Business Research Project Essay Example for Free

Business Research Project Essay Serenity Stay Long Term Care is a Specialty Hospital located in Memphis, Tennessee. The company is a 50 bed facility that caters to patients on ventilators, patients needing physical therapy, and patients needing wound care. The facility has been losing a lot of good Register Nursing (R.N.) personnel and Human Resource thinks that it is because of the long 12 hours days required to work. To provide outstanding care to our patients Serenity Stay must find a way to keep good R. N. personnel. Serenity Stay Long Term Care Hospital and Human Resources should focus on the following research question, is working 12 hours’ worth the risk, because it is overworking the nursing staff? Or should management look at changing the hours to benefit staff needs, which could possibly reduce a drop in loss of staff? The first thing we will look at is to see if o12 hour shift are causing our nursing staff personnel to be overworking nurses at Serenity Stay is causing a drop in employment. Secondly we will look at is if working the 12 hours shift is not the cause of loss of nursing personnel. Team A plans to test weather keeping a 12 hour shift or going back to an 8 hour shift will help keep the nurses happy. We will conduct surveys, talk with other facilities that are experiencing the same issues, and talk with the staff involved. If working 12 hours shifts appear to be the problem, then we could look at going back to 8 hour shifts, Townsend, T. (2013). Are twelve hour shifts safe? Retrieved fromhttp://www.american nurse today

Animals For Testing And Research Studies

Animals For Testing And Research Studies This report is based on the Literature Review about ethical dilemma that arises over the controversy of using Animals for Testing and Research Studies. We have tried to explain in brief about Animal Testing and discussed broadly with the Ethical Theories that support and argue about the Use of Animals. We have also tried to relate all the ethical dilemma with respect to PG, who over the past decade has been constantly facing the allegations over the use of Animal Testing to ensure that their consumers get Safe Products. We have tried to come to a conclusion on how Animal Testing can be reduced, if not completely eradicated. At the same time we have voiced our opinions on the use of various alternatives to Animal Testing. Overview of Animal Testing The Use of Animals for test observations and Experimentations for the greater understanding of reactions from a particular substance or raw material that goes into some goods or medicines that we consumers consume can be termed as Animal Testing. Or you can say the use of non-human animals experimentations to prevent pain and sufferings to human beings A number of companies that produced goods for personal and hygiene care have emerged from the mid to late nineteenth century and this resulted in the number of animal tests and experiments to grow exponentially. The main reasons for those tests were medical research, to cure illness and test chemical compounds used to develop new products. Those tests were conducted in medical schools, pharmaceutical companies, and even farms. The vast amounts of animals that are being tested on are mice, monkeys, cats, dogs and guinea pigs. However, certain types of animals are used for different types of research for instance mice for cancer research, dogs for transplant surgery and cats for psychological experiments. Moreover, most of those animals that are being tested on are purposely-bred and supplied by the specialists companies, others usually come from the pound or are just caught in the wild. Over 100 million animals in North America alone will be killed in animal tests this year. Animal testing has been going on for years, a lot of companies test their products on animals, some of these tests consist of restraining animals and dropping chemicals into their eyes, the scientists also forcefully pump the chemicals into the animals stomach though a tube to see how it reacts to the chemical. These experiments are sometimes carried without anesthesia which makes it extremely painful for the animal. After observing the reactions for a number of days the animal is either destroyed or re-used in other experiments, most experiments consist of burning, stabbing and drugging animals. The thing is that animals react to drugs differently than we do so the results cant accurately be applied to humans so why do scientists do it? Since we cannot legally conduct tests on ourselves as humans, we look at the creatures that are right below us, animals. However, some of us dont seem to notice animals have feelings and can experience pain just as we would. As Jeremy Bentham would ask, The question is not, Can they reason? Nor, Can they talk? But can they suffer? Testing Animal Testing and Ethical Dilemma Introduction The rise in the consumer dominance has led the organizations to adopt the use of various artificially derived chemicals for use in production of Personal and Hygiene Goods. At the same time, medical advances and pharmaceutical companies acknowledge the use of animals for research studies and experimentation. This has raised various doubts about our ethics. Testing on Animals for chemical substance reactions to ensure consumer safety and drive innovative techniques is believed to be inhumane by some, while others agree that Animal Testing saves LIFE. This research paper evaluates the ethical dilemma borne by us. Animal Testing Define The obvious questions that are raised here are about the whole concept of Animal Testing and why is it necessary? Most of us are made to believe that Animal Testing is simply the torture of animals, striping them of their rights and cruel treatment of animals. This Definition of Animal Testing might have derived from various organizations that do not support the idea of Animal Research Studies as a whole and demand ethical treatment of animals through unjust terrifying acts of demonstrations and protests. These are the organizations who believe Animals have RIGHTS. It was argued upon by Robert Goldberg (1990) at the Washington conference of Committee for Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal with top dignitaries of the Humane Society about the issue of euthanizing millions of stray animals in public interest, and why the ruckus of using the same animals for the use in lab-testing. It was also argued upon at the conference over how activists have been indulged in terrorist like activities, as demonstrated by various raids at numerous labs conducting experiments on animals. The irony is, we as humans, will never be willing to come up and accept the