Political Psychology – Lecture 7 [UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM]

The biological approach states that mankind is genetically predisposed to be violent. Behaviourism states that violence is socially learned through modelling and operant conditioning. However, aggression is probably a consequence of an interaction between nature and nurture.

There are different personality traits related to showing aggression in different contexts (i.e. dark tetrad of personality). Narcissism is more likely to lead to aggression in combination with a threat to the ego. Psychopathy is more likely to lead to physical aggression. Machiavellianism is more likely to lead to calculative use of aggression. Sadism is more likely to lead to aggression in combination with anonymity.

The security dilemma refers to a situation in which the actions taken by each state to increase its security has the effect of simultaneously decreasing the security of its neighbours. In conflict situations, the true motivations of neighbours are unknown. Therefore, the beliefs about the neighbours’ motivation and capabilities determine decisions.

The fundamental attribution error refers to the tendency to attribute another person’s behaviour or actions to their dispositional qualities rather than situational factors. This error can in conflict situations lead to a malignant (spiral) process of hostile interaction.

According to this spiral, an anarchic situation is the starting point of intractable conflict. Both countries have a fear of becoming military inferior. This leads to a win-lose (i.e. zero-sum) competitive orientation. The conflict inside the nation justifies the external conflict. This leads to cognitive rigidity (i.e. misjudgements of others). This, in turn, leads to the expression of hostility which results in hostility.

Deterrence refers to the use of threats to prevent someone from doing something. The effectiveness of deterrence depends on the credibility of the threat. Degenerate image refers to an image of whether a country equal in power is confused or lacking the will to respond to the actions of another country (i.e. no credibility for deterrence).

Deterrence and compellence couple demands for inaction and action to a threat of sanctions. There are several parts of a successful deterrence:

• It must clearly define the behaviour that is deemed unacceptable.
• It must communicate a commitment to punish violations to challengers.
• The sender must possess the means to defend the commitment.
• The sender must demonstrate their resolve (i.e. carry out retaliation).

According to the utility theory, an adversary evaluates its options when facing a coercer’s influence attempt (i.e.(benefit-cost) x probability of sanctions) Deterrence and compellence can be seen as operant conditioning. Weak threats are often worse than no threats.

The game theory can be used to understand deterrence. Sometimes, retaliatory threats required by deterrence require irrational decisions (e.g. national suicide; atomic bombing). This threat can be made credible by creating a situation of irrevocable commitment and by creating a situation of threat leaving something to chance (e.g. giving submarine commanders the authority to fire nuclear weapons).

The conflict spiral theory focuses on individuals’ temptation to use violence independent of other’s behaviour. It is possible to compare this to the prisoner’s dilemma as all states are worse off due to threat as threats lead to counteractions.

According to the conflict spiral theory, states often develop potent and flexible armed forces (i.e. threat). In addition to this, the state is often willing to fight for issues of low intrinsic value and avoid any appearance of weakness. This, in turn, leads to heightened tensions and dynamics of misunderstandings.

According to the deterrence theory, the state’s attempt to reassure the other party of one’s non-aggressiveness is done to avoid provocations. In addition to this, the state can undertake unilateral initiatives (e.g. one-sided cease-fire). This, in turn, leads to the aggressor doubting the state’s willingness to resist.

There are several aspects of intractable conflict:

1. Protracted
   The conflict lasts for at least one generation.
2. Violent
   The conflict contains sudden and unjustified violence.
3. Irresolvable
   The conflict is perceived as irresolvable which leads to expectancies of long-term violence.
4. Demand investment
   The conflict requires physical and psychological investment from the participants.
5. Total
   The conflict needs to affect all essential and basic needs and goals of society.
6. Zero-sum
   The conflict needs to be without compromise and all-out.
7. Central
   The conflict needs to take a central place in society and individual’s lives.

Challenges of intractable conflict include satisfying needs that remain deprived during intractable conflict (1), coping with negative emotions (2) and successfully withstand the rival group (3). Successfully withstanding the rival group refers to attempts to not lose the conflict.

The sociopsychological infrastructure consists of several parts:

1. Collective memory
   This is a subjective, socially constructed narrative about the past. It is based on societal beliefs. This part justifies the conflict (1), presents a positive self-image of the ingroup (2), delegitimizes the opponent (3) and present’s one’s society as the victim of the opponent (4).
2. Ethos of conflict
   This is the narrative about the present and for the future. This gives a general orientation and direction. It provides a clear picture of the conflict, including the goals, conditions, requirements and images of the ingroup and outgroup society.
3. Collective emotional orientation
   This part directs current behaviour. This is a collective emotional orientation which can be based on fear or anger and hatred.

The ethos of conflict consists of beliefs about the justness of own goals (1), security (2), collective self-image (3), own victimization (4), delegitimizing the opponent (5), patriotism (6), unity (7) and peace (8). The collective memory and the ethos of conflict complement each other.

The sociopsychological infrastructure is institutionalized in major societal channels of communication (e.g. books, films). The younger generation is exposed to this infrastructure leading to people sharing beliefs, attitudes, values and emotions by adulthood. This leads to a similar experience of the conflict, making it less likely that it will be resolved.

The sociopsychological infrastructure has several functions. It fulfils the need of illuminating the conflict situation (1), it serves to justify the acts of the in-group (2), it creates a sense of differentiation and superiority (3), it prepares society members to be ready for threatening events and difficult life conditions (4), it motivates for solidarity, mobilization and action (5) and it fulfils the role of contributing to the formation, maintenance and strengthening of a social identity that reflects conditions of the intractable conflict (6).

There are specific characteristics and features of group-based hatred that turns it into a critical barrier to solving conflicts. Group-based hatred helps interpret events and direct behaviour in a way that contributes to the continuation of the conflict.

Emotions consist of recognition of the existence of the stimulus (1), appraisal of its potential effect (2), feelings in regard to the stimulus (3) and readiness to take action toward it (4). Fear is ruled by the appraisal of low coping potential with future harm. Anger is ruled by the evaluation of the outgroup actions as nonlegitimate or unjust. The appraisal of harm being intentional and deriving from a stable, evil character is relevant for hatred.

Fear is related to the goal of creating a safer environment. Hatred is related to causing suffering to the outgroup and does not support correction attempts (i.e. change in the conflict). Hatred is a powerful negative emotion that motivates and may lead to negative behaviours with severe consequences. In conflict, it induces violent solutions and could lead to genocide. Fear is often the result if the coping abilities of the ingroup are seen as low.

Fear is more dominant in the stage that leads to hatred while anger plays a more central role in the stage of experiencing hatred. Offences that are seen as intentional (1), threatening (2) and unjust (3) are more likely to lead to hatred.