Social psychology
Chapter 13
Aggression and conflict

The nature of aggression and conflict

Defining aggression and conflict

Aggression, defined by people’s immediate intention to hurt each other, is often set in motion by incompatible goals. There are two types of aggression

• Hostile, often driven by anger due to insult, disrespect, or other threats to self-esteem or identity
• Instrumental, in the service of mastery needs.

Aggression: behavior intended to harm someone else.

Conflict: a perceived incompatibility of goals between tow or more parties.
Aggression often has its roots in conflict. What one party wants, the other party sees as harmful to its interests.
Conflict between individuals and groups is acted out in many forms.

Aggression and conflict between individuals and groups are found throughout the world.
They generally fall into two distinct categories.

• Instrumental aggression: aggression serving mastery needs, used a means to an end, to control other people, or to obtain valuable resources.
• Hostile aggression: aggression that is driven by anger due to insult, disrespect, or other threats to self-esteem or social identity.

Origins of aggression

Humans have evolved to compete effectively for good and mates. Although the capacity to act aggressively may have helped, aggression has no special place in ‘human nature’. Aggression is just one strategy among many others that humans use to attain rewards and respect, and too is influenced by cognitive processes and social forces.

Research on aggression

Aggression can be difficult to study experimentally because people are often unwilling to act aggressively when they are being observed. Researchers have used a variety of techniques to get around these problems.

Whether aggression is between individuals or between groups, it is usually triggered by perceptions and interpretations of some event or situation.

Interpersonal aggression

What causes interpersonal aggression? The role of rewards and respect

Aggression is triggered by a variety of factors. Some aggression is a result of mastery needs. Potential rewards make this kind of aggression more likely and costs of risks make it less likely. Sometimes, however, perceived provocation such as treat to the self-esteem or connectedness produces anger, which can also set of aggression. Many negative emotions can make aggression more likely. Norms too can promote aggressive behavior.

Counting rewards and costs

When aggression pays, it becomes more likely.
When rewards are withdrawn, aggression usually subsides. Even the possibility of punishment can deter aggression, if the threat is believed.

Rewards and costs are especially relevant for instrumental aggression, and often involve more systematic thinking about the situation, as opposed to an immediate emotional reaction.

One factor that enters into the cost-benefit equation of aggression is the aggressor’s personal abilities.
It is the perception of rewards and costs that trigger aggression.

Responding to threats

Interpersonal aggression frequently occurs in response to threats to self-esteem or connections to valued people or groups.
Any blow to self-esteem is worse if it is public. The presence of an audience may make aggressive responses to self-esteem threats more likely.

Perhaps the most extreme threat to self-esteem is the reminder that the self doesn’t last forever.
It can lead to aggression, specifically against someone who attacks one’s worldview.

Different people react in different ways to potential loss of respect.
Some individual’s are also more likely than others to interpret others’ act as provocations.

Threats to one’s sense of self, self-worth, or sense of belonging often trigger hostile aggression, fueled by a negative emotional reaction to the provocation.
Such provocations sometimes lead people to act aggressively without regard for the likelihood of reward or punishment.

The role of negative emotions

When people’s important mastery or connectedness goals are blocked or threatened, they generally feel negative emotions, which are strongly associated with aggression.

Frustration-aggression theory: a theory holding that any frustration, defined as the blocking of an important goal, inevitably triggers aggression.
Aggression is set off not so much by the blocking of a goal, but by the negative feelings that result.

A variety of conditions that create negative feelings can trigger aggression.

Increasing aggression: models and cues

Other people’s aggressive actions, including portrayals in the media, may indicate that aggression is appropriate. Cues in a specific situation, such as the presence of guns or other weapons, may also increase the accessibility of thoughts related to aggression. Both of these types of factors therefore make aggression more likely to occur.

Potential rewards, as well as threats that lead to negative emotions, may be the fundamental driving forces behind interpersonal aggression. However, external influences can push us further along the path to actual harmful action.

Models of aggression

Other people’s actions offer clues to the behavior that is appropriate in a situation.

