This summary is going to be very brief, but I found it to be easier than other chapters to summarize. Basically, Halperin’s big hypothesis is that the combination of anger and hatred for an outgroup increases the change of an aggressive retaliation for an action or insult that is directed to the ingroup and is perceived as unfair or unjust. She then takes anger, using studies to show that by itself, anger does not lead to aggressive responses. She does the same thing for hatred. Finally, she discusses studies she did and a few that others did that measure the interaction of anger and hatred on aggressive responses. She is able to show a significant interaction for them, as opposed to virtually no significant effect for the anger and hatred variables by themselves. Therefore, her hypothesis is supported. End of chapter!
It was interesting to me that she used the 9/11 attacks and the Isreali-Palestinan conflict. The interesting part was that she only looked at it from one side. She did not appear to attempt to find any studies or do any studies from the point of view of the people who supported the 9/11 attacks or the Palestinians. Then she says that if we don’t hate the outgroup (terrorists or Palestinians) and try to perceive actions from their point of view, maybe our response won’t be aggressive. However, she never explains why the other side did the action in the first place! I’m just trying to understand how you’re supposed to respond to someone who wants you to die. I mean, turn the other cheek is great, but I’m not sure that that’s the mindset to have as a country. If America “turned the other cheek” in World War II, Hitler would have won. I’m all for peace, but sometimes peace won’t work. I’m also for tolerance. Hate is probably one of the worst emotions you can have. I can honestly say that I don’t THINK I hate anyone. That being said, if one group hates another group, it doesn’t matter if the second group doesn’t hate the first.
Continuing with that thought, I can now segue into the relevance of this chapter in intergroup violence. Obviously, it’s all about intergroup violence. The big problem is that it tries to find ways to reduce violence after the violence has already started. Getting back to my last point, it doesn’t matter if the second group does or doesn’t hate the first group as far as starting the violence first. It didn’t really matter to Hitler if the Jews hated him or not, and it didn’t really matter to the Jews either. They didn’t perpetrate any violence to Hitler. He killed them anyway. Like it I said, he didn’t care if they hated him, it was more important that HE hated them. That being said, of course the feelings of the second group do matter when it comes to continuing violence. If the second group hates the first, according to this chapter, they are more likely to respond with violence if they’re angry about being attacked or insulted. As far as preventing retaliatory violence, it never hurts to try education. However, I’m quite sure that education isn’t going to work all the time. If someone or some group is really bent on hurting another, no amount of education or peace offerings are going to work.
This chapter really didn’t have anything to do with sadistic rapists. I don’t think I can use anything I learned here to apply to sadistic rapists. However, I do want to conclude with one last thought. People say that violence is never the answer. I disagree. Sometimes it is.
Chapter seventeen focuses on the role that anger and hatred have on violent behavior. This chapter not only focuses on what anger and hatred are, but also the role they play with aggression. What the authors found was that, while these two constructs are highly similar, they are also different. The chapter also includes a nice graph that shows the relationship that anger and hatred have in "helping" to produce violent behavior. The graph shows, to no surprise, that high levels of both anger and hatred give rise to the highest level of aggressive actions. The converse was also true, that low levels of anger and hatred lead to lower levels of aggressive behavior. The chapter concludes nicely with a summary of all the data found.
The thing that I found most interesting about this chapter was the interactions that anger and hatred had. This is something that I had never really thought of before. From my experience, anger and hatred have always seemed to go hand in hand. Learning that they interacted with each other and were different lead me to think if you could have anger without hatred or hatred without anger? How would having only anger or only hatred impact the amount of aggressive acts?
It was also interesting to read in the very beginning of the chapter about how Americans reacted to the attack on September 11th. It most definitely painted an excellent picture of the general feelings that most everyone was going through. It really gave a great introduction to the chapter and set the tone for the remainder of the reading.
I think that this chapter also really relates well to my expert topic on school bullying. It made me think of researching on whether or not students that bully experience anger or hatred towards the students that they are bullying? Or does anger and hatred from an outside source have an impact on their behaviors towards other students? These are all great things that the chapter made me think about. From my experience, most students that bully have hard lives outside of school or generally want to feel included by tearing other students down. However, if we dive deeper, would we find that they are secretly angry and/or full of hate?
These are all things that I would like to try and add to my expert topic website when I truly get rolling on it.
This chapter focuse on anger and hatred and the relationship to aggression. The text summarizes that intergroup conflicts, in the majority of cases are typically when members of conflicting societies or groups view the conflict through a unidimensional, biased lens and therefore perceive the other group's actions as unjust, unfair and incompatible with acceptable norms. The text continues by identifying that intergroup anger is a pivotal emotion in every conflict, thus supporting the need for the research that was presented throughout this chapter. A basic concept identified was that emotions transform a substanative event into a motive to respond to it in a particular manner. The author indicates that he views emotions as comprising stories that help people interpret events and guide their behavioral reactions. I completely agree with this point of view. I also believe that this is consistent with the previously noted summary of intergroup conflict. Specifically I beleive that the notion that intergroup conflict has a significant amount to do with the view regarding acceptable norms. The authors definition of emotions can be closely related to this definition. I strongly believe that our emotions and norms both on a personal and societal level are developed through experience and are strongly influenced by outside factors. In relation to aggression I beleive that by gaining a greater understanding of this on both the personal and societal level we can have a better understanding of aggression overall and more specifically relating to this chapter to understand intergroup violence.
I thought this was an interesting chapter because although it specifically relates to intergroup violence on a large scale I feel that the concepts and research present can be useful in understanding violence on a more personal level as well. For example if an individual is able to truely reflect on their feelings and has insight regarding where those feelings and emotions are stemming from they can gain more insight on their own or others aggressive tendencies.
Overall, I feel this chapter is helpful on a larger societal level, interpersonal and even individual level. The information presented will be helpful for working with and gaining a better understanding of aggression overall.
