The biological and learning perspectives

The biological and learning perspectives Aggression remains a substantial problem today. According to Berkowitz (1975) aggression can be defined as any behaviour which is intended to cause harm to another person whether physically or verbally. This investigation is an evaluation of the biological and learning perspectives of psychology accounting for the development of aggression in children. Aggression from the biological perspective is seen as an innate behaviour which is genetically transferred from the parents to their offspring. Supplementary biological factors which cause aggression are low levels of the neurotransmitter serotonin, as well as certain brain structures such as the hypothalamus and amygdala, that when manipulated, may result in aggressive behaviour. When considering the learning perspective and environmental determinants of aggression in children there are key factors which play an essential role. The observations of others behaviour as demonstrated by Albert Bandura (1961) as well as the frustration aggression hypothesis suggested by Dollard (1939) have been found to be considerable factors in the development of aggression. Video games have also been identified as a contributing cause of aggression in children. This examination investigates the origins of childhood aggression and evaluates two differing perspectives, these being the biological and learning perspective, and collectively concludes that there are various factors which contribute to a child acting aggressively. However, a collective understanding and strong evaluation of both the biological and learning perspective has led to a stronger foundation of understanding childhood aggression. Therefore, to fully understand the origins of aggressive behaviour, both biological and environmental factors must be considered within their limited scope. This leads to the conclusion that there are multiple forces which lead a child to acting aggressively; hence biological and environmental factors which trigger aggression cannot be isolated. Word Count: 282 Contents Biological perspective v Evaluation of the biological perspective ix Learning perspective xi Evaluation of the learning perspective xv Conclusion xvii References xix Bibliography xxi Introduction There are many ways in which aggression can be defined. According to Berkowitz (1975) aggression is any behaviour which causes intentional harm to another person. There are many different forms of aggression which include verbal, physical and emotional behaviours that are apparent in some children. Studies conducted on children (ranging in age from approximately 3 to 15 years old) suggest that aggression develops in children based on their biological background or their environmental context. This essay is an evaluation of the biological perspective and learning perspective of psychology accounting for the development of aggression in children. This issue is worthy of investigation since aggression has become a substantial social problem amongst upcoming generations. Alarming news articles and reports focus on aggressive acts. Children and youth growing up all around the world are resorting to violence on a daily basis. It has always appealed to me to understand the basis of aggressive behaviour as I have seen this behaviour amongst most children and teenagers, as well as adults. It is my curiosity and eagerness to discover more about the development of aggression from two opposing views, these being the biological and learning, which have motivated me to undertake this research topic for my extended essay. This essay is aimed specifically to evaluate the importance of innate drives and the environmental determinants of aggressive behaviour. Biological perspective The biological perspective of psychology is based on the assumption that behaviour is biologically determined. In Weiten (2007) text, the biological perspective belief that is referred to is that all psychological issues stem from a physiological background. Therefore, aggression in children, according to the biological perspective, is considered to be an innate behaviour. Biological factors which trigger aggressive behaviour in children are inheritance, where aggression may be passed from the parents to their offspring, as well as low levels of the neurotransmitter serotonin, and the activity of certain structures in the brain, that when manipulated may trigger aggressive behaviour. Many of the theories and case studies that have been put forward to support the hypothesis that aggression in children is biologically determined will be discussed in further detail. The biological perspective suggests that aggression in children is inherited through the traits of parents. Many theories have been driven by findings from research on animals, which highlight that there is some genetic aspect to aggression. Selective breeding has been one of the longest existing methods to find the existence of a phenotypic characteristic. In 1979 a Finnish psychologist, Kristi Lagerspetz, took the most aggressive mice from an assembly and mated them with other aggressive mice, and similarly the same applied for those non-aggressive mice. Lagerspetzs procedure was repeated over 26 generations of mice giving birth to