Psychological Causes of Violence

he term “violence” is defined broadly here as injurious activity that is done directly or socially
supported, or inflicted by social institutions in the form of poverty or pollution.

The ideas are in categories:

• Disconnects—internal mental processes

• The Power of the Situation—external situations impacting mental processes

• Personality—lifelong personality traits

• Passions of War —society-wide psychological processes and emotions

DISCONNECTS:

• Moral Disengagement

Bandura and his colleagues argue that the most inhumane behavior comes from psychological processes
by which original ideas of moral conduct are disengaged. That these mechanisms remove inhibitions has
been extensively documented in historical atrocities, and confirmed in laboratory studies of punitive
behavior (Bandura, Barbanelli, Caprara, & Pastorelli, 1996)

How to Disengage;

Mechanism #1: Change How You Think about It ;

The cognitive transformation of the reprehensible conduct into good conduct. This is the most effective,
and can be done three ways:

• moral justifications

• comparison to worse conduct, making this conduct seem less consequential

• euphemisms

Mechanism #2: Scapegoating or Deferring to Authority

Displacing or diffusing the responsibility for the conduct or for its detrimental effects.

Mechanism #3: Discounting the Effects

Minimize, ignore, or distort those detrimental effects.

Mechanism #4: Discounting the Victim

Dehumanize or blame the victim

Distancing:
The third mechanism of moral disengagement, discounting the effects, is similar to the concept of
distancing. To continue violence, one can create mental distance from the reality of what is happening—
isolation from the horror, a mental barrier.

One example comes from the war in Vietnam. In the 1970s, peace activist William Sloan Coffin related a
story told to him by an American veteran. The veteran’s plane was shot down, and he bailed out into a
ditch. As he came out, he saw a man pointing a rifle at him, and he slowly put up his arms. Though
neither could speak the other’s language, the body language was clear, and they went marching through
the jungle. At one point, the Viet Cong man tripped and fell, and the gun fell out of his hands. The
American picked up the gun and handed it back. They went on as before. At this point in the story,
Coffin was startled, and asked if it were not his duty as a soldier to use the gun to shoot the man and
escape. “Oh, it wasn’t that simple,” the veteran said. “I forgot to mention there was a parade of children
following. They would have run to the village to tell them, and they would have come after me and
captured me, so there was no point.” It had never occurred to him to shoot the children.

Yet when he was up in his airplane, bombing the villages, he was killing children. From a distance, it was
no problem. Close up, it was so horrifying it was not even considered

next example:

Violence is often made easier when distancing is done physically, as with bombs from airplanes,
dangerous working conditions out of view of factory owners, or the Nazi gas chambers. In the case of
the Nazis, the original plan was cheap, effective, and efficient: the use of bullets well aimed at rounded-
up Jews. However, this graphic violence was hard on those carrying it out, and the gas chambers were
designed to physically separate the killers from their victims.

Mark Twain illustrates this in a short story from 1905 called “The War Prayer” (F. Anderson, 1972). Amid
the excitement, banners flying, and glorious parades preparing for war, the prayer at church asks God to
watch over the noble young soldiers and help them crush the foe. Then an aged and mysterious stranger
appears to address the congregation, and tells them what they are actually praying for. In graphic terms,
he describes the pain of widows and orphans, shrieks of pain, and a homeless icy winter. The final line is:
“It was believed this man was a lunatic, since there was no sense in what he said.” Mental distancing is
complete.

Robert Jay Lifton did extensive interviews with Nazi doctors from the death camps. He proposes a
variant on distancing called doubling. People in extreme situations create two identities, one that does
the killing and the other a good family man. It is something like the difference between Clark Kent and
Superman, but more sinister.

A related idea is compartmentalizing. People put different parts of their lives into different
compartments, sealed off from one another. The Mafia boss ordering a hit or the commanding officer
ordering a massacre may still go to church on Sunday, making statements of belief contrary to his or her
own actions. They are not thinking of their actions when they make those statements.

Another related idea called intellectualizing—especially common among highly educated people—
involves a focus on reasoning that allows for violence with a firm avoidance of the accompanying
negative emotions
Semantic Dehumanization:
The fourth mechanism, discounting the victim, is illustrated in detail by William Brennan in a 1995
book called Dehumanizing the Vulnerable: When Word Games Take Lives Brennan gives various
categories of “linguistic warfare” that have been used to facilitate violence against people: people as
deficient humans, nonhumans, nonpersons, animals, parasites, diseases, inanimate objects, or waste
products. He offers an array of quotations from throughout history to depict these attitudes, which have
help cause much violence against vulnerable groups.

Table add karna ha

Those able to understand the insults can be badly hurt psychologically by the language alone. But these
are not mere insults.

Operant Conditioning and Desensitization:

A psychologist and army lieutenant colonel, Dave Grossman (1995), proposes another psychological
mechanism allowing for a disconnection from the situation: the classic concept of operant conditioning,
a behavior modification technique. It is a procedure of stimulus-response training giving a person the
skill to act under stressful conditions.

Grossman argues that the human mind throughout history had a strong resistance to killing. This may
seem odd with all the wars there have been, but it is from the wars that we get the evidence. S. L. A.
Marshall did postcombat interviews during World War II. He reports in his 1947 book, Men against Fire,
that only 15 to 20 percent of the riflemen in World War II fired their weapons at an exposed enemy
soldier. Firing would increase greatly if a nearby leader demanded it (as will be further explained by the
Milgram obedience experiments, below)

Beliefs;
What people believe about situations affects their behavior. Though individuals do not always act
according to their beliefs, those beliefs do have some impact. When there is an ideology, a coherent
belief system, that has reasoned that violence is necessary to attain important goals, then people who
hold that ideology are more likely to commit violence or support others in doing so. This is true for the
Nazis, Stalinists, Maoists, and practically every set of soldiers ever assembled.

There are other beliefs serving as cognitive processes that indirectly underlie doing or supporting
violence.

Some of the major ones include:

The Just-World View:

Many people do not want to believe that grotesque unfairness happens because they must then fear
being the victim of such injustice. However, if these people believe the victims are to blame for their
own victimization, they can be more mentally comfortable that they will never be similarly victimized
because they are not doing such blameworthy things.The justworld view is a psychological attitude
whereby people interpret violent and other unfair events in such a way as to maintain a belief that the
world operates in a basically fair way. People use the view to protect their minds from the fear that they
can become victims.

With direct violence, for example, one can believe a rape victim was asking for it by wearing loose attire
and displaying suggestive behavior. Therefore, women who do not dress or act this way believe they are
more protected from rape. The idea that such a crime might be arbitrary or due to the actions of men
over whom the woman has no control is much more frightening—so it is not believed

Realpolitik:

Realpolitik is the belief that politics deals entirely with the goal of maximizing power. Security is tied to
the ability to use coercive power, and each country is expected to want to achieve as much coercive
power as it can. Buildup of the military is therefore the safest course, since others dare not attack
when one’s own power is so clearly on display.

Machismo;

A belief that men should behave in a manly way, and that manly means a blustering display of muscle
and intolerance for being insulted, can lead to violent behavior. One common manifestation of this is
remarks about how being tested in battle turns boys into men.

Violence Is Inevitable/Human Nature/Killer Instinct:

When people hold the belief that violence is in our genes, that we have an instinct for it, and that it is in
our nature, then the expectation of violence can become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Retaliation:

The belief that suffering violence demands a response in kind can be seen as revenge, or as a matter of
justice. Suggestions that violent retaliation is not a good idea are then met with disdain, as coming from
people who do not care about justice.

Members of a group being retaliated against might respond by realizing the errors of their ways and
apologizing, but this is not typical. More commonly, they share the philosophy of a response in kind,
tending not to perceive the violence of the other side as a retaliation that now balances, but rather as a
fresh offense requiring its own retaliation. To do otherwise would be to suggest they were wrong in the
first place. A cycle of retaliation then spirals upward. In small cases, this is called a feud, in large cases, a
war. It also underlies much terrorist thinking.

