Aggression: Social Learning & Cognitive Neoassociation in the Iraq War

From the daily conflict in Iraq to extreme incidents like the torture of prisoners at Abu Ghraib, dehumanisation of the enemy and the influence of the environment in which they are encountered laughingstock explain how and why soldiers on both sides aggress. Social skill theory is at the substructure of the dehumanizing process, for as seen in Faces of the Enemy, such behavior is consistently supported & rewarded by the media and by armed forces (Jersey & Friedman, 1987). Equally important is the role of cognitive neoassociation analysis by Berkowitz, which acknowledges the environment and situational influences that fire lead to feelings of aggression. Through the intersections of these two theories emerges a more comprehensive analysis than would be possible from one alone. In this case, social reading theory often plays its role by teaching through observation. When individual Iraqi insurgents or al-Qaeda in Iraq see others dehumanizing American soldiers and earning praise for it, they frame accustomed to such thoughts, and as stated, find it easier to aggress. Such insurgents learn by the example of others that dehumanization is acceptable. The less human another seems, the easier it is to harm often, soldiers orders require them to do just that. In some ways this process mimics the BoBo doll experiment by Bandura (1977) in which children performed similar aggressive acts after seeing adults perform them (Kassin, Fein & Markus, 2008 p. 403). In June of this year, fifteen American soldiers were killed, mostly by attacks by Shiite militias (Associated Press AP, 2011). Moktada al-Sadr, an influential Shiite cleric who is known for his anti-Americanism, said the American troops should be treated as tyrannical occupiers (AP, ... ...ar attacks, leading to additional stress (2007, p. 351). Pappas, apparently affected by the attacks, often made the soldiers sleep inside the prison cells for protection (Zimbardo, 2007 p. 335). With factors of heat, high stress, date pressure and lack of training, such stimulus likely helped produce the soldiers readiness to aggress towards the detainees. In reality, it is a combination of contributing theories rather than a laughable theory that explains such aggression in situations like Iraq. While learning to dehumanize prepares soldiers on both sides for aggression, cognitive neoassociation demonstrates how negative environmental factors contribute to the violence. However, though such theories of aggression stress the importance of the situation, social psychology does not excuse or condone extreme actions taken by both parties it can only explain. Aggression Social Learning & Cognitive Neoassociation in the Iraq War From the daily conflict in Iraq to extreme incidents like the torture of prisoners at Abu Ghraib, dehumanization of the enemy and the influence of the environment in which they are encountered can explain how and why soldiers on both sides aggress. Social learnin g theory is at the patch up of the dehumanizing process, for as seen in Faces of the Enemy, such behavior is consistently supported & rewarded by the media and by armed forces (Jersey & Friedman, 1987). Equally important is the role of cognitive neoassociation analysis by Berkowitz, which acknowledges the environment and situational influences that can lead to feelings of aggression. Through the intersections of these two theories emerges a more comprehensive analysis than would be possible from one alone. In this case, social learning theory often plays its role by teaching through observation. When individual Iraqi insurgents or al-Qaeda in Iraq see others dehumanizing American soldiers and earning praise for it, they aim accustomed to such thoughts, and as stated, find it easier to aggress. Such insurgents learn by the example of others that dehumanization is acceptable. The less human another seems, the easier it is to harm often, soldiers orders require them to do just that . In some ways this process mimics the BoBo doll experiment by Bandura (1977) in which children performed similar aggressive acts after seeing adults perform them (Kassin, Fein & Markus, 2008 p. 403). In June of this year, fifteen American soldiers were killed, mostly by attacks by Shiite militias (Associated Press AP, 2011). Moktada al-Sadr, an influential Shiite cleric who is known for his anti-Americanism, said the American troops should be treated as tyrannical occupiers (AP, ... ...ar attacks, leading to additional stress (2007, p. 351). Pappas, apparently affected by the attacks, often made the soldiers sleep inside the prison cells for protection (Zimbardo, 2007 p. 335). With factors of heat, high stress, measure pressure and lack of training, such stimulus likely helped produce the soldiers readiness to aggress towards the detainees. In reality, it is a combination of contributing theories rather than a unusual theory that explains such aggression in situations like Ira q. While learning to dehumanize prepares soldiers on both sides for aggression, cognitive neoassociation demonstrates how negative environmental factors contribute to the violence. However, though such theories of aggression stress the importance of the situation, social psychology does not excuse or condone extreme actions taken by both parties it can only explain.