their offspring (cited in Grivas.J, Carter.L 2005). The significant outcome of this experiment was that the mice that had been bred for aggressive tendencies demonstrated immense levels of aggression; where they instantly attacked other mice sharing the same cage. Mice that were not bred with aggressive mice did not act aggressively; when other mice atta cked them, they did not illustrate the tendency to retaliate. Lagerspetzs experiment can be criticised on the grounds that it cannot be conducted with humans because it is clearly unethical. A significant contribution of this selective breeding experiment is its illustration of a genetic basis of aggression and how it can be passed onto the offspring. These mice had a practical advantage over humans because these species have a short gestation period, which is essential as aggressive behaviour can be monitored over successive generations in a short period of time. The mice can have their behaviours observed in a lab, unlike humans. This is also a practical advantage as the mice were all kept in the same environmental conditions; hence their behaviour would not differ from one mouse to another because they shared the same environment. Arising from this experiment is the criticism of extrapolating results from animals to humans. Despite some similarity between humans and animals; there is still a large difference between them, therefore a direct link cannot be made between mice and children. Mice species have differing logic and reasoning capacities as compared to humans, hence mice do not facilitate the opportunity to choose to be aggressive or not, whereas children have the capability of logically choosing to act aggressively. On the other hand, more efficient methods of demonstrating that aggression in children is an inherited behaviour is emphasised by other research methodologies such as twin studies. Twin studies suggest that aggression in children is an inherited trait passed on from parents to their offspring. Twin studies are very useful for the reason that identical twins are monozygotic, and their genetic makeup is identical. Hence, all additional differences in their behaviour are accounted by their environment and experiences as an individual. In one study, conducted by Caspi (1998), data was collected from identical and non-identical twins following a questionnaire asking various personal and non-personal questions. The results indicated that aggressive behaviour was only partly inherited, and that environmental factors played an equally contributing role. However, according to Baron and Richardson (1994), the tendency to be aggressive is not passed on from the parents to the offspring; rather the temperament which is capable of making someone more or less aggressive can be inherited. This twin study is clearly indicative of the inheritance of aggressive behaviour, yet it cannot be claimed that inheritance is the only key factor which causes aggressive behaviour or the tendency to be aggressive in children. Over time research has also consistently indicated that low levels of the neurotransmitter serotonin plays a central role in increased levels of aggression in children. In a study conducted at the National Institute of Mental Health (Bethasda MD), a positive correlation was found between low levels of the neurotransmitter serotonin and the levels of aggression in children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (Mitsis.E et al, 2000). In another study conducted by Russian researchers, silver foxes were studied. It was found that those foxes which had been bred for over 30 years for domestic behaviour, showed no defensive reactions to humans because they had high levels of serotonin in various structures of the brain, compared to the foxes which had been bred without freedom (Popova et al, 1991). These studies clearly highlight the role which serotonin plays in causing aggressive behaviour amongst children; the lower the levels of serotonin the higher the level of aggression. Once again, this research could be criticised on the grounds that it is difficult to associate these findings to children as they are different beings. The above experiments are of considerable value as the foxes could be trained and kept over an extended period of time where their behaviour is closely observed, unlike humans who cannot be kept in such environments. Certain parts of the brain have been found to be responsible for the development of aggression in children. The structure of the hypothalamus and the amygdala located within the brain are a leading biological cause of aggressive behaviour. Both structures communicate with each other via electric signals. The hypothalamus and amygdala can be manipulated using electrical currents, and they may be switched on or off disabling their normal operation using an electrode. Bard (1934) investigated the effect of lesions on the levels of aggression in cats. Bard found that when parts of the cortex were removed from the cats, they displayed sham rage where the cats acted aggressively. He also found that when parts of the hypothalamus were removed the sham rage disappeared, clearly demonstrating that the manipulation of the hypothalamus and cortex plays a role in the development of aggression. Evaluation of the biological