Is There Really a Difference between Violence and Agression, or Are We Just Splitting Hairs?

Violence, aggression, and hostility are words that many people tend to throw around as if 1) they meant the exact same thing and 2) they can fit one's own agenda with ease. One of the things that I find truly interesting, possibly because of such vast misunderstandings of these topics, is that many parents would much rather expose their children to "violent" or "aggressive" situations (movies, games, experiences, ideas) than talk to their kids about basic biological sexuality. Incidentally, these are sometimes the same parents that think it is "cute" or "adorable" to dress their little girls in clothing that covers maybe 25% of the skin. But enough soap-box pontificating. Let's take a look at the actual meanings of these words concerning violence, beginning with a little foundation work: harm and hurt.

Harm: (n) physical or mental injury or damage; moral injury, evil, wrong. (v) to cause harm, to do harm or damage; to injure physically, morally, or mentally [one could interchange mentally for emotionally]. 

          So, with harm, we are looking at the end result. Was the subject changed in a negative manner? Did the individual suffer any kind of deficit in their normal body or mental functioning, whether permanent or temporary? If so, then they experienced harm. Notice that there is nothing in this definition about intent. We are only looking at the end product of an action or failure to act. Note that we are also looking at the action involved that leads to the detrimental result.

 

Hurt: (v) to cause bodily or mental injury, distress or pain to someone or something; to damage or decrease the efficiency of some material object by striking, rough use, improper care, etc.; to cause harm or adversely affect someone of something; to cause mental pain, offend or cause grievance to someone; to feel or suffer bodily or mental pain or distress. (n) a blow that inflicts a would; bodily injury of the cause of the injury; damage; the cause of mental pain or offense such as an insult or a slight. (adj) physically injured; offended, unfavorably affected; damaged.

          It would appear that hurt is a more all-encompassing term that adds a layer of causation and intent. Like harm, it is both the action that leads to damages as well as the resulting damage. However, hurt tends to indicate a longer lasting effect, especially when using it to refer to the psychological realm. We rarely, if ever, talk about "harmed" feelings, but we often use the phrase "hurt feelings" to convey emotional upset or pain. Even our egos and pride are hurt, but rarely harmed. Hurt is much more intentional by nature and typically more lasting, more difficult to heal or undo.

 

Force: [NOT using the physics definition] (n) physical power, strength, energy, intensity; power to influence, affect, control; strength or power exerted upon an object or person such as through physical coercion or mental/emotional manipulation; physical violence. (legal noun) unlawful violence threatened or committed against persons or property. (v) to compel, constrain, oblige oneself or another to do something; to drive or propel against resistance; to bring about or effect by force; to overcome the resistance of someone or something.

          Here we see pure intent. In order to use force, one must have a desire for a particular result. That result does not necessarily lead to harm or hurt, but it does represent the conquering of some kind of resistance. Force is the exertion of one's will, often through physical or political or personality strength, in order to obtain one's own goals. It's very one-sided and does not have to involve physical actions, though the threat of physical actions often leads to a successful use of force, successful meaning the achievement of one's aims.

 

So, now we have some clearer ideas of the negative results of some behaviors and potentially what some of those behaviors might be. It is not time to explore larger concepts, specifically: aggression, hostility, and violence. One of the main differences between theses terms is the level of intent and/or the purpose to which they are applied.

Aggression: (n) the action of violating by force the rights of another; any offensive action, attack, or procedure; an inroad or encroachment; offensive action in general; overt or suppressed hostility, either innate or resulting from continued frustration and directed outward or against oneself.

          This actually seems pretty simple, especially in comparison to some of the other terms in this post. Aggression means that one person violates the rights, personal space, property, liberty, etc. of another person or another person's property. The point of aggression is to get what one wants and to show that one is the dominant person. Often times when an animal shows aggression it stops--i.e. does not continue with violent actions--once the object of the aggression acknowledges its abilities to cause harm and thus backs away. Unfortunately, aggressive behaviors in humans usually generates more aggression from the targets or creates victims whose rights are constantly trampled. The other thing about aggression is that it does not have to be physical or obvious. I'm sure some of you have heard of passive-aggressiveness or similar terms. Passive aggressiveness occurs when an individual appears to be passive by "giving in" to another's demands, but in reality is using this passive show to manipulate the other into doing exactly when they (the passive-aggressor) wanted. The goal can be achieved immediately through the use of such techniques as a guilt trip: 

"No, that's okay, you can go have fun. I'll be all right here all alone."[passive]

"Well, I don't have to go out tonight. I can stay with you." [response]

"Only if that's what YOU really want." [passive success]

The passive aggressive can also achieve their goals at a later time through manipulation, building up a sense of weakness so that other individuals never notice when the passive aggressor silently nudges them into the corner they wanted. What makes these behaviors, though passive, aggressive is that they still violate another person's rights and allow the aggressor to gain the upper hand and whatever they desire.
          Animals typically use aggression to assert their dominance over territory, resources and mating, and to protect their genetics. Humans don't always fit into this model. There are a number of psychological theories and hypotheses that attempt to explain human aggression. Sigmund Freud believed that aggression was an instinctive drive that all of our ids possess. Along with our instinct to create, the aggressive nature in humans is something that we will spend our lifetimes attempting to control as we try to progress beyond our animalistic natures.The frustration-aggression hypothesis indicates that all human aggression can be traced back to some form of frustration--the blocking of a goal. We only act aggressively if we can't get what we want or need through other means. Another thought on human aggression is that it is almost completely a learned behavior. An individual who experiences or witnesses aggression while they are younger will see aggression as an option, possibly the best or only option, to get what they desire. There has been some modification to this particular theory in that some researchers now believe that there may be a personality predisposition that would modify someone's tendency toward aggressiveness. The biological hypothesis is that aggressive behavior is the result of either too much testosterone, an excess of fatigue, or too low blood sugar (being hungry). According to this school of thought, a person is much more likely to behave aggressively until their body returns to a state of homeostasis. Sometimes taking a step back, grabbing a snack, or taking a nap can be quite calming. Beating up that punching bag can also help use up excess testosterone and other stress hormones.



Hostility: (n) a state, condition, or attitude of enmity, antagonism, or unfriendliness; a hostile act; opposition or resistance to an idea, plan, project, etc.; (plural) fighting, warfare.
          Again, this seems pretty simple. Hostility is dislike or tension created by someone. Often one person's hostility will generate a mutual feeling from their target. Note, also, that hostility does not have to involve actions, but rather focuses on the atmosphere and feelings experienced. Yes, violence and aggression can lead to hostility, but so can petty jealousy, vanity, or envy. This is a state of mind in which one conveys that someone or something is not welcome and that someone becomes well-aware of this state.