Learned cues to aggression

Weapons, and especially guns, are strongly associated with the idea of aggression. If seeing a weapon cues thoughts of aggression, this in turn should make aggressive behavior more likely, and so it does.
People differ.
Common stereotypes can make observers more ready to see, or to imagine to see, a gun in the hand of members of some groups than of others.

Different countries’ norms about the acceptability of owning firearms may also influence incidents of aggressive behavior.

Deciding whether or not to aggress

Situations that favor superficial thinking often favor aggression. Thinking carefully can reduce aggression, but many factors interfere with people’s motivation and ability to process information carefully and evenhandedly, increasing the likelihood of aggression.

You need both motivation and capacity to find ways to resolve your conflict peacefully.

Several factors may limit people’s capacity to process deeply even when they are motivated to do so, often increasing the odds of aggression.

• Emotional arousal
• Alcohol use
• Time pressure

Putting it all together: the general aggression model

The General aggression model: a theory that person and situation factors influence people’s cognition, emotions, and arousal, which in turn influence interpretations of the situation and decisions about aggression.

The desire to act aggressively is not always carried out, because social norms and the actions of others also play a major role in the decision to initiate or restrain aggression.

Person Situation

Current internal state

• Affect
• Cognition
• Arousal

Appraisal and decision processes

Thoughtful action Impulsive action

Intergroup conflict

Sources of intergroup conflict: the battle for riches and respect

Most group conflict stems from competition for valued material resources or for social rewards such as respect and esteem. People use social comparisons to determine acceptable levels of resources. Groups in conflict are often more attuned to social rewards than to material ones.

Although groups are often more competitive and aggressive than individuals, groups and individuals turn to aggression for the same basic reasons.

• Valued material resources
• Respect and esteem

Realistic conflict theory: getting the goods

Realistic conflict theory: the theory that intergroup hostility arises from competition among groups for scare but valued material resources.
The potential gain or loss of material resources motivates intergroup aggression.

Group competition can quickly escalate from dislike into hostility and aggression.

Relative deprivation: when is enough enough

Relative deprivation theory: the theory that feelings of discontent arise from the belief that other individuals or other groups are better of.

Fraternal relative deprivation: the sense that one’s group is not doing as well as other groups.
Has little to do with objective levels of adequacy or success.
Much more likely to cause intergroup conflict than is egoistic deprivation.

Social competition: getting a little respect

Groups also fight over social goods: respect, esteem and ‘bragging rights’.
Social identity. People’s desire to see their own groups as better than other groups can lead to intergroup bias and can contribute to conflict.

The special competitiveness of groups: groups often value respect over riches

One reason for the greater competitiveness of groups than individuals:
When groups vie to be ‘number one’, social competition and the effort to outdo one’s opponent frequently overshadow competition for material resources.

Escalating conflict: group communication and interaction

Once conflict starts, poor communication can make it worse. In-group interaction hardens in-group opinions, threats are directed at the out-group, each group retaliates more and more harshly, and other parties choose sides. All of these processes tend to escalate the conflict.

Talking to the in-group: polarization and commitment

Discussion won’t help if the only person you talk to are those who take your side.
Talking things over with like-minded group members pushes other group members toward extreme views. (group polarization)
As a result of group discussion, then, people may see their group’s position as even more valid and valuable, and they may become even more firmly attached to it.

During discussion, we also become more committed to our views.
As group members see themselves getting worked up, they conclude that they must care a lot about the issues. Dissonance-reduction.

The special competitiveness of groups: when conflict arises, groups close ranks

In situations of conflict, groups demand loyalty, solidarity, and strict adherence to group norms.
Leaders sometimes take advantage of the unifying effect of conflict to strengthen their hold on power.

Talking to the out-group: back off, or else!

As positions harden, groups find it increasingly difficult to communicate productively, so persuasion and discussion often give way to threats and attempt coercion.
Most people believe that threats increase their bargaining power and their chances of getting their way. As a result both groups tend to use threats, leaving neither group with an advantage.

But threats provoke counterthreats, diminish people’s willingness to compromise, and in the end generate hostility.