fact that if we dont test the substances on Us, Animals are the next best alternatives to ensure Safety. There has always been an argument that animal testing results are inaccurate and also it is expensive to perform tests, secondly, animal testing is inhumane, and thirdly, there are alternatives to animal testing. According to former scientific executive of Huntingdon Life Sciences, animal tests and human results agree only 5%-25% of the time. Then looking at Tony Pages Vivisection Unveiled it states that less than 2% of human illnesses (1.16%) are ever seen in animals. In the tests of LD/50 short for Lethal Dose 50 per cent, a test wherein the animals receive a continuous dose of a dangerous chemical until half of them die , the Humane Society of the United States states that LD/50 tests do not yield enough data on the following: the poisonous doses of a chemical or substance, the prediction of poisoning signs and symptoms, the prevention or correction of over doses, and the specific cause of death in laboratory animals. Finally, looking at PETAs fact sheets, they argue that In many cases, animal studies do not just hurt animals and waste money; they harm and kill people, too. The drugs thalidomide, Zomax and DES were all tested on animals and judged safe but had devastating consequences fo r the humans who used them. The cost of animal testing is about $136 billion each year. Ethical Dilemma : Corporate Assessment PG Despite the fact that reliable modern humane tests are available in these days, Procter and Gamble insist on testing on animals claiming that this is the last resort that makes sure of their products safety. Whether it is ethical or unethical for Procter and Gamble to test on helpless animals is the question raised in this ethical dilemma. The case is analyzed and ethically evaluated based on: Deontological Theories Teleological Theories Casuist Theory All of these ethical theories aim at a common set of goals which are the ethical principles and that includes Beneficence, Least Harm, Respect for autonomy, and Justice. Deontological Theories: Deontological theories focus mainly on duties, obligations and rights. One of the most common deontological theories is the Kantianism which is known of its two formulations the Categorical Imperative I and the Categorical Imperative II. PRO ANIMAL TESTING: A scientist at Procter and Gamble would raise the question: is it right for humans to test on animals to save human lives? The proposed rule would be that humans can and have the right to test on animals in order to save human lives. So if we universalize the rule: it is accepted for humans to test and experiments with animals in order to save human lives. Furthermore, According to Immanuel Kant- the German philosopher- the only thing with any basic value is a good will. Since animals have no wills at all, they cannot have good will; they therefore do not have any basic value. Hence, it is ethical to test on animals because it saves humans lives. Procter and Gambles scientist would argue that moral rights and principles of justice apply only to human beings. Morality is a creation of social processes in which animals do not participate. Moral rights and moral principles apply only to those who are part of the moral community created by these social processes. Since animals are not part of this moral community, we have no obligations toward them. But we do have moral obligations to our fellow human beings, which include the duty to reduce and prevent needless human suffering and untimely deaths, which, in turn, may require the painful experimentation on animals. CON ANIMAL TESTING: A scientist working at Body Shop raise the question: Can Procter and Gamble mistreat and torture an animal claiming that this is the only way to make sure of their products safety? The proposed rule would be that organizations and companies can torture animals and demonstrate hideous experiments on them just because they believe that human beings are superiors to animals by being rational and intelligent. So if we universalize the rule, then a person can apply scientific experiments on any irrational unintelligent creature. Hence, that would include babies and people with mental difficulties and this would definitely be considered immoral and unethical on so many levels. That leads to the fact that although animals are irrational creatures, they feel the pain and the torture exercised on them. Thus, Procter and Gambles testing on animals can be termed unethical. Categorical Imperative II implies that individuals should act in a way that leads to a mutual benefit, treating both parties as ends in themselves. According to the case, animals are being misused in a way that is only considered beneficial for the human kind by Procter and Gamble. In other words, animals are being used as means to an end. Therefore, Procter and Gambles actions towards animals are unethical. Other deontological theories focus on the rights rather than duties and obligations. This leads to the controversial question: Do animals have rights? Even though there is no law that clearly states that animal rights are equal to human rights, animal rights campaigners have stated that animals have the right to live free from human exploitation, whether in the name of science or sport, exhibition or service, food or fashion. Animals have the right to live in harmony with their nature rather than according to human desires. Injecting chemical substances into a rabbits eye for seven days to produce a Head and Shoulders shampoo deprive him from any of these rights. Applying cancer and toxicity tests on rats and mice of optical brighteners and other laundry detergent ingredients leave them with no rights as well. These are just examples of the various experiments applied on animals in Procter and Gambles laboratories. Thus, testing on animals is unethical. Teleological Theories: Teleological theories focus on the consequences and the results of an action. Both of the Utilitarianism theories are perfect examples of such theories. An Act Utilitarians main objective is to take the action or the decision that would maximize the benefits for most people regardless of constraints such as law. On the other hand, a Rule Utilitarian takes into consideration justice and fairness as well as beneficence for most people. PRO ANIMAL TESTNG: Those who argue for the continuation of painful experimentation on animals state that society has an obligation to act in ways that will minimize harm and maximize benefits. Halting or curtailing painful experimentation on animals would have harmful consequences to society. Indeed, pain is an evil to be minimized, and scientists at Procter and Gamble do work to minimize