Social Psychology by R. Smith, M. Mackie, and M. Claypool (fourth edition) – Summary chapter 13

Aggression is the delivery of an aversive stimulus from one person to another with an expectation of causing such harm when the other person is motivated to escape or avoid the stimulus. Conflict refers to a perceived incompatibility of goals between two or more parties. There are two types of aggression. Instrumental aggression (cold) refers to aggression serving mastery needs and aggression used to achieve goals. Hostile aggression (warm) refers to aggression that is driven by emotion.

Lorenz states that it’s human nature to be aggressive and aggression is inevitable. Aggression is one means of asserting dominance and is not necessary. Aggression can be measured by the hot sauce paradigm. Research in aggression has to be confirmed both in the lab and outside of the lab. Construct validity is very important. Aggression is usually triggered by perceptions and interpretations of the situation.

People who believe that aggression leads to rewards are more aggressive. People tend to make a cost-benefit equation of aggression. Interpersonal aggression frequently occurs in response to threats to self-esteem or connectedness. Reminders of one’s mortality makes a person more aggressive. There are also individual differences in the interpretation of situations and the way to act on aggressiveness.

The frustration-aggression theory states that any frustration inevitably triggers aggression. Frustration is any act (of another person) that blocks an important goal. Berkowitz states that aggression doesn’t occur because of frustration, but because of the negative feelings that result. Not all negative emotions result in aggression, disgust does not.

Exposure to aggressive models makes violent behaviour seem more appropriate because it stimulates aggressive thoughts and feelings. Some cues make aggression more intense and more likely, such as seeing a weapon.

When people are thinking superficially, angry feelings and negative thoughts are likely to lead to aggression. There are several factors that can limit someone’s capacity to process deeply and increasing the odds of aggression:

1. Emotional arousal
2. Alcohol use
3. Time pressure

People can be habituated to aggression and change someone’s perception of aggression. It makes it more likely that people find aggression viable. Alcohol causes people to assess the consequences of the situation less well.

The general aggression model states that person and situation factors influence people’s cognition, emotions, and arousal, which in turn influence interpretations of the situations and decisions about aggression.

Many of the factors that promote interpersonal aggression can promote intergroup aggression. Groups are more competitive than individuals. Reminders of group membership increase competitiveness.

Individuals and groups turn to aggression for valued material resources (scarce resources/mastery) or respect and esteem (connectedness). The realistic conflict theory states that intergroup hostility arises from competition among groups for scarce but valued material resources. Liking for the in-group increases with competition. The relative deprivation theory states that feelings of discontent arise from the belief that other individuals or other groups are better off. It is checking how much worse you’re doing than someone else. Fraternal relative deprivation is the sense that one’s group is not doing as well as other groups. Egoistic deprivation is about the individual, fraternal relative deprivation is about groups. Intergroup bias can lead to conflict. Groups compete for respect and esteem.

Conflict has the potential of unifying groups because conflict demands loyalty, solidarity and strict adherence. Efficient communication decreases as conflict arises. Threats provoke counterthreats, diminish people’s willingness to compromise and generate hostility. The availability of a potential threat appears to be enough to bring about its use. If threats dominate communication, they crowd out messages about cooperative solutions. Communication can effectively deter and resolve conflict only when threats are not permitted or when threats are avoided. Deterrence is threatening to use force in the hope of preventing an adversary’s use of force.

Conflicts can quickly escalate because of retaliation. Vicarious retribution refers to when members of a group who were not themselves directly harmed by an attack retaliate against members of the offending group. Coalition formation occurs when two or more parties pool their resources to obtain a mutual goal they probably could not achieve alone. The formation of coalitions and alliances between nations usually increases the possibility of armed hostility.

Perceptual biases become stronger during conflict. Groups in conflict tend to develop three blind spots in their thinking:

1. The in-group can do no wrong
   Biased perceptions cause members of the in-group to see their group as righteous and morally superior.
2. The out-group can do no good
   The out-group is seen as evil. Reactive devaluation refers to perceiving a proposed solution to a conflict negatively simply because the out-group offers it.
3. The in-group is all-powerful
   The in-group sees itself as having might as well as right on its side. This leads to being preoccupied with appearing powerful, prestigious, tough and courageous. This is also called hairy chest syndrome.

Conflict also leads to a biased attribution for behaviour. Actions of the in-group are seen as more positive and actions of the out-group are seen as negative. Conflict leads to stress and this leads to simplistic thinking; relying on stereotypes. Simplistic thinking appears when conflict escalates. People expect groups to act super competitively.

There are three important factors in pushing a group to seek elimination of the out-group:

1. A difference in power between the groups translates desire into action
   Power gives a group the ability to attain its goals without fear of interference or retaliation and this increases its ability and motivation to discriminate the opponent.
2. Moral exclusion blocks moral outrage
   Moral exclusion is especially likely when people harm others under orders from their in-group authorities.
3. Routinization produces desensitization
   Repetition of individual actions becomes routine and this leads to extreme actions becoming mundane.

Groups offer a rich soil for rationalizing negative acts that are motivated by greed or fear of the out-group. The power of groups to define norms for their members is the most fundamental reason that groups are often more aggressive than individuals.

Similarity reduces aggression. By promoting norms of non-aggression, conflict can be reduced. The removal of cues for aggression and the promotion of more positive cues can reduce the likelihood of aggression. Self-distancing, taking another view of the situation, can help us interpret the provocation differently, which reduces aggressive reactions. Promoting empathy with others can also reduce aggression.

There are imposed solutions (one side forces the solution), distributive solutions (compromise) and integrative solutions. Integrative solutions are win-win solutions. Negotiation is the process by which parties in conflict communicate and influence each other to reach an agreement. Negotiation requires time. Building trust is crucial in negotiations. If the conflict is too intense, third-party intervention can be the best solution. Third-party interventions can be effective because it reduces the competitive element of negotiations.

Superordinate goals are shared goals that can be attained only if groups work together. Superordinate goals improve intergroup relationships, but this takes time. There are several circumstances that make intergroup cooperation effective:

1. Cooperation should be for a valued common goal, which eliminates competition for material and social resources.
2. Cooperation should provide repeated opportunities to disconfirm out-group stereotypes
3. Cooperation should produce successful results
4. Cooperation should take place between equals, at least for the task at hand
5. Cooperation should be supported and promoted by social norms

If groups fail while working together, each is likely to blame the other and hostility may even increase. Intergroup cooperation resolves conflicts over concrete resources because it makes the out-group a source of rewards rather than punishments.