This chapter focuses on anger and hatred as it relates to violate behavior among groups. The author concluded from studies that anger and hatred alone do not lead to violent behaviors, but the reaction between the two have shown to lead to violence behaviors. I found these finding very interesting, also as I examined them further, I thought that they made some sense. However, it surprises me that anger alone is not a cause of violence tendencies. These finding supported her original hypothesis that she stated. The author discusses how these things occur in intergroup conflicts and how violent acts among intergroups occur because of the combination of anger and hatred.
Throughout the chapter, I was interested in the relationship between anger, hatred, and violence. I was kind of dumbstruck that anger and hatred alone were not cause of violence behavior. Personally, I do not truly hate anyone and I"m typically not an angry person, so it's difficult for me to step into someone elses shoes to see what would set me off to commit a violence crime against another group of people. I would think that extreme anger would set me off enough to harm another person, or extreme hatred. So it really surprised me that you need both to spark violence behavior. Often times anger and hatred do walk hand and hand, but there have been times that I have been angry, but did not hate someone for it. Which kind of proves the theory, because I have not experienced both at the same time, maybe if I had I would lash out violently.
I found this chapter very interesting and cool to read about. This information does not really have anything to do with date rape, so I can not tie it to my topic, however, I really enjoyed reading about it and understanding group violence a bit better.
Chapter 17 focuses on anger and hatred and how both relate to or have an effect on aggressive behavior, particularly between groups. One of the main points made by the authors is that short-term anger, and long-term hatred are the combination most likely to produce a strong support for large-scale aggression, such as that taken by military forces. The authors also introduce and differentiate between the following constructs: emotions, sentiments, cognitive appraisals, response tendencies, intergroup emotions, etc. At first glance the definitions of these terms seem convoluted and complex, much like the relationship between anger, hatred, and aggression. One of the key distinctions made among these terms concerned emotions versus sentiments. Emotions were defined as being multicomponent responses to particular kinds of events. Sentiments on the other hand, were defined as more enduring configurations of emotions or emotional predispositions. Intergroup emotions were defined as those that are felt by individuals as a result of their membership in or identification with a certain group or society and are targeted toward another group. One of the things I found most interesting about this chapter was that it is often only a few members of the ingroup who experience some form of injustice or abuse by members of the outgroup to sufficiently stur up enough intergroup emotions that can lead to large-scale aggressive acts. Another idea that I found interesting was on p. 321 of the text “The most important preconditions for intergroup conflict and intergroup aggression are a perceived conflict of interest between the groups and perception of a long-term threat posed by the outgroup. Yet in the majority of cases, conflict of interest or even perceived threat alone will not bring about violence in the absence of an immediate provocation.” I think it would be interesting to research various forms of provocation that can or already have triggered intergroup violence. What kinds of ‘provocations’ cause the most aggression and why? How would a researcher even operationalize ‘provocation’? Even aggression itself is difficult to operationalize, how can we even research such complex behaviors and cognitions? But I digress… Other preconditions to intergroup conflict involve the perception that the ingroup is strong enough to overpower the outgroup in a future military battle, a sense of willingness or eagerness to accept the risks involved in entering aggressive acts, and finally, many people will only support intergroup conflict if it is the last resort. The authors of the chapter also present their own research on these issues (i.e. anger, hatred, and how they affect aggression). More specifically they conducted research involving issues pertaining to 9/11, Muslims, Islam, Arabs, and also the conflict between Israel and Palestine. One of the their main conclusions was that the link between anger and aggression is dependent on the level of hatred one feels for the outgroup. For example, if only anger exists, then a desire to correct the wrongdoing without the harm or destruction of the outgroup (i.e. through education) may arise. As opposed to the other chapters we have read thus far, this chapter best relates to my expert topic of genocide. The entire basis of genocide is intergroup conflict. There are ingroups and outgroups, there are feelings of moral injustice (on both sides) that are used by both sides of the conflict to justify their violent and destructive acts against the opposing group, there are feelings of anger and hatred that help to perpetuate the cycle of violence. It is important to realize that social issues such as genocide do not happen overnight. It is usually a build-up of all of the constructs described in this chapter that lead to large-scale, highly aggressive acts such as genocide. It is safe to say that this chapter will be an invaluable resource for my project!
Chapter 17 is about emotions and anger, and how they deal with intergroup conflict. Emotions are responses to various things. These can be either events or from past events that challenge a person. The chapter used events such as terrorist attacks such as 9/11, and also conflicts by political and religious leaders to describe how people experienced emotions and why there was such conflict between the two. The chapter also discusses how anger drives people to aggressive behavior, and how it relates to intergroup conflict. For example, an intergroup conflict that includes mutual provocations or violent responses experience frequent episodes of anger toward the outgroup because of the antagonist behaviors. If it leads to political action, then this can be exemplified by a political decision, which leads to military action against the intergroup conflict. This is a vicious cycle which leads to more anger, or even death on both sides of the conflict.
The chapter also shows a graph that demonstrates the aggressive action towards Palestinians in a survey. It showed how if you have low anger, then there will less likely be aggressive action. If you have high anger, then there will more likely be aggressive action. This is not a surprise, but it does show how large of a role that military action has on intergroup conflict.
One of the topics that I found to most interesting in the chapter was sentiment. Sentiments are enduring configurations of emotions or emotional dispositions. I have always related sentiments to sentimental things such as something that a person thinks is special to them. Before reading this chapter, I was not aware of this term being used to describe how it is different than states and moods. This is because moods do not typically hold a well-defined object.
Another thing I found to be interesting in the chapter is how you need both anger and hatred in order to do a violent act. I do have a temper, so I can see how you need anger in order to punch something like a pillow. I was not aware that you need both, and that hatred by itself lacks the anger related sense of power that makes aggression possible.
This chapter relates to my topic elder abuse because for someone to commit any form of violent act against elders, then they have to have both anger and hatred towards them. Also, in relation to today’s video of intergroup violence, an elder who is either a grandparent of a gang member or is in relation somehow to a gang member can be affected by the violence. The violence of a gang could be due to the political and military action being done, by the outgroup, and of course by the ingroup.
