SP: Lecture Agression and Conflict Flashcards
agression definition SMC
behaviour whose immediate intent is to hurt someone
definition of agression from Geen
Aggression is the delivery of an aversive stimulus from one person to another, with the intent to harm and with an expectation of causing such harm, when the other person is motivated to escape or avoid the stimulus.
wat is het grootste verschil tussen de twee definities?
bij Geen is dit deel geincludeerd: “when the other person is motivated to
escape or avoid the stimulus”
Intergroup aggression
any behaviour intended to harm another person because he or she is a member of an out-group, the behaviour being viewed by its target as undesirable
2 types of aggression
- instrumental agression
- hostile aggression
instrumental agression =
= cold
Behaviour aimed at achieving a particular goal (hurting someone is a means to achieve an end), to control other people or obtain resources
hostile aggression =
= hot
Behaviour that is mainly aimed at hurting another person. Which is driven by
physiological arousal, hostile affect etc
dus globaal 2 typen aggression en wat is het
instrumental = cold = gewoon collateral damage
hostile = hot = echt het pijn doen van iemand
maar kritiek 2 soorten aggressie
people usually speak of a combination of both forms
waarom is deze definitie relevant
- 50 shades example
- But also estimates of exposure to violence in the media
operationalisations of aggression
- Aggression machine
- Hot sauce paradigm
- Competitive reaction time task
hot sauce paradigm =
Participants are asked to give a portion of hot sauce to another person (who they know hates hot sauce) and who will have to eat it all, ostensibly as part of a taste test.
hoe meer hot sauce in kopje, hoe meer aggressief iemand is.
aggression machine
machine that allows an experimenter to record a subject’s level of state aggression in terms of the duration and intensity of an electric shock that the subject is prepared to give an accomplice. No shock is actually given, but the accomplice behaves as if he or she has received a shock.
basically migram
competitive reaction time task
participants are led to believe they play a computerized reaction time game against another participant in an adjacent room. At the beginning of each round, both participants set the intensity (volume and/or duration) of a noise blast. Then, they have to react to a stimulus as quickly as possible by pressing a button, and the faster player is determined the winner. The loser of a round then is punished with a noise blast using the intensity settings made by the winner at the beginning of the round. The intensity settings are used as the measure for aggressive behavior.
participants select the duration and intensity of blasts to be delivered to the competitor.
conceptual replication =
researchers re-test the same theoretical idea or hypothesis repeatedly, but use different populations, different ways of manipulating variables, different ways of measuring variables, or using different study designs.
waarom is dit belangrijk bij aggression
omdat aggression op veel manieren bestudeerd kan worden, en is dus belangrijk om hier goed onderscheidt tussen te maken
Aggression has a clear biological basis, but biological factors alone are not
sufficient to understand aggression
oke
Lorenz (1966) said…
man is an animal that always benefits from having a fighting instinct: for territory, women and food.
- According to Lorenz, aggression is a basic biological motive, as is hunger and thirst.
- Aggression then builds up as a kind of energy, until it can be released.
- A provocation then enables the organism to ‘let out’ the aggression.
aggression en evolutie
evolution -> mating goal. aggression could sometimes help, therefore it is a consequence of evolution
BUT it is not neccesary!
catharsis =
when aggressive feelings, motives and impulses are drained off via violent action
When a mating-goal is made salient, men are more aggressive towards other men, but not towards other women (Ainsworth & Maner, 2012).
* No effect on women
* But: effect disappears when this dominance can be confirmed in
another way
So aggression is not the only way to gain status and resources
* Such as being able to work together, form connections, learn from others, etc.
oke
klopt catharsis?
nee, want aggressie leidt juist tot nog meer aggressie en boosheid. leidt niet tot een sense of relief, maar juist evenveel of meer motivatie voor aggressie
Aggression causes more aggression and anger, not less (Berkowitz (1966), Geen et
al (1975), in Geen (2001))
* Especially when focusing on the source of frustration violence further increases feelings aggression
* Usually, aggressing doesn’t lead to feeling better/sense of relief
* Less arousal, but still as much (or more) motivation for aggression
Evidence for hereditary base of aggression in research in animals and humans
warrior mice
–> dus heeft wel een genetische basis
welk gen is gerelateerd aan aggressie
Warrior gene (MAO-A) is related to aggression and delinquency in teenagers and young adults
but 34% of the white male population has this gene…
alcohol and aggression
more extreme domestic violence; alcohol is a factor in 2/3 of murder cases
alcohol myopia =
door alcohol geen goede assessment van consequences of behaviour.