perspective The biological approach of explaining aggressive behaviour in children is very scientific and is consequently regarded as reliable. It is based on many experimental studies which are conducted in laboratory conditions in order to eliminate any environmental influences on the findings. However, the location of the experiments is not only a strength but also a potential weakness. The biological perspective involves low ecological validity where most studies are conducted within laboratory conditions. Experiments conducted in the laboratory will most certainly produce different results then in real-life situations as participants will not demonstrate the exact same behaviour in real-life situations as they will under examination. Thus, this weakness does not implicate that such laboratory experiments are invaluable; rather they are limited to generalisabilty. However, positive correlations between real life situations can be drawn, highlighting that laboratory studies are considerably u seful. The biological perspective can be criticised on the basis that aggression in children cannot be related to studies that have been conducted on animals. An argument stemming from this point is that it is not possible to apply animal findings to humans regardless of the similarities because they are different beings. Parallels between humans and animals may be oversimplified, and therefore social, as well as learning processes, must also be taken into consideration. The analysis of animal results from the biological perspective requires cautious interpretation. However, using animals to demonstrate the link between childhood aggression and biological factors is also beneficial. Studies such as the breeding of generations as conducted by Lagzerspetz and lesions on certain parts of the brain, conducted by Bard, are contributing factors in the development of aggression which cannot be conducted on humans because it will cause psychological and physical harm to the participants and most li kely result in death. Similarly, there is always some sort of connection that can be drawn between animals and humans, therefore using animals can be a starting point to understanding the biological bases of aggression in children. Another weakness of explaining the development of aggression in children from the biological perspective is the reductionist nature of the biological approach. This is one of the main weaknesses which the biological perspective incorporates. The biological perspective does not regard or take into the account the interaction of the mind and body with the environment, rather it only takes into consideration neurological processes. Environmental factors are also not placed into perspective. This is a downfall as complex human behaviours cannot always be explained on a genetic basis; the surrounding environment also plays a central role in influencing and triggering aggressive behaviours. One certain structure of the brain cannot be the only factor which is responsible for the development of aggression in children, because most structures of the brain are connected and their influence or triggering of behaviour cannot therefore be based in one specific area. Correspondingly, the findings of all studies conducted cannot be generalised to all children. These findings are applicable to a small sample and findings cannot be predicted to be the same for a different sample of children as all children are different. Yet, this can be a starting point to understanding the basis of aggressive behaviour. Learning perspective The learning perspective is established on the basis that although everyone is born with a genetic endowment which is the root of instinctual behaviours, the majority of behaviour is learnt from the environment. The underlying principle of this assumption suggests that aggression in children does not purely develop as a result of biological factors, rather it accounts for a very minor part. According to Bandura (1961) aggression can be learnt from the observation of other people and their aggressive behaviour. Aggression in children can also be learnt through the observation of frustrated people who surround them and frustration also triggers aggressive behaviour (Dollard 1939). Alarming articles and studies have revealed that violent video games are linked to aggressive behaviour amongst children. Firstly, a theory proposed to support the theory of aggression from the learning perspective is the frustration-aggression hypothesis which was proposed by John Dollard (1939). The frustration aggression theory suggests that frustration is the main factor which contributes to aggression. For example, when an individual is frustrated, in a certain situation, they will immediately display aggressive behaviour. According to this hypothesis, aggression will only occur due to frustration and no other particular factor. Also, according to Glassman (2000) the level of aggression demonstrated is purely dependant on how frustrated one may be. For instance when a child is prevented from taking a course of action or possessing something it is most likely believed that the child will become aggressive; occurring as a result of being frustrated. Barker et al (1941) further investigated frustration as a cause of aggression in