Chapter 17 focuses on the roles anger and hatred play in situations of intergroup aggression. Generally speaking, emotions, especially anger, are powerful in driving people to behave aggressively. Intergroup conflicts are defined as situations in which members of conflicting societies/groups view the current conflict as a situation in which the opposing group’s actions are unjust, unfair, and go against acceptable social norms. Each group perceives the opposing group is in the wrong and they are in the right. The author focuses on two studies of intergroup conflict throughout the chapter: 1. U.S. decision to invade Iraq; 2. Israel’s decision to initiate a large-scale military action against the Palestinians.
The author suggests that in the absence of long term hatred toward an out-group, anger doesn’t always lead to group members supporting aggression as a whole. The author argues that in some situations with the absence of long term hatred toward an out-group, peaceful outcomes may arise. The author also argues that strong support for large scale aggressive behaviors (e.g., U.S. invading Iraq) is produced when short-term anger and long-term hatred are combined. I thought it was interesting to note that, according to the author, anger and hatred alone do not lead to violent behavior, which after thinking about it more makes some sense. The chapter includes a graph of the interaction between anger and hatred and how that interaction affects support for aggressive behaviors specifically related to actions toward Palestinians. The chart showed that “anger was associated with heightened support for aggressive actions only in the presence of long-term hatred.” One main point the author wants readers to get out of the reading is the relationship between anger and support for aggression depends on the level of hatred toward the out-group.
This chapter definitely relates to my area of expertise: gangs, specifically girl gangs. Gang violence is a prime example of intergroup violence. Rival gangs engage in aggressive behaviors (e.g., shooting, stabbing, beating up) against each other in a constant power struggle over each other’s territory, drug operations, etc. More often than not, rival gangs have long-standing hatred and anger towards one another which only further supports retaliatory behaviors against each other. As we discussed in class today, the power struggle currently going on between gangs in LA seems to be a racial war between gangs. For LA County in particular, most of the case load for officers in the gang division include cases where Hispanic gang members are killing African-American gang members and vice versa. For girl gangs in particular, the same can be said for some girl gangs but not others. There are very few girl-only gangs in existence today; most girl gangs are branches of male gangs that take on the ideals, rules, etc of the male gang. Understanding how feelings of anger and hatred shape perceptions of gangs can be helpful for people/organizations whose focus is develop prevention/intervention programs that will someday hopefully help the gang situation in some way.
Chapter 17 was a discussion of intergroup aggression and how emotions play a role in the general acceptance or rejection of aggression among groups. The authors specifically discuss the role of anger and hatred in the development of aggression between groups. The authors reject the contention that rational choice can alone explain the differences in aggression among groups. They stress the importance of understanding the emotions involved in group conflicts and also understanding the important distinctions between anger and hatred.
Emotions are defined as "flexible response sequencecs evoked when a person evaluates a situation as offering important challenges or opportunities." Emotions are the focal point of this chapter and are considered by the author to play the largest role in aggression between groups. The appraisal-based model is a model used to explain how a conflict is processed and how support for aggressive acts form. According to this model, how a conflict affects a person's attitude for a response to the outgroup is determined by a discrete emotional response to the event. This response is influenced by the long-term emotional sentiments the person has acquired toward the outgroup. The author uses this model to show how the person's discrete emotional reaction to a conflict influences their decision to use aggression or not. After discussing several studies and evidence, some conclusions made by the author concerning emotion and aggression were:
-"Anger toward the outgroup led to political intolerance only if it was supported by hatred"
-"Anger was associated with heightened support for aggressive actions only in the presence of long-term hatred"
-"Long-term sentiment and a momentarily triggered discrete emotion toward an outgroup will lead to support for intergroup aggression"
-"Combined influences of short-term anger and long-term hatred are likely to produce strong support for large-scale aggression"
These conclusions are important in showing how anger and hatred interact to influence aggression. A point I though was interesting was the notion that groups support aggression because the groups are unchecked by empathy for the outgroup. I thought this was a really good consideration concerning group aggression. When a conflict arises, it is seldom we set aside the anger or hatred and use empathy for the opposing group or person. It takes strength and self-assurance to set aside our own emotions to feel anothers, and our own enotions often alter our ability or willingness to do so. Thinking about war, genocides, or gang violence, empathy could be a valuable tool and could prevent devastating conflict.
This chapter did not directly relate to my expert topic, but there are useful aspects I can incorporate. Overall, I found this chapter extemely interesting and very prevalent to not only group conflict but also on a more conventional level concerning individual emotion.
This chapter focuses on how the emotions of anger and hatred effect actions of aggression in conflicts of intergroup relationships. This chapter was fairly simple in the research that was explained. The author explained initially in the chapter that social psychology often explains anger as the most predominant factor regarding aggression, but that some individuals are also able to control their emotions so as to not become aggressive. Therefore, the author chooses to focus on any differences regarding aggression when a one feels hate versus anger toward a group. These two concepts are discussed as well as differentiating several factors such as emotions and sentiments as they are related to aggression. The difference between anger and hatred is differentiated by stating that anger causes an action in the attempt to right a wrong, while hatred is more avoiding the outgroup because of perceived inability or want for change. The author concludes that anger and aggression depend on the level of hatred one feels for a group. Findings suggest that “anger interacts with hatred to fuel aggression.” Studies seem to show that having short term anger and long term hatred is the factors that can cause the most serious aggressive acts.
This chapter relates directly to my area of expertise of youth violence. Much of my research includes the group versus individual aspects of youth violence. A part of group violence includes gang activity and a part of individual violence includes the environment/activities the child is surrounded by. The author did well in differentiating anger from hatred. This concept can become very complex when discussing violence and aggression, as the terms/feelings are often used interchangeably. Separating these is extremely important for our youth. Teaching children that it is okay to be angry with someone or about something, and learning to handle that emotion appropriately. It does not mean that the child has to grow hateful feelings toward that person or thing. It is here that it often can become confusing and be seen or displayed in the form of aggression or violence. Group violence within youth often is seen in the form of gangs. These individuals have not completely matured yet, but are often put in positions to make “big” decisions. Whether it means joining a “family” to take care of them and putting in “work” in order to be accepted, the ultimate reward of being accepted outweighs being left to fend for one’s self. Any anger these children may have about life in general can be transformed into anger towards others—often the rival gang or rival individuals in the neighborhood. This environment breeds the mentality that handling your anger means taking care of business in a violent way to prove yourself to the rest of your “family.” This relationship between anger, hatred, and aggression only perpetuates the chaos that consumes many of these children’s lives.