Violence: (n) swift and intense, powerful, untamed or devastating force; the use or an instance of rough or injurious physical force, action or treatment usually intended to inflict harm to the target; an unjust, unwarranted or unwanted exertion of force or power that may be used to violate rights, break laws, or overawe or intimidate others; rough or immoderate vehemence, great strength of feeling, as in the use of strong language; damage through distortion or unwarranted alteration.
          Here we see a clear case of intent. Except in the case of natural violence such as with a storm or natural disaster, violent actions are intentional behaviors that go to excessive lengths beyond those necessary in order to achieve some goal. The word "overkill" comes to mind. The point behind violent acts is not only to achieve the goal, which may be the damage itself, but to also leave a lasting impression on the victim and witnesses of the violence. There is obviously the expectation of physical damage wrought through violence. Is it possible to experience psychological violence? The answer is "Absolutely!" Have you ever heard the phrase "fighting words" used? These are words which are spoken for the primary purpose of enraging or causing fear in the target of the words. It is possible to be guilty of violence against another person by using harsh language or a tone of voice that produces anxiety and/or anger in that person. In that instance, one would have used an excess of rough treatment to achieve one's goal, probably to upset the target or get them to do something you wanted. Sticks and stones are violent, as are a verbalization from a barbed tongue.


If it helps, one way to distinguish, correctly, between these three methods of harming others or property is to look at them as part of a continuum of intent and damage. Hostility creates an uncomfortable environment. It may include actions and words, but it can also come about with something as simple as a wayward look or discouraging body language. It is typically sensed and processed at a semi-conscious level by the target. Aggression is goal-directed. An individual tends to engage in aggressive measures when other avenues leave them falling short of their desires and needs. Most aggression is short-lived; it tends to cease once the goal is reached. Violence, on the other hand, is not only designed to intentionally cause harm or hurt, but it is meant to have a longer lasting effect on its target by using means the go above and beyond what is necessary. Violence continues even after the goal is met, just to make sure the path stays clear longer than if mere aggression were used. Leaving lasting damage also leaves memories and learning, which typically produces fear of a return to the violence.
          Unfortunately, with all three of these--hostility, aggression, violence--we see a pattern of behavior in which one human has little regard for the negative effects of their behavior on another. They each show a self-centered obsession with getting what one wants despite the costs involved. The other problem with this maltreatment is that they tend to generate endless and/or escalating cycles. Person A is hostile to Person B, so that breeds hostility in Person B and their friends toward Person A and their friends. Next, Person A starts pushing around someone from the Person B camp because the Person B stands in the way of Person A. Person B then gets a group of their B people and pushes around some Person A people. Before you know it, the damaging behavior escalates further on both sides and people start to lose sight of the origin of the conflict. It's a common plot device. Unfortunately, it's also all-too-common in reality as well. Only when someone breaks the cycle will things calm down and we can start treating each other as equals, as fellow human beings.

Abuse is Abuse, Plain and Simple, with No Excuse

Abuse is one of those elephants in the room that people don't like to talk about, or they talk about it so much that is appears to lose its actual meaning. Society has swung the pendulum so far in each direction that it has lost sight of the fact that it is all the same thing. Abuse is abuse, no matter how you try to redefine it. I am often (and I hope I will always be) appalled by the way we as a species treat others with similar genetic make-ups. Even worse than the treatment itself is the acceptance it receives. People are too often seen as property of other people and treated as such. Yes, we eliminated slavery, but many people still see others as bodies to possess and control. In just about every century families consisted of a head-of-household who felt that he or she ought to get everything they wanted out of the other household members with no questions asked. Blind obedience was expected, even in the face of blatant disregard for the well-being of people or for the damage that may be caused by selfish acts of dominance. And society turned a blind eye to this mistreatment because 1) everybody did it and/or was subject to it themselves; and 2) no one thought to put themselves in the shoes of their fellow humans to see that each of us has feelings and desires, etc.

There were many times when we swung the pendulum in the opposite direction, beginning with the revelations of theorists such as Sigmund Freud. For all the criticism of Freud and psychoanalysis, he did open our eyes to the fact that early experiences will affect our later lives. Parents began to think twice about the possible consequences of punishment or mistreatment of their children. Sadly, this very rarely applied to mistreatment of other adults. Unfortunately, the revolution was not as long-lasting as one would hope. Child abuse, spousal abuse, even common mistreatment of random people on the street, continued. We accepted it because it happened all around and "everyone needs a bit of discipline to keep them in line." People were afraid and ashamed to come forward when they were mistreated and society was fine with that because then we wouldn't have to deal with the ugliness. Swing the pendulum even further and you get the time in which I grew up, though not the personal environment.

When I was a kid, we started to educate children about abuse and told them it was okay to report it. It helped some kids come free from truly abusive environments, but it also opened up the flood waters for misuse of the system. Many parents wanted to be so progressive that they let their children run wild with no rules or guidelines, more often for fear of their child calling the police to report them than for any altruistic or philosophical reason. Now we had parents abused by their children almost as often as children abused by their parents. And once again, other abuses of adults was going unnoticed. It became a badge of honor to come from a "broken" or "abusive" home. The "my life sucks" game proliferated. We are still in this mindset today, creating a divide between true abuse cases and individuals who want to believe that they were mistreated because they didn't get the exact idealized treatment that they hoped to receive (a possible sign of narcissism). To give an example, let's say you have 2 customers at a store. Customer A is cussed out, overcharged, and has slurs thrown at them. Most likely Customer A will not return to the store and their self-esteem will take a huge hit for the mistreatment they received. Customer B is treated very well, the salesman tries to accommodate them as much as possible, but the item that they wanted is out of stock. Now Customer B goes around telling all their friends how horrible the store treated them and how much they suffered at the hands of the staff. In these extremely obvious cases, it should be easy to tell who was truly mistreated and who is trying to make a mountain out of a pancake. Reality is a lot more complicated, but I hope you begin to see the point I am trying to make.

I know all of this preamble is not my customary style for this particular blog. This is just one of those issues that bothers me on so many levels both professionally and personally. I have met too many people who claim to be abused because it is somehow in some twisted way considered a badge of honor. I have also, unfortunately, seen real abuse occur that was never dealt with because it wasn't defined as abuse by the mainstream populace. I'm going to try to create a baseline of these definitions so that, hopefully, it will be easier to spot real abuse so that real victims can receive compassion and treatment. Let's start with the most basic definition: abuse.