- Focus on direct cues over more complex considerations
- Related reduced functionality of prefrontal cortex
maar de invloed van alcohol is ook deels uitgelegd door…
de expectations!! placebo effect
What people think they are drinking better predicts
aggression in a lab setting than what they are actually
drinking
difference fraternal and relative deprivation
fraternal = ingroup vs outgroup
relative = comparison of yourself and another person
general aggression model globaal
inputs: person - situation
routes: internal state -> affect/cognition/arousal
outcomes: appraisal and decision processes
thoughtful vs impulsive action
social encounter
Balancing the costs vs. the rewards of aggression
- Possibility of punishment can deter aggression
- Low perceived cost (e.g. strength, weapons)
- Perceived cost and benefit is relative: e.g. if violence is the only way to get wanted resources
self esteem and aggression
- People with low self esteem might lack the resources to cope with frustration
- People with high, but unstable/insecure self esteem are more likely to respond to social rejection with aggression
experiment violence en competitve reaction time task
louder sounds bij physical violence, daarna relational, en daarna control
Aggression of others can be a model for one’s own behaviour
* Also behaviour in movies, games etc
* In particular if an observer identifies with the model
Effect is stronger if the modelled behaviour is reinforced
* Lack of aversive effects
* Rewards
oke
gender differences in aggression
- Men are generally more aggressive than women -> Men are usually stronger (better cost-benefit balance)
- But differ on different types of aggression: biting and hitting for women vs heavier violence by men may be equally common!!!
personality traits for aggression
Relatief wel stabiel:
- Trait aggressiveness
- A tendency to see the behavior of others as provocation
social differences in aggression
- More violence in honour cultures, where there is “a great concern for a man’s
reputation based on his toughness and ability to protect his family and
possessions” - “A man who allows his partner to stray may be seen as less of a man. He may
be perceived as weak and vulnerable, someone who can be taken advantage
of in other situations as well
role of accessibility in aggression
- Short-term effects: priming of existing knowledge structures (schemata, scripts)
- Long-term effects: Larger chronic accessibility aggressive scripts
dus als aggression meer accessible is zullen mensen dit ook meer laten zien
more arousal =
more aggression
wat is de pathway van frustration tot aggression
frustration -> emotional response -> arousal
verschillende experimenten die frustration -> aggression laten zien
- Influence of games on anger and hostility (Saleem et al, 2012)
- More violent crimes at high temperatures
- Pain: keeping hands in icy water increases aggression
- Emotions are appraisal driven: different action tendencies associated with Anger, Fear and Disgust. disgust = minder aggressie, anger = meer aggressie.
hostile attribution bias
the tendency to interpret others’ behaviors as having hostile intent, even when the behavior is ambiguous or benign
(bv twee mensen zien lachen en denken dat het over jou gaat)
general aggression model: situation factors
Frustration,
aversive conditions,
relative deprivation,
cost-benefit considerations,
Media,
ratification
wat beinvloedt de internal state
(= arousal, affect, cognition)
de accessibility!
wat beinvloedt appraisal and decision processes
Influence via hostile expectations, desensitisation, obstruction of prudent action
cyberbullying
anonymous
wider group of bullies
no (traditional) supervision of parent or teacher
effects of bullying are … extreme online
more: more distress, psychosocial problems, depression, and even suicides
bullying disinhibition komt door
- Lack of supervision
- Anonymity
- Easier to contact like-minded people
more possibilities for aggression through
- Availability of targets
- Invisibility of targets
experiment aggressie bij partners normen?
de waargenomen norm van mannen was veel hoger dan de daadwerkelijke norm van aggressie bij partners
hoe ontstaat violence in intimate relationships door frustration of provocation
- observed threat to status/power man (e.g. assertiveness)
- Hostile and defensive interpretations, especially in stressful/unsatisfactory relationships
welke factoren spelen een rol bij domestic violence
- History of verbal violence
- Alcohol
- Standards: perceived power & acceptance of domestic violence
is violence against women interpersonal aggression?