pain when possible. Contrary to sensationalistic reports of animal rights activists, Procter and Gambles scientists are not a society of crazed, cruel, curiosity seekers. But there are instances when the use of alternatives, such as painkillers, would interfere with research that promises to vastly improve the quality and duration of human lives. Animal research has been the basis for new vaccines, new cancer therapies, artificial limbs and organs, new surgical techniques, and the development of hundreds of useful products and materials. These benefits to humans far outweigh the costs in suffering that relatively few animals have had to endure. Society has an obligation to maximize the opportunities to produce such beneficial consequences, even at the cost of inflicting some pain on animals. CON ANIMAL TESTING: From an Act Utilitarian point of view, Procter and Gambles animal testing does not only harm the whole animal kingdom; it is harming the human race and the environment as well. Animal testing is one of the main reasons of having various animals such as chimpanzees, macaques and white rhinos under threat, the threat of extinction. And as clarified earlier, animal testing is not the adequate way to save human lives. On the contrary, it is putting their lives in danger as well. A Rule Utilitarian who takes into account fairness and justice would add to the previous points that there is neither justice nor fairness applied when human beings use animals as disposable machines claiming that this is the only way to save as much human lives as possible (which is of course not true). Thus, According to the Act and Rule Utilitarianism theories animal testing held by Procter and Gamble is unethical. Casuist Theory: The casuist theory compares a current ethical dilemma with examples of similar ethical and their outcomes. PRO ANIMAL TESTING: Comparing our current ethical dilemma of Animal Testing and contrast the same with use of Canines as human companions, or use of animals for human safety would raise more doubts about our sincerity and perseverance to the issues raised in our society. Do we fail to conceptualize the degree of our social environment that would create a clear ethical ground that justifies why we do what we do. Although most of the training is under acceptable standards, some safety patrol dogs need rigorous training which can be brutal and inhumane. CON ANIMAL TESTING: Looking at the issue from a casuistic point of view, a perfect similar ethical dilemma would be of human slavery. Caucasians used to believe that they are superior to others and therefore used to slave Africans and treat them in a very inhuman way claiming that by doing so they are maximizing the benefits for the whole world. This was considered one of the norms back in those dark times. Nowadays it is considered immoral, unethical and completely unacceptable in every nation and society to treat another human being in an inferior way. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights clearly states now that all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights and that everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person. Peoples awareness for human rights has been increasing throughout the years and this was the reason behind this Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Unfortunately, scientists at Procter and Gamble are still unaware of the fact that animals are entitled to have their own rights. They are oblivious to the fact that we as human beings have no right to mistreat animals. They have no right as human beings to capture them, torture them and kill them with no mercy under the veil of saving human lives. On the contrary, animals should have the right to live peacefully with their nature and we as the rational creatures on this earth are obligated to defend the helpless kingdom and protect them from any harm. Thus, animal testing at Procter and Gambles laboratories can be simply ceased by declaring it unethical. Consumers First Looking at the whole idea from PGs point of view. According to PGs Human Safety Brochure and Sustainability (2009) overview, we have to first realize the fact that on an average about 4 billion people in the world use PG products every single day. This makes it their utmost priority that they reduce the risk of any type to the end-user. It has been for this very fact, that PG has been indulged in Animal Testing. The underlying factor here is that, we, as Humans, would be biased over the fact that if a particular product is tested on animals, and is guaranteed not to harm us or our children, we instantly change our opinion about the use of Animal Testing. According to Davis and Donald, we cannot have the ultimate assurance of the safety in the products we buy and use independent of animal testing. They specifically quote with present day technology, if the cost of achieving such assurance mandates the sacrifice of an occasional hairless mouse or rabbit or laboratory rat, then it is a price that we are prepared to pay. It is a delusion and a sham at this point to say we can achieve one without the other. Although the Ban on animal testing in various countries have given rise to various companies that are not indulged in Animal Testing, the Body Shop was one company that started off even before the ban with one view in mind Cruelty Free products. Many Researchers and Authors like Goldemberg and Robert (1992), believe that although a companys final product may not be tested on animals, but there is always a chance that down the line, some of the ingredients used were tested on animals by its suppliers or somebody else in the industry. Conclusion Medical Advances such as various vaccines, Insulin, treatment for kidney through dialysis, etc. Has been possible as a result of animal testing. At the same the use of various personal care products such has shampoos and cosmetics have been certified safe for human consumption as a result of constant development through Animal testing and research. During this journey, we have failed on many occasions to successfully justify animal testing when researches have gone wrong and caused harm and in certain cases death to Humans. Although we understand that Animal Testing has resulted in numerous data and statistics that would help generate computer simulation models and prove as a bench mark for further research, we can never stop Animal Testing as whole as it is fueled by our hunger for innovation. There is always room for efficiency and least harm. This can be achieved by the 3Rs theory developed by British zoologists William Russel and Rex Burch in 1959. The theory focuses on Replacement, Reduction and Refinement of animal testing and experimentations.

