~T~RF,A. H. and DORNBUSCH, S. M. Effects of physical diability on a child’s description of himself. Child Develpm. 35, 892907, 1964. 75. ROSENBERG, M. Psychological selectivity in self-esteem formation. In The Serf in Social Interaction (edited by GORDON,C. and GERGEN,L. J.) pp. 339-346. Wiley, New York, 1968. 76. KAPLAN, H. B., BURCH,N. R. and BUM, S. W. Physiological covariation and sociometric relationships in small peer groups. In PsychobiologicuI Approaches to Social Behavior, (edited by LEIDERMAN, P. H. and SHAPIRO,D.) pp. 92-109. Stanford University Press, 1964. 77. SILNEIWAN,I. Differential effects of ego threat upon persuasibility for high and low self-esteem subjects. J. abnorm. sot. Psychol. 69, 567-572, 1964. 78. OOLDPRIBD,M. R. Feelings of inferiority and the depreciation of others: A research review and theoretical reformulation. J. indiv. Psychol. 19,27-48, 1963. 79. HARVEY,0. J., KELLEY,H. H. and SHAPIRO,M. M. Reactions to unfavorable evaluations of the self made by other persons. J. Pers. 25, 398-411, 1957. 80. G~FFMAN, E. Stigma: Notes on the Management of a Spoiled Iakntity. Spectrum Books, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1963. 81. WEINSTOCK, A. R. Family environment and the development of defense and coping mechanisms. J. Pers. sot. Psychol. 5, 67-75, 1967. 82. PEPIKINE,A. Attraction and Hostility: An Experimental Analysis of Interpersonal and Self-Evaluation.

Atherton, New York, 1964. 83. BREHM,M. L. and BACK,K. W. Self-image and attitudes toward drugs. 1. Pers. 36,299-314,1968. 84. SCARPm, F. R. Delinquent and non-delinquent perceptions of self, values, and opportunity. Mental Hygiene 49,399404,1965. 85. AARONSON,E. and METTEE,D. R. Dishonest behavior as a function of differential levels of induced self-esteem. J. Pers. JVC.Psychol. 9, 121-127, 1968. 86. SCIIWARTZ,M. and TANGRI,S. S. A note on self-concept as an insulator against delinquency. Amer. Socia~gical Rev. 30,922-926, 1965. 87. GUNDERSON,E. K. and JOHNSON,L. C. Past experience, self-evaluation, and present adjustment J. sot. Psychol. 66,311-321,1%5. 88. REED, C. F. and CUADRA,C. A. The role-taking hypothesis in delinquency. J. consult. Psychol. 21, 386-390, 1957. 89. Hostaocxa, J. E. and Gorr~mxo, N. W. Psychological needs and verbally expressed aggression of adolescent delinquent boys. J. Psychol. 62,179-194,1966. 90. SHINOIURS M. and JENKINS,R. L. MMPI study of three types of delinquents. J. din. Psychol. 23,

156-163, 1967. 91. KAPLAN, H. B. and MEYEROWITZ, J. H. Social and psychological correlates of drug abuse: A comparison of addict and non-addict populations from the perspective of self-theory. Sot. Sci. & Med. 4, 203-225, 1970. 92. WILLUMS,A. F. Self-concepts of college problem drinkers-I. A comparison with alcoholics. Qum. J. Stud. Alcohol. 26,586-594, 1965. 93. TAHKA,V. 77re Alcoholic Personality-A Clinical Study. Finnish Foundation for Alcohol Studies.

Helsinki, 13, 1966. 94. MADDOX, E. L. and BoIUNSIcI,E. Drinking behavior of Negro collegians-a study of selected men. Quar. J. Stud. Alcohol. 25, 651-668, 1964. 95. WAHL, C. W. Some antecedent factors in the family histories of 109 alcoholics. Quar. J. Stud. Alcohol. 17.643-654.

96. &ocn.~~,~N.

1956.

L. and TEICHER,J. D. Thirteen adolescent male suicide attemptors. J. Amer. Acad.

Child Psychiat. 7,296-315.

1968.

97. TUCKIiR~G. J. &d R~~NI&RDT,R. F. Suicide attempts. U.S. Naval Aerospace Medical Institute, NAM l-975, 1966. 98. J~cona, J. Adolescent suicide attempts. Dissertation Abstracts 28A, 801, 1967. 99. Bnxn~, W. Occupational mobility and suicide among white males. Amer. Sociological Rev. 28, 179188,1963.

100. HAM,

J. V. Precipitating role of discordant interpersonal relationships in suicidal behavior. Dis-

sertation Abstracts 25,1335-1336,

1964.

101. FAWC~TT,J., LEGG,M. and BUNNEY,W. E. Suicide. Arch. gen. Psychiut. 21,129-137,

1969.