Chapter 17 is about intergroup aggression and how anger and hatred contribute. Intergroup aggression happens when a group retaliates against the actions of another group but fail to see the wrongness of their own actions because of a biased view. Large-scale aggression arises from short-term anger and long-term hatred. Anger alone does not predict intergroup aggression but it can lead to support for aggression. An emotion like anger can trigger action tendencies that may lead one to support aggression. This happens when it is thought that the aggression will achieve the goals that have been brought about by the felt emotion (anger).
It is also important to look at intergroup emotions. These are emotions felt because of association with a group. The text used examples like 9/11 to illustrate some ideas and it could work to explain this one also. Many people who were not directly affected by that day still felt angry because they are part of an intergroup, the U.S. People wanted to retaliate because their nation was attacked. Many Americans felt threatened even if the event was not experienced directly. Some Americans developed hatred because of the constant rehashing of the day on television, in the paper, magazines, and basically everywhere you looked. After 9/11, you couldn’t go a day without thinking about it because there was always some sort of reminder or enforcer. We were basically told that we should be sad or angry and feel threatened even if we don’t really know why. This impacted me because I was only 12 years old. At such an immature and impressionable age, I was made to feel sad and angry but I didn’t really understand fully the reason why. At that time, my anger created action tendencies which would be fulfilled by returning the attack and this was the case with many. Knowing what I know now, we have lost many more people from our nation than if we would have not gone to war or at least if we would have known what we were doing. I believe this may be the feeling of ex-gang members also. They realize their attacks were unnecessary and did not solve anything. Intergroup emotions really make sense when you can personalize them. It can also be made very simple. I think about when I was little and my friends didn’t like someone, I didn’t like that person either even though they may have done no wrongs toward me personally.
I found the studies about hatred and anger very interesting. It was found that only hatred was associated with aggression toward an outgroup. Anger was associated with correction or wanting to correct and/or redirect behavior that they saw as unfair. One line in the book describes the relationship by saying “anger interacts with hatred to fuel aggression.” One study looked at political intolerance in relation to anger and aggression. It was found that anger produced political intolerance only if supported by hatred. It was also found that political intolerance was reduced in cases where hatred did not accompany anger. Therefore, anger alone was found to have no direct influence on political intolerance.
My expert topic is familial influence. This chapter relates to my topic because family is definitely a group. There are also many instances of intergroup aggression with families being the participating parties. I’m thinking about this from a learning/modeling perspective. A child may feel anger or hatred to the outgroup family but they may just be feeling intergroup emotions. The child may not even know why the aggression and feelings are occurring. The child may just learn that that is just how it is between the families and so they go along with it. The child may also look up to the older people in the family participating in the aggression which can lead the child to want to become an aggressor. This can be applied to gang activity also. If you are a gang member’s younger sibling, for example, then you may see the rival and rival’s younger family member as an enemy. You also may want to participate in the aggressive activity. This chapter was helpful in understanding intergroup violence by providing terms and specific ways to talk about why it continues and escalates.
Chapter 17 discussed intergroup aggression and what the roles anger and hate provided to said aggression. While reading the chapter, it seemed to be more geared towards political intergroups rather than social. The chapter described how emotions tied in with a person’s behavior and what changes certain emotions made, such as a discrete emotion being more likely to motivate support for aggressive behavior if certain other stipulations are met. Also mentioned within the chapter is the use of an appraisal based model, which shows how conflict-related events are turned into support for an aggressive action, which the book states as more political or militarily based.
The part I found most interesting, however, was the mention of the studies within the chapter that also focused on how anger and hatred intertwine to affect aggression within a group. In one study, 313 Israelis were selected for questioning. The study had regressed the emotions down to anger and hatred with definitions for each. Anger was associated with the goal of correction and hatred was the only emotion associated with goals of exclusion and attack. In the result of the study, it was shown that anger was what caused people to take action to right a specific wrong whereas hatred reflects avoidance of any dealings with the outgroup based on having given up the outgroups capacity for change. Also, those who reported higher levels of hatred were also more likely to support other various violent actions. And actually, the key emotional goal of those with anger is the wish to correct and redirect behavior that they perceive to have been unfair and unjustified (Shaver and Mikulincer, 2011).
This is somewhat surprising due to anger normally being perceived as a negative emotion. It is difficult to actually think of anger being helpful, but in the chapter anger could go either way. People have the feeling of more control when angry, which then can lead them to believe they can make beneficial decisions. This could be construed as helpful to the person emotionally, but not on an intergroup level. And as mentioned earlier, anger is a discrete emotion (which is more on the negative side). This I actually found to be quite surprising due to how positively anger was viewed in this chapter.
Also, anger seems to be more negative when interacting with hatred. For example, anger had almost no negative influence on political intolerance except when supported by hatred. While reading this chapter, it seemed like there were many conflicting parallels between whether anger was good to an intergroup or disruptive, but the chapter seemed to find anger beneficial when not influenced by anger.
In Chapter 17, Halperin put forth a theory that invoked anger and long-term hatred for an outgroup interact with each other to produce a supported response of aggression. Halperin also states that by themselves, anger and hatred are not enough to produce the same response.
To me this theory makes a lot of sense. A group that possesses hatred for another group over a period of time would develop ideas or beliefs about the characteristics of the opposing group that would be negative in nature. Only when provoked, would they seem justified to react with aggression against the opposing group so that they could maintain their perceptions that the opposing group is bad while they are the good guys. Inevitably, over long periods of time, each act made by the opposing group would only reinforce their perceptions about them.
In a way, the thought process behind the aggression is similar to the fundamental attribution error but only on a much larger scale. The one group interprets the acts made by the other group as being internal traits (such as being evil or immoral). They perceive their own acts that they make out of retaliation as being situational (they did what they did because that's what they had to do) and that it does not reflect their true character.