The Shop :: English Literature Essays

The Shop The sound made Elizabeth jump. Yet again it had come from the shop next door. She frowned at the old, battered doors of the ancient antique store. It was as though the owner was renovating. The problem was, the shop did not have one. The owner had won the lottery and moved to Las Vegas a few months ago. Leaving his battered old shop and all the merchandise behind. Elizabeth had called the police three times but nobody was found. The police weren’t very pleased after the third time. Anyway, even if the store was unguarded Elizabeth doubted there would be any looters – most of the merchandise was dragged from the local dump. SMASH Elizabeth jumped again. The noise was replaced by the loud, sharp shriek of an electric drill gnawing at the wall. The ground seemed to shake at the loud, shrill noise. Elizabeth covered her ears. She was very annoyed now. The noise next door has been going night and day for the past three days, and because she lived at the back of her boutique she couldn’t get a wink of sleep. A truck pulled up next to the boutique, two extremely hairy and extremely tattooed men came out the back and began unloading boxes marked â€Å"summer drs† onto the footpath. After about ten boxes were stacked not–so–neatly next to Elizabeth’s feet the men got back in the truck and started the engines. â€Å"Wait a minute!† shouted Elizabeth. â€Å"You need to put these in my store!† â€Å"That’s your problem lady, not ours.† One of the men jeered, his friend laughed and slapped him on the back, and with that they were gone. Their outdated truck spewing out a line of thick, black exhaust. â€Å"You good–for–nothing bastards!† Elizabeth screamed at the truck as she picked up a stone and threw it. Miraculously it flew right through the driver’s window. The truck swerved, scattering a mass of boxes big and small on the road, and stopped. The driver came out with a bruise on the side of his head, his friend followed and shouted, â€Å"Hey lady! You stupid or something? We could’ve been killed! You gotta help us pick this mess up!† â€Å"That’s your problem!† Elizabeth called back as she hauled on of the boxes into her store. When she finally finished with the boxes, it was already midday. Elizabeth wiped her forehead with her sleeve and went inside to make herself a cup of cappuccino†¦

Individual and Society During the Great War Period :: Essays Papers

Individual and Society During the Great War Period The concept of nationalism amongst European countries grew throughout the19th century and was maintained during the Great War. People began to see themselves as part of a nation, which came before the individual. As a result of this, individual freedoms, rights, and ideas were dismissed in order to solidify the nationalistic society. Nationalistic attitudes were implanted in the minds and hearts of the public by way of propaganda, education, and unification. People were under the belief that unification was necessary for the progression of their country, and were willing to give their lives for this ideal. This ultimately led to the beginning of the Great War. The imposition of national unity limited people from being individuals, separate from the whole of society, with their own beliefs, ideals, and freedoms. Nationalism purposefully limited them by creating a central norm which not all people were willing or able to adhere to. People's rights and freedoms were slowly whittled away at by the states entrance into their lives. The state did this in many ways. The impression of a distinct language and culture were done through the use of schools. They also accomplished this through programs and common goals. As a result of the growing number of schools and literate people, printed materials advocating nationalism and patriotism aided in this development.(1)Patriotism and loyalty to the state were instilled at an early age in the hope that the child would carry them through to adulthood. People's trust and dependence on the government increased during this period, increasing its power and influence over their lives. People believed that they were becoming unified in order to protect their common freedoms and their country's opportunity for progression. This unification of individuals into one body gave them the strength of a common bond. This would cause them to stand behind their nation, and put it above all else. The feelings that nationalism ignited within people, such as patriotism and loyalty to one's country, both aided in the development of World War I, and were used as ammunition by the rulers to enhance people's willingness to give their lives to the country through battle. People no longer viewed themselves as individuals, but rather, part of the nation. During the Great War, individual needs were set aside for the good of the nation. This was carved into the minds and hearts of the soldiers as well as those that were back at home.

Healing in Judith Guests Ordinary People :: Judith Guest Ordinary People Essays

The Question of Healing in Ordinary People How do you define healing? In the dictionary it says that to be healed you are cured, resolved, free from worry. But is that what everyone else thinks of healed as. In the novel Ordinary People, written by Judith Guest, Conrad Jarret goes from being a young boy to an adult within a year. He did not know what he was like himself, in the beginning of the story, then there were things that made him grow, and lastly did he heal? At first Conrad did not know who he was or what his purpose was, when he came home form the hospital. Con had no sense of direction because at the hospital there was an everyday routine that he got used to. When he came home he made up his own routine in the beginning. He tried to go back to what every thing was like before his decsion. But he was unable to. He was trying to take one day at time. One thing was true though "Things were so different at the hospital. People were, you know, turned on all the time. And u just cannot live like that. You cannot live with all that emotion floating around, looking for a place to land. It is do exhausting (55, Guest)." This quote is trying to say that at the hospital people were like machines. The staff told them what to do, when to do it, and how to do it. Outside the hospital you get to make your own choices. The things that made him change would be the relationships he had with his elders, Mom, Dad, and Berger his therapist. Con could always talk to him and also looked to him for good advice. Another person would be his girlfriend Jen. She made him open his eyes to see the world and opened his heart to feel. One more thing would be his music. Music made him feel accepted; he didn't have to care about any thing else when he was singing or playing his guitar. Berger even told con that, "People don not change on command for other people (121, Guest). Meaning that Con cannot change instantly when someone tells him to.