Abuse: (v) to misuse, mistreat, use wrongly or improperly; to treat in a harmful, injurious, or offensive way. (n) wrong or improper use, misuse; bad or improper treatment, mistreatment, maltreatment.
Already you can probably start to see how the term "abuse" can itself be misused. It would not be too hard for a selfish or narcissistic person to see a "no" as "mistreatment" simply because it's not what they wanted to hear. Not all abuse is obvious, and not all abuse is blatantly violent. Subterfuge is very difficult to identify and undermine, but we as a society are getting better about defining it.

NOTE: I will publish a future blog post on the subtleties of violence and aggression, as that is another complication to this particular topic.

The three primary categories of abuse, especially when concerned with child abuse and spousal abuse, are physical, sexual, and emotional (sometimes called psychological abuse). It's the last one that has so many subtle variations that it is not as simple to identify and it is often used as that imaginary "badge" I mentioned earlier.

Physical abuse: causing physical damage or harm to one's body. The law often refers to this type of abuse as "battery" and it can include the obvious--punching, kicking, biting, scratching, etc. Physical abuse is primarily intentional in that the main goal is to inflict pain on another person. This is also where the waters got muddy when I was a child. There was (and still is) a debate about physical punishment--spanking, whipping, smacking, etc.--used as a disciplinary device versus physical abuse. Many people took the easy route--laying a hand on your child, period, constituted abuse. Many others took the historical route--"I was smacked around to keep me in line and you don't see me having problems." The problem arose when many people used the term "discipline" as a smokescreen or license to treat others any way they pleased. Read my post on discipline to see why this leads to a misunderstanding of that concept. Sometimes it's obvious that the "discipline is abuse" such as when a person is visibly deformed by the action--burns, scars, massive bruises or broken bones. Sometimes it's not so obvious, especially when the physically aggressive episodes are few and far between. Frequency is one of the things the teachers and public service professionals are trained to look for, but waiting until "enough" damage occurs might be too late.

Sexual abuse: sexual behavior directed at an individual who does not welcome such acts; a misuse of sex for personal gain or retribution; mistreatment of an individual involving sexual acts or discussion. This is another one that gets muddied. The obvious synonym for sexual abuse is rape--unwanted sexual behavior. What most people don't realize is that, like physical abuse, all forms of sexual abuse are acts of power; they have very little to do with actual sexual urges. Sex, molestation, fondling, making sexual comments to incite discomfort, are all ways to assert one's power over one's victim. They have little to nothing to do with any emotional attachment. Lust is not love. Using sex to manipulate someone else is also a form of sexual abuse. Someone who uses sex to bribe another person into doing what they want, or who withholds sex specifically for the purpose of manipulating someone else, is engaging in sexual abuse. Anyone can be a victim of sexual abuse: male or female, old or young, spouse, child, friend, sibling, parent, known or unknown. Perpetrators of sexual abuse can also be anyone, any gender, especially if that person has some form of authority over others. The thing about all abuse, but especially sexual abuse, is that victims almost always know the perpetrator, whether the criminal is a parent or sibling, friend or coworker, or casual acquaintance. We are also much more likely to blame the victim in cases of sexual abuse than we are in situations of physical or psychological abuse, according to many years of research. The fight against sexual abuse creates the same divide mentioned earlier. We have people who are afraid to express honest emotions--hugging, kiss on the forehead, pat on the back--for fear of being reported. At the same time we have people who feel that their relationships entitle them to any actions they please. True victims often blame themselves, assuming they did something to incite the actions, and society's penchant for defensive attribution doesn't help.

Emotional (Psychological) abuse: mistreatment of another person's emotions, psychology, thought processes or perspectives; also includes acts of neglect. This is the least understood of the main types of abuse, especially because it rarely leaves physical signs, though sometimes behavioral manifestations may be observed. This category includes behaviors that toy with another's emotions, often giving someone false hope or misleading them. It also includes twisting their views of themselves or others through obvious or subtle statements, presenting misleading "facts," or outright lying. Name-calling, bullying (by today's definition; the "old school" bullying involved primarily physical abuse), gossip, rumors, teasing, ignoring, passive aggressiveness [see future blog post on aggression], and the use of "guilt trips" are all manifestations of emotional abuse. If you've ever experienced, witnessed, or used a guilt trip, then you know psychological abuse. It is a special passive-aggressive form of abuse that makes the victim feel as if they are the ones abusing the abuser. I have a special place of loathing in my soul for guilt trips because of the manipulative nature of the technique.
Sometimes a victim uses the emotional abuse to create a stronger protective shell around themselves, but even in these cases there is lasting damage. Psychological abuse, true psychological abuse, tears away at one's feelings of self-worth. It often leads a person to question their existence, sometimes their sanity. Abusers have been known to convince their victims that they (the victim) are just being "too sensitive" and are just crazy. This compounds the emotional impact further, making it more difficult for the victim to receive the treatment they need. Because psychological abuse leaves no physical trace, it is often difficult for society to accept it as a true form of mistreatment. We now understand that emotions, our personal definition of ourselves, and our grasp of reality are just as important to our physical health as our mental health. Psychoneuroimmunology was created to study the interrelationship between mental and  physical health. We found that they are inseparable. Now, is it possible for someone to want to earn a badge of honor in this area as well? Of course. It is possible, and it has occurred too often, for an individual to perceive a denial--a "no" to a request--as a form of psychological abuse. Remember those kids who threatened to call the cops on their parents if they raised a hand to them? Neglect is often the siren song for these same types of people to call emotional abuse on someone. Of course, their idea of neglect is being denied something that they only wanted, not necessarily needed. [See my post on motivation for the distinction between wants and needs.] True neglect occurs when someone is ignored, when their needs are not met, when they are forgotten all too often. Neglect takes a long time to be noticed by others, unfortunately, and the longer it occurs, the greater the damage. With neglect, one experiences emotional damage long before the physical damage is felt.

I still do not understand why it is fashionable to be the false victim of abuse. This sick desire to be special for negative reasons always saddens me and angers me at the same time because it takes attention away from the real cases of abuse. I suppose it makes it easier to live with the disappointments or failures in one's life if you have "abuse" to blame. That said, I do believe that there are far too many real cases of abuse, all kinds, going on in this world. The cases that are not stereotypical or obvious are the hardest ones because they fall through the cracks too easily, leading to more damage for the victims in the long-run. Many real victims will keep their abuse hidden forever (or at least for the majority of their lives) in their hearts because it is too painful to dwell upon and it is shameful to admit that someone else mistreated you. It makes you feel like less than a human. Dwelling on it, harping on it, also makes it more difficult to move past it. There is a middle-ground in which the abuse is confronted, dealt with, and then let go. Neither hiding it nor flaunting it will provide any beneficial results for anyone. When we treat our fellow humans as humans, when we show them the kind of mutual respect that we want and deserve, then we will significantly reduce the abuse in this world.