Violence as Last Resort:

Many believe that violence should be avoided under ordinary circumstances, needed only as a last
resort. This is essentially the view of the “just-war doctrine.” This idea is often presented as being the
opposite of pacifism; however, on a continuum that has pacifism on one side and unrestrained brutality
on the other, it is actually closest to pacifism—with exceptions. It is the belief that there are situations
when injustices are great and therefore violence is justified and necessary.

THE POWER OF THE SITUATION

Destructive Obedience to Authority:
in the early 1960s, Stanley Milgram did a series of social psychology laboratory experiments on how
willing people are to cause suffering under direction of authority. With the relatively recent Nazi
Holocaust in mind, his idea was that he would find low rates of compliance in the United States, and
then try the experiment in Germany to find the cultural differences that allowed the Nazis to flourish.
He never got to Germany. The compliance rates in the United States were too high.

Participants in the experiments were told this was a learning-memory experiment. It was supposedly
randomly decided which of two people Psychological Causes of Violence 11 would be the “teacher” and
which the “learner.” As one of many deceptions, however, it was rigged so the participant would always
be a teacher; the learner was a confederate of the researcher. The teacher was instructed to depress a
key to give a shock to the learner when the learner got an incorrect answer. This happened constantly.
The learner was in another room, but audible. The shocks started at low voltage and went up gradually
to higher voltage. After the shocks got up to a certain level, the learner started indicating pain, distress,
and demanding to be let out. Of course, the learner was an actor and the shocks were not real, but the
teacher/participant believed they were. At higher rates, there was silence—no answers to questions, no
distress. Teachers were constantly instructed to go on, with the researcher making authoritative
statements like “The experiment requires that you continue.” Under this pressure from authority,
roughly two out of three men went up to the final shock level. Only about one-third refused to comply
at some point.

This finding was startling to Milgram. This initial study was done with men. There have been many
replications that show variations. Of the 10 studies considering gender differences, 9 found none in the
rates of how many participants went to the maximum shock. The two studies that considered tension
about complying showed that women seemed to have more than men. A look at the replications over 22
years, from 1963 to 1985, showed there was no correlation between when it was done and the
compliance rates. Time did not make a difference within that span. There were no racial or cultural
differences, and rates were similar in different countries.

Institutions:
The Stanford Prison Experiment of 1971 was a laboratory experiment by Philip
Zimbardo and colleagues, a simulated prison designed to last two Psychological
Causes of Violence 15 weeks. In some ways, it was the opposite of the Milgram
experiments. Instead of the experimenters encouraging more aggression, they
tried to hold it in check. There was no deception, as participants were accurately
informed. An institution rather than an individual was the authority.
he study had to be called off after just six days. Even though all participants were
college students, screened to be within normal psychological parameters, and
assignment to being prisoners or guards was random, vast personality changes
developed in the situation. Those playing the role of guards became cruel. Those
playing prisoners became inordinately depressed. Even the experimenters got
sucked into the requirements of a prison institution. A consultant who had been a
former prisoner found himself saying the same things while playing a parole
officer that he had hated when he had been on the receiving end. Zimbardo
wrote a more thorough account of the experiment and its real-world applications
in a 2007 book called The Lucifer Effect; since Lucifer started out as an angel of
light and turned evil, Zimbardo deemed this a worthy metaphor for situations in
which people who start out as mentally healthy nevertheless commit horrific acts.
Groupthink:
groups can sometimes make decisions that are much more irrational than
individuals would do on their own.
A prime example from the real world is the decision under the Kennedy
administration to invade the Bay of Pigs, believing this would spark an uprising of
the Cuban people against Castro. This did not occur, and careful analysis would
never have expected it to. It was not just as a matter of hindsight, but foresight as
well. The administration blundered into that fiasco because a group decision-
making process did not allow individuals to think the matter through, as they
would have if it had been their individual responsibility. In other words, shared
respon
sibility slipped up on what individual responsibility would have caught.
Symptoms of Groupthink:
1. An illusion of invulnerability—Shared by most or all group members, this
fosters excessive optimism, and encourages taking extreme risks.
2. An unquestioned belief in the group’s inherent morality—Ethical consequences
are ignored.
3. Collective efforts to rationalize—Warnings are discounted. Assumptions are
justified rather than reconsidered.
4. An enemy image—Rivals are stereotyped as too evil for genuine negotiations
and/or too weak or stupid
5. Self-censorship of deviations from group consensus—Each member of the
group minimizes to himself or herself the importance of doubts or
counterarguments.
6. A shared illusion of unanimity—Members believe the majority view is
unanimous since the self-censorship of those with qualms leads to an assumption
that silence means consent.
7. Pressure against dissent—Expression of contrary views is not expected of loyal
group members.
8. The emergence of self-appointed mind guards—Some members protect the
group from information that might shatter their complacency about how right
and effective their actions are.
5. Self-censorship of deviations from group consensus—Each member of the
group minimizes to himself or herself the importance of doubts or
counterarguments.
6. A shared illusion of unanimity—Members believe the majority view is unani-
mous since the self-censorship of those with qualms leads to an assumption that
silence means consent.
7. Pressure against dissent—Expression of contrary views is not expected of loyal
group members.
8. The emergence of self-appointed mind guards—Some members protect the
group from information that might shatter their complacency about how right
and effective their actions are.
Technology:
The technologies of violence—weapons and the bureaucracy that mobilizes
people—increase its impact. Though many throughout history had ideologies and
genocidal intent similar to the Nazis, the twentieth-century technology of the
Nazis enabled them to kill in greater numbers. The extent to which the presence
of such technology is a component that causes the initiation of violence, as
opposed to merely maximizing its harmful impact, is another area of psychological
study.
PERSONALITY:` `
The Authoritarian Personality:
Soon after World War II, an influential concept was introduced in a book called
The Authoritarian Personality (Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswick, Levinson, & Sanford,
1950). Researchers thought there is a kind of personality that is prejudiced and
follows leaders unthinkingly. To measure this, they developed an “F-scale”—
where “F” stands for fascism—which has been used widely to compare different
groups of people. (An interactive recent Web-page version can be found at
www.anesi.com/fscale.htm.)
Traits of the Authoritarian Personality:
1. Rigid, unthinking adherence to conventional ideas of right and wrong—
Important values are obedience, cleanliness, success, inhibition or denial of
emotions, firm discipline, honoring parents and leaders, and abhorring immoral
sexual feelings.
2. Respect for and submission to authority—A desire for a strong leader, with
followers revering the leader.
3. Take anger out on someone safe—Since the unquestioning follower cannot
express anger toward the authority, it is stored up and displaced to an outsider
who is different, a scapegoat.
4. Cannot trust people—A negative view of people means harsh laws requiring a
strong police force or army.
5. Must have a powerful leader and be part of a powerful group—They are highly
ethnocentric and relish being part of the “strongest nation on earth,” the “master
race,” the “worldwide communist movement,” “the wealthiest nation —the best
group of any kind.
6. Oversimplified thinking—When authority tells us what to do or what the single
source of our problems is, we do not have to take responsibility for our own
thinking.
7. Guard against dangerous ideas—Ideas are already set; new ones are
threatening.
` NEXT TOPIC: cycle of violence
Explain repitative abusive behavior, or important to note that abusive behavior
can be occur in a cyclic in pattern violence is in a cyclic manners and can lead to
victim blaming. Abuse is not always predictable, sometimes we can determine
Abuse but sometimes we can’t determine Abuse. Abuse can be present in every
situation.
For Example: “One of the common reason of divorce is interference of in laws”.
Some violences have generation roots predictable violence are cyclic in nature.
People who face violence in their childhood, their behavior can impact when they
become parents.
Stages of Violence:
There are 4 stages of violence:
1) Tension building stage:
This is when the abuser start to get angry and victim would try to calm down
their partner.
2)Proper abusive event happened:
E.g Physical abuse, emotional abuse and sexual abuse.
3) The Honeymoon Stage:
Abuser appears to feel remorse/guilt for their action and typically ask for the
forgiveness and can’t repeat that behavior in future or do blame gaming.
4) The Calm Stage:
Abuser is calm, abuse is absent. The perpetuator act that aggressive act
never happens or tell that they really have changes and victim develop trust
on them again.
Child maltreatment:
Prevalence studies on child abuse and neglect involving victim surveys indicate
that the number of people who have been maltreated in childhood is ten times
greater than that reported (2).
For example, an international overview of the prevalence of child sexual abuse in
21 countries worldwide indicates that between 7% and 36% of women and
between 3% and 29% of men report childhood sexual victimization (3).
Child maltreatment is typically divided into four types:
1 :physical abuse, 2 sexual abuse,3 emotional and 4 psychological abuse, and 5
neglect.
Often children suffer more than one type of maltreatment at the same time
and/or over a period of time (6). Furthermore, children who are maltreated by
more than one person (e.g. both the mother and the father) subsequently suffer
more problems than those maltreated by one person (7). Research has shown
that 2 in 5 maltreated children are maltreated by more than one person at
different tims in their life, and the majority of these perpetrators are family
members.
Consequences of child maltreatment
research has demonstrated a number of potentially negative outcomes for victims
of child maltreatment.
• death
• physical and mental disability
• stress and physical health problems
• low self-esteem and poor self-worth
• educational failure
• emotional and behavioural problems
• sleep disorders and post-traumatic stress disorder
• mental health problems
• eating disorders and self-injury
• alcohol and drug abuse
• increased risk of further victimization
• victims becoming offenders
• antisocial and criminal act
Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) study in the United
 States demonstrated a strong relationship between maltreatment in
childhood and self-reporting by adults of smoking, obesity, alcohol and
drug abuse, sexually transmitted diseases, depression and suicide
TYPES OF VIOLENCE:
Collective violence: refers to violence committed by groups of people and
can be subdivided into social, political and economic violence. Ganng
membership in adolescence is often associated with adverse experiences as
a child (12) and this may lead to involvement in social, political or economic
violence and/or a criminal career (10).
Self-directed violence; refers to violence whereby the perpetrator and the
victim are the same person. It is subdivided into self-abuse and suicide..
For example, the following links have been reported: eating disorders and
depression (13); prostitution, cutting and self-strangulation (14), and
suicide (11).
Interpersonal violence: can be subdivided into family violence (towards
partners, siblings, children, parents and older family members) and
community violence (violence by teenage and adult acquaintances and
strangers, violence related to property crimes, and violence in workplaces
and other institutions).
Cycles of interpersonal violence:
• from victim to further victim of violence in the home and community;
• from victim to child abuser in the home (i.e. a maltreated child
becoming an abusive parent);
• from victim to perpetrator of violence against an intimate partner in
the home; and/or
• from victim to perpetrator in the community, often as an antisocial
offender.
; for example, some 50% of violent men are both violent in the home and in
the community (15).
NEXT TOPIC; why we hatred
These examples illustrate the social inappropriateness of hate and the
unwillingness to acknowledge feeling such a destructive emotion.
GENERALLY EVALUATE;it is remarkable that there is little theorizing about hate,
although the topic seems to be getting increasing attention in recent years. Even
more surprisingly, there is not much in-depth empirical research on hatred,
especially not in psychology
several factors:
the fact that hate is an underresearched topic in psychology may be due to
several factors. First, hate is a phenomenon that is complex to empirically
investigate with the standard psychological methods and samples.
second, hate has never been conceived as a standard emotion and thus did not
gain from the rising popularity of the psychological study of emotions in the last
decades. For example, in most empirical investigations based on appraisal
theories (e.g., Roseman, 1984; Scherer, 2005), one can find emotions such as
dislike, anger, or contempt, but hate is systematically lacking.
We will start with defining the characteristics of hate:
1 and addressing the question whether hate is an emotion or something else, or
both.
Second,we will move on to the analysis of hate at different social levels
(from individual to intergroup).
Third, we will analyze how and why hate spreads, including hate crimes and hate
speech.
Fourth, we will discuss the role of hate in society.
Finally, we will end with a reflection on the role and function of hate at different
levels of analysis and will then offer some future venues of research.
What Are the Characteristics of Hate?;
According to Roseman, Wiest, and Swartz (1994), an emotivational goal reflects
what the emotion tries to bring about, and thus drives the emotional
experience.
Action tendencies ;are very closely associated with emotivational goals as they
reflect the emotional impulse to act on a specific goal (see also Rempel & Burris,
2005).
The coercion goal; for example is closely associated with the tendency to attack
someone (either verbally or physically), and the exclusion goal is associated with
the tendency to ignore or look down on someone (Roseman et al., 1994).
Emotivational goal can implicitly be found in others’ theorizing as well. White
(1996) for example describes hatred as the desire to harm, humiliate, or even kill
its object—not always instrumentally, but rather to cause harm as a vengeful
objective in itself.
Bar-Tal (2007) also suggested that hatred is a hostile feeling directed toward
another person or group that consists of malice, repugnance, and willingness to
harm and even an humiliate the object of hatred. Whereas anger implies a
coercion goal, that is, the motive to change another person by attacking,
confronting, or criticizing, contempt implies an exclusion goal.
Appraisals of humiliation are more specific than those of hate, entailing
the appraisal of a specific act as extremely derogating and a threat to one’s
self an absolute separation from members of the other group.