Criminal Theories Essay

An in-depth knowledge of theories is not required at this level, rather demonstration of knowledge of two of the biological, sociological and psychological explanations for criminal behaviour and how factors such as  negative family influences, lack of education, poverty and unemployment may impact on the behaviour of the offender and how society’s views of criminal behaviour have changed over time. â€Å"I confirm that the work that I am submitting is entirely my own, and I have not copied from any other student or source, unless referenced†. P3 – Describe two theories of criminal behaviour and the factors that contribute to them When looking at crime, it is essential that we explore the definitions of crime and the theories that explain why crime happens and how this affects both individuals and communities. The study of crime is commonly known as â€Å"Criminology†. Criminology originated from many other disciplines such as sociology, psychology, biology, geography, law and anthropology. It is generally accepted that there are three main categories that are used to explain why crime happens. To dive deeper into the theories surrounding criminal behaviour we can  analyse the three main and biggest theories behind a Criminal and their Behaviour: A) psychological models; B) sociological models; and C) biological models. All infer different methods of control and actions. It’s actually difficult to separate the three categories completely as it is generally accepted that all three theories contribute large factors that play a role in the expression of behaviour. Moreover, psychological science consists of several disciplines including biological psychology and social psychology, so psychological principles could be applied across all three domains. However, there are some general principles associated with each of the above three paradigms that would be associated with some specific crime control policies. This results in admittedly narrow definition for each of the categories but it does simplify the discussion herein. Psychological Approaches There a many different psychological models of criminal behaviour ranging from early Freudian notions to later cognitive and social psychological models. I cannot review them all. Instead, there are several fundamental assumptions of psychological theories of criminality (and human behaviour in general) that follow. These are: 1. The individual is the primary unit of analysis in psychological theories. 2. Personality is the major motivational and influencial element that drives behaviour and their actions within individuals. 3. Normality is generally defined by social consensus. 4. Crimes then would result from abnormal, dysfunctional, or inappropriate mental processes within the personality of the individual. 5. Criminal behaviour may be purposeful for the individual insofar as it addresses certain felt needs. 6. Defective, or abnormal, mental processes may have a variety of causes, i.e., a diseased mind, inappropriate learning or improper conditioning, the emulation of inappropriate role models, and adjustment to inner conflicts. Given these six principles to establish psychological explanations of criminal behaviour we can suggest first that traditional imprisonment, fines, and other court sanctions are based on operant learning models of behaviour for crime control. Operant learning models are based on  the utilitarian concepts that all people wish to maximize pleasure and minimize pain or discomfort. Skinnerian based social psychological theories of reinforcement and punishment are influential in this model of criminal control although the idea of punishment for crime has a much longer history (Jeffery, 1990). Technically speaking, punishments are any sanctions designed to decrease a specific behaviour; thus, fines, jail sentences, etc. are all forms of punishment. However, Skinner himself recognized that punishment was generally ineffective in behaviour modification and that reinforcement worked better (e.g., Skinner, 1966). Actually, a caveat should be applied here. Punishment is effective if applied properly, but unfortunately it rarely is applied properly. Punishment needs to be immediate (or as close to the time the offence occurred as possible), inescapable, and sufficiently unpleasant (in fact the more it is subjectively perceived as harsh the better). Given the judicial system in the U.S. it would be hard to apply punishment to its maximal effectiveness, thus it is not an effective deterrent as seen in the stable homicide rates of states that carry the death penalty. Nonetheless, punishments and sanctions for criminal behaviour are based on behavioural psychological principles. Because harsh forms of punishment do not appear to significantly decrease recidivism rates, other psychological principles have been applied. In terms of cognitive behavioral psychological principles, rehabilitation and relearning, retraining, or educational programs for offenders are forms of psychologically based methods to control crime. These methods are based on the cognitive behavioural methods of teaching an alternative functional response in place of a formally dysfunctional one as opposed to simple punishment. These programs can take place in prisons or outside of the prison and have long been demonstrated to be successful (e.g., Mathias, 1995). So any form of retraining, re-education, or re-entry program is based on psychological principles of criminality and reform. Rehabilitation programs are often rarely implemented in jail or prison however. Many of these programs appear to be especially beneficial for drug and alcohol offenders. Likewise, any form education such as the DARE program and recent efforts to curb bullying in schools are based on these methods. In line with this, changing the environment of the offender such as providing more opportunities would be a psychological behavioural principle designed to cut  crime. In line with other psychological methods are policies