young children. In their study, children were shown a roomful of attractive toys which were kept out of their reach. The children were kept away from the toys for a while before they were allowed to play with them. The controlled conditioned group of the children were allowed to immediately play with the toys. Similar to Dollards findings (1939), it was observed from this conducted study that the children who were frustrated because they had to wait before being exposed to the toys, played aggressively with the toys by smashing and stomping on them. On the other hand, the children who were allowed to play immediately with the toys handled them carefully and played happily. One social determinant of aggressive behaviour is Albert Banduras social learning theory (1961) which highlights the role of observation and its consequences on the aggressive behaviour in children from the learning perspective. Albert Bandura views most human behaviour as learned by observing a model or simply another person, which affects a childs view of how this new behaviour can be developed and how this new attained behaviour is a guide for their actions. This provides the basis of explaining aggressive behaviour in children from the learning perspective. Banduras (1961) most well known experiment was the Bobo doll experiment; the Bobo doll being a plastic clown doll. In this experiment Bandura examined the consequential actions of children observing an adult behaving aggressively with a Bobo doll. During the experiment he had children watching models acting aggressively towards a Bobo doll. They watched the video of the model constantly acting aggressively by sitting on the do ll, punching it and kicking it repeatedly. Bandura had other children watch a non aggressive model playing calmly with the Bobo doll. Once the children were exposed to such models, they were taken into another room where there were many toys amongst them the Bobo doll. The results from this experiment indicated that children, who were exposed to the aggressive model and observed their acts, imitated aggressive behaviour towards the Bobo doll. In contrast, the children who were exposed to the non-aggressive model showed no or very little aggressive behaviour. Albert Banduras Bobo Doll experiment highlights the role of observation in childrens learning. Children were the subject as they are less socially conditioned unlike adults. However, this experiment raises the possibility that children may have thought that this experiment was a game as a consequence of the Bobo doll having a spring which causes it to spring back immediately after being knocked down. A criticism of this research is that it is not ecological the children may have not acted aggressively towards any human in real life. Another potential weakness is the fact that the children may have not been exposed to the Bobo doll previously, hence they did not know how to play with it. A criticism of the social learning theory is also that it does not take into account the physical and mental changes which a child undergoes as they mature. Children at different ages may respond to laboratory experiments in different ways. Much like observation of others behaviours, violent video games and television shows have also been proven to trigger aggression in children. The learning perspective suggests that children who play violent video games such as Doom, Wolfenstein 3D or Mortal Combat and others often experience aggressive behaviour, either physically or verbally. Violent video games have a supplementary impact on young children and trigger aggressive behaviour more than violent television shows because they are more interactive, engaging the child in aggressive acts and ultimately rewarding them for acting aggressively within the game. Dr. Craig A. Anderson, Ph.D. (2000) states, This medium is potentially more dangerous than exposure to violent television and movies. Dr. Anderson of Iowa State University in Ames and his colleagues found that in the U.S and Japan, Japanese and American children who played violent video games demonstrated more aggressive behaviour months later compared to their peers who didnt. In Andersons study, 181 Japanese students aged between 12 and 15 years old and 364 U.S. children aged between 9 and12 years old were tested. The U.S and Japanese children named their favourite video games and how often they played. The children from both groups were later on asked to rate their level of aggression and reports from their teachers and peers were also taken into consideration. From the results it was found that the children from each group who were exposed to more violent video games were much more aggressive than those who were less exposed. Comparisons were made between their prior levels of aggression and how there was a dramatic rise in this level (Cited in BBC News, Video games Increase Aggression, Health Section, 2000). Violent video games can impact on childrens aggression levels, as children begin to believe that the world is a hostile place, and aggressive acts are an acceptable part of normal daily life. Presumably, constant and excessive exposure to v iolent video games causes children to become desensitized to violence. Once they have been engaged in aggressive acts it impacts on the