616

HOWARDB. KAPLAN

102. KUMLER, F. R. Communication between suicide attempton and significant others. Nurs. Res. l-3, 268-270, 1964. 103. JACOSS,J. and TEICHER,J. D. Broken homes and social isolation in attempted suicide of adolescents. Znt. J. sac. Psych&. 13, 139-149, 1967. 104. GANZLER, S. Some interpersonal and social dimensions of suicidal behavior. Dissertation Abstracts 28B, 1192-l 193, 1967. 105. JENSEN,A. R. The Maudsley Personality Inventory. Actu. Psychol. 14, 314-325, 1958. 106. LESTER.D. Suicide as an aggressive act. J. fen. Psychol. 79.83-86, 1968. 107. CALLENDER,W. D. A soci&pyschological study of suicidelrelated behavior in a student population. Dissertation Abstracts 28A, 3765, 1968. 108. SEXDEN, R. H. Campus tragedy. J. ubnorm. Psychof. 71, 389-399, 1966. 109. ZAI(S, M. S., SCHUCHMAN,H. and KYSAR, 3. Student mental health, academic success, and suicidal preoccupations. Amer. Assoc. of Suicidology, New York, 1969. 110. Paasro~, C. E. Accident proneness in attempted suicide and in automobile victims. J. consult. Psychol. 28,79-82, 1964. 111. TABACHNICK,N., LITMAN,R. E., O~MAN, M., JONES,W. L., COHN, J., KASPER, A. and MOFFAT, J. Comparative study of accidental and suicidal death. Arch. gen. Psychiut. 1460-69, 1966. 112. BRAATEN,L. J. and DARLING, C. D. Suicidal tendencies among college students. Psych&t. Quar. 36, 665-692, 1962. 113. WILSON, L. T.. MISIUMINS,R. W., Ba~ucrrr, G. N. and BBRRY,K. L. The severe suicide attemptor and self-concept. Unpubliihed. Colorado State University, 1969. 114. MILLER. D. H. Suicidal careers. Dissertution Abstracts WA. 4720, 1968. 115. AmET&S. New views on the psychodynamics of schiiophrenia. Amer. J. Psychiat. 124,453-458, 1967. 116. IBELLE,B. P. Discrepancies between self-concepts in paranoid schizophrenics and normals. Dissertation Abstracts 21, 2004-2005, 1961. 117. SHAROFF,R. L. Character problems and their relationship to drug abuse. Amer. 1. PsychoMalysis 29, 186-193, 1969. 118. HOFFMAN, M. Drug addiction and hyper-sexuality-related modes of mastery. Comprehensive Psychiutry 5,262-270, 1964. 119. KAPLAN, H. B. and MEYEROWITZ,J. H. Evaluation of the ‘Soutbmore House’ program: Use of the ‘half-way’ house and integrated community approaches in the post-hospital/correctional institutional rehabilitation of narcotic addicts. Znt. J. of the Addictions 4, 65-76, 1969. 120. KAPLAN, E. A. Homosexuality-a search for the ego-ideal. Arch. gen. Psychiut. H&355-358, 1967, 121. Ho~owrrz, M. J. The homosexual’s image of himself. Mental Hygiene 48, 197-201, 1964. 122. HALL, P. M. Identification with the delinquent subculture and level of self-evaluation. Sociometry 29, 146-158, 1966. 123. Bo~owrrz, G. H. Some ego aspects of alcoholism. Br. J. med. Physiology 37,257-263, 1964. 124. FARNHAM-DIOGORY, S. Self-evaluation and subjective life expectancy among suicidal and nonauicidal psychotic males. J. abnorm. sot. Psycho[. .69,628-634, 1964. 125. FAREIEROW,N. L. Personality patterns of suicidal mental hospital patients. Genetic Psychological Monographs 42, No. 1, 1950. 126. MANASSE,G. Self-regard as a function of environmental demands in chronic schizophrenics, J. ubnorm. Psychol. 70,210-213, 1965. 127. LABARBA,R. C. The psychopath and anxiety-a reformulation. J. indivl Psychol. 21, 167-170, 1965. 128. HADDEN, S. B. Treatment of male homosexuals in groups. Znt. J. Group Psychotherapy 16, 13-22, 1966. 129. WHITE, W. F. and GAIER, E. L. Assessment of body image and self-concept among alcoholics with different intervals of sobriety. J. clin. Psychof. 21, 374-377. 130. LEON, C. A. Unusual patterns of crime during La Violencia in Colombia. Amer. J. Psychiat. 125, 1564-1575, 1969. 131. WOOD, A. L. A socio-structural analysis of murder, suicide, and economic crime in Ceylon. Amer. Sociological Rev. 26,74l-753, 1961. 132. TANAY, E. Psychiatric study of homicide. Amer. J. Psychiat. 125, 1252-1258, 1969. 133. LION, J. R., BACFI-Y-R~~A, G. and ERVIN, F. R. Violent patients in the emergency room. Amer. J. Psychiut. 125, 1706-1711, 1969. 134. SKELTON, W. D. Prison riot. Assaulters vs. defenders. Arch. gen. Psychiut. 21, 359-362, 1969. 135. WATT N. F., STOLOROW,R. D., LUBENSKY,A. W. and MCCLELLAND,D. C. School adjustment and behavior ofchildren hospitalized for schizophrenia as adults. Amer. J. Orthopsychiat. 40,637-657,1970. 136. JACOBSON,E. Psychotic Conflict and Reality. International Universities Press, New York, 1967. 137. USDIN, G. L. Civil disobedience and urban revolt. Amer. J. Psychiat. 125, 1537-1543, 1969. 138. BXSEL, D. The liberal society, Black youths, and the ghetto riots. Psych&t. 33,265-281, 1970.

