Month: March 2014
Week 10: Variables that Influence Aggression
Last week in my presentation I focused a lot on role identity and its relationship with aggression, and for my paper this week I will use that information to contribute to this idea that there are many psychological traits that can also influence aggression and trait aggressiveness.
Trait aggressiveness, defined as an ongoing tendency towards physical and verbal assault, is a very important predictor for violence in society (Alia-Klein, 2008). Aggressive behaviour comes in a variety of different forms, such as relational vs. overt and proactive vs. reactive but it is important to note that all types have serious implications on future violent behaviour and crimes committed by individuals in society (Carter, Berman, Marsee, & Weems, 2013). Individuals who are aggressive by nature are more prone to committing harmful and evil acts on other members of the community (Alia-Klein, 2008). With this being said, it is important to identify variables that could potentially influence a person’s aggressive tendencies in order to predict evil crimes from being committed. Rather than studying situational variables, in my paper I will focus on the psychological traits that can potentially increase an individual’s aggression. Recent literature indicates a number of factors about a person’s character that are related to trait aggressiveness – these include empathy, IQ, personality traits, role confusion, attachment style, self-esteem and depression, and a variety of hormones/neurotransmitters. For this week’s blog, I will focus on the variable of attachment styles or attachment theory in an experiment conducted by Fossati et al., (2009).
This study by Fossati et al., (2009) investigated the relationship between impulsive aggression levels in insecure individuals. Attachment style was measure by the ASQ (Attachment Style Questionnaire) in 637 undergraduate students in Italy, and student’s aggression and impulsivity levels were measured with a variety of scales (Fossati et al., 2009). As predicted, insecure attachment style in participants was a significant predictor for impulsivity and aggression, particularly fearful and avoidant attachment styles (Fossati et al., 2009). Researchers propose that fearful and preoccupied attachment in individuals displayed the most impulsive aggression compared to the other styles because of their particularly high anxiety of being abandoned and being alone, and so in some domestic relationships these people may resort to impulsive violence in order to maintain their relationships (Fossati et al., 2009). Attachment style and its correlation with aggression shines light on the theory that individuals who have anxiety of being alone or high avoidance of intimacy may also be unable to express their emotions and thoughts in appropriate ways which therefore results in aggression and violence. This dispositional variable strengthens the argument that psychologists must educate society on how to appropriately interact and communicate with others in order to decrease aggression and violence.
These findings also relate to cults and the Charles Manson family that I discussed in my presentation on Friday. Susan Atkins and Patricia Krenwinkel were so vulnerable and easily manipulated before meeting Manson, and they displayed serious role and identity confusion issues. It could also be argued that these young women had insecure attachment styles, specifically high anxiety of abandonment. It would be interesting to see what types of attachment styles Manson’s followers had prior to the creation of the family, and also what their other psychological chacteristics looked like in terms of IQ, personality, self-esteem and empathy. Were Manson’s followers more influenced by situational factors when they conducted evil, or was it the dispositional variables that were deeply rooted in their personalities that lead them to evil? You decide.
Also, just a few bits of information I forgot to mention in my presentation regarding Susan Atkins and Patricia Krenwinkel. Those “X’s” you saw on their foreheads in the pictures – Manson carved an X into his forehead to symbolize his removal from society, and so did the girls. The girls also shaved their heads after they saw Manson do it as a way to support him, and up until the very end of the trial they each did the most they could to protect Manson’s innocence in the murders – they believed it was all their wrong-doing. chilling …
References
Alia-Klein, N., Goldstein, R. Z., Kriplani, A., Logan, J., Tomasi, D., Williams, B., . . . Fowler, J.S. (2008). Brain monoamine oxidase A activity predicts trait aggression. The Journal of Neuroscience, 28(19), 5099-5104. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0925-08.2008
Carter, J., Berman, S. L., Marsee, M. A., & Weems, C. F. (2013). Identity exploration,
commitment, and existential anxiety as predictors of the forms and functions of aggression. Identity: An International Journal of Theory and Research, 13(4), 348-367. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10. 1080/15283 488.2013. 780975
Fossati, A., Acquarini, E., Feeney, J. A., Borroni, S., Grazioli, F., Giarolli, L. E., . . . Maffei, C. (2009). Alexithymia and attachment insecurities in impulsive aggression. Attachment & Human Development, 11(2), 165-182. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14616730802625235
Week 9: Let’s Talk About Conformity
My presentation this week, as well as my research paper, will be looking at a number of variables that influence an individual’s likelihood to conform. While this in itself is not what one would define as “evil”, many experiments and real life situations have illustrated the dangers of powers of conformity. The Holocaust, wars over religion, the Milgram and Stanford Prison experiment and are just a few examples of times when individuals obeyed authorities through conformity and both psychology and physical harm were done to others as a result. What makes a person susceptible to obeying authorities? This is something we have been discussing over the past few weeks as we read through Zimbardo’s narrative, but the prison experiment focused on external locus of control. I believe that there are still many internal and dispositional variables that influence an individual’s likelihood to conform.