Long Term Sentiment or an Emotion?

Scholars of hatred have continually debated the question of whether hatred is an
emotion, a motive (Rempel & Burris, 2005), or an (emotional) attitude or
syndrome (Royzman et al., 2005).
This debate is driven by the fact that one of hate’s core characteristics is that it
generally lasts longer than the event that initially evoked it. The enduring nature
of hatred is based in the appraisals that are targeted at the fundamental nature of
the hated group. Given that hate is often not a reaction to a specific event, and
not limited to a short period of time, the question is raised whether hate actually
is an emotion, or rather an emotional attitude or sentiment (Allport, 1954;
Aumer-Ryan &
(e.g., Fischer & Giner-Sorolla, 2016; Halperin, 2008; Sternberg, 2003) have
resolved this con- tradiction between emotions and sentiments by suggesting
that some “emotions” can occur in both configurations—immediate and chronic,
and thus can be conceived of as a (short-term) emotion as well as a (long-term)
sentiment. In-depth interviews by Halperin (2008) with people who were asked to
describe their own subjective experience of hatred indeed suggest that more than
half of the participants report an ongoing emotional experience (i.e., an enduring
sentiment), while the remainder focused on a more acute event of hate
(Halperin, 2008). Halperin et al. (2012) describe the sentiment hate, specifically
in inter- group contexts, as a stable and familiar “hating” emotional attitude
(“chronic hatred”), which organizes people’s social world and helps strengthening
the connection to the ingroup (“ingroup love”) at the expense of various
outgroups (“outgroup hate”). To prevent future painful offenses by the hated
group, the goal of the hate sentiment is to eliminate this group from their environ
ment, for example through an absolute separation from members of the other
group.
Everyday observations also suggest that hate is so powerful that it does, not just
temporarily but permanently, destroy relations between individuals or groups.
An illustration comes from a story of a 20-year-old Kosovar Albanian woman
who was asked to describe an experience of hatred in the context of a study by
Jasini and Fischer (2018):
Example:
I was 10 years old when Serbian paramilitary men broke into my house with
violence. They had guns in their hands and they approached my dad and
my brothers and asked them all the money we had in the house. They
threatened to kill them all if the family did not leave the house 312 Emotion
Review Vol. 10 No. 4 immediately. Few hours after this horror moment, my
family and I left the village to seek refuge in the Albanian territory. Even
now, ten years after the Kosovo war, I still hate the Serbians and can’t
forget their hatred for us, nor their maltreatment of my family, relatives
andneighbors [emphasis added]. I often talked about this event with my
family members and friends, but never with Serbian people.

Duplex Theory of Hate

The duplex theory of hate, like the duplex theory of love, has two parts: a
triangular theory and a theory of hate as a story.
Triangular Theory of Hate
Typically hate is thought of as a single emotion. But there is reason to
believe that hate has multiple components that can manifest themselves in
different ways on different occasions. According to a triangular component
of the duplex theory of fate, hate potentially comprises three
components. As with love, hate can be captured by both feelings triangles
and action triangles. Feelings may or may not translate themselves into
actions, and actions may or may not represent genuine feelings. People
may interpret actions as meaning different things, depending on their
mappings of feelings into actions and vice versa. There are three
components of hate: negation of intimacy, passion, and commitment.

