What is defined as evil behavior


Behavior units
The definition of behavior and the acquisition of behavioral data are closely related to the question of what the basic behavioral units of a species are. The literature offers very different answers to this question. Basically, a distinction must be made between observation units on the one hand and measurement or survey units on the other. The unit under consideration represents the focus of a question. Survey units, on the other hand, are qualifications or quantifications of the unit under consideration by referring to them in a subdivision. The unit under consideration of a question can be “aggressive behavior”, which is subdivided into the survey units “physical”, “verbal”, “symbolic” or “mimic” aggression. Facts are not considered or survey units per se. What appears as a unit of consideration in one case can - according to critical language analysis (Kamlah & Lorenzen, 1973) - become a unit of inquiry in another case. "Aggressive behavior" becomes a survey unit, for example, if it is understood as part of or a manifestation of the observation unit "social behavior" in association with "parallel behavior", cooperation, help behavior, "supportive behavior" or "neutral interaction". Other fundamental aspects of behavioral units are their naturalness, analyzability, structure and function. Of natural behavior units one speaks when these formally impose themselves on our perception. As a rule, our colloquial language also offers an appropriate term. The Analyzability of a behavior unit has two aspects: unity as diversity and unity as simplicity. Units of manifold represent something that is closed in itself, which, however, is still different in itself and can therefore be further analyzed. Such a unit is more than an arbitrary combination of its distinguishable parts. The parts belong and work together in a certain way. Examples are: dinner, driving a car or playing tennis. Units of simplicity represent the “original concept” of a unit. What is meant is the indivisible, the last thing that is inherently indifferent and consequently cannot be further analyzed. The classic example was the “atom”, which for a long time was considered the last indivisible unit of matter. In the behavioral field, it is extremely difficult to find units of this type. According to the above definition of behavior, at least in theory, units of simplicity should be encountered when our perception reaches the limit of its ability to dissolve. Another view conceives units of simplicity as a state of affairs that stands behind the diversity of the phenomena, e.g. aggression as a factor-analytical dimension (factor analysis). In both cases of units of simplicity, we are dealing with facts that are no longer or only with difficulty directly perceptible. In the narrower sense, they can no longer be described as behavior. Structural behavior units are those that are derived from the body structure of a species. Examples are: eat, drink, sing, speak, bark, walk, gallop, meander, fly. Structural units are sometimes referred to as “physically founded” behavioral units. Finally in the functional behavior units contain a relationship to context, to the world of physical objects, or to a goal. Functional units can therefore also be called “socio-culturally founded”. Examples are: eating with fork and knife, drinking wine, singing, speaking to someone or barking at someone, going home, galloping across the field on a horse, meandering through the crowd, flying to America. The goal, context and subject dependency of functional units repeatedly lead to new behaviors. Playing tennis, bungy jumping, flying, watching TV, and computer games are not always existing behaviors, but products of our cultural development. As a result, functional units as well as socio-culturally conditioned units form an open class. The criteria of naturalness, analyzability, structure and function are not mutually exclusive.

Behavioral unit and theory
The theoretical orientation of research sometimes leads to a preference for certain behavioral units. Behavioral ecological approaches, such as that of Barker & Wright (1955), prefer a distinction in molecular and molar behavior units. Molar units, too Actions are ascribed to a person as a whole. They are goal-oriented and lie within a person's cognitive field, which means that the person is clear about what he is doing, but this is not to be equated with intent. In contrast to this, molecular units are those that are subordinate to actions. They are also called Actons designated. Actons convey actions or generate action variants. An action is largely what a person is doing, while actons indicate how the person is doing what. Example “Dinner”: The Dinner action can take place in very different ways; We can celebrate dinner by indulging in several courses, serving special wines, using special place settings and cutlery, choosing candles instead of lamps and playing music that enhances the atmosphere. It would be faster, however, if we shoved a frozen ready-to-eat meal into the microwave oven and after five minutes devoured the half-hot dish in a standing position. With a potential business or love partner, we will hardly choose the microwave variant, since it is not about satisfying the hunger in the stomach, but about agreeing with an interaction partner to satisfy other wishes. Consequently, the action “dinner” can become different behavior variants, i.e. actons, which in turn mediate an action, e.g. “recruiting”. Behaviors are not actons or actions in and of themselves, but are made into such by the people who carry them. The Action Psychology subordinates the general concept of behavior to a special one, that of action. Action is understood as goal-oriented behavior or, in an even narrower sense, as intended behavior. Actions and actions are very similar to each other. Only when action is understood solely and only as a deliberate, deliberate behavior, does the concept of action deviate from the more comprehensive understanding of the concept of action (planned behavior, deliberate behavior). Ethology differentiates behavioral units according to biological functional groups, such as nutrition, reproduction and brood care. Sometimes the attempt is made to put all behavior units of a species in a behavior catalog, a so-called Ethogramto summarize. Since the open class of functional or socio-culturally conditioned behavioral units is seen as the most important by human psychology, the creation of a human psychological ethogram is practically impracticable. Choose clinical psychology and psychiatry Behavior disorders as units, such as tics, compulsive actions, slurred speech (language disorders), Parkinsongang. Finally, behaviorism, as a unit of behavior, places the reaction or “response” in the center of interest. The behavioristic concept of behavior is thus an extremely narrow one, so that this trend wrongly bears its name. Correctly, it should therefore be called “responsism” rather than “behaviorism”. The question of whether behavior can be designed independently of theory is disputed. The answer largely depends on what is meant by a theory. If we equate theory with perceptual factors such as assumptions, interpretations or expectations, then ultimately there is nothing that is not theory at the same time. However, despite its widespread use in scientific circles, such a theoretical concept is completely useless from a scientific point of view.

Fassnacht, G. (1995). Systematic observation of behavior. An introduction to the methodology and practice. (Second German, completely revised edition). Munich: Reinhardt.
Kamlah, W. and Lorenzen, P. (1973). Logical propaedeutics. Preschool of Sensible Speaking. (2nd, improved and enlarged edition). B.I. university pocket books, volume 227. Mannheim: Bibliographisches Institut.
Barker, R. G. and Wright, H. F. (1955). Midwest and Its Children. New York: Harper Bros.