I think that this chapter can be related to my expert topic. After all, in a school setting there are groups (or cliches) go through this experience. Through the PBIS program, it is my belief that it helps bring the school together as a whole by teaching kids young how to handle themselves in social situations that are frustrating and aggravating to them. It also teaches the benefits of effective communication between themselves and their peers. By implementing this program at a young age and reinforcing it through out their school years, I truly believe it has the ability to reduce violence because it implants positive behaviors and concepts within the child at a time where they are most impressionable. The continued reinforcement of the program then helps to cement these behaviors and concepts into internalized beliefs on how they should behave.
This entire chapter was interesting for the simple fact of how it broke down anger and hatred into deeper meanings and understandings. When we think of anger we think of someone getting mad. When we think of hatred we think of someone having strong dislike toward someone. When we think of intergroup hatred we quickly think of racism or Hitler's hate toward Jews. This chapter goes further into this topic and breaks down how they start and what situations and events can lead up to them.
Hatred or anger toward group is believed to start with "intergroup emotions", which is emotions individuals develop from a particular group they're a member of or associate with. This term matches well with the Gang video we watched in class. A lot of them said as a Hispanic in LA, you're almost bred to hate blacks when you associate with the mexican gangs in any kind of way. Most of them had never had a bad encounter with a black person but because the group they associated with stressed dislike toward them, it was almost automatic unless you had no connections with gangs.
I can't really say much SURPRISED me in this chapter, but I am very familiar with the section on a society as a whole being victimized from just one tragic event that may not have even happened to them directly. I spoke on the story in class about my friend (African American) in Indiana being killed by a group of mexican gang members and the guys from his neighborhood retaliated by beating down any mexican they crossed paths with at school the next day. He was a charismatic young man in his neighborhood and his death impacted the hearts of a lot of people who grew up with or watched him grow up and the anger, which converted into hatred, caused a riot between the two races (including non-gang members).
One thing that shocked me a little is the approach they were describing that they hoped would help control or prevent anger/hatred rages. Personally I don' t feel a military approach. Knowing how a lot of gangs think and react it may just cause an even bigger disaster than there already was. They guy in the video said it best, "They'll never get rid of gangs. If they could they would have done it a long time ago." There are ways that could help control anger/hatred acts, but it takes a large group effort, and violence vs. violence is not the answer. This gang approach was just an example that everyone is familiar with, but these hatred crimes/wars could be over anything. Something as simple as religion.
This chapter related to my topic of expertise (Why rapists rape) a LITTLE bit in how it disgust hatred and anger acts of aggression which is pretty much what most rape cases are. The victim isn't necessarily the main target that the rapist hates or has anger towards. A lot of times it's women in general. Most rapists were abused by their mothers at a young age, and raping women (for whatever reason) helps them gain a feeling of dominance over women since they were dominated by a woman/women years before.
This chapter as a whole could help me come up with my own theories that may help rehab rapists or understand why they do what they do. Aggression and hatred can relate to just about ANY crime or physically aggressive situation rather it's involving two people or an entire group.
Chapter 17 looks at the emotional aspects that come into play during intergroup aggression. More specifically, how anger and hatred play out during intergroup disagreements or fights. In addition, military regulations and emotions are also researched, which gives an interesting insight into the world of war. Considering that soldiers are more likely to experience severe psychological disorders, I personally think it is very important to look at how they were trained and how they deal with the aggression that they are taught to have and take out on their opponent.
Post Traumatic Stress Disorder if very real to me, as my dad experiences it’s effects often. It’s a very scary experience, and I wish I could say that he has gotten better over the years. PTSD is something that stays with the victim for the rest of their lives. There are many different triggers that my dad experiences; the biggest and most recent one being the floods of 2008. It can be different for everyone, but when my dad is reminded of the Vietnam War he is definitely not the same person. It’s devastating that soldiers are forced to experience the tragedy of war first hand, and I think that we need to take more care in rehabilitating these soldiers when they return from duty. It’s enough that he had to experience the war once; let alone over and over again in his dreams or when he is exposed to a trigger. The chapter discusses how aggression is handled in the military and how the intergroup dynamics make all the difference when you are in war. I think this is very true; as the platoons become like brothers and fight to keep each other alive. Soldiers are forced to mentally group the opponent in the war; and think of each of them as the lone person they are fighting the war against. If they were to think of each of the opponent’s soldiers as normal people with families and friends-there is no way any of them could get through the war and survive. We talked in class about the feeling of killing before the other person kills you, and I think they same principles can be applied here. In this type of setting it’s “kill or be killed,” which can produce aggression in someone who would not normally react in a violent manner. I think the military strives to bring this part out of every soldier in order to keep as many of them alive as possible. It’s the effects afterward that need to be further examined; how to undo that aggressive damage that they have been instilled with since the beginning of their training.
I also have a friend who completed two tours in the War on Iraq just a few years ago. He still displays the feelings of hatred that he has towards the Israeli and Iraqi people as a whole, something that he has been trained to do since he was 19. These feelings can be hard to distinguish, as I can’t even imagine the things that he experienced while he was in Iraq. The intergroup feelings that he has established through this militarily training formed and out-group to all people of that culture, and now he has trouble separating that out-group even though he has finished his tours in the war. Violence is something that should be treated carefully, as aggression can come in many forms. Violence also has the capability to change lives forever, in more ways that one. The psychological effects that aggression has on people can be very traumatic, and leave scars forever. We need to find out more about aggression in general in order to be able to better control the results we receive from it.
Chapter 17 was a chapter that was full of technical jargon. I thought that reading through it was a little difficult because of this. Once you go through it and read it again, you can pick out the main points and see that most of the chapter is studies that strengthen the main point. Basically, the author is talking about how anger and hatred relate to intergroup aggression. The point that the author makes throughout the reading and supports is that intergroup aggression occurs when there is an event that provokes anger and is combined with a long-term hatred for the outgroup. The author makes sure that it is known that intergroup aggression does not occur without the combination of those two factors. They talk about the World Trade Center attacks of 9/11 as an example. With this they also state that intergroup aggression is often started when the group feels the provocation indirectly. Like the attacks of 9/11, most people felt the hurt and anger indirectly. The anger spread across the nation as people practically watched the attacks happen. This alone does not cause aggressive behavior towards the provocateur, however. There was a long-term hatred for the groups that committed the terrorism, so this combined with the extreme anger from the event, made the nation decide to retaliate with a war.
