Abstract
In this article, the writer goes into detail about the three main components that affect children concerning violence on television. The writer notes that these effects can last a lifetime and greatly impact society as a whole. The paper then discusses the catharsis theory,which claims that televised violence does not have negative effects as other researcher have claimed. The writer concludes that the accumulated experimental findings on the effects of TV violence do not support the catharsis theory and its conclusions.

Outline:
Aggressive Attitudes and Behaviors
Becoming Desensitized to Real World Violence
Developing a Fear of Being Victimized by Violence
Conclusion
The Catharsis Theory

From the Paper
"The first step in learning aggressive attitudes and behaviors is accepting violence as a way to solve problems. On television, violence is the attractive, effective, and preferred solution to most conflicts. Violence is usually portrayed as justified, that is, the good guys win and the bad guys lose. Problems are usually solved rapidly and violently, and violent or other anti-social behaviors go unpunished. The good guys are very often no more appropriate role models for young children than the villains themselves. The result is that many American children are more familiar with violent, aggressive, and anti-social approaches to solving problems. For some, television at its worst, is a terrible influence on a child's mind, an influence that upsets moral balance and makes a child likely to have aggressive behavior as it warps his or her perception of the real world. Some psychologists and psychiatrists feel that continued exposure to such violence might unnaturally speed up the impact of the adult world on the child. This can force the child into a kind of premature maturity. As the child matures into an adult, he can become bewildered; have a greater distrust towards others, a superficial approach to adult problems, and even an unwillingness to become an adult."

Tags:research, Catharsis, desensitized, victim, aggresion, violence

Abstract
This paper discusses the idea that men are more aggressive and dominant and women are more passive, and have the will to nurture others because of their biological predispositions. It examines how social factors can influence the gender role of an individual to a certain extent whereas biological factors still serve as the stronger influence, overall. It looks at how socialization such as allowing women to serve in the armed service, the kibbutz experience where women are treated like men and the concept of equal opportunities in the work place, have failed to prove that nurture does not surpass the role of biology in the determination of sex roles.

From the Paper
"Let us stipulate that socialization is an inadequate explanation for the key determination for sex roles in society. According to such logic society has the ability to influence boys and girls to act in a specific manner. However, one should be skeptical. Why is society so effective at getting males and females to act in the way that it wants them to when it has so much trouble obtaining compliance with its other desires? To be more specific let us use the words of Browne. She states in her book, Biology at Work, ?Parents attempt by instruction and example to cause their children to clean their room, eat their vegetables, close the door, do their homework, and cooperate with their siblings. To the grief of many a parent, however, these lessons often do not easily take.? (Browne, 100)"

Tags:aggresiveness, females, gender, males, biology