The first potential component of hate is the negation of

intimacy. Negation of intimacy in hate is characterized by repulsion and
disgust. Whereas intimacy involves the seeking of closeness, the negation
of intimacy involves the seeking of distance. Often distance is sought from
a target individual because that individual arouses repulsion and disgust in
the person who experiences hate. . Negation of intimacy also can be
experienced in individual hate relationships, as when one comes to view a
person one knows as in human. The hated individual may have committed
a crime against one’s person, and in the case of a sexual crime, a reaction of
disgust and revulsion is common.

A second potential component of hate is passion, which expresses itself as

intense anger or fear in response to a threat. Anger leads often leads one
to approach, fear to avoid, the object of hate. Propaganda may depict the
targeted individuals as an imminent threat to approved society, and one
that should be feared because of this threat. Targeted groups may be
depicted as rapacious warriors bent on defiling women or attacking
children or as monsters that threaten the very fabric of society (as well as
the individual rights of its members).
The third potential component of hate is decision/commitment, which is
characterized by cognitions of devaluation and diminution through
contempt for the targeted group. The hater is likely to feel contempt
toward the target individual or group, viewing the target as barely human
or even as subhuman. . Often these changes are accomplished through
some kind of instructional or otherwise “educational” program, whether in
school or without. In other terms, this kind of program could be viewed as
constituting “brainwashing.”

Different combinations of components

of hate lead to different kinds of hate. These are: (1) Cool hate: Disgust
(disgust of negation of intimacy alone), (2) Hot hate: Anger/Fear
(anger/fear of passion alone), (3) Cold hate: Devaluation/Diminution
(devaluation/diminution of decision/commitment alone), (4) Boiling hate:
Revulsion (disgust of negation of intimacy + anger/fear of passion), (5)
Simmering hate: Loathing (disgust of negation of intimacy +
devaluation/diminution of decision/commitment), (6) Seething hate:
Revilement (anger/fear of passion + devaluation/diminution of
decision/commitment), and (7) Burning hate: Need for annihilation
(disgust of negation of intimacy + anger/fear of passion +
devaluation/diminution of decision/commitment).

Theory of Hate as a Story

The theory of hate as a story, like the theory of love as a story, proposes
sssthat hate emerges from different kinds of stories. Some of the most
common stories, deriving from the work of Sam Keene, Anthony Rhodes,
Robert Zajonc, and others, are
Stranger (vs. in-group),
Impure-other (vs. pure in-group),
Controller (vs. controlled),
Faceless foe (vs. individuated in-group),
Enemy of God (vs. servant of God),
Morally bankrupt (vs. morally sound),
Death (vs. life),
Barbarian (vs. civilized in-group),
Greedy enemy (vs. financially responsible in-group),
Criminal (vs. innocent party),
Torturer (vs. victim),
Murderer (vs. victim),
Seducer/rapist (vs. victim),
Animal-pest (vs. human),
Power-crazed (vs. mentally balanced),
Subtle-infiltrator (vs. infiltrated),
Comic-character (vs. sensible in-group), and
Thwarter/destroyer of destiny (vs. seeker of destiny).

Finally, perception becomes reality. There may be elements of truth in

some stories. For example, a particular opponent may be loathsome in
any number of ways. But the power of stories is that their perception
becomes, for the individual experiencing the stories, reality. The individual
typically does not question whether a given story is true. For him or her, it
simply is true.
Separate topic
How Hate Spreads;
There is abundant evidence that many emotions can be experienced at
both an individual and group level. Yet, not all emotions have the same
potential to transcend from the individual to the group or collective level.
We think that hatred can more easily go through a transformation from
individual to group level than other negative emotions; some will even
claim that it is the most “group-based” emotion.
Aristotle states that whereas anger is customarily felt toward individuals,
hatred is often felt towards groups (see also Ben-Ze’ev, 1992). One reason
for this can be found in the core characteristics and the nature of hate.
hate is based on the generalized attribution of an action to the basic traits
and features of a person. In other words, the specific antecedent event of
one hateful incident may become less important over time, and the
character of the person or group becomes the sole reason for the hate.
This facile transition of hatred from the interpersonal level to the group
level makes it a pivotal agent in group-based political dynamics in general
and in intergroup conflicts in particular.
3 factores: of here are three factors that further contribute to the
flourishing of hate specifically at the intergroup
1 :Collective victim evoke sharing one’s about target of hate with similar
other. in contexts where intergroup relations are tense, groups share
collective narratives about their own group and other groups.
Thus, collective victimhood evokes sharing one’s feelings about the tar-
get of hate with similar others. Knowing that other ingroup members
experience an event in a similar way further reinforces the experience
and expression of one’s own emotions (see also Manstead & Fischer,
2001). The sharing of strong negative emotions can in turn strengthen
feelings of collective victim hood that may make the original feeling of
hate even more intense and enduring
second factor;
, while collective victimhood keeps the memory of hate alive across
generations, it may also direct the appraisal of future events. Accumulated
group knowledge on the immoral and violent behavior of an outgroup
affects the evaluation of future behavior, thereby confirming the sentiment
that the outgroup is a homogeneous malicious entity.
3 factor;
The fact that the outgroup’s behavior is considered consistent across
generations reflects on its innate negative characteristics.
Allport (1954) already mentioned the lack of direct interaction as one of the
most powerful engines behind hate and prejudice.According to his
approach, supported by studies in the framework of contact theory (e.g.,
Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006), lack of direct interaction amplifies hate because
the negative appraisal of the malicious character of the group will never be
reappraised or contradicted by other information.
for example, since Israel completed the construction of the separation
wall, Jewish Israelis do not need to suppress their hate towards the
Palestinians anymore, because the wall prevents direct encounters with
individual Palestinians. Thus, Israelis are not confronted anymore with
exceptions to the Israeli view of Palestinians and the hateful image of the
Palestinians can easily remain intact. This does not necessarily mean that
social interactions with hated group members automatically reduce hate.
Hate Crimes and Hate Speech:
Another way through spreading of inter gruop hate.
‘hate crimes are criminal offenses motivated either entirely or in part by
the fact or perception that a victim is different from the perpetrator’.
In most cases, this difference is not based on individual characteristics, but
on assigned social identities, such as being Black, woman, lesbian, or
Muslim. The word hate crime is fairly recent and was used in the US in the
late 1980s to describe a racial incident in New York where a Black man was
killed for no apparent reason. Since then, there has been much
debate about hate crime, which has recently lead to a new field
of research in some countries referred to as “hate studies” (Chakraborti &
Garland, 2015). Hate crimes are based on stereotypes, prejudice, or
extreme negative sentiments about certain groups, and generally also
targeted at visible social groups,such as Blacks, Jews, Native Americans, or
homeless people.The goal of hate crimes is to communicate a certain
message to the group that the haters want to terrify or eliminate
.
in important feature of hate crimes is that the victims generally have not
done anything specific: they are terrorized for who they are, not for what
they have done. This makes the victims feel powerless and unable to
control the situation because changing their behavior or attitudes would
not help.
 Levin and McDevitt (2008) distinguish between four types of hate crimes
that are based on the offender’s motivations: thrill, defense,
retaliation, and mission. Whereas the first type is a form of thrill
seeking (mostly by groups of teenagers),
the second motivation is based on anger and fear, and is considered a
strategy to defend a way of living against intruders. This type of crime is
mostly committed by single persons who feel threatened, for example,
by a Black family who moves into a White neighborhood, or a homosexual
teacher hired by a school.
The retaliatory third type of hate crime also seems to involve actual hate
and is seen as an act of revenge against previous hate crimes or terrorist
attacks.f or example, after the terrorist attacks in September 2001, there
was a 1.6% increase in anti-Muslim hate crimes reported to local police
departments in the US.
Finally, the last motivation for hate crimes is the mission, which is less frequent
and is defined by the fact that the perpetrator is on a moral mission to destroy
outgroup members who are not considered human.
Just for world;
another line of research, hate crimes have been associated with a threatened
belief in a just world (Lerner, 1980). The just world belief implies that individuals
generally believe that the world is a fair place to live in, and that justice is being
done such that people get what they deserve. When an individual becomes the
victim of a hate crime on the sole basis of his or her group identity, observers
may start restoring their belief in a just world by derogating the victim (see also
Sullivan et al., 2016). More importantly, the absence of punishment signals that
the violence not only against one individual but against a whole group is justified.
In a recent study on the exposure of young adults to hate messages in four
different countries (US, Finland, UK, and Germany), Hawdon, Oksanen, and
Räsänen (2016) found that 53% of the Americans, 48% of the Fins, 39% of the
British, and 30.5% of the Germans had been exposed to hateful messages in the
past 3 months.
Next chapter;
Human Nature of Aggression
The psychological mechanisms underlying aggression are hypothesized to be
context-sensitive solutions to particular adaptive problems of social living.
The article con eludes with a limited review of the empirical evidence surrounding each of
the seven hypothesized functions of aggression and discusses the status and limitations of
the current evolutionary psychological account. 0 1997 Elsevier Science Ltd ANCIENT
HOMINID skeletal remains have been discovered that contain cranial and rib fractures that
appear inexplicable except by the force of clubs and weapons that stab (Trinkaus &
Zimmerman, 1982). Fragments from the weapons are occasionally found lodged in skeletal
rib cages. As paleontological detective work has become increasingly sophisticated,
evidence of violence