children emotionally, and as a consequence these children find it much easier and acceptable to engage in violence and aggressive acts. A criticism of this study is that the cultural context of the children was not taken into account. Japan and the U.S are two differing cultures; hence what is deemed as aggressive in Japan may not be aggressive in the U.S and vice versa. Hence, it is difficult to compare the behaviour of these children whilst ignoring cultural factors. Leonard Berkowitz (1989) investigated the effect of pain and discomfort on individuals to demonstrate their likelihood of acting aggressively. He induced pain by placing the participants hands in cold or warm water while they distributed rewards and punishments to a partner. Berkowitz identified that those who had their hands placed in the cold water caused greater harm to their partner than those who had their hands immersed in warm water. This is sufficient to draw the conclusion that pain is a contributing factor to aggression. Evaluation of the learning perspective The learning perspective also incorporates strengths and weaknesses. Similar to the biological perspective of explaining aggressive behaviour in children, it is reductionist. It explains aggressive behaviour in terms of a characteristic which is being learnt although it does not deny the genetic endowment of aggressive behaviour. The learning perspective argues that aggressive behaviour is learnt through observation, and triggered by the surrounding environment and conditions. It simplifies the occurrence of certain behaviours, especially aggression, into a few steps. For instance, the problem of reduction is evident in Albert Banduras study of the Bobo doll whereby aggressive behaviour is reduced to the process of imitation. Thus, it has overlooked other leading causes of the development of aggression including the childrens upbringing and home environment. Children were varied therefore some children may have been brought up in a violent home and exposed to many aggressive situatio ns. This may have affected the way they acted in the laboratory and the ultimate results of the experiment. It was also assumed that all biological influences such as levels of serotonin are identical for each participant. The frustration aggression hypothesis supported by Dollard (1939) is an inefficient method of demonstrating how childhood aggression develops as in some cases, such as learned helplessness, frustration may not lead to aggression; rather it may lead to depression. Therefore, frustration is not the only key factor which contributes to aggressive behaviour: there are other sources which may lead to this same outcome. The learning perspective also denies some very important mental processes which also result in the development of aggression in children. This perspective does not take into account how certain brain structures may trigger aggressive behaviour, in other words it does not take into account neurological processes, and rather it simply accounts for the influences of daily life and the environmental context which a person is brought up in. The learning perspective does not incorporate any biological or cognitive processes which are also responsible for the development of aggression. Nevertheless, the learning perspective focuses on the environment and the condition in which a child is situated to produce an aggressive response. It has many practical applications which have been effective in explaining the development of aggressive behaviour. It clearly highlights how certain behaviours, particularly aggression, can be learned by the observation of others. The learning perspective also has a low ecological validity, whereby the children who were engaging in the experiment may have acted differently in the laboratory than what they would have in a real life situation. To be specific, Albert Banduras Bobo doll experiment can be criticised on the grounds that the childrens aggression was measured away from their natural environment. However, if such experiments are conducted in a more realistic manner, then the results would be more beneficial in terms of understanding how aggressive behaviour in children develops. Conclusion This essay was specifically an evaluation of the biological and learning perspectives of psychology accounting for the development of aggression in children. Having considered the interpretations of the development of aggression in children from both the biological and learning perspective, and the criticisms which arise from the research conducted, it can be concluded that both the biological and learning perspectives contribute to the development of aggression in children. In terms of the biological perspective, aggression is viewed as purely being based on biological basis. It is regarded as highly reliable since it is based on science. However, the learning perspective views aggression as being unrelated to genes, rather aggression is learnt. The learning perspectives social learning theory is a useful explanation for the aggressive behaviour of children. It not only applies to direct experiences such as being disciplined by parents, but rather at all times such as when watching television. The frustration-aggression hypothesis has a weaker stance, because frustration