aimed at maintaining a visible presence of law enforcement and methods to maintain self-awareness of people in tempting situations. Such methods are preventative. For instance, it has been a well-known social psychological principle that situations that diminish self-consciousness and self-awareness lead individuals to being less restrained, less self-regulated, and more likely to act without considering the consequences of their actions (e.g., Diener, 1979). The simple act of placing mirrors in stores can increase self-awareness and decrease shop-lifting. Likewise, the presence of visible law-enforcement can cut down on substantially crime. Making sanctions and the consequences for crime well-publicized and available to the public is another psychological method to control crime in this vein. Various forms of criminal profiling are based heavily on psychological principles and represent an effort to either apprehend existing criminals or to identify persons at risk for certain behaviour (Holmes & Holmes, 2008). More recently there have been efforts to develop methods to identify individuals at risk for certain forms of deviant behaviour including criminal activities based on personality and social variables. Sociological Approaches Sociological principles and psychological principles of criminality are intertwined and technically not independent. As with psychological theories there are numerous sociological formulations of the cause and control of criminality. For purposes of this paper we will define sociological notions of criminality as: 1. Attempting to connect the issues of the individual’s criminality with the broader social structures and cultural values of public, social, familial, or peer group. 2. How the contradictions of all of these interacting groups contribute to criminality. 3. The ways these structures ,cultures and contradictions have historically developed and evolved. 4. The current processes of change that these groups are undergoing. 5. Criminality is viewed from the point of view of the social make up and construction of criminality and its social causes. Traditional sociological theories proposed that crimes was a result of anomie, a term meaning â€Å"normlessness† or a feeling of a lack of social norms, and feeling departed from a social peer group or departed a lack of being connected to  society. The term was made popular by Émile Durkheim (1897). Durkheim originally used the term to explain suicide, but later sociologists used the term to describe the dissociation of the individual from the collective conscience or the criminality resulting from a lack of opportunity to achieve aspirations or by the learning of criminal values and behaviours. Therefore criminality results by the failure to properly socialize individuals and by unequal opportunities between groups. Durkheim believed that crime was an inescapable fact of society and advocated maintaining crime within reasonable boundaries. A feature of sociological theories is that society â€Å"constructs† criminality. Thus, certain types of human activity are harmful and are judged so by society as a whole. But it is also true that there are other behaviors recognized by society as â€Å"criminal† that do not result in harm to others and are therefore criminalized without sufficient ground, these are the so-called â€Å"victimless† crimes. These include drug use, prostitution, etc. Therefore according to this view if carried to its extreme 100% of the members of a society are lawbreakers at some point. One of the sociological policy methods of crime control would be to advocate for decriminalization of these victimless crimes or at least a vast reduction in their penalties (Schur, 1965). Social programs aimed at socializing children properly and providing support for single family homes are also examples of sociological methods to control crime. There are a number of these programs including care er academies (small learning communities in low-income high schools, offering academic and career/technical courses as well as workplace opportunities). Finally, sociological policies to control crime would enable stronger and harsher penalties to be enforced when regarding serious crimes such as murder, rape, are more effective law enforcement. Again, sociologists accept the reality that crime is a social phenomenon that will not disappear no matter how many interventions are enacted to control it. Sociologists note that of every 100 crimes committed within the United States, only one is sent to prison. A vast number are unreported and of those that are reported only a small portion goes to trial as a result of the victim being too scared to come forward and fear for their social morbidity. If a justice system is to work properly it must be able to rely on its law enforcement system and judicial system to bring to justice and prosecute serious offenders. The purposes of  imprisonment include punishment, rehabilitation, deterrence, and selective confinement. All of these should be utilized where appropriate for the individual (Hest er & Eglin, 1992). Biological Approaches Biological theories of criminality basically purport that criminal behavior is the result of some flaw in the biological makeup of the individual. This physical flaw could be due to (Raine, 2002): (1) Heredity (2) Neurotransmitter dysfunction (3) Brain abnormalities that were caused by either of the above, improper development, or trauma. Biological theorists would also endorse a harder penalty and better law enforcement techniques for crime control, but there are several methods of crime control that are specific to the biological theories of criminality. I will discuss these briefly here. Psychosurgery: Brain surgery to control behaviour has rarely been applied to criminal behaviour. Certainly much more common between the 1930’s to the late 1970’s there were over 40,000 frontal lobotomies performed. Lobotomies were used to treat a wide range of problems from depression, to schizophrenia. However, while