Violence in movies and TV, teachings in Western society, the purchase by

parents of toy weapons for their children (Berkowitz, 1993). By watching
aggressive models on TV, for example, children are said to acquire aggressive
dispositions through observational learning.
Western civilization and entirely lacking exposure to television (e.g., Chagnon,
1983). Among the Yanomamo of Venezuela, for example, one in four adult
males die at the hands of other humans, either from within their local tribe or
as a result of wars with neighboring tribes (Chagnon, 1988). Although the
Yanomamo may be unusually violent as a group, rates of homicide are
commonly high among traditional societies, such as the Ache of Paraguay (Hill
& Hurtado, 1996) and the Tiwi of northern Australia (Hart & Pilling, 1960).

THE DEMISE OF “INSTINCT THEORY”

Most social psychology textbooks contain chapters on aggression (e.g., Myers,
1995; Sabini, 1992). Among the explanations considered, one usually finds a
section on the “instinct theory of aggression,” usually attributed to Freud and the
ethologist KonradLorenz, which is selected to represent a class of “biological
explanations.” According to these accounts, aggressive energy is said to be an
instinctual drive that builds up until it explodes. It may be “released” by external
stimuli, but its internal building quality guarantees that it will be “pushed out”
one way or another.
This depiction of instinct theory is usually dismissed with dispatch. According to
Myers (1995)) for example,The second argument for dismissal is that “instinct
theory...fails to account for the variation in aggressiveness, from person to person
and culture to culture” (Myers, 1995, p. 439).
According to this argument, “biological” represents those things that are
invariant, and so evidence of cultural or individual variability requires
nonbiological explanations. Berkowitz (1993) provides a more detailed critique.
He dismisses the instinct conception on the following grounds:
(a) scientists have not discovered within the brain or body any reservoirs of
aggressive energy
(b) research rarely reveals spontaneous aggression, but commonly finds that
aggression isresponsive to external stimuli
(c) there are different types of aggression, not a Evolution and Human Aggression
607 single form.
During the domination of learning theory,which reigned over psychology for the
bulk of this century, biological explanations were roundly derided. The
dichotomies drawn between instincts and learning, biology and environment, or
nature and nature, however, are inherently false (Tooby & Cosmides, 1992).
These dichotomies obscure more than they reveal.
EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGY: AN INTERACTIONIST MODEL
Evolutionary psychology provides a more complex interactionist model for
viewing the origins of aggression (see Huesmann & Eron, 1989, for a different
interactionist model, focusing on the interplay of genetic dispositions,
observational learning, and cognitive scripts).
Evolutionary psychology starts with a set of premises/assumption about human
behavior.
First, according to evolutionary psychology, all human behavior is a product of
mechanisms internal to the person, in conjunction with inputs that trigger the
activation of those mechanisms. Even the simplest behaviors - such as the blink of
an eye in response to a puff of air - require both a mechanism and an input. No
mechanisms, no behavior; no input, no behavior. This is as true for aggression as
it is for an eye blink.
Second, all psychological mechanisms, at some fundamental level of description,
owe their existence to evolution by selection. Whatever mechanisms we humans
have- whether they are just a few highly general learning mechanisms or a larger
number of Lorenzian instincts, or different ones altogether - they originated
through the process of evolution by natural or sexual selection.
The issue in contention is the nature of the mechanisms, not whether they are or
are not produced by evolutionary processes. 608 11. M. Buss anal 71 K. Sharkel
ford Modern evolutionary psychology conceives of mechanisms as information-
processing devices with special properties. At the simplest level of description, an
evolved psychological mechanism takes in specific forms of input, operates on
that input with decision rules, and then produces an output. The input can stem
from the external environment, outside the walls of the human skin, or from the
internal environment from other mechanisms. The output can be physiological
activity, input to other mechanisms, or manifest behavior (see Buss, 1995; Tooby
SC Cosmides, 1992, for more extended definitions and discussions).
From the vantage point of evolutionary psychology, mechanisms are fashioned
by selection processes to solve adaptive problems. Evolution is not forward-
looking and does not anticipate what is needed. Rather, variation provides the
raw materials on which selection operates, and variants that solve adaptive
problems better than other variants are ultimately tributary to fitness and are
therefore preserved, replicated, and spread throughout the population over time.
An evolutionary psychological perspective leads us to pose a cluster of related
questions about aggression:
(a) What specific adaptive problems might be solved by the use of aggression?
(b) Have men and women over human evolutionary history confronted these
problems equally or differently?
(c) What are the “design features” of the psychological mechanisms involved in
aggression, and can they be predicted and explained by particular hypotheses
about the adaptive functions of aggression?
(d) What contexts trigger aggression, and can they be predicted and explained by
specific hypotheses about the adaptive functions of aggression? (e) Can individual
and cultural variation in aggression be explained by variations in the degree to
which individuals and groups confront the classes of adaptive problems to which
aggression is a functional solution?
ADAPTIVE PROBLEMS TO WHICH AGGRESSION MIGHT HAVE EVOLVED AS A
SOLUTION
Evolutionary hypotheses do not enjoy a privileged status by virtue of being
evolutionary. As implied in the above discussion, all psychological hypotheses are
implicitly or explicitly evolutionary. An evolutionary psychological perspective
does not yield a single invariant hypothesis about aggression or any other
behavioral phenomenon.Thus, within evolutionary psychology, several
hypotheses are sometimes proposed and put into scientific competition with each
other. The empirical data, as with all scientific hypotheses, are then used to
adjudicate. Below we detail several leading candidates for adaptive problems to
which aggression might be an evolved solution.
Co-Opt the Resources of Others
Humans, perhaps more than any other species, stockpile resources that
historically have been valuable for survival and reproduction. These include fertile
land and access to fresh water, food, tools, and weapons. There are many means
for gaining access to the valuable resources held by others, such as engaging in
social exchange, stealing, or trickery.
Aggression is also a means to co-opting the resources of others. Aggression to co-
opt resources can occur at the individual or group level. At the individual level,
one can use physical force to take resources from others. Modern-day forms
include bullies at school who take the lunch money, books, leather jackets, or
designer sneakers from other children . Childhood aggression is commonly about
resources, such as toys and territory (Campbell, 1993). Adult forms include
muggings and beatings as a means to forcibly extract money or other goods from
others. The threat of aggression may be enough to secure resources from others,
as when a child gives up his lunch money to prevent a beating or a small store
owner gives mobsters money for “protection” to prevent his or her business from
being ransacked.
People, particularly men, often form coalitions for the purposes of forcibly
coopting the resources of others. Among the Yanomamo, for example, male
coalitions raid neighboring tribes and forcibly take food and reproductive-aged
women (Chag-non, 1983). Throughout human recorded history, warfare has been
used to co-opt the land possessed by others, and to the victors go the spoils. The
acquisition of reproductively relevant resources through aggression could have
selected for aggressive strategies when the benefits, on average, outweighed the
costs in the currency of fitness.
Defend Against Attack
The presence of aggressive conspecifics poses a serious adaptive problem to
would-be victims - they stand to lose valuable resources that are co-opted by the
aggressors. In addition, victims may suffer injury or death, impeding both survival
and reproduction. victims of aggression may also lose in the currency of status
and reputation. The loss of face or honor entailed by being abused with impunity
can lead to further abuse by other, who may select victims in part based on the
ease with which they can be exploited or their unwillingness to retaliate.