Work conducted by Lee (2006) proposed that there is a relationship between depersonalization and conformity to group norms. Evidently, when members of a group know less about one another and each member feels a low sense of social identity, group conformity can be heightened. The rationale behind this hypothesis is that when people have less information about their group members available, they assume others think the same way was them and therefore identify more as a member of a social group rather than idiosyncratic members (Lee, 2006). In this experiment, depersonalization was induced by having participants communicate only through computer-based means. Research questions of this study focused on whether or not depersonalization increased group norm perceptions, group conformity, as well as gender differences in regards to group conformity (Lee, 2006). Participants consisted of 217 male (N= 92) and female (N= 125) undergraduate students, and were split into either the control or depersonalization group. Each participant was told they would interact with three other participants over the computer to discuss ethical, hypothetical situations (Lee, 2006). In the control group participants were allowed to reveal information about themselves to the other person, which did not happen in the depersonalization group. As predicted, the depersonalization group was significantly more likely to conform to group norms and perceive those norms as more extreme (Lee, 2006). Additionally, women were found to be influenced by depersonalization effects compared to men. This study has obvious implications in the field of psychology and the study of evil as it contributes to why individuals conform to authority and identify with groups. Strong group cohesion can, at times, lead to crime and evil behaviour.
A perfect example of group dynamics and evil behaviour involves the phenomenon of cults. In my presentation this week, I will be looking at aggression and cults, specifically in relation to Charles Manson and the Family. Charles Manson is infamous for convincing his followers to carry out a series of murders in 1969, all because he convinced them the murders were necessary to protect them from a supposed upcoming race war.
“Remorse for what? You people have done everything in the world to me, doesn’t that give me equal right? I can do anything I want to you people at any time I want to, because that’s what you’ve done to me”
Literature by Atchison and Heide, (2011) suggested that Manson’s followers conformed to the Family so easily for a variety of reasons. Labelling, social and general strain theories have been used to explain why Manson was able to acquire his followers and convince them to murder for him. Overall, it is very interesting to investigate the relationship between conformity and evil behaviour, as well as the variables that determine whether or not an individual will conform to a group such as a cult.
References
Atchison, A. J., & Heide, K. M. (2011). Charles manson and the family: The application of sociological theories to multiple murder. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 55(5), 771-798. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0306624X10371794
Lee, E. (2006). When and how does depersonalization increase conformity to group norms in computer-mediated communication? Communication Research, 33(6), 423-447. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0093650206293248
Week 8: Social Dimensions of Evil
This week our discussion from class really left me thinking about this idea that Zimbardo began The Lucifer Effect with, and that is – Am I capable of evil? In class we were discussing what Dr. Burris had said a few weeks ago and that is a person will be willing to do anything if you elicit fear, disgust and hate into them. After our discussions thus far in the course I definitely believe this to be true. As I read the guard’s mistreatment of the prisoners in the SP I often think I would likely behave in a similar way. After all, it’s only an experiment and the guards are being told to act this way. I personally think that if I were a guard in the SP I would feel like it wasn’t my place to stop the abuse on the prisoners, I think I might allow a lot of it to go on. Now I swear I’m a good person as horrible as this may sound, I’m just truthfully stating that I think the bystander and conformity effect would get the better of me, which is fascinating to think about. It’s one thing to go out of one’s way to intentionally harm another human being, but I think this idea of bystanders is something different. This all got me thinking about the popular show on Dateline – “What Would You Do?” The show basically sets up these unethical situations, usually regarding issues like racism, child abductions and spousal abuse, and then the public reactions are filmed. It is usually shocking how many people fail to intervene even though they state afterwards how wrong and uncomfortable it made them. This example, as well as our class discussion, really solidified for me how easy it is for the average person to engage in evil – it’s all around us!