Do You Feel Sorry for Me or Do You Feel My Pain?

What kind of emotions do you experience when you see or hear about someone experiencing a misfortune? What thoughts run through your mind? Many people believe that expressing sympathy will help the unfortunate soul feel better. The truth of the matter is that sympathy is very superficial. There is a deeper sentiment that, when expressed, indicates to the suffering party that you care on a higher level, that you may actually want to do more than present mere words of "I'm sorry" to them. Let's look at the difference between these two expressions.

Sympathy: to feel sorry for an individual; to express pity or sorrow for another's misfortune. You see, when we sympathize, we do express feelings for the individual, but we also reserve a little bit of relief for ourselves. It's the idea of "Man, it sucks to be you. Sorry dude. Thank goodness that's not me." We are not completely heartless in that we acknowledge the troubles another faces. But at the same time we are grateful we are not going through the same things. This creates a barrier between the sympathizer and the person in hardship. Many people who receive sympathy can intuitively, sometimes consciously, sense the superficiality of the sentiment. Rather than help them feel better, sometimes mere sympathy makes matters worse. Not many people like others to feel pity for them; it is a major blow to one's pride and self-esteem. Sympathy isn't all bad. Although superficial, it can convey some level of care between individuals, which is sometimes better than nothing at all.

Empathy: to feel the emotions of another; to understand the feelings of another person from their perspective. Empathy takes the notion of feeling for someone to the next level. You not only understand, on an intellectual level, how much emotion the person is experiencing, but you also feel it yourself. Your heart aches when they ache. You are sad when they are sad. Their tears of joy are reflected in your happiness. You know exactly what the pain, trouble, turmoil, etc. that they feel is because you either experienced it yourself or you are capable of putting yourself in their shoes and feeling it with them, from their perspective. With empathy, there is no sentiment of "Glad it's not me." Instead, because you feel what the other person feels, you may become swept up in their emotions. You are also more likely to help them. After all, if you feel their pain, then lessening it for them will reduce it for you. With sympathy, you are free to walk away and let others solve their own problems while you get to look like a good guy for doing nothing. With empathy, you are in the middle of the mix so you not only get the dark side, but you also get to revel in the light side when things improve.

You can see the distinction between an empath and a sympath in the characters of Deanna Troi (Star Trek the Next Generation) and Emma Frost (Marvel comics). Counselor Troi, especially in the first couple seasons of TNG, not only sensed the emotions of others around her, she was sometimes overwhelmed by them. This could occasionally lead to emotional overload for her if the feelings were especially strong. With this empathic ability, she was just the right person to fill the role of counselor, as she would be highly motivated to help others heal and find happiness. Emma, on the other hand, was able to detect the emotions of others but she rarely lost her calm demeanor. She typically kept outside the emotional realm of others around her, creating a barrier between her own emotions and those of others. She knew what others felt, but she did not experience it directly herself. In this way she was able to manipulate others around her without losing control of herself, giving her the upper hand and allowing her to rise to power or hide away when she needed to.

Is there anything wrong with sympathy? Not really. But know that empathy--to truly feel what others feel and not just because you want to win the "my life sucks" game--is more helpful in the long-run, though it may be a bit more draining on you than sympathy.

Morality Is All about Perspective

Looking up morality in an English language dictionary, one is faced with a couple of options.

Morality: conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct; moral quality or character; a doctrine or system of morals.

There are a couple more definitions, but I think you begin to see that this is not a clear-cut topic. From an empirical viewpoint, each of the theories I will discuss--Piaget, Kohlberg, Gilligan--suffer from shortcomings of data collection. Piaget's work is based on observation, both naturalistic and laboratory. Both Kohlberg and Gilligan based their work on interviews; Kohlberg interviewed only males and Gilligan interviewed only females. Other researchers attempting to reconcile these shortcomings have found that there is very little statistical difference between morality of males and females. In other words, I am going to take the viewpoint that the moral reasoning of both males and females is a developmental process that occurs over time. As such, I will present the theories without gender-specific leanings. It is possible that either gender, with no gender identity issues involved, may follow the pattern set forth by either one of these theorists. With all of this disclaiming out of the way, let us first take a look at Piaget's proposed development of moral reasoning. But first, here is one more definition to clear the way.

Moral development: changes in a sense of justice and of right and wrong; changes in behavior related to moral issues; changes in reasoning behind judgment of one's own and others' behaviors

Piaget: Jean Piaget is the foremost pioneer in researching cognitive development of children. As this was his primary focus, he saw moral behavior as a reasoning or cognitive process that also developed as the child's mental abilities increased. I will note that one of the main criticisms, possibly limitations, of Piaget's theory is that he seemed to stop with early adolescence--roughly age 11-13--so it appears as if he believed that all cognitive development and moral reasoning was determined by the onset of puberty. I will not be using age ranges here, except in the most broad sense.

Stage 1: Heteronomous Morality--children seem overly concerned with rules. These rules are unchangeable, having been generated by "someone higher" than the child. Breaking a rule is expected to be followed by immediate punishment, with no exceptions. Even if the child unintentionally breaks a rule, it is expected that they will receive the same punishment as someone who willingly attempts to circumvent them. Ignorance or meaning well is no excuse. Children in this stage become irate not only when a rule is violated but also when that violation goes unpunished.

Stage 2: Incipient Cooperation--children are more social and take the time to learn the rules before starting an activity. If there is a question about an unclear rule or if a situation arises that is not covered by preexisting rules, then the children will work together to generate the needed rule. Everyone will then be expected to follow the new rule, as well as all other established rules, and punishment for rule-breaking is expected to be handed out to all in an equal manner. In other words, your reason for breaking a rule is still not important, only whether or not you follow the rules.

Stage 3: Autonomous Cooperation--older children are fully aware that rules are created by people and, as people themselves, they can change the rules as long as everyone involved agree to them. At this stage, Piaget noted that motives become more important in determining punishment. If a child breaks a rule because it is unfair, then the rule may be rewritten. However, if a child breaks a rule to gain an unfair advantage--to cheat--then that child should be punished.

Piaget reasoned that a child's view of the rules evolved as their cognitive abilities increased. In the earlier stages of childhood, he reasoned, children have to see things in an absolutist sense because they are not yet capable of seeing the world from different perspectives. They can barely grasp two concepts--before and after, then and now, etc.--at the same time, so they can only understand the black-and-white perspective of following the rules versus not following them. As a child grows in their ability to see more possibilities and to see the world through the eyes of others, they come to see rules as more malleable because they may not have been created to cover every possible contingency. They understand that the world is more complex and that they need to be more flexible to fit in with this complexity.