Aggression, therefore, can be used to defend against attack. Aggression may be

an effective solution to this adaptive problem by preventing one’s resources from
being forcibly taken. It can be used to cultivate a reputation that deters other
would-be aggressors. And it can be used to prevent the loss of status and honor
that would otherwise follow from being victimized with impunity.
Inflict Costs on Intrasexual Rivals
A third adaptive problem is posed by same-sex rivals who are vying for access to
the same resources. One such resource consists of access to valuable members of
the other sex. The image of the beach bully kicking sand in the face of a weaker
man and taking his woman is a stereotyped notion of intrasexual competition, but
the underlying logic
it conveys is powerful. Aggression to inflict costs on rivals can range from verbal
barbs to beatings to killings. Men and women both derogate their same-sex rivals,
impugning their status and reputation to make them less desirable to members of
the other sex (Buss 8c Dedden, 1990). At the other end of the spectrum, men
sometimes kill their same-sex rivals in duels. Bar fights that start as trivial
altercations sometimes escalate to the point of death (Daly & Wilson, 1988). And
men sometimes kill other men discovered to have had sex with their wives or
girlfriends
Negotiate Status and Power Hierarchies
A fourth evolutionary hypothesis is that aggression functions to increase one’s
status or power within existing social hierarchies. Among the Ache of Paraguay,
for example, men engage in ritual club fights with other men. Men who have
survived many club fights are admired and feared, and so attain status and power
as a result of their successful aggression (Hill & Hurtado, 1996). In modern
societies, we have ritualized aggression in the form of boxing matches, for
example, where the victor experiences status elevation and the loser a status loss.
Men who expose themselves to danger in warfare to kill enemies are regarded as
brave and courageous, and consequently experience an elevation in their status
within the group (Chagnon, 1983; Hill & Hurtado, 1996). Within street gangs, men
who display ferocity in their beatings of fellow or rival gang members experience
status elevation
The hypothesis that aggression sometimes serves the adaptive function of status
elevation does not imply that this strategy works in all groups. Aggression within
many groups may result in a status decrement. A professor punching another
professor at a faculty meeting, for example, would almost certainly experience a
decline in status. The key to the status elevation hypothesis is to specify the social
contexts in which aggression pays
Deter Rivals from Future Aggression
Cultivating a reputation as aggressive may function to deter aggression and other
forms of cost-infliction from others. Most people would think twice about stealing
from a Mafia hit man or tangling with Mike Tyson. Most people would hesitate to
flirt with the girlfriend of a member of the Hell’s Angels motorcycle gang.
Aggression and the reputation for aggression thus can act as deterrents, helping
to solve the adaptive problem of others attempting to co-opt one’s resources.
Deter Long-Term Mates from Sexual Infidelity
A sixth hypothesis is that aggression and the threat of aggression function to
deter long-term mates from sexual infidelity. Much empirical evidence suggests
that male sexual jealousy is the leading cause of spousal battering (Daly, Wilson,
& Weghorst, 1982). Studies of shelters for battered women, for example,
document that in the majority of cases, women cite extreme jealousy on the part
of their husbands or boyfriends as the key cause (Dobash & Dobash, 1984). As
repugnant as this may be, some men may beat their wives to deter them from
consorting with other men.
Reduce Resources Expended on Unrelated Children
When a new male lion displaces another male and takes over a female, he often
commits infanticide. He kills the young sired by the usurped male and re-
inseminates the female. This act of brutality may seem repugnant, but in
evolutionary context it serves a specific function for the killer - it reduces the
resources he and his new mateexpend on offspring that are genetically unrelated
to him. A similar adaptive logic may apply to aggression against stepchildren,
including that which falls short of actual homicide. Since the presence of
stepchildren threatens to absorb valuable resources that might otherwise get
channeled to genetically related children, adult aggression against stepchildren
may have functioned historically to reduce the resources expended on unrelated
children
Topic ;The Roots of Human Aggression
“It is essential that we not base our image of ourselves on false foundations.
What is involved here is not simply the understanding of the nature of
humanity, but also the image of humanity that grows out of that
understanding.”
Humans are more often at peace than at war; we cooperate more than we
conflict. In fact, there is mounting evidence that cooperation may be acentral
facet in explaining our success as a species.On the other hand, this does not mean
we are egalitarian, nonviolent pacifists. Human nature is neither simple nor linear.
Our core adaptation is one of cooperation, but we can and do compete—a lot and
often use aggression to do so. To understand this pattern, we need to ask: what is
aggression and why do we use it?
Human aggression is complicated, ranging from mild verbal anger to vicious
murder and everything in between. Conflict styles and aggression vary across
individuals, sexes, genders, societies, and eras. Aggression is an important part of
being human, an aspect of our complicated and diverse selves.
The nature and causes of human aggression are not found in our genes, but
understanding the function and variation of our biology can help us better
understand the pathways and patterns of aggressive behavior. Multiple regions of
the brain and body influence the expression of aggression, including various
hormone and neurochemical systems. Abnormal biological function can influence
patterns of aggressive behavior, making them more or less likely depending on
social and physical contexts. Males and females differ in some facets of
aggression, and in their outcomes, but a lot of those differences have to do with
physical size and the social and experiential contexts in which gender roles play
out in a given society.
Some researchers have argued that humans (and our close kin, the chimpanzees)
have evolved to be hyper-competitive, where males use violence to war against
one another and coercion to force females into having sex with them. But this is
not really the case. While one species of chimpanzees is very aggressive, another
one is not. Overall, looking to the other primates shows us that we do not have
specific, evolved patterns of conflict and heightened aggression. Instead we have
a long history of empathy and the potential for peacemaking (as well as for
violence). If anything, looking at the two chimpanzee species demonstrates the
potential for variability in the expression of aggressive and nonaggressive
behaviors in our shared ancestors
One simple answer is that we are highly social and complicated beings—we spend
most of our time around other people. Our big brains, imaginative minds, and
super complex social lives often cause interpersonal conflict, confusion, and
resentment, to which we sometimes (but not always) respond with aggression
and violence. We have to negotiate potentially hundreds of social interactions
each day. Most of the time this goes well; sometimes it does not. Because the
diversity of individual needs and desires do not always gel with social, political,
and economic realities, interpersonal conflicts emerge. Across human history,
though, more often than not people have found a way to get along (even if it is
more a consequence of social pressure than personal desire)
It is very difficult to train humans to fight and kill one another. To do so, we have
to tap our immense ability to cooperate with one another, our strong sense of
morality and doing good, and combine that with our potential for engaging in
aggression and violence. In war, cooperation and conflict are not in opposition,
they are reflections of human potentials combined, and manipulated, for political
ends. These same patterns could just as likely be harnessed for peace. In
anything, our history has shown our ability to go to war, but it also demonstrates
an equally or potentially more resilient ability to wage peace.
Albert Einstein once asked us to us to see what is, as opposed to what we already
believe to be true. Cooperation and conflict are not opposites, and neither are
aggression and peace. We can get a lot farther in our quest to understand being
human if we discard these dualisms.
EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE
What is Emotional Intelligence?
Emotional Intelligence refers to the capacity to recognize and manage our own
feelings and to recognize and respond effectively to those of others.
There are various theorists who have developed different models of emotional
intelligence.They are very similar but have a few variations in how they are
structured. For the purposes of these lessons, we have chosen to use Daniel
Goleman’s model with four domains: self- awareness, self-management, social
awareness and relationship management. This was originally developed in 1998
with five domains and redesigned in 2002 with four domains.
Each domain has the connected competencies listed inside the boxes. The
following pages briefly provide some background on each domain in the
quadrant.
Daniel Goleman’s Emotional Intelligence Quadrant
Recognition/Awareness
1 Self-Awareness
Emotional self-awareness
Accurate self-assessment
Self-confidence
2 Social Awareness
Empathy
Organizational Awareness
Service
3 Self-Management
Emotional Self-Control
Transparency
Adaptability
Achievement
Initiative
Optimism
4 Relationship Management
Influence
Inspirational Leadership
Developing Others
Change catalyst
Building bonds
Conflict Management
Teamwork & Collaboration