References
Zimbardo, P. (2008). The Lucifer Effect: Understanding how good people turn evil. New York, NY: Random House Trade Paperbacks.
Week 7: The Psychological Strength of Roles
This week we were to read chapters 5-8 in Phillip Zimbardo’s The Lucifer Effect and things are definitely picking up in the Stanford Prison. It has now been four days in the prison and everyone has clearly fallen into their given roles, including Zimbardo himself. The readings start off with rumors of a break-in by former prisoner 8612’s rioters. The threat of a break-in from the public is enough to make Zimbardo panic, as he stated “I was irrationally obsessed with the imagined assault on my prison” (Baumeister, 1997). In response to this, he devises a plan which he later carries out by moving the entire prison up to the 5th floor of the building and when the rioters came he would pretend that the experiment was over and he had sent everyone home. Evidently, the rumour turned out to be just that – a rumour. This twisted strategy, in my opinion, spoke more of Zimbardo’s character than anything. “His” prison is so real to him that he was willing to go to extensive lengths to “protect” it (Baumeister, 1997).
While this part of the plot was very interesting, I think my “Ah-Ha” moment was when the prisoners made contact with the outside world. Even while visiting their families and girlfriends, the majority of the prisoners remained consistent with their role. Some described the prison as a “wonderful place”, and another young man told his siblings that “Yeah, things are pretty good here” (Baumeister, 1997). It is interesting to see how the roles these young men were playing went beyond the walls of the prison and became their temporary identities. This idea was paralleled with the frightening meetings with the chaplain that came to visit the prison later on. When the priest asked the men what they were charged with/guilty for, only one of the remaining prisoners stated that it was only an experiment and that he was innocent (Baumeister, 1997). Prisoner Hubbie even goes as far as to accept the priest’s help in giving his mother the contact information for legal assistance to get him out. Sometimes when I read this text I often argue that some things the prisoners do are because they are obeying the rules of the experiment, just as a good participant would. This example with Hubbie is not one of those instances. He is so immersed in this simulated experiment that he legitimately believes that he needs legal service to get him out (Baumeister, 1997).
I suppose as I reflect on the readings this week I am the most surprised at how real the entire experiment is for all parties involved, and how quickly this reality set in. This reflection reminds me of something that was brought up in class – the psychological strength of roles. Categorizing people by status and into roles are natural human tendencies because they allow us to make sense of the world. Arguably, roles are considered to be heuristics. The way this ties into evil is whether or not our emphasis on roles and conformity deflect individual responsibility from “evil” behaviours we may commit. I believe that people use these roles as a justification for their bad behaviour, so they feel less personally responsible. What relates to the readings and stuck out to me the most this week however, is whether it is better to have a role that you are unhappy with, or not have a role at all? The prisoners in the Stanford prison have the ability to leave at any time, and yet they choose to identify with and even defend their roles as prisoners.
Although fictional, this reminds me of the character Brooks from the film Shawshank Redemption. For those of you who have not seen it (and I seriously recommend that you do- it’s fantastic), Brooks was a prisoner at Shawshank and after spending his entire life behind bars is released and put on parole at a very old age. Evidently, he has identified so strongly with his role as a prisoner that it became all he knew and was happy with. Before he commits suicide, he states that “Maybe I should get me a gun, and rob the Foodway so they’d send me home”. By home, Brooks means prison. While this is a fictional film, situations like this often happen in real life, which is evidence that people often choose a role which does not benefit them over not identifying with a role at all.
References
Zimbardo, P. (2008). The Lucifer Effect: Understanding how good people turn evil. New York, NY: Random House Trade Paperbacks.
The Psychology of Evil 