Kohlberg: Lawrence Kohlberg studied under Piaget. As a result, you might be able to see the influence of Piaget's cognitive development theory on Kohlberg's expansion. Again, Kohlberg's initial research was limited by the fact that he interviewed only male subjects. He presented each person (ages ranging from under 5 to adulthood) with somewhat ambiguous moral scenarios and then asked them a series of questions to determine their reasoning behind their answers. Kohlberg was not concerned about what each subject saw as morally right or wrong behavior, but rather, the reasoning behind their judgements. Incidentally, subsequent researchers who included both males and females found that there was statistically no significant difference between the genders in each of the levels I will describe in a moment. In other words, the reasoning remained similar, regardless of one's gender. The end result is one of the most commonly-taught stage theories about moral development. Kohlberg proposed 3 levels, each with 2 stages or "orientations" (some may even see them as sub-levels), of development for moral reasoning. He did speculate that less than 10% of the adult population would be found in the highest level/orientation, though.

Level 1: Pre-conventional morality--behavior is judged based on the consequences, i.e. whether you are punished or rewarded.
Orientation/sub-level 1-1: Punishment-Obedience. As long as you don't get caught, you are doing nothing wrong. If you are rewarded, then you must have done something right.
Orientation/sub-level 1-2: Instrumental Exchange. Behavior is not "bad" if you gain some sort of benefit from it (the "What's in it for me?" mentality). If the benefit is worth any potential risk of punishment, then the behavior is considered acceptable. If, however, the payout does not compensate for negative consequences, then the behavior is wrong.

Level 2: Conventional morality--behavior is judged based on its fit with society's norms and expectations.
Orientation/sub-level 2-1: Good Child. Motivation behind one's behavior is the primary factor that is judged when determining whether you did wrong or right. If you meant well, then any negative results (e.g. broken items or hurt feelings) are mitigated by your intent and you weren't being bad so much as making a mistake. This is much more forgivable at this stage. If, on the other hand, you had malicious intent, then it is expected that you will receive the full extent of the punishment warranted by the behavior and its outcome. Children in this orientation also start to think ahead toward establishing a particular reputation among their peers and authority figures. If they wish to be seen as a "good child," then they will attempt to follow rules and engage in more pro-social behaviors. If, on the other hand, they feel that they will gain more respect, more benefits, from being a "troublemaker" or "bad child," then they will act out and break rules to gain this peer approval.
Orientation/sub-level 2-2: Law and Order. Children (and most adults, according to Kohlberg) begin to advocate following society's rules in order to maintain the general good. An understanding develops for the child of this abstract concept of fairness. The idea of what is fair moves from what is most beneficial or convenient to the individual to what is more equitable to the majority. Fairness occurs when all individuals receive the same or similar results for the same or similar behaviors. As such, individuals in this orientation partially internalize local laws. The idea of "it's the law, so I must obey it" begins to take root. Individuals who break the law are seen as "bad" people and are expected by people in this orientation to receive the "just" punishment for their crime. Yes, motivation is still a factor. This is why a decree of manslaughter has a lesser sentence than premeditated murder. Yet, in both cases a life was taken, so in both cases punishment is expected by people in the Law and Order orientation.

Level 3: Post-conventional morality--behavior and judgment of the morality of behavior is based on an internalized moral code. This moral code is influenced by one's earlier development, by the society in which they were raised, by their parents and other family members, by peers and authority figures, by media influences, and by any other experiences to which they were exposed throughout one's life. Ultimately, all of these factors come together to form a uniquely personal internalized moral code. As individuals understand even more abstract reasoning and see that the world is much more complex than black-and-white, or even the basic primary colors of the rainbow, they see that there are many factors that make each behavior, each situation unique and subject to its own "rules" for judgement at that moment.
Orientation/sub-level 3-1: Social Contract. An individual in this orientation sees society as a mutually agreed-upon contract between each of its members. If the majority of the society believes a rule has a purpose and they agree to its value, then violators of said rule will be punished with the agreed-upon consequences of breaking it. If enough people question the rule, if one does not understand why the rule is in place, then the society needs to come together to explain itself or to rewrite the rule with a more rational explanation. This is also true if the punishment does not fit the crime. When a law is completely unjust, especially to a large portion of that particular society, then individuals in this orientation feel it is not only right, but also their moral duty, to protest or violate that particular law until it is eradicated or rewritten so that all individuals are subject to it in the same way.
Orientation 3-2: Universal Ethics. This is quite possibly the most difficult to identify without careful analysis of the reasoning presented, and even then it can only be determined after eliminating the possibility that the individual is operating at a previous level or orientation. This could be why Kohlberg believed that very few individuals would reach this level of moral reasoning. In this orientation, the guiding force for one's moral behavior and reasoning is an internal code that the individual developed over time through their various experiences. This code may be influenced by the logic of society or by a religious ethical code. However, it is considered uniquely personal to the individual and it is much more adaptable, while at the same time paradoxically less malleable in some circumstances, than the "codes" found in previous orientations. Any time society's rules come in conflict with this internal moral code, the individual's code will trump the rules. This will occur for people in this orientation even if following their internal ethics will result in punishment for doing so. The thing about this orientation is that you can find people on both sides of the controversial topics who are using the same kind of reasoning. Each side as determined that they are right because of their personal perspectives. This is what makes many topics controversial. This is also why it is considered the highest form of moral reasoning--it is both adaptable (based on individual circumstances) and absolutist (what is right is right) at the same time.

The confusion about the final sub-level--its malleability and rigidity--adds to the difficulty in placing an individual at this highest level of reasoning. In all other levels and orientation, it becomes clear to see who is "right" and who is "wrong" and to determine the consequences of the behavior. Aside from the gender issue, which I stated was proven to be mostly smoke and mirrors, the other main criticism of Kohlberg's theory is that it emphasizes western ideals of justice and fairness. Collectivist ideals, the argument goes, would place more emphasis on what is right for the greater good of the whole unit or society. This would place collectivist reasoning in the Law and Order or the Social Contract orientation, however, so I don't see it as being completely dismissed. One could also argue that the idea of "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one or the few" is also a universal ethics concept if presented with the right reasoning. This, in my opinion, is one of the reasons why we continue to teach Kohlberg's theory when discussing the development of moral reasoning. Note that he doesn't talk about the development of moral behavior, but about the thought processes behind taking action and judging the actions of others. This is a very important distinction. One can understand what is morally right and still behave immorally.

By the way, here are a couple more definitions to help before I discuss the last of the main moral development theories.
Amoral: to have no morals, neither moral nor immoral. To have no concept of right or wrong or to not care whether one's behaviors are right or wrong.
Immoral: to be the opposite of moral. To choose to behave in a way that is contrary to a set moral code.