Toward a General Theory of Psychosocial

Deviance

617

139. HERMAN,M. and SADOFSKY,S. Study of’the meaning, experience, and effects of the Neighbourhood youth Corns. New York University,_ Graduate School for Social Work. Center for the study of Unemployed Youth, 1967. 140. HAHN, H. Violence: The view from the ghetto. Menrul Hygiene 53, 509-512, 1969. 141. SHIPPEE-BLUM,E. M. The young rebel: Self-regard and ego ideal. 1. consulf. Psychol. 23,44-50, 1959. 142. JONES, H. E. The longitudinal method in the study of personality. In Personality Development in Children (edited by ISCOE, I., and STEVENSON,H.) pp. 3-27, The University of Texas Press, Austin, 1960. 143. BERKOWITZ,L. Experimental investigations of hostility catharsis. J. cons&. clin. Psychol. 35, l-7, 1970. 144. TOCH, H. Violent Men. Aldine. Chicago, 1969. 145. MCCANDLESS,F. D. Suicide and the communication of rage: A cross-cultural case study. Amer. J. Psychittt. 125, 197-205, 1968. 146. HENDIN, H. Suicide and Scandinavia. Doubleday, New York, 1965. 147. FARBER,M. L. Theory of Suicide. Funk & Wagnals, New York, 1968. B. A test of Hendin’s hypothesis relating suicide in Scandinavia to child148. BLOCK,J. and CHRBTIANSEN, rearing orientations. Scandinavian J. Psychiat. 7, 267-288, 1966. 149. BREEN, M. Culture and schizophrenia: A study of Negro and Jewish schizophrenics. Int. J. sot. Psych&. 14,282-289, 1968. 150. FIEOLMAN,M. A comparison of affective and paranoid disorders in Negroes and Jews. Int. J. sot. Psychiut. 14, 277-281, 1968. 151. DOHRENWEND,B. P. Social status and psychological disorder: An issue of substance and an issue of method. Amer. Sociological Rev. 31, 14-34, 1966. 152. OPLER, M. K. International and cultural conflicts affecting mental health. Violence, suicide-withdrawal. Amer. J. Psychotherapy 23, 608-620, 1969. and after. Psychictt. Quar. 43,1-11,1969. 153. LACHMAN,J. H. and CRAVENS,J. M. The murderers--before 154. TEELE, J. E. Suicidal behavior, assaultiveness, and socialization principles. Sot. Forces 43, 510-518, 1965. 155. ANDERSON, L. M. Personality characteristics of parents of neurotic, aggressive and normal preadolescent boys. J. consult. clin. Psychol. 33, 57s-581, 1969. 156. KAQAN, J. and Moss, H. A. Birth to Maturity. Wiley, New York, 1962. 157. RAU. M.. STORER,L. and GUERNEY. B. G. Relationship of socioeconomic status. sex. and age to ag&ssion of emotionally disturbed children in mother’s presence. J. gener. Psychol. il6, &-100, i970. 158. PHILLIPS, R. H. and MUZAFFER,A. Some aspects of self-mutilation in the general population of a large- psychiatric hospital. Psychiat. Quar. 35.421-423, 1961. 159. MARX, G. T. Religion: Opiate or inspiration of civil rights militancy among Negroes. Amer. Sociological Rev. 32, 64-72, 1967. 160. THIBAUT,J. W. and KELLEY,H. H. The Social Psychology of Groups. Wiley, New York, 1961. 161. GRAHAM,F. K., ~RWAT, W. A., HONK, A. S. and WELTZ, P. C. Aggression as a function of the attack and attacker. J. abnorm. sot. Psychol. 46, 512-520, 1951. 162. THIBAUT,J. W. and RIECKEN.H. W. Authoritarianism, status, and the communication of aggression. Human Relations 8,95X20, 1955. 163. THIBAUT,J. W. An experimental study of the cohesiveness of underprivileged groups. Human Relations 3,215-278, 1950. 164. SHORTELL,J. and E~%~EIN,S. Instigation to aggression as a function of degree of defeat and the capacity for massive retaliation. J. Pers. 38,313-328, 1970. 165. GR~~z, H. J., STERN, H. and FELDMAN,E. A study of delinquent girls who participated in and who abstained from participating in a riot. Amer. J. Psychiat. 125,1370-1379, 1969.