does not always induce aggression, rather it may encourage retaliation. This hypothesis suggests that frustration accounts for all aggressive acts. For this reason it is not completely justified, because there are more determinants of aggressive behaviour. Both the biological perspective and learning perspective are based on evidence and practical studies which have been conducted. However, the learning perspective views aggression in children as having some sort of biological basis, yet through experience and reinforcement aggression becomes learned and evident amongst children. For instance, the role of the parent is paramount in using the biological factors of the child to mould the child and guide them through their development. If a childs genes are inclined to be aggressive, the parent within the environment will attempt to nurture and accommodate for their childs genes by attempting to provide a calm lifestyle. Parents may also choose to put their child in a hobby that is sports oriented to cater for the aggressive levels in order to use their energy in a positive way, where they stimulate thinking and reasoning skills preventing the child from resorting to aggressive acts. From this it is clearly evident that both the biologica l perspective and learning perspective account for and contribute to the development of aggression in children as it is difficult to isolate the contributing factors. It is clear that innate biological factors may be present in a child; however the environment sets the limits on how to behave and deal with social influences that influence a child to act aggressively. Understanding the underlying factors which contribute to aggressive behaviour will form the basis of combating the levels of violence all around the world where children, youth and adolescents often resort to violence. Through further investigation, the effect of cognitive and mental processes may now be evaluated to determine their influence on childhood aggression which will lead to educational programs being implemented in schools and for the general society. References Books Baron. R.A Richardson. D.C (1994). Human Aggression (2nd ed.). Plenum Publishing. Berkowitz, L. (1975). A survey of Social Psychology. Hillsdale, IL: Dryden Press Dollard, J. D. (1939). Frustration and Aggression. New Haven CN: Yale University Press. Glassman, W. (2000). Approaches to Psyhcology (2nd ed.). Philadelphia: Open University Press. Grivas.J, Carter. L. (2005). Psychology for the VCE Student (4th ed.). Australia: John Wiley Sons. Weiten, W. (2007). Psychology: Themes and Variations (7th ed.). Thomson Wadsworth. Articles Anne, H. (2009). Violent video games linked to child aggression. Retrieved July 18, 2009, from CNN, Health Section: http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/family/11/03/healthmag.violent.video.kids/index.html Video games Increase Aggression. (23rd April 2000). Retrieved July 5th, 2009, from BBC NEWS, Health Section: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/720707.stm Journals Barker, R. Dembo,T, and Lewin K. (1941). Frustration and aggression: An experiment with young children. University of Iowa Studies in Child Welfare, 18, 1-314. Berkowitz, L. (1989). Frustration-aggression hypothesis: Examination and reformulation. Psychological Bulletin, 106, 59-73. Caspi, A. Plomin, R., Corley, A, Fulker, D.W, DeFries, J.C. (1998). Adoption results for self-reported personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 211-218 Bandura, A, Ross, D. and Ross, S.A (1961). Transmission of aggression through imitation of aggressive models. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 63, 575-582 Bard,P. (1934). On emotional expression after decortication, with some remarks on certain theoretical views. Psychological Review 41:309-329 and 424-449. Mitsis, Effie M,  Hampering. J.  M and Newcorn. J.H. (2000). Serotonin and aggression in children. Current Psychiatry Reports Journal, Volume 2, Number 2, (1535-1645). Popova N, Voitenko N, Kulikov A, Avgustinovich D (1991). Evidence for the involvement of central serotonin in mechanism of domestication of silver foxes. Pharmacol Biochem Behav.; 40:751-756

Essay --

According to Yount, the church should have evaluations â€Å"in order to make sure what God called one to do, is in fact getting done† (449). Evaluation is a word that many people are acquainted with, and although it is a familiar word, it seems to take on a different meaning in various settings, for example, in business, schools, trades, and particularly in the church. There are a lot of evaluation practices in existence within our culture which do not translate as easily when it comes to the life of the congregation, and that’s a good thing because, they should not, in fact, there need to be a means to sort them out, for example, when business practices are imported in the process of evaluation, the impact can be a negative one, although the congregation can benefit and learn from those members who possess valuable experiences in both business and the working world. The whole world belongs solely to God and he allows our Reformed theological tradition to be open to the vast knowledge and experiences that are gained from various settings in which Christians interact with the world. Ye...