Self- Awareness
• Emotional self-awareness
• Accurate self-assessment
• Self-confidence
According to John Mayer (University of New Hampshire psychologist and one of
the first to study emotional intelligence) self-awareness is being “aware of both
our mood and our thoughts about mood.” It is also explained by Goleman (2002)
as the ability to read and understand your emotions as well as recognize their
impact on others. It can simply be put that self-awareness is a basic
understanding of how we feel and why we feel that way. The more we are aware
of our feelings that easier they are to manage and dictate how we might respond
to others.
Emotional awareness is the result of this sequence:
1. Sense the emotion (feeling)
2. Acknowledge the feeling
3. Identify more facts
4. Accept the feeling
5. Reflect on why the emotion is showing up in that moment. Notice what other
feelings are present or came before it. Ask yourself what its purpose might be,
what it is communicating, demonstrating, or trying to teach you.
6. Act – bring your thoughts and feelings up and take appropriate action, if
needed.
7. Reflect on the usefulness of the response and what lesson you would like to
take away..
It is equally important to be able to evaluate how this impacts the moods and
emotions of others. There was a study done by Sigal Barsade (2002) on “The
Ripple Effect: Emotional Contagion and Its Influence on Group Behavior” that
shows that our emotions can be contagious and shared with others, even if we do
not mean to. There is a process innate in human behavior that can cause us to
mimic another person’s facial expressions and is communicated through
nonverbal behaviors. The study also found we can influence each other
socially; positive emotions towards others influenced cooperativeness and
conflict in the study.

Self-Management
• Emotional self-control
• Transparency
• Adaptability
• Achievement
• Initiative
• Optimism
Self-Management, or self-regulation, can be defined as the ability to manage
one’s actions, thoughts, and feelings in flexible ways to get the desired results.
Optimal self-regulation contributes to a sense of well-being, a sense of self-
efficacy or confidence, and a sense of connectedness to others. The goal is for a
self-regulating individual to be able to take his or her emotional responses as cues
for both action and coping effectively in relationships. It is important to have an
understanding of self-awareness first in order for this to be possible

Emotions can swamp the brain causing feelings of frustration and overwhelming
thoughts. This is due to what Goleman (1995) calls an “amygdala hijack”. The
amygdala is the area in the brain that is the center for the emotions and
emotional behavior. This area of the brain goes into overdrive causing high
activity causing us to focus and obsess about whatever is causing our distress. It
makes it very difficult to be able to think about anything else. For example, you
are working with your fellow teen leaders on planning an upcoming camp.
Another counselor takes credit for your idea when sharing with the group. You
get so focused on the unfairness of this that you miss what was said in the rest of
the planning session.
The goal of self-management is to be able to recognize these feeling as a hijack
and bring the brain back to mental clarity and concentration to the task at hand. It
is important to learn strategies to allow your brain to do this before responding to
the negative emotions.

Social Awareness
• Empathy
• Organizational awareness
• Service
Social Awareness is the ability to accurately notice the emotions of others and
“read” situations appropriately. It is about sensing what other people are thinking
and feeling to be able to take their perspective using your capacity for empathy.
Goleman explains, our ability actually comes from neurons in an extended
circuitry connected to the amygdala. They read another person’s face, voice, etc.
for emotion and help direct us how we should speak to them.

“Empathy refers to the cognitive and emotional processes that bind people
together in various kinds of relationships that permit sharing experiences as well
as understanding of others” (Eslinger, 2007).
Our brains take note how the other person responded and the amygdala and
connected circuits keep us in an interpersonal loop of emotional connection. In
order to do this, we must have already become aware of the emotions of others
around us and the circumstances that impacted them. Social awareness is all
about noticing the person in the room that is frustrated by the task at hand and
responding in a way that can prevent further negative emotions.
*********************
Brain Circuitry Example (adapted from Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R. & McKee, A):
An example of how this brain circuitry sends you information looks something like
this –She’s getting angry by that last remark…she looks tired now…maybe I am
boring her…oh, that’s better…I think she liked hearing that…
This is what we use to decide what we should say next.
*********************
Empathy is not sympathy. Empathy takes other people’s feelings into thoughtful
consideration and then we can make an intelligent decision in respond to those
feelings. Strong empathy skills also help us get along better with others who see
things differently from us. Careful listening with empathy can help avoid these
misunderstandings.

Relationship Management
• Inspirational leadership
• Influence
• Developing others
• Change catalyst
• Conflict management
• Building bonds
• Teamwork and collaboration
The ability to take one’s own emotions, the emotions of others, and the context
to manage social interactions successfully. This quadrant pulls together the other
3 dimensions and creates the final product – relationship management. Often if
we have the other three dimensions figured out, this will flow more naturally.

This can be known as “friendliness with a purpose” or getting desired responses

when working with others. This can be very depending on the situation and this is
why this dimension actually has 7 competencies that fall under it that all have to
do with relationships.

Relationship management can be used to influence those around us to make a

good decision. We can sense other’s reactions to the situation and fine-tune our
response to move the interaction in a positive direction. It is critical that this is a
genuine attempt to help everyone reach the best possible outcome and not to
ever become an act of manipulation for self-interest.
Another example of relationship management is dealing specifically with conflict
of others.
Those strong in this area can see that conflict is forming and take steps to move
others away from this in a more positive interaction. Listening and empathizing
are critical skills to deal with these often difficult conversations.
10% of conflict is due to the difference in opinion and 90% is due to the deliery
and tone of voice. -Unknown
Relationship management can also be working with collaboration and teamwork
of others.Using all of these skills from the earlier three dimensions in order to
steer the group towards their goals. All teams are a collection of individuals and
yet once together they can take on the emotions of others so it important to keep
emotions positive.

Next topic; of Emotional Intelligence to Peacebuilding and Development

Through Training and Capacity Building

developed an EI framework of competencies that could impact work performance

in organisations. Peacebuilding and development work entails a range of activities
to help local populations build and sustain peace and ensure sustainable
development. On the ground, peacebuilders and development practitioners have
immense opportunities to access information regarding how they feel and what
matters to them. The question is whether they can use this information to guide
their thoughts and actions. Goleman (1995) writes of the existence of two brains,
two minds, and two kinds of intelligence—namely rational and emotional—
suggesting the complementarity of EI and cognitive intelligence or the intelligence
quotient (IQ). Peacebuilders and development practitioners apply their
knowledge based on international experiences in their respective fields. However,
such contributions may have mostly been based on cognitive intelligence rather
than EI.
Hess and Bacigalupo (2011) pointed out the link between emotions and
rationality, as well as ability of emotions to improve the quality of a person’s
decision-making process. Additionally, Damasio (1994) contended that intuition
and emotions play a role in one’s ability to make rational decisions.
EI Applications in Action Conflict Prevention Case in Timor-Leste (2006)
N Secretary-General António Guterres has often shared his keen interest in
building and sustaining peace and preventing conflicts by addressing their root
causes. One example of how emotions played a role in critical decision making is
in the instance of conflict prevention by the UN Office in Timor-Leste
(UNOTIL).The case took place during a UN peacebuilding mission, during which
the author was directly involved as the mission’s chief of staff (Kuroda, 2019). In
the aftermath of the May 2006 shootings incidents in Dili, the Timorese
government requested a UN inquiry. Before the UN Commission of Inquiry issued
its report in 2006, the UNOTIL senior management team (UN peacebuilders)
conducted good offices functions by applying EI, preventing further conflict. This
case illustrates how UN peacebuilders applied EI to handle the situation
effectively.
The framework comprises four dimensions of EI abilities: (a) self-awareness, (b)
self-management, (c) social awareness, and (d) relationship management
(see Table 1).The framework presents two perspectives: self or personal
competence and other or social competence.