- Violence towards women by men is related to prejudices about women and traditional ideology about gender roles
- Specific violent crimes are especially, directly and indirectly, frightening and threatening for women
- The victim (i.e. women) also internalises prejudices on the basis of group membership (being a woman)
dus nee.
Group membership and the relative status of the in-group are important ingredients in explaining aggression & conflict
oke
robbers cave showed that….
showed that hostility can arise between two groups in conflict and competition for scarce resources. In the case of the experiment, the scare resources were medals and prizes. It also demonstrates that through superordinate goals, prejudice against groups can be reduced.
intergroup conflict occurs when…
intergroup conflict (i.e., conflict between groups) occurs when two groups are in competition for limited resources.
superordinate goals =
goals die niet individueel behaald kunnen worden, moeten met de gehele groep
3 dingen over robbers cave feitjes soort van
- Even minimal groups respond with more
aggression, compared to individuals in similar
circumstances (Meier & Hinsz, 2004) - Classic example: Competition between two
minimal groups (eagles vs rattlers) - Sharing camp facilities
- Contest in tournament for prizes (pocket knives)
- In just a few days, verbal and physical aggression
between the groups ensued
realistic conflict theory
The theory that intergroup hostility arises from competition among groups for scarce but valued material resources.
competition for scarce goods is at the basis of intergroup conflict
Outgroup is seen as more attractive after cooperation than after competition
relative deprivation theory
The theory that feelings of discontent arise from the belief that other individuals or groups are better off.
which suggests that social comparison, not objective reality, determines how satisfied or dissatisfied people are with what they have
More competitiveness to ensure an advantage over the outgroup (vs absolute gain)
egoistic deprivation
gaat om individuen (dus jezelf vergelijken met je buurman)
fraternal deprivation
sense that one’s group is not doing as well as other groups (Runciman, 1966). Like egoistic deprivation, fraternal deprivation has little to do with objective levels of adequacy or success. A group with little may be content if those around them also have little. Conversely, a group whose situation is improving may feel discontent if other groups seem to be improving at a faster rate.
which form of deprivation is most likely to lead to intergroup conflict
fraternal deprivation
hoe zorgen norms voor meer/minder conflict
The desire to act aggressively is not always carried out, however, because social norms and the actions of others also play a major role in the decision to initiate or restrain aggression. Aggressive role models can show that violence is rewarded, offer evidence that aggression is normatively acceptable, and serve as a cue that makes aggressive thoughts and feelings more accessible. No wonder aggressive models are so potent in producing further aggression and that those aiming at reducing aggression in society have criticized the media for presenting so many aggressive models for public consumption.
As positions harden, groups find it increasingly difficult to communicate productively, so persuasion and discussion often give way to threats and attempted coercion.
oke
wat is de paradox van threats
Most people believe that threats—describing punishments that will follow unwanted behavior—increase their bargaining power and their chances of getting their way (Falbo & Peplau, 1980; Rothbart & Hallmark, 1988). As a result both groups tend to use threats, leaving neither group with an advantage. Each is thinking exactly the same thing, cursing the other’s unwillingness to listen to reason, deciding that the language of force is the only language the opponent can understand. The reality, unfortunately, is that threats provoke counterthreats, diminish people’s willingness to compromise, and in the end generate hostility.