I think that this concept can very much be used to explain gang activity like we discussed in class. We watched the Gangland episode that discussed race wars between the gangs of LA. Race is a great example of how intergroup aggression occurs. The gangs didn’t start out as race wars. They started out protecting their own neighborhoods. Eventually it built up to become a race war. Each group, black or Hispanic, might do something, even minor, that triggers anger in the other gang. Since these gangs have such long-term hatred for the person of the other race, they see it as something meant to hurt them and they retaliate. In the video, they discussed how the Hispanic gangs north of 206th street would cross over and shoot random blacks just because they were black. The shooting of the 14-year-old girl sparked anger from the blacks. Since the race war had been going on, they had that hatred already there. This sparked retaliatory behavior. It is a cycle that continues as long as that hatred is there. Even things that would not seem to create aggression would because that hatred is there. It is a difficult problem, because eliminating that hatred is very problematic. Media, who portrays these groups even worse, often fuels it. Then a widespread prejudice and hatred is created. This will keep going through groups and generations and is very hard to stop. The gang member in the video made a good point that if we could eliminate gangs, we would have done it a long time ago. This cycle is something that will keep gangs going as long as society has hatred for other groups. I found this chapter interesting and when I read the first few paragraphs, I immediately thought that it sounded much like the general aggression model. It is how you perceive the other and the hatred fuels the cycle and perception of intentional hurt.
This chapter took an interesting look at the interactions of anger and hatred and how they relate to violence. I really had never thought of the two as entirely seperate emotions, but the way the author presents it makes alot of sense. I like the way the differences and similarities were laid out, it gave me a good handle on exactly why the author chose to seperate the two. One aspect I'm not sure if I fully agree with is that violence ocurs when both anger and hatred are at work, and not just when one is angry. I personally hate very few people, but I have been angry at many in my lifetime, and admitedly violent on very rare occasions. I have posted before that my first marriage was an abusive one, and I'm wondering how the violence experienced there fit into this anger/ hatred model? I get stuck on the fact that however dysfunctional it may be, there may still be some residual feeling of love for the other person in some relationships. Do we need to look at this as misconstrued emotion? Is it really just control and hatred in disguise? I think the level of hatred the author calls upon for this interaction of anger and hatred does not conform well to all acts of violence, but works well for the intergroup violence she focuses on. The chapter begins with an example using the 9/11 attacks. I immediately thought of the hatred for some islamic groups I have seen in some of the individuals I know after coming home from serving overseas. One specifically stuck in my mind while reading this chapter. While Jeff was serving in Iraq he had the misfortune of being on a vehicle that ran over a land mine. He suffered wounds to one side of his face, but even worse, he watched his friend die by his side. He hates the terrorists groups, he hates the war, he is an angry person. He is not alone. To make it easier to kill the people who they feel are a threat, some of the soldiers do not hesitate to use deragatory terms to describe them, they use faces of notorius "bad guys" for target practice, they scrawl threatening messages across bombs intended for those they are about to attack. Jeff signed up for another term of service in Iraq. There is a profound difference in him now compared to before his first time in Iraq. He started out as the patriotic son of a preacher serving his country and has morphed into a man with holding a gun and a grudge. This is the epitome of anger and hatred working together to create violence.
as far as my expert topic goes, I hesitate to relate sibling violence to any level of hatred. I find often that research doesn't support that siblings truly hate eachother, but are motivated by other factors such as jealousy or the need for attention. Anger is definately a motivating factor for sibling violence, and children tend to not have nearly the same amount of control over these types of emotions as adults do and are more likely to lash out towards siblings simply because they cannot handle such overwhelming emotions. I do think that anger and hatred in children is different than that we find in adults. As i mentioned, Children are not always equipped to handle these stron emotions and may be prone to violent outbursts at lower levels of anger and hatred than adults. they may also have more violent outbursts that are misdirected towards people or things that are not the initial cause of their anger. I feel like anger and hatred do play a role in sibling violence, but it is not the same role as in intergroup violence.
Chapter 17 was about intergroup violence. It began by analyzing the biases that occur in this type of violence. One group will view a different outgroup as going against social norms, being a threat, or deserving of some sort of retaliation.
There are many aspects of intergroup violence discussed in this chapter. One is the concept that a group will first analyze and appraise the actions of another group. This will cause emotions to surface, especially anger. According to this chapter, aggressive retaliation is most supported by long-term hatred and short-term aggression. This makes perfect sense in the example given by the book of the 9/11 attacks in New York City. Americans were angered after these events took place, and sought justice upon those responsible. The War on Terror has been a very drawn out one. We have now been fighting this war for ten years, and finally recently killed Osama Bin Laden, who was a major culprit in the 9/11 attacks. The fact that this war has been so long-term certainly matches up with the information given in chapter 17.
One interesting thing that this chapter discusses is the difference between hatred and anger. Anger is associated with the perceived unjust or unfair actions of another group, while hatred is associated with the nature of the group itself. This idea makes much sense when related to the War on Terror. America went to war not solely because we hated Iraq (although some probably did,) but rather mainly because we as a nation felt that our country was treated unjustly in the 9/11 attacks, and we sought justice for these actions. For intergroup violence to occur, both anger and hatred must fuel it in some way.
Purely by the title, this chapter seems to be based more on common sense. Just at first glance I can say that of course anger and hatred make sense to lead to violent behavior. In my mind, there has to be that motivation behind it in order to create such a physical outburst of violent behavior. I acknowledge that anger and hatred are very much connected, but I hadn’t ever viewed them as both completely necessary to create violence. I believe that you can have anger without hatred, but not hatred without anger. There has to be that anger rooted within hatred to develop far enough to spark violence.
The author tied these thoughts to military conflicts as far as anger or hatred being the root of the violence outbreaks. I think some of the deep-seeded anger or hatred is bred from generations and societal views, not necessarily individual feelings. We have discussed in class the in-group/out-group conflicts and how feelings of animosity build up.