Gilligan: Carol Gilligan's biggest criticism of both Piaget's and Kohlberg's theories is also her criticism of all psychological theory, especially the psychoanalysts such as Freud and Eriksson. That is to say she believed that psychology treated women as aberrant second-class citizens because most of the work was done by men studying men. Yes, she was one of the pioneers of feminism in psychology. I want to note, however, that Freud's work was based on almost all women patients. Just some food for thought; I know the Freud debate is a colossal can of worms. Regardless, Gilligan proposed that females developed their moral reasoning along a different path from those proposed by Piaget or Kohlberg. She, too, has three stages, but she also proposed transitional states between them. Once again, I am only using the most general terms concerning age and once again I am not using gender-related terms.

Stage 1: Orientation toward individual survival. The individual thinks about what is best for their self. Almost all behavior is seen by others as being selfish. To the individual, if they get what they want, then they are right.

Transition 1-2: Individual begins to move from completed selfishness to understanding responsibility to others. Behaviors begin to be shaped by a consideration of the consequences one's behavior has for others and may be modified in order to reduce the impact of a purely selfish act.

Stage 2: Goodness as self-sacrifice. The individual sees that one must sacrifice one's own wishes for the needs and wants of others. This is a complete reversal of the first stage, almost as if the person is compensating for their earlier selfishness.

Transition 2-3: Individual begins to move from an absolute view of goodness to a modified view of truth. The needs of both the individual and others are taken into consideration when determining a course of action.

Stage 3: Morality of nonviolence. Any behavior that could harm anyone, either one's self or others, is seen as wrong. This, according to Gilligan, is a more sophisticated form of reasoning that places all humans on the same level. Compromise and mutual agreement seem to be the goals of this stage. It is considered moral behavior if everyone is satisfied and no one is harmed in the process.

While Gilligan did open our eyes to the possibility that women are socialized differently compared to men, subsequent research shows that there really is very little difference between the genders in terms of the moral developmental process. Both men and women seem to progress through
their moral development in similar ways. Research has even shown that there is very little difference between cultures when you break down the reasoning behind what is determined to be wrong or right behaviors. That is the essence of these theories: the development of the reasoning process, not the development of particular behaviors.

[Side note: at the time that Gilligan made her claims, there was a significant difference in the way children were socialized based on their genders. However, as time moved forward, society began to treat the genders more equally. As a result, any gender differences that may have existed were slowly being eradicated through equal treatment. Similar patterns can be noted when comparing cultures. Earlier research claiming differences in development based on culture were conducted when cultures were very distinct and has little contact with one another. As globalization and exposure to more cultures increased, these differences began to disappear.]

A critical thinker would be able to see the similarities between each of these three theories and conclude that what they all have in common is that the idea of morality evolves as an individual's ability to grasp new concepts changes and as that individual is exposed to more of the world, including different perspectives and new ideas. What a person determines to be morally right or wrong, to be punishable or excusable, is influenced by the level of reasoning at which that person can be found. Before you judge whether or not someone is moral, amoral, or immoral, perhaps you might consider the reasoning the person gives for their behavior, as well as your reasoning in judging them.

Once Bitten, (Maybe) Twice Shy

How many times have you heard someone described as being shy? Have you ever thought about why someone was reluctant to approach another person and begin, or join, a conversation? One of the many misconceptions about shyness is that it is inherent to certain people and not others. However, shyness is not a personality factor, it is highly situational.

Let's clarify the difference between a personality factor and a situational factor. I know, I'm sure that most people could probably figure this out on their own. Yet, I want to be thorough with my post, so I will go ahead and lay this foundation. A personality factor indicates that this characteristic/trait/behavior is a relative constant for an individual in almost all circumstances. A situational factor indicates that these characteristics/traits/behaviors will appear in almost all environments or situations that are similar, but not necessarily in others. Wait. What's with all the qualifiers? Well, one of the components of Cattell's personality theory was the idea of surface traits and source traits.

A surface trait is a characteristic or behavior that shows up in certain situations and not others. It is believed to consistently appear in these types of situations any time this particular individual finds themselves in one. On the other hand, a source trait is part of the core essence of an individual, so it will show itself, or be very difficult to mask, in nearly every situation. The only problem with Cattell's theory is that neither he nor other researchers was ever able to identify which traits are surface and which are source. This idea seems to be as much an individual feature as one's actual personality. That is to say, one person's source trait may be seen as another person's surface trait. Regardless of the inability to identify which personality features are more malleable than others, personality researchers began to see that people's behaviors are influenced by their environment as well as their inherent personality.

The next leap was to try to find behaviors that were almost always situation-specific, more-or-less the opposite of a personality characteristic. Not surprisingly, there weren't too many behaviors that could be attributed solely to the environment. However, some behaviors, after years of careful scrutiny, did appear to be almost entirely situational by nature. Shyness turned out to be one of them.

Researchers found that a "shy" person--someone who seems to keep to themselves and who is reluctant to engage in activities or conversation with others--will actually open up to certain people in select situations. Yes, there are some people who appear to be shy almost all the time to almost everyone who meets them. There are better explanations beyond a throw-away assessment of "shyness" smacked upon them. Perhaps this is an individual who is cautious by nature. Maybe they want to observe their environment before they determine the expected behaviors or they were hurt in the past and are reluctant to share too much of themselves for fear of being hurt once more. It is possible that the "shy" person is an introvert who is preserving their energy for the right socialization moment. You could also have a case in which the individual has determined that this is a threatening situation and they do not want to make any false moves, so they shrink back from any possible confrontation.

Some people appear shy when meeting someone of the opposite sex. Others are shy around perceived authority figures (for example, my daughter shrinks back and is reluctant to speak any time she has to meet a new adult, but meeting new children her age or younger poses very little problems for her). Sometimes individuals are reluctant to speak up in a crowd, such as a classroom or meeting, but when they are surrounded by their friends or only a couple other people they seamlessly participate in the conversation and activities. If you were to observe these shy individuals in other contexts, then you may find that they have no problem opening up to other individuals in other circumstances.

So, before you dismiss someone as simply shy, try to think about the situational factors that may lead to them being reluctant to communicating. Could they be an observant or cautious individual? Could the situation be overwhelming? Could you, yourself, be perceived as an overly dominant force? It also helps to think about the moments when you may have been shy or more cautious to join in the conversation with others. Put yourself in their shoes before you start judging them. Then you might be able to help relieve their anxieties and get them to open up to you more easily.

Unconditional Positive Regard: De-Mystifying Carl Rogers' Concept

It is incredibly difficult for most people to grasp the concept of unconditional positive regard. Even on paper, it seems that Carl Rogers eludes understanding. And yet, once someone not only understands it, but practices it with full faith and confidence, it completely changes your world view and the way you interact with others. This, in turn, generates more positive feelings for those who receive the unconditional positive regard. So, let us begin with some basic clarifications, definitions if you will, to help reach an understanding.