widely discussed as a potential treatment for criminal behaviour a perusal of the literature could not find a court ordered case for a lobotomy as a sentence for a convicted criminal Lobotomies were also used for people who were considered an annoyance because the demonstrated behaviours characterized as moody or they were children who were defiant with authority figures such as teachers. The lobotomy involves separating the prefrontal cortex from the rest of the brain either surgically or in the case of the transorbital lobotomy with a sharp ice-pick like instrument that was inserted in the eye socket between the upper eyelid and the eye. In this method the patient was not anesthetized, not even children. The psychiatrists hit the end of the instrument with a hammer to disconnect the nerves in the frontal lobe of the brain. Afterwards behaviours were changed, but at a high price as you can imagine. Today the lobotomy has fallen out of favour due medications used to co ntrol behaviour, although some view the use of medications as equivalent to a lobotomy (e.g., see Breggin, 2008). Psychosurgery appears to be an option that will most likely not be put into use due to the stigma associated with it. Chemical methods of control: The  use of pharmacological treatments to try to control crime has been ongoing in two major areas: chemical castration for sex offenders and pharmacological interventions for drug or alcohol addicts. However, addicts can stop the medication and return to use. Sex offenders are closely monitored and there is some evidence that this policy has been efficacious. Sometimes mentally ill people in the criminal justice system been ordered to take medications to treat their mental illness. Other pharmacological interventions to control crime seem plausible and are being investigated, but do not appear to have been widely used. Others: Deep brain stimulation is used for some disorders such as Parkinson’s disease, but has yet been investigated for criminal behaviour. Biological theorists have advocated changes in diet to deal with criminality (Burton, 2002) and better relations between parents. There is also the famous genetic XYY combination that was once thought to be a marker for a criminal type, but as it turned out these individuals were found to be less intelligent or more likely to have learning difficulties as opposed to being criminal types. While there are many studies indicating a connection between antisocial personality disorder or criminal behavioural and heredity, there are no policies being implemented to advocate for selective breeding, genetic testing etc. for criminals. I do not yet envision a policy of genetic testing for criminals as the variables are not stable enough in order to predict with set of gene combinations are predictive of a biological criminal type (Rutter, 2006) alt hough this is certainly a possibility. If the biological model of criminality has any significant effect on policy outside the use of chemical castration for sex offenders, it would be the policy that certain forms of criminal behaviour or certain individuals may not be rehabilitated and the advocacy for harsher and stricter imprisonments or even executions are viable methods of control in these instances. The issue for the community is how to recognize a significant biological contribution to criminal behaviour since genetic testing is unreliable and there are no other physical markers of criminality. It seems that currently in the absence of very harsh crimes like murder and rape one must be recognized as a repeat offender before we can acknowledge a possible innate tendency towards criminality. By that time the damage, which is often irreparable, is done. Perhaps the answer lies in stricter probation and parole practices for first-time offenders. However,  this policy is expensive and tax payers may not support it. The policy mandating convicted sex offenders to be monitored over their lifetime and certain restrictions placed on them is a result of the acknowledgment of a biological predisposition to engage in this crime and therefore traditional forms of treatment or remediation do not appear to be effective. Similar policies might follow with habitual criminal offenders based on the biological theories of criminality. Reference List American Psychiatric Association (APA, 2002). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th Ed.). Arlington, VA: Author. Breggin, P.A. (2008). Brain disabling treatments in psychiatry: Drugs, electroshock, and the psychopharmaceutical complex. (2nd Edition) New York: Springer University Press. Burton, R. (2002). The Irish institute of nutrition and health. In Diet and criminality. Retrieved June 17, 2011, from http://www.iinh.net/health_and_nutrition_articles/diet_and_criminality.htm. Diener, E. (1979). Deindividuation, self-awareness, and disinhibition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(7), 1160-1171. Durkheim, Emile (1897) [1951]. Suicide: A study in sociology. New York; The Free Press. Hester, S. & Eglin, P. (1992). A sociology of crime. London: Routledge. Holmes, R. M., & Holmes, S. T. (2008). Profiling violent crimes: An investigative tool (Fourth Edition). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc. Jeffery, R. C. (1990). Criminology: An interdisciplinary approach. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Mathias, R. (1995). Correctional treatment helps offenders stay drug and arrest free. NIDA notes, 10 (4). Merton, Robert K. (1968). Social Theory and Social Structure. New York: Free Press. Mischel, W. (1968). Personality and assessment. New York: Wiley. Raine, A. (2002). The biological basis of crime. In J.Q Wilson & J. Petrsilia (Eds.)Crime:Public policies for crime control. Oakland: ICS Press. Rutter, M. (2006). Genes and Behavior: Nature-Nurture Interplay Explained.Boston: Blackwell. Schur E. (1965) Crime without victims. Englewood: Cliffs. Skinner, B. F. (1966). The phylogeny and ontogeny of behavior. Science, 153, 1204– 1213.