Unfortunately, some children are born into these countries that are fighting and grow up with violence all around them. They are told to hate a certain group just because their whole family does. They have hatred engrained in them from the beginning. The violence that they commit is based on the hatred from those who brought them up.
I do agree that there is a difference between anger and hatred. I will fully admit I have a temper and can sometimes get angry easily, but I wouldn’t say I have any hatred toward anyone. The only violence I’ve ever engaged in would be with my sister, and as we have discussed, the sibling violence is a bit more accepted in society. Although she is four years older than me, I was always the more aggressive one and causing more harm. I have never felt feelings so intense that I would call hatred, and I hope I never do.
The in-group/out-group hatred ties into my topic regarding the gangs that are bred into hating each other. It also may fit into the mindset the vigilantes/Minutemen have toward immigration. It is not based in much truth, but they develop such strong feelings of anger and hatred toward these people to the point of acting out violently against them.
This summary is going to be very brief, but I found it to be easier than other chapters to summarize. Basically, Halperin’s big hypothesis is that the combination of anger and hatred for an outgroup increases the change of an aggressive retaliation for an action or insult that is directed to the ingroup and is perceived as unfair or unjust. She then takes anger, using studies to show that by itself, anger does not lead to aggressive responses. She does the same thing for hatred. Finally, she discusses studies she did and a few that others did that measure the interaction of anger and hatred on aggressive responses. She is able to show a significant interaction for them, as opposed to virtually no significant effect for the anger and hatred variables by themselves. Therefore, her hypothesis is supported. End of chapter!
It was interesting to me that she used the 9/11 attacks and the Isreali-Palestinan conflict. The interesting part was that she only looked at it from one side. She did not appear to attempt to find any studies or do any studies from the point of view of the people who supported the 9/11 attacks or the Palestinians. Then she says that if we don’t hate the outgroup (terrorists or Palestinians) and try to perceive actions from their point of view, maybe our response won’t be aggressive. However, she never explains why the other side did the action in the first place! I’m just trying to understand how you’re supposed to respond to someone who wants you to die. I mean, turn the other cheek is great, but I’m not sure that that’s the mindset to have as a country. If America “turned the other cheek” in World War II, Hitler would have won. I’m all for peace, but sometimes peace won’t work. I’m also for tolerance. Hate is probably one of the worst emotions you can have. I can honestly say that I don’t THINK I hate anyone. That being said, if one group hates another group, it doesn’t matter if the second group doesn’t hate the first.
Continuing with that thought, I can now segue into the relevance of this chapter in intergroup violence. Obviously, it’s all about intergroup violence. The big problem is that it tries to find ways to reduce violence after the violence has already started. Getting back to my last point, it doesn’t matter if the second group does or doesn’t hate the first group as far as starting the violence first. It didn’t really matter to Hitler if the Jews hated him or not, and it didn’t really matter to the Jews either. They didn’t perpetrate any violence to Hitler. He killed them anyway. Like it I said, he didn’t care if they hated him, it was more important that HE hated them. That being said, of course the feelings of the second group do matter when it comes to continuing violence. If the second group hates the first, according to this chapter, they are more likely to respond with violence if they’re angry about being attacked or insulted. As far as preventing retaliatory violence, it never hurts to try education. However, I’m quite sure that education isn’t going to work all the time. If someone or some group is really bent on hurting another, no amount of education or peace offerings are going to work.
This chapter really didn’t have anything to do with sadistic rapists. I don’t think I can use anything I learned here to apply to sadistic rapists. However, I do want to conclude with one last thought. People say that violence is never the answer. I disagree. Sometimes it is.
Chapter seventeen focuses on the role that anger and hatred have on violent behavior. This chapter not only focuses on what anger and hatred are, but also the role they play with aggression. What the authors found was that, while these two constructs are highly similar, they are also different. The chapter also includes a nice graph that shows the relationship that anger and hatred have in "helping" to produce violent behavior. The graph shows, to no surprise, that high levels of both anger and hatred give rise to the highest level of aggressive actions. The converse was also true, that low levels of anger and hatred lead to lower levels of aggressive behavior. The chapter concludes nicely with a summary of all the data found.
The thing that I found most interesting about this chapter was the interactions that anger and hatred had. This is something that I had never really thought of before. From my experience, anger and hatred have always seemed to go hand in hand. Learning that they interacted with each other and were different lead me to think if you could have anger without hatred or hatred without anger? How would having only anger or only hatred impact the amount of aggressive acts?
It was also interesting to read in the very beginning of the chapter about how Americans reacted to the attack on September 11th. It most definitely painted an excellent picture of the general feelings that most everyone was going through. It really gave a great introduction to the chapter and set the tone for the remainder of the reading.
I think that this chapter also really relates well to my expert topic on school bullying. It made me think of researching on whether or not students that bully experience anger or hatred towards the students that they are bullying? Or does anger and hatred from an outside source have an impact on their behaviors towards other students? These are all great things that the chapter made me think about. From my experience, most students that bully have hard lives outside of school or generally want to feel included by tearing other students down. However, if we dive deeper, would we find that they are secretly angry and/or full of hate?
These are all things that I would like to try and add to my expert topic website when I truly get rolling on it.
This chapter focuse on anger and hatred and the relationship to aggression. The text summarizes that intergroup conflicts, in the majority of cases are typically when members of conflicting societies or groups view the conflict through a unidimensional, biased lens and therefore perceive the other group's actions as unjust, unfair and incompatible with acceptable norms. The text continues by identifying that intergroup anger is a pivotal emotion in every conflict, thus supporting the need for the research that was presented throughout this chapter. A basic concept identified was that emotions transform a substanative event into a motive to respond to it in a particular manner. The author indicates that he views emotions as comprising stories that help people interpret events and guide their behavioral reactions. I completely agree with this point of view. I also believe that this is consistent with the previously noted summary of intergroup conflict. Specifically I beleive that the notion that intergroup conflict has a significant amount to do with the view regarding acceptable norms. The authors definition of emotions can be closely related to this definition. I strongly believe that our emotions and norms both on a personal and societal level are developed through experience and are strongly influenced by outside factors. In relation to aggression I beleive that by gaining a greater understanding of this on both the personal and societal level we can have a better understanding of aggression overall and more specifically relating to this chapter to understand intergroup violence.