Self-Actualization: according to humanistic psychologists, Rogers included, the driving force behind human behavior and mental processes. The motivation is to become the best "you" that you can be. This is defined by each individual through choices fueled by free will. Those choices can be influenced by interactions with others, but it is ultimately up to YOU to decide which choice to make and how you define your ideal self. It is also up to you to determine whether or not you reach your full potential, at what rate, and for what amount of time you will stay there.

Free Will: ability to make choices and the responsibility to accept the consequences of those choices. Humanism states that each human being experiences the world in a unique and conscious way. We interpret what we experience in ways that we choose, and each interpretation is just as valid as someone else's because it works for us as theirs works for them. However, we are also fully responsible for our choices and interpretations. No one can "make" you feel or do anything. You choose to respond with certain emotions or behaviors and you can just as easily choose a different response if you are not satisfied with a particular outcome. You are also free to reinterpret your experiences and reevaluate your definition of your self-actualized persona if you don't like the direction you are taking at any given moment. The choice is all yours, as is the responsibility (or "blame" if you prefer a more pessimistic term).

Positive Regard:  positive affect (liking, love, respect, some combination thereof) and individual receives from others and gives to others. When we experience positive regard we know that others care for us and our self-esteem tends to rise. The type of positive regard, however, greatly affects the potency of the experience.

Conditional Positive Regard: positive affect that comes with a price. All too often do we sense that our worth in the eyes of others is dependent upon some measure of merit that they place upon us. We are also not always fully aware of what that condition is, just that it exists. For example, small children often change their labeling of other children as "friends" based on the actions of those "friends" at that moment. Sally may see Amy as her best friend today because Amy gave her the juice box from her lunch. But the next day, Amy is playing house with Joe and didn't ask Sally to play with them, so Sally doesn't like Amy that day. Children often feel as if the love of their parents is highly conditional--Mom & Dad won't love them fully unless they get perfect grades, are accepted into the "right" school, choose the "right" career, or make it onto the team or in the honor society. Many children grow up believing that they have to perform the right actions in order to receive acceptance from their parents and, sadly, some children feel that they never quite measure up to the expectations of their parents. If you have ever worried about disappointing your parents, then chances are good that you experienced (or even just interpreted it as) conditional positive regard. This is a heavy burden to bear, especially if the individual is very important to you. By trying to live up to someone else's expectations, we prevent ourselves from setting our own standards and defining our own goals for self-actualization. This makes is all the more difficult to achieve that high level of existence because you feel you are not free to set the bar yourself.

Unconditional Positive Regard: positive affect with no strings attached. As hard as it is to live with conditional positive regard, we are so used to experiencing it that we find it too difficult to grasp, let alone believe in, the idea of unconditional positive regard. The first step in giving unconditional positive regard is to separate behavior from the person. Of course, this is in direct opposition to behaviorism, which states that human beings are simply the sum total of their actions (behaviors). Humanism makes this distinction, though. Yes, you have free will. Yes, your choices are your responsibility. However, your choices, your behaviors, even your feelings, are not YOU. What defines your personality, your person, is something above and beyond just the conglomeration of the bits and pieces that people witness and judge on a regular basis. A human is something above and beyond their experiences. According to humanism, deep in the heart of every human being is a core of goodness worthy of love and respect simply because they exist. There are no "bad" people. There may be "bad" thoughts or "bad" behaviors or "bad" choices, but that does not mean that the person who engaged in them is "bad" in any sense of the word.

Rogers believed that receiving unconditional positive regard allows an individual to correct inappropriate behaviors without having to give up their core essence because that core was, by its very human nature, worthy of positive regard in its own right. Again, it is not easy to grasp as we are so used to conditions being placed upon us. For many children, if their parents were to say "I love YOU. I'm disappointed in your choices and I don't approve of your behavior, but nothing will change how much I love YOU as a person," this would be too difficult to understand. How can you possibly love someone so much that you can look past their flaws? In truth, you don't have to look past someone's flaws, you don't have to ignore what you consider to be improper behavior or wrong choices, to provide unconditional positive regard. Correcting behavior and steering someone toward more healthy decisions is actually a form of love, so long as your intent is not overpowering malicious control so that your life is more enjoyable, but rather to improve the experiences of the person whose behaviors you are correcting. Parents who show unconditional positive regard love their children because the children are who they are, and they help their children make better choices that will in turn lead to more positive interactions with the rest of the world and help their children on their journey toward self-actualization. Parents correct AND forgive behavior that they feel is maladaptive or inappropriate. They don't dwell on it, per se, but they don't ignore it either.

To forgive behaviors that may have hurt you because you have unconditional positive regard for someone else does not mean that you have to be their doormat or their punching bag. You can still have unconditional positive regard for someone who mistreated you without having to put up with the maltreatment. You can "love" them from afar and patiently wait for them to change their behaviors. You can accept them for who they are without having to put up with their behaviors. But, you have to be able to separate a person from what they do. Again, it's not easy. It's also not easy to convince someone who is not used to receiving unconditional positive regard that you can feel that way toward them.

You can also choose to not let someone else's behaviors hurt you. The amount of anger or sadness you feel, according to humanism at least, is completely up to you. While it is understandable to feel hurt when others behave selfishly in regard to you, you don't have to feel that way. You can decide how much you want it to affect you. You can decide if you want to give the person time to correct their behaviors. You can decide if you want to help them correct their actions. You can decide if you want to move away from them. You can decide if you want to give them another chance.

It is easy to like people who treat us the way we want to be treated. It is easy to dislike people who don't. It is a true challenge to decide to have unconditional positive regard for yourself and others, separating the behaviors from the person. If I have confused you, if you have any comments or questions, please feel free to comment on this post or contact me via Twitter (eowyn35) or Google+ or Facebook. I'm not hard to find and I welcome all thoughts and viewpoints. They help me make different choices and life is that much richer for the experiences.

And yes, I do personally believe that there are no bad people in this world. There are many bad decisions and many selfish acts perpetuated, but I believe that all people have a core of goodness within them. Some may need a little more help and positive regard to find it than others. And it did take me a while to figure out all of this and decide to believe it for myself.

You Have an Attitude!

How many times have you heard someone say that you have "an attitude" as if that's a bad thing? Or perhaps you've heard someone ask "Why are you giving me attitude?" I often wonder if people truly understand that these statements are mostly meaningless and completely without context. For one thing, everyone has at least one attitude about one thing. Attitudes are not really something to give, either, but rather, they are something to have. Let me try to explain.