Threats usually are counterproductive. They threatened group may assume that aggression is inevitable no matter how it responds. And if it responds with a counterthreat, the first group’s belief in the opponent’s hostility and unwillingness to compromise will be confirmed.
Threats and counterthreats almost invariably escalate in intensity rather than staying in the same level.
When threats dominate communication, they crowd out messages about cooperative solutions.

Vicarious retribution: they hurt us, now I hurt them

The direct victims of a real or perceived intergroup attack or insult are not the only ones who want to retaliate.

Vicarious retribution: members of a group who were not themselves directly harmed by an attack retaliating against members of the offending group.
With so many new potential perpetrators, further incidents between groups become likely.

Coalition formation: escalation as others choose sides

Coalition formation: occurs when two or more parties pool their resources to obtain a mutual goal they probably could not achieve alone.
Tends to polarize multiple parties into two opposing sides.
When two groups are in conflict, coalition formation is usually seen as a threatening action that, like most threats, only intensifies competition.
Those excluded form the coalition may react with fear and anger, and they often form their own coalitions.
As unaffiliated groups ally wit one side or the other, differences become polarized and the dangerous allure of consensus convinces each side that it is right.

Perceptions in conflict: what else could you expect from them?

As escalation continues, the in-group sees the out-group as totally evil and sees itself in unrealistically positive terms. Emotion and arousal make these biases even worse.

These conflict-driven perceptions may have little basis in reality, but they affect the group’s understanding of what is happening and why.
This skewed understanding in turn becomes a guide for group behavior.

Polarized perceptions of in-group and out-group

Groups enmeshed in conflict tend to develop three blind spots in their thinking:

• The in-group can do no wrong
  Members can even engage in moral disengagement to help explain away the wrong-doing of their own group.
• The out-group can do no right
  Reactive devaluation: perceiving a proposed solution to a conflict negatively simply because the out-group offers it.
• The in-group is all-powerful
  The in-group soon sees itself as having might as well as right on their side.

Biased attributions for behavior

Groups in conflict frequently attribute identical behaviors by the in-group and the out-group to diametrically opposed causes.
In the context of conflict, attributions for in-group and out-group actions are biased in two different 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.

The impact of emotion and arousal: more heat, less light

As conflict rises, people experience tension, anger, anxiety, frustration, and fear.
This emotional arousal affects processes of perception and communication and produces simplistic thinking.
As complex thinking shuts down, decisions are based on simple stereotypes, snap judgments, and automatic reactions.

Emotions can not only lead to oversimple thinking about an opposing group, but also direct behaviors toward that group, often in negative ways.
Of particular importance are the emotions that people feel when they are thinking of themselves as members of their group. Group-based emotions depend on the particular nature of the threats that an out-group is seen as opposing.
Distinct emotions can motivate different types of action toward an out-group.

The special competitiveness of groups: people expect groups to be super-competitive, so they react in kind

Biased an extreme perceptions of out-groups are another reason why groups act more competitively than individuals.
People expect groups o be highly competitive and hostile. This expectation has a self-fulfilling quality.

‘Final solutions’: eliminating the out-group

Ultimately, conflict may escalate into an attempt at total domination or destruction of the out-group. When power differences exist between the groups and the out-group is morally excluded, one group may try to eliminate the other.

Three factors seem particularly important in pushing a group to seek a ‘final solution’ to intergroup differences one the groundwork of intergroup hostility and conflict has been laid.

• A difference in power between the groups translates desire into action
• Moral exclusion blocks moral outrage
• Routinization produces desensitization

Gradually escalate

The special competitiveness of groups: groups offer social support for competitiveness

Groups offer a rich soil for rationalizing negative acts that are motivated by greed or by fear of the out-group.

Reducing interpersonal and intergroup conflict and aggression

Altering perceptions and reactions

Approaches to reducing aggression and conflict include promoting norms of nonaggression, minimizing or removing the cues that often cause individuals to commit aggressive acts, and encouraging careful interpretation and identification with others.