Describe and Evaluate Social Explanations of Aggression

Describe and evaluate social explanations of aggression. Aggression can be defined in many different ways. Bandura suggests that it is the intent to cause harm to another human being who is motivated to avoid such treatment. One of the main social psychological explanations of aggression comes from Bandura and Walters in 1963. He suggests that aggression is learned either indirectly; through observational learning and only replicated if vicarious reinforcement occurs, or directly- where aggressive behaviour is directly reinforced.While both are a form of operant conditioning, the direct approach parallels the ideas much closer. Bandura outlined the following three steps in the modelling process of SLT: Observation- by watching the behaviour of role models and then imitating that behaviour, mental representation- the child will only display the learned behaviour as long as the expectation of reward is greater than the expectation of punishment, and production of behaviour- if the chil d is rewarded (maintenance through direct experience) or by building the confidence from expectancies of like likely outcomes of their aggressive behaviour (self-efficacy).In support of this theory, Bandura et al. proved that if children watch someone else behave aggressively towards a Bobo Doll, they were more likely to be aggressive themselves later on, specifically imitating individual actions they had previously seen. When the model was rewarded, the child was more likely to reproduce through vicarious reinforcement compared to those models punished, thus showing that observational learning only results in imitation when it is vicariously reinforced. This study however, does not take into account of the nature vs. urture debate. Although it seems that Bandura's research proves that behaviour is learnt (nurture), it must however be noted that there were many gender differences where the boys produced more physical aggression than girls, which consequently support the argument tha t such behaviour is innate (nature). In addition, research findings are not only culturally bound but may be due to demand characteristics. It was noted by Noble (1975), after the study occurred, that many of the parents told the children what to expect, consequently causing little face validity.Furthermore, although this study tells us that children do acquire aggressive responses as a result of watching others, it does not tell us much about why a child would be motivated to do so in the absence of the model, nor does it include the cognition or biology of these behaviours. This study also holds many ethical issues. It was carried out in the knowledge that children may reproduce the aggressive behaviours they were exposed to and therefore it is difficult to establish the scientific credibility.It is also difficult to further test the social learning theory experimentally due to the concern of needing to protect participants from psychological and psychical harm. Moreover, a weakne ss of the Social Learning Theory is that people are never consistently rewarded for aggression. Often, and if not in most cases they are punished, not rewarded. While media can sometimes portray certain acts as ethically ambiguous, it is rare to find these days aggressive behaviour rewarded in a mainstream way to suggest that the population are learning this behaviour through SLT.Deindividuation, another social psychological theory is defined as the loss of a sense of personal identity that can occur when, for example, in a crows or wearing a mask. It is associated with a reduced sense of personal responsibility and increased anti-social behaviour. The theory relies heavily on two components; anonymity and reduced self-awareness. Anonymity describes the presence of crowds (or groups) leading individual members to feel anonymous and act according to a different set of norms and values which are imposed or encouraged by them (Zimbardo 1969).The alternate explanation for deindividuatio n to cause aggression is reduced self-awareness. Proposed by Prentice-Dunn ; Rogers 1982, they suggest that crowds do not lead necessarily to anonymity or public awareness (while this may contribute) but instead lead to a lack of private awareness, often strengthened by the presence of drugs and alcohol. Normally, people are aware of their personal morals, however within a group it is argued that they may lose sight of such ‘private' principles and instead follow the group.The majority of research evidence in deindividuation comes from the work of Zimbardo. He repeated the Milgram paradigm, where female participant were either wearing a nametag (individuated) or in a hood (deindividuated) and it was found that by wearing a hood, participants were much more likely to give shocks to the learner. Furthermore, Diener et al. observed the behaviour of over 1000 children on Halloween. The children were asked their name, and for those that didn't give it, rates of stealing candy or mo ney when alone rose ramatically. These studies support the idea of anonymity and how they are more likely to carry out antisocial behaviour when they cannot be identified. Cannavale et al. (1970) found that male and female groups responded differently under deinviduated conditions and therefore reflecting gender bias in Zimbardo’s research. This can further be linked to the biological approach as it fails to consider the biology of aggression, such as the hormones.The male sex hormone, testosterone, is thought to influence aggression from young adulthood onwards due to its action on brain areas involved in controlling aggression. This is supported by Dabbs et al. (1987) who measures salivary testosterone in violent and non-violent criminals. They found that those with higher levels of testosterone had a history of violent crime whereas those with the lowest levels had committed only non-violent crime. Dramatic support for the deadly influence of deindividuation comes from a s tudy by anthropologist Robert Watson (1973).He collected data from tribes on the extent to which they killed, tortured or mutilated their victims. He found that societies where warriors changed their appearance (through the use of war paint and tribal costumes etc. ) were more destructive towards their victims compared to those who did not change their appearance. This study not only provides research support for the idea of anonymity, but also gives evidence that this theory takes account of cultural differences.However, most of the research focuses on the relationship between deindividuation and antisocial behaviour. But Spivey and Prentice-Dunn (1990) found that deindividuation could lead to either prosocial or antisocial behaviour depending on the situational factors. When prosocial environmental cues were present (such as a prosical model), deindividuated participants preformed significantly more altruistic acts (giving money) and significantly fewer antisocial acts (giving ele ctric shocks)c compared to a control group.Furthermore, desirable effects of deindividuation can be found on cyberspace. Adolescents reported feeling significantly more comfortable seeiking help with mental health problems under deindividuated circumstances of Internet chat rooms as opposed to individuated circumstances of a personal appointment with a health professional (Francis eta al. 2006). This lends support to the deindividuation theory and displays the positive aspect of deindividuation.