Attitude: a learned tendency to respond (often positively or negatively) to a stimulus--person, place, thing, idea, etc. No one is born with an attitude of any kind. An infant makes no judgments about anything until they have some kind of experience with stimuli. On top of this, there are actually three components that make up an attitude, which is one of the main reasons why attitudes are not very good predictors of behavior. That, and an attitude can also have varying strengths. Each individual has some variation of strong to mild attitudes. Even highly opinionated people will have some things that they do not care about as passionately as everything else. Let's take a look at the individual components, the ABC (affect, behavior, cognition), of an attitude so that we can build a clearer picture.

Affect. This is the emotion you feel toward the stimulus. Do you feel positively or negatively (or neutrally) about it? Do happy, sad, angry, annoyed sensations come to mind when thinking about or interacting with the stimulus? Also, affect comes in many degrees from very strong (e.g. when someone says "I LOVE ..." or "I HATE ...") to very mild ("I'm not a fan" or "It's all right"). Affect can also be more or less neutral ("I can take it or leave it" or "I really don't care one way or the other"). Much of the affect component of an attitude comes from initial exposure to the stimulus. Continued exposure can either enhance the initial emotional response or dull it over time, again, depending upon one's subsequent experiences.

Cognition. This is what you think and believe about the stimulus. Do you think it is a good thing or worthy of your investment? Do you believe it represents some sort of value, gain, or loss for you? Do you see it as something you can learn from or as a waste of time and effort? For example, you may feel positively about buying new clothes in general, but if you think that the particular outfit is overpriced or not right for you, then your attitude toward the purchase may be milder than either your thoughts or your feelings in isolation. Sometimes this happens when someone is in a less-than-ideal relationship. Logically, they know/think/believe that they are being mistreated by the other party, but they still have positive emotions (usually love) for the person, which generate hope that things will change.

Behavior. This is the action you take regarding the stimulus. Do you actively seek it out or go out of your way to avoid it? Do you speak ill or well of the subject? Sometimes the behavior does not match the emotion or the thought. For example, maybe someone feels thoroughly bored with a class but insists on attending because they are more afraid of the consequences of ditching than they are attracted to the joy of doing something else. Because stimuli often present many cross-overs in our lives, it is not easy to separate an attitude about one without affecting the attitude of something else. We have a tendency to make many complex, interrelated associations in our mind that are not easy to unravel or keep isolated from one another. As a result, you may find yourself not really caring about something itself, but behaving positively toward it because of your thoughts and feelings toward something else that is connected to it. For example, think of a husband who really doesn't like opera because he thinks it is boring and finds himself dreading the act of dressing up. Yet, he may attend the opera because he loves his wife more than he dislikes the performance, so he is willing to let his feelings for his wife drive his behaviors toward the opera.

When we find ourselves facing a serious disconnect between our affect, behavior, and cognition concerning a certain stimulus, we may experience cognitive dissonance. Politics is a good illustration. Let's say, for argument's sake, that Ronda is a die-hard Republican. She usually listens to everything the Republican candidates have to say and usually whole-heartedly agrees with everything they appear to stand for when they campaign. As a result, she has always voted for the Republican candidate in every election, sometimes not even bothering to look too in-depth into the candidates' stances on the issues. Ronda is also a strong advocate for environmental conservation. This year's Republican candidate seems to believe everything that Ronda does, except he is pushing for a bill that will reduce protected land for a vulnerable (not yet endangered) species so that affordable housing can be built to reduce the amount of people living on the street. Now Ronda is torn. If she votes for the Republican, then he will endanger the animals. Yet, if she votes for the Democrat, then she will be endorsing a lot of things that don't align with her usual philosophy on the other issues. So, how do we usually resolve cognitive dissonance? Well, since attitudes have three components, we have a number of options. 1) Ronda can change her conflicting attitudes. She can reevaluate her thoughts and feelings about her desire for the Republican label, or her thoughts and feelings about environmental conservation. 2) Ronda can change her behavior. She can vote for the Democratic (or a third-party) candidate to prevent the development of the protected land. She can also choose not to vote at all, taking herself out of the debate. 3) She can develop a new attitude. Ronda can reduce the strength of her convictions--see the Republican label as less important as before, see conservation as less important than before, see a Democrat label as not so demonic. She can also start to investigate and weigh more options from both sides of the arguments to find a new position that will help her feel less conflicted.

Because of the overlap in our experiences with so many different stimuli and the complexity of decision making in general, it is not easy to predict what a person will do based solely on how they feel or what they think. In addition, as an attitude is learned, the importance we place on our learning experience will modify the strength of each of the components differently.
We form attitudes from direct experience with the stimulus. If someone is kind or rude to you the first time you meet them, then you may feel either positively or negatively, respectively, about them. We generally don't like to contradict our first impressions, so direct experience can sometimes be a very powerful creator of an attitude.
We also form attitudes from secondary exposure. Bob had a horrible experience at a local repair shop and tells Amy all about it. Even though Amy has never been there, she might now think twice about going there because of Bob's experience. If Amy values Bob's opinions very much because of her strong positive attitude toward him, then she is more likely to avoid the place than if she has a milder attitude toward Bob.
Attitudes can be learned from direct instruction, usually from parents. If a parent has ever told a child that they should be friends with someone or that they should avoid certain things, then it is likely that the child will then start to think about those things in the same light it was presented. This is one of the many reasons why prejudices (good and bad) can sometimes pass down from one generation to the next. [Yes, I will do a future post on prejudice versus discrimination.] Again, the strength of one's attitude toward the source will be a significant moderator for the resulting attitude for the stimulus. When a child tends to dismiss their parent's opinions or doesn't like them, that child may insist on forming the opposite attitude from the parent, sometimes just to spite the parent.
In addition, a person may form an attitude through observation. Many people, for example, talk about how wonderful cast members at Walt Disney World are. When you ask them why they believe this, you may find that they never personally experienced an abundance of out-of-the-way kindness or "Disney Magic" themselves, but they may have witnessed a cast member go out of their way for another guest. Mood is a strong moderator in this case. When you are in a good mood to begin with and you see someone else being helped, you have a tendency to form a more positive affect and belief toward the situation. However, if you were having a bad day and you see someone else being treated well, you may form a negative attitude out of jealousy and a wish for special treatment to yourself.

As you can see, attitudes are very complex. To tell someone that they need to change their attitude is not only unjust, it's also a very tall order, depending upon the strength of the attitude. No one "gives" an attitude, either. They simply have one composed from their thoughts, feelings, and actions regarding certain stimuli. If someone has a negative attitude toward you personally, you might want to ask what brought about the opinion before you judge them, showing your own attitude toward them.