Promote norms of non-aggression

Norms are usually most effective in limiting aggression against other in-group members. Similarity reduces aggression.
Because:

• Shared group membership breeds liking, and positive feelings for another person are incompatible with aggression.
• The norms of most groups proscribe or strictly control aggression within the group so that cohesion can be maintained and group goals achieved.

Minimize cues for aggression

Some cues activate aggressive thoughts and feelings, making overt acts of aggression more likely.

Not only the removal of negative cues, but also the presence of more positive cues may reduce the likelihood of aggression.

Interpret, and interpret again

In most cases, systematic thought seems to be helpful in preventing aggression.
Engaging in self-distancing might help.

Promote empathy with others

Encouraging people to move closer to another person’s perspective.
Aggression is easiest when victims are distanced and dehumanized.
Empathy is a fellow feelings, and fellow feeling is incompatible with aggression.

Resolving conflict through negotiation

Conflict resolution also involves the parties in trying to find mutually acceptable solutions, which requires understanding and trust. When direct discussion is unproductive, third parties can intervene to help the parties settle their conflict.

Types of solutions

• Imposed solution: solutions are dictated by one party
  Those who lose are usually dissatisfied with the outcome, and such solutions are rarely successful in ending conflict.
• Distributive solutions: involve mutual compromise or concessions that carve up a fixed-size pie.
  All parties must give up something they wanted, but the loss may be tolerable, particularly when compared to the cost of continued conflict.
• Integrative solutions: win-win solutions
  One side’s gain is not necessarily the other’s loss. Both sides can benefit simultaneously.
  Attempt to satisfy the parties’ underlying motives, rather than their explicit demands, and they may offer the only way out of some difficult international conflict.

Achieving solutions: the negotiation process

Negotiation: the process by which parties in conflict communicate and influence each other to reach agreement.

Successful resolution of conflict requires sufficient time for negotiation.
When adequate time is available, the fundamental goal of negotiators is to help each party understand how the other interprets and evaluates the issues.

Building trust

One of he priorities of negotiation is to build trust, so that parties will abandon their search for negative motives within each other’s proposals.
Negotiators usually try to break conflicts into sets of small, manageable issues. When one party successfully negotiates an issue with the opponent, liking and trust for the other party increase, perhaps making later issues easier to settle.

Mediation and arbitration: bringing in third parties

Direct communication is not always the best way to resolve conflicts.

Advantages of third party involvement:

• Mediators or arbitrators can arrange meeting agendas, times, and places so that these details do not themselves become sources of conflict
• Skillful intervention can improve intergroup relationships
• Because outsiders brig fresh ideas, they may be able to offer more creative integrative solutions that those proposed by people deeply enmeshed in the conflict.
• A skilled third party can leave room for graceful retreat and face-saving when disputants lock themselves into positions they themselves realize are untenable. May allow both sides to accept concessions without embarrassment.

Intergroup cooperation: changing social identity

Conflict resolution can also be facilitated by having groups cooperate toward shared goals that can be attained only if both groups work together. Under the proper conditions, cooperative intergroup interaction reduces conflict.

Superordinate goals

Superordinate goals: shared goals that can be attained only if groups work together.
Superordinate goals improved intergroup relationships, but not overnight.

Why does intergroup cooperation work?

Intergroup cooperation is not a foolproof cure for conflict. But when the right conditions exist, intergroup cooperation undermines many processes that contribute to conflict and ti encourages positive interaction and even friendship, which can ultimately reduce prejudice.

• Cooperation should be for a valued common goal, which eliminates competition of material and social resources
• Cooperation should provide repeated opportunities to dis-confirm out-group stereotypes
• Cooperation should produce successful results
• Cooperation should take place between equals, at least for the task at hand
• Cooperation should be supported and promoted by social norms

Forming a new and more inclusive in-group works best in solving intergroup conflict if the original groups retain some measure of distinctiveness. This highlights that the contact between members is truly intergroup.

Under the right conditions, intergroup cooperation not only leads group members to think of themselves in terms of a higher-level common identity, bu also encourages them to get to know out-group members as individuals.

Intergroup cooperation for superordinate goals hods the promise of true conflict resolution, rather than conflict management.