Family Assessment and Intervention

Family Intervention Movie Assignment â€Å"Meet the Parents† One of our main objectives as future counselors is to understand individual clients is to first gain an understanding of family background. Working with family from a systems perspective, the counselor is able to gain an understanding to the ways in which family members interact, what the family norms and expectations are, how effectively members communicate, who makes decisions, and how the family deals with needs and expectations (Edleman & Mandle, 2002). In the concept of systems theory, a family can exist within a community (suprasystem) and at the same time have smaller relationships within that family (subsystems). By composing genograms, or family tree, one can see information on family relationships, health patterns, occupations, and religion. By composing an ecomap one can see information on how a family and its members interact with larger systems or smaller subsystems. The term family can be defined as â€Å"a group of individuals who are bound by strong emotional ties, a sense of belonging, and a passion for being involved in one another's lives (Wright & Leahey, 2000). After watching the movie, â€Å"Meet the Parents† I decided to watch the whole movie to see where it would be that the intervention would start. The scene where â€Å"Greg† tries to get the cat off the roof and ultimately to please Jack his girlfriend’s father he goes to a local animal shelter to purchase a look alike cat for the family cat that ran away, named Jinx (Which I thought in hindsight the cat’s name is the complete situation Greg finds himself in†¦jinxed). Once the family gets home and finds ‘Jinx’ has destroyed the dress and the house before his youngest daughter’s wedding everything hits the fan†¦emotions rage and Jack and Greg are starting to really express themselves. I think Greg does this because he feels he has nothing to lose. The interesting part is how this whole fiasco sort of brings the family and friends together†¦here is where I would begin my interview. The family members that I chose to conduct my interview and research on are the Burns and Greg (Gaylord Focker). By using the concepts of systems theory, genograms, and, I will be giving you an analysis of her amily and its relationships, health patterns, habits, customs, traditions, and how the members of the family interact with one another and also the outside community. People Characters Nurse Teacher Family Functioning Analyze, assess and suggest intervention Assessment of individuals Assessment of individual and Family dynamics and patt erns Behavioral issues and problems Family background Ask the fathers permission to marry the sister Teacher is motivated by what her dad thinks (smoking as a sign of weakness) Family values†¦compromised†¦living together Very pretentious Father is sarcastic and lacks sense of humor Parents still think their daughter as their little girl Mother is in denial and acts as if everything is wonderful Greg is Jewish not much of a family background for meals and family interactions and has problems with saying grace. Father has a lot of secretive ways—CIA psychological profiler Lie detector scene Burns family circle of trust†¦a tool of manipulation Son sneaks around and has limited freedom Everyone seems to want to please Jack Jack has at traditional mindset of a man’s role and a woman’s role Jack is controlling†¦. ven to training the cat how to use the bathroom Other son in law bought acceptance Jack’s friend the surgeon play’s into Jack’s machoism Wife was a voice of reason after the cat incident Address the following: What would a counselor look for or need to find out about this family? What would be essential or important How would the therapist go about doing this? Wh at is my assessment of family functioning What are unique things pertaining to this family to be aware of outside or developmental influences on the family (race, culture, stress, family development, remarriage, divorce, etc. What do I think the focus of the intervention should be? What are some treatment goals? What are some type of interventions or therapist interactions that would make a difference? Based on what I know about the family what strategies could be employed? If the family members were making their own changes or interventions, are they effective? Why or why not? If not changes or intervention is seen what do I feel is needed What dynamics need to change What would assessment, goals and intervention look like for this family/

An Introduction to Rogerian (Person-Centered) Therapy

Rogerian therapy, created by Carl Rogers, is a therapeutic technique in which the client  takes an active, autonomous role in therapy sessions. It is based on the idea that the client knows what is best, and that the therapist’s role is to  facilitate  an environment in which the client can bring about positive change. Rogerian therapy is sometimes called  nondirective  therapy because of the autonomy given to the client. The client, not the therapist, decides what is discussed. As Rogers  explained, â€Å"It is the client who knows what hurts, what directions to go, what problems are crucial, what experiences have been deeply buried.† Overview of Rogerian Therapy Carl Rogers believed that all people have the capability to bring about positive change in their lives. He developed person-centered (or Rogerian) therapy as a technique for giving clients greater autonomy in therapy sessions.  Rogers’ approach to psychotherapy is considered humanistic  because it focuses on individuals positive potential.   