wat laat exp Acme en Bolt zien
hoe counterproductive threats kunnen zijn
experiment uitleg
They asked pairs of female participants to imagine themselves as owners of two rival trucking companies, named Acme and Bolt, whose profits were based on the speed with which they carried merchandise over roads to specific destinations. The most profit could be attained by taking the short central road rather than the long and winding bypass (see Figure 13.3). As the map shows, a potential source of conflict is built into the road layout: One section of the central road is only one lane wide. If both players reach this section at the same time, one must back up and let the other proceed. This problem was not insurmountable, however. Participants soon worked out a cooperative solution: They took turns making deliveries along the central road, each earning close to the maximum profit from the experimenter. So far, so good. But then researchers introduced conditions that allowed the players to control something that could be used to threaten their opponent: a gate on the central road. By closing the gate, a player could force the opponent’s truck to back up and take the bypass, costing extra time and lowering profits. In the unilateral threat condition, Acme controlled the only gate at one end of the one-lane stretch of road. In the bilateral threat condition, each player controlled a gate. As before, the players were free to communicate to try to solve their differences.
wat was het resultaat
beiden verloren money:
unilateral -> when a gate closed, bolt lost money but acme as well (during the confrontations -> lose money as well)
bilateral -> losses where even larger (both consistently lost money)
And whether the threat was unilateral or bilateral, players’ communications focused on the use and consequences of the threat rather than on ways of cooperating to resolve the conflict. Because nothing in the rules said they have to threat the other: They could have worked together, taking turns and happily raking in the money just like the players in the condition without any gates. But these findings indicate that the mere availability of a potential threat appears to be enough to bring about its use. Once people have coercive means at their disposal, they shift from reward-seeking to socially competitive behavior
vicarious retribution
Members of a group who were not themselves directly harmed by an attack may lash out at members of the offending group, who themselves need not be the ones who committed the original attack.
ze gaan het een soort van allemaal opnemen voor elkaar, maar worden dan nog bozer.
coalition formation
occurs when two or more parties pool their resources to obtain a mutual goal they probably could not achieve alone -> superordinate goals?
biased attributions for ingroup vs outgroup: 2 ways
- in-group motives are perceived as positive, whereas out-group motives are
perceived as negative - we perceive in-group actions as dictated by situations, but out-group actions
as dictated by character flaws
what happens in your body and speech during conflict
conflict -> emotional arousal -> affects processes of perception and communication -> meer simplistic thinking -> decisions are based on simple stereotypes, snap judgments, and automatic reactions
us and sovjet portrayals
both sides’ political statements reflected simplistic and stereotypic thinking about the out-group in the media. tijdens war: verbal images of the opponent used in speech waren veeeeel simplistischer dan buiten war.
communication with ingroup members polarizes during conflict, wat leidt tot
- Only congruent information is shared & leads to more extreme positions
- When in conflict groups demand loyalty, solidarity and strict adherence to group norms
reactive devaluation =
everything suggested by the outgroup is seen as bad for the ingroup
3 vormen van bias bij conflict met outgroup
- ingroup seen as positive, outgroup as negative
- ingroup = situational, outgroup = characteristics
- reactive devaluation
dus welke factoren leiden tot escalation
- simplistic thinking
- biases
- group polarization
3 theorieen over causes of conflict
- realistic conflict theory (resources)
- relative (groups) & fraternal (individual) deprivication (social comparison)
- norms
6 redenen voor escalation
- group polarization
- negotiations and threats
- vicarious retributions
- biased attribution
- cues of aggression and group membership
- simplistic thinking
conflict resolutions
- changing norms and cues
- collaborations
3 extra reasons for conflict escalations
- Power relationships & beliefs about social dominance
- Outgroup falls outside moral considerations (dehumanization)
- Desentisation through routine action
3 ways to reduce conflict
- extend the norms of the ingroup to the outgroup, focus on shared social identity (wat hebben we in gemeen?)
- minimize cues for aggression (wapens)
- increase empathy for outgroup (bv: perspective taking)
wat hebben we geleerd van de robbers cave over conflict resolution?
- Only contact with the outgroup is not sufficient/can be counterproductive
- Working together for goals that transcend group membership can work!!
hoe werkt working together for minimizing conflict, wat heb je nodig
- Stereotypes debunked
- Locating between equals
- Delivering successful results
- Supported by institutional standards