Other
Self
(Social Competence)
(Personal Competence)

Self-awareness Social awareness

Recognition
• •
 Other
Self
(Social Competence)
(Personal Competence)

Emotional self-awareness Empathy

• •
Accurate self-assessment Service orientation

• •
Self-confidence Organisational awareness

Self-management Relationship management

• •
Emotional self-control Developing others

• •
Trustworthiness Influence

• •
Conscientiousness Communication

Regulation • •
Adaptability Conflict management

• •
Achievement drive Visionary leadership

• •
Initiative Catalysing change

•
Building bonds
 Other
Self
(Social Competence)
(Personal Competence)

•
Teamwork and collaboration

Open in viewer
Self-Awareness
Self-awareness implies that one is aware of one’s own emotions, processing and
understanding them accurately. Being self-aware of one’s feelings, in this case the
fear that violence might recur, allows one to intellectually assess the situation
(self-assessment) and take appropriate action. For example, the author recalled
the shooting incidents of April and May 2006, when she was particularly
concerned that lack of action on the part of the UN might result in further
violence. It is clear that, in parallel, she became aware of the frustration and
worries of the local population.
Self-Management
Once one becomes aware of one’s emotions, managing them is important to
control, adapt, or think about taking initiative. The chief of staff felt a strong urge
to act, as well as an instinct that violence should and could be avoided. These
feelings propelled her to articulate her emotions and concerns to her supervisor,
the Acting Special Representative of the Secretary-General (ASRSG), and share her
views that proactive steps were necessary.
Social Awareness
Social awareness refers to how one becomes aware of others’ emotions,
recognises them, and shows empathy. Once the ASRSG listened to the chief of
staff, he understood and shared her emotions and thoughts. He made sure that
UN peacebuilders conducted the situational and early warning analyses and
identified the conflict’s root causes. Figure 1 illustrates the root causes,
symptoms, and the core problems of the conflict. The UN peacebuilders fully
understood the local population’s emotions. They recognised that the local
population was experiencing “fear and [a] sense of insecurity” (see Figure 1) and
that they needed to feel reassured of their security and future prospects. They
also determined that the president’s absence for more than 4 months since the
shooting incidents in May 2006 added to the emotions as it was normal to see the
president in public on a weekly basis before the shooting incidents. They began to
realise the importance of the president’s meeting with the local population. This
demonstrates that strong EI can lead to new insights.
Relationship management is about using emotional awareness to relate to and
interact with others for decision making. This is when peacebuilders and
development practitioners actually interact with local populations. After
internally processing their emotions and analysing the situation, the UN
peacebuilders decided to interact with the local population by consulting with
Timor-Leste’s stakeholders, including church leaders, political leaders,
government leaders, military and police leaders, and civil society organisations.
Given the limited time before the release of the UN’s report on inquiry, the
consultation sessions identified “the fear and [a] sense of security” as the deep
emotions that needed to be addressed first. The concern was that such emotions
could trigger an immediate emotional reaction when the report would be
released.
The UN peacebuilders and the local population arrived to the consensus that a
televised appearance by the president, along with other senior government
officials, appearing in front of the Timorese people via a televised message,
would be an ideal way to address their concerns and fear. Through the mission-
led consultations, the UN peacebuilders were able to strengthen bonds (see the
fourth quadrant of Table 1) to the extent that local players committed to not
return to violence. In his televised message, the president encouraged his
people to avoid violence and promised that he would propose accountability
measures regarding the incidents. After his message, there was a sense of relief
in the UN peacebuilders and the local population.
Consequently, there were no violent reactions to the report of the UN
Commission of Inquiry in October 2006 (UN, 2006), despite the fact that it
mentioned the names of the persons engaged in the shootings. This was mainly
because the local population felt reassured by the president’s presence and
speech and was more secure by that point. This example demonstrates how the
UN peacebuilders were able to directly intercede in a potentially violent conflict in
Timor-Leste by acknowledging and addressing the local population’s emotions
EI Training and Capacity Building
Goleman (1995, 1998) argued that emotional competencies can be gained,
developed, and improved. Therefore, training programmes for peacebuilders and
development practitioners can serve as assets that would help them learn ways to
apply EI within the context of their work. EI training should be an integral part of
peacebuilding and development work and should include EI assessment, EI
training, and EI application practice and EI evaluation.
EI Assessment
Before conducting training, a baseline assessment of EI competencies should be
made. After the completion of training, the progress in the adaption of the
competencies should be reassessed. Available EI assessment and measuring tools
include the following: (a) Emotional Competency Inventory (ECI) by Boyatzis,
Goleman, and Rhee; (b) Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i) by Bar-On; and (c)
Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) by Mayer, Salovey,
and Caruso. Some of the tools are more comprehensive than others and may be
time- and cost-intensive, whereas others are intended to be simple and some are
free.1

Next topic :THEORIES OF violence:

Violence and aggression are complex phenomena that have been studied
from various perspectives, including psychology, sociology, biology, and
criminology. Here are some prominent theories that attempt to explain the
causes and dynamics of violence and aggression:
1. Biological Theories:
• Evolutionary Theory: Some researchers argue that aggressive has evolved as an
adaptive strategy for survival and reproduction. This theory suggests that
aggression may have provided an advantage in competition for resources or
mates in our evolutionary past.
• Neurobiological Factors: Studies have linked certain brain structures,
neurotransmitters, and hormonal imbalances to aggressive behavior. For
example, abnormalities in the prefrontal cortex, amygdala, and serotonin levels
have been associated with increased aggression.
2. Psychological Theories:
• Psychoanalytic Theory: Freud proposed that aggression arises from the innate
human drive known as the "death instinct" or "Thanatos." According to this
theory, aggression serves as a way to discharge this instinctual energy.
• Social Learning Theory: Developed by Albert Bandura, this theory suggests that
aggression is learned through observation, imitation, and reinforcement.
Individuals are more likely to behave aggressively if they witness aggressive
behavior being rewarded or if they lack appropriate models for non-aggressive
behavior.
• Frustration-Aggression Hypothesis: Proposed by Dollard et al.,
this theory posits that frustration, resulting from the thwarting of a
goal-directed behavior, leads to aggression. However, not all
frustration necessarily leads to aggression, and other factors may
moderate this relationship.
3. Sociological Theories:
• Social Structure Theories: These theories emphasize the role of social
structures, such as poverty, inequality, and social disorganization, in fostering
conditions that increase the likelihood of violence and aggression. Strain theory,
for example,suggests that individuals may turn to aggression when they
experience a disjunction between societal goals and the means to achieve them.
• Social Learning Theories: Beyond the individual level,
sociological perspectives also consider how socialization processes, cultural
norms, and institutional influences shape aggressive behavior. For instance,
subcultural norms that glorify violence or promote aggressive masculinity can
contribute to higher rates of aggression within certain groups.
4. Environmental Theories:
• Ecological Systems Theory: Proposed by Urie Bronfenbrenner, this theory
considers the multiple layers of environmental influence on behavior, including
the microsystem (immediate environment), mesosystem (interactions between
microsystems), exosystem (indirect environmental influences), and macrosystem
(cultural values and norms). Aggression may emerge from interactions between
individuals and their social environments across these levels.
• Community Factors: Neighborhood characteristics, such as poverty, crime rates,
access to resources, and social cohesion, have been linked to variations in rates of
violence and aggression. Communities with high levels of social capital and
effective social control mechanisms tend to have lower levels of violence. These
theories offer different perspectives on the causes and mechanisms of violence
and aggression, highlighting the multifaceted nature of these behaviors.
Researchers often integrate insights from multiple theories to develop
comprehensive explanations and inform strategies for prevention and
intervention