In Rogerian therapy, the therapist typically refrains from offering advice or making a formal diagnosis. Instead, the primary role of the therapist is to listen and restate  what the client says. Rogerian therapists try  to refrain from offering their own interpretation of events or from making explicit suggestions about dealing with a situation. For example, if a  client reported feeling stressed about the fact that a coworker was receiving credit for a project the client worked on, the Rogerian therapist  might say, â€Å"So, it sounds like you’re upset because your boss isn’t recognizing your contributions.† In this way, the Rogerian therapist attempts to give the client an environment to explore their own thoughts and feelings and decide for themselves how to bring about positive change. Key Components of Rogerian Therapy According to Rogers, successful psychotherapy  always has  three key components: Empathy. Rogerian therapists attempt to develop  an empathic understanding of their clients thoughts and feelings. When the therapist has an accurate understanding of the client’s thoughts and restates what the client says, the client is able to figure out the meaning of his or her own experiences.Congruence. Rogerian therapists strive for congruence; that is, being self-aware, genuine, and authentic in their interactions with clients.Unconditional positive regard. Rogerian therapists show compassion and acceptance towards the client. The therapist should strive to be nonjudgmental and accept the client non-contingently (in other words, their acceptance of the client doesn’t depend on what the client says or does). Rogers’ Later Work In 1963, Rogers began working  at the Western Behavioral Sciences Institute in La Jolla, California. Later, he co-founded the Center for Studies of the Person, an organization that is still active today. In California, Rogers worked on applying his ideas outside of traditional therapy settings. For example, he wrote about education in Freedom to Learn: A View of What Education Might Become, published in 1969. Rogers supported student-centered  learning:  an educational atmosphere in which students are able to pursue their interests, rather than passively absorbing a teachers lecture. Rogers also applied his ideas about empathy, congruence, and unconditional positive regard to political conflicts. He led â€Å"encounter groups† between groups in conflict, in the hope that his therapy techniques could  improve political relationships. He led encounter groups in South Africa during apartheid, and between Protestants and Catholics in Northern Ireland. Rogers’ work earned him praise from Jimmy Carter and a nomination for the  Nobel Peace Prize. Influence of Rogerian Therapy Today Carl Rogers died in 1987, but his work continues  to have an enormous influence on psychotherapists. Many therapists  incorporate elements of client-centered therapy in their practices today, particularly through the  eclectic approach, in which they may combine several types of therapy into one session. Importantly, the essential components of therapy that Rogers put forward (empathy, congruence, and unconditional positive regard) can be employed by any therapist, regardless of their specific approach to therapy. Today, therapists recognize that an effective relationship between client and therapist (called the therapeutic alliance or therapeutic rapport) is key for successful therapy. Rogerian Therapy Key Takeaways Carl Rogers developed a form of psychotherapy called client-centered therapy, or person-centered therapy.In client-centered therapy, the client leads the therapy session, and the therapist serves as a facilitator, often restating  back what the client has said.The therapist strives to have an empathic understanding of the client, have congruence (or authenticity) in the therapy session, and communicate unconditional positive regard for the client.Outside of psychology, Rogers  applied his ideas to the areas of education and international conflict. Sources â€Å"Carl Rogers (1902-1987).† GoodTherapy.org (2015, July 6). https://www.goodtherapy.org/famous-psychologists/carl-rogers.htmlâ€Å"Client-Centered Therapy.† Harvard Health Publishing: Harvard Mental Health Letter (2006, Jan.). https://www.health.harvard.edu/newsletter_article/Client-centered_therapyJoseph, Stephen. â€Å"Why Carl Rogers Person-Centered Approach Is Still Relevant.† Psychology Today Blog (2018, Apr. 15). https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/what-doesnt-kill-us/201804/why-carl-rogers-person-centered-approach-is-still-relevantKirschenbaum, Howard. â€Å"Carl Rogerss Life and Work: An Assessment on the 100th Anniversary of His Birth.† Journal of Counseling Development 82.1 (2004): 116-124. http://potentiality.org/drjwilcoxson/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/Person-Centered-theory-Carl-Rogers-100-yerars-Literature-Review-2.pdfâ€Å"Person-Centered Therapy.† Psychology Today. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/therapy-types/person-cente red-therapyâ€Å"Person-Centered Therapy (Rogerian Therapy).† GoodTherapy.org (2018, Jan. 17). https://www.goodtherapy.org/learn-about-therapy/types/person-centeredRogers, Carl R. â€Å"The Necessary and Sufficient Conditions of Therapeutic Personality Change.† Journal of Consulting Psychology  21.2 (1957): 95-103. http://docshare02.docshare.tips/files/7595/75954550.pdfSarkis, Stephanie. â€Å"6 Amazing Things Carl Rogers Gave Us.† Psychology Today Blog (2011, Jan. 8). https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/here-there-and-everywhere/201101/6-amazing-things-carl-rogers-gave-us