Neurobiology and the development of violence: common assumptions and controversies.
Neurobiology and the development of violence: common assumptions and controversies.
复制标题
神经生物学和暴力的发展：常见假设和争议。
DOI：
10.1098/rstb.2008.0032
复制
发表时间：
2008
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Pardini,Dustin
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Loeber,Rolf;Pardini,Dustin
本文讨论了关于解释暴力的神经生物学因素的四个常见假设和相关争议：(I)学者们经常假设与暴力有关的神经生物学因素的个体差异是稳定的，但在生命过程中攻击/暴力发生了很大变化；(Ii)攻击/暴力的个体差异反映了一个或多个被认为具有神经生物学起源的潜在机制，但对于哪些潜在机制最适用却几乎没有达成一致；(Iii)攻击/暴力的发展在某种程度上可以由社会、个人、经济和环境因素来解释，但尚不清楚神经生物因素在多大程度上可以解释攻击/暴力的升级和终止，暴力在社会、个人、经济和环境因素之上，以及(4)暴力在社会中随着时间的推移而兴衰，但用神经生物学和其他因素来解释暴力的长期差异尚不清楚。匹兹堡青年研究的纵向分析被用来说明其中的几个问题。
This paper addresses four common assumptions and related controversies regarding neurobiological factors explaining violence: (i) scholars often assume stability of individual differences in neurobiological factors pertaining to violence, yet much change occurs in aggression/violence during the life course, (ii) individual differences in aggression/violence reflect one or more underlying mechanisms that are believed to have neurobiological origins, yet there is little agreement about which underlying mechanisms apply best, (iii) the development of aggression/violence to some degree can be explained by social, individual, economic and environmental factors, yet it is unclear to what extent neurobiological factors can explain the escalation to, and desistance from, violence over and above social, individual, economic and environmental factors, and (iv) violence waxes and wanes in society over time, yet the explanation of secular differences in violence by means of neurobiological and other factors is not clear. Longitudinal analyses from the Pittsburgh Youth Study are used to illustrate several of these issues.