I thought this was an interesting chapter because although it specifically relates to intergroup violence on a large scale I feel that the concepts and research present can be useful in understanding violence on a more personal level as well. For example if an individual is able to truely reflect on their feelings and has insight regarding where those feelings and emotions are stemming from they can gain more insight on their own or others aggressive tendencies.
Overall, I feel this chapter is helpful on a larger societal level, interpersonal and even individual level. The information presented will be helpful for working with and gaining a better understanding of aggression overall.
This chapter focuses on anger and hatred as it relates to violate behavior among groups. The author concluded from studies that anger and hatred alone do not lead to violent behaviors, but the reaction between the two have shown to lead to violence behaviors. I found these finding very interesting, also as I examined them further, I thought that they made some sense. However, it surprises me that anger alone is not a cause of violence tendencies. These finding supported her original hypothesis that she stated. The author discusses how these things occur in intergroup conflicts and how violent acts among intergroups occur because of the combination of anger and hatred.
Throughout the chapter, I was interested in the relationship between anger, hatred, and violence. I was kind of dumbstruck that anger and hatred alone were not cause of violence behavior. Personally, I do not truly hate anyone and I"m typically not an angry person, so it's difficult for me to step into someone elses shoes to see what would set me off to commit a violence crime against another group of people. I would think that extreme anger would set me off enough to harm another person, or extreme hatred. So it really surprised me that you need both to spark violence behavior. Often times anger and hatred do walk hand and hand, but there have been times that I have been angry, but did not hate someone for it. Which kind of proves the theory, because I have not experienced both at the same time, maybe if I had I would lash out violently.
I found this chapter very interesting and cool to read about. This information does not really have anything to do with date rape, so I can not tie it to my topic, however, I really enjoyed reading about it and understanding group violence a bit better.
Chapter 17 focuses on anger and hatred and how both relate to or have an effect on aggressive behavior, particularly between groups. One of the main points made by the authors is that short-term anger, and long-term hatred are the combination most likely to produce a strong support for large-scale aggression, such as that taken by military forces. The authors also introduce and differentiate between the following constructs: emotions, sentiments, cognitive appraisals, response tendencies, intergroup emotions, etc. At first glance the definitions of these terms seem convoluted and complex, much like the relationship between anger, hatred, and aggression. One of the key distinctions made among these terms concerned emotions versus sentiments. Emotions were defined as being multicomponent responses to particular kinds of events. Sentiments on the other hand, were defined as more enduring configurations of emotions or emotional predispositions. Intergroup emotions were defined as those that are felt by individuals as a result of their membership in or identification with a certain group or society and are targeted toward another group. One of the things I found most interesting about this chapter was that it is often only a few members of the ingroup who experience some form of injustice or abuse by members of the outgroup to sufficiently stur up enough intergroup emotions that can lead to large-scale aggressive acts. Another idea that I found interesting was on p. 321 of the text “The most important preconditions for intergroup conflict and intergroup aggression are a perceived conflict of interest between the groups and perception of a long-term threat posed by the outgroup. Yet in the majority of cases, conflict of interest or even perceived threat alone will not bring about violence in the absence of an immediate provocation.” I think it would be interesting to research various forms of provocation that can or already have triggered intergroup violence. What kinds of ‘provocations’ cause the most aggression and why? How would a researcher even operationalize ‘provocation’? Even aggression itself is difficult to operationalize, how can we even research such complex behaviors and cognitions? But I digress… Other preconditions to intergroup conflict involve the perception that the ingroup is strong enough to overpower the outgroup in a future military battle, a sense of willingness or eagerness to accept the risks involved in entering aggressive acts, and finally, many people will only support intergroup conflict if it is the last resort. The authors of the chapter also present their own research on these issues (i.e. anger, hatred, and how they affect aggression). More specifically they conducted research involving issues pertaining to 9/11, Muslims, Islam, Arabs, and also the conflict between Israel and Palestine. One of the their main conclusions was that the link between anger and aggression is dependent on the level of hatred one feels for the outgroup. For example, if only anger exists, then a desire to correct the wrongdoing without the harm or destruction of the outgroup (i.e. through education) may arise. As opposed to the other chapters we have read thus far, this chapter best relates to my expert topic of genocide. The entire basis of genocide is intergroup conflict. There are ingroups and outgroups, there are feelings of moral injustice (on both sides) that are used by both sides of the conflict to justify their violent and destructive acts against the opposing group, there are feelings of anger and hatred that help to perpetuate the cycle of violence. It is important to realize that social issues such as genocide do not happen overnight. It is usually a build-up of all of the constructs described in this chapter that lead to large-scale, highly aggressive acts such as genocide. It is safe to say that this chapter will be an invaluable resource for my project!
Chapter 17 is about emotions and anger, and how they deal with intergroup conflict. Emotions are responses to various things. These can be either events or from past events that challenge a person. The chapter used events such as terrorist attacks such as 9/11, and also conflicts by political and religious leaders to describe how people experienced emotions and why there was such conflict between the two. The chapter also discusses how anger drives people to aggressive behavior, and how it relates to intergroup conflict. For example, an intergroup conflict that includes mutual provocations or violent responses experience frequent episodes of anger toward the outgroup because of the antagonist behaviors. If it leads to political action, then this can be exemplified by a political decision, which leads to military action against the intergroup conflict. This is a vicious cycle which leads to more anger, or even death on both sides of the conflict.
The chapter also shows a graph that demonstrates the aggressive action towards Palestinians in a survey. It showed how if you have low anger, then there will less likely be aggressive action. If you have high anger, then there will more likely be aggressive action. This is not a surprise, but it does show how large of a role that military action has on intergroup conflict.
One of the topics that I found to most interesting in the chapter was sentiment. Sentiments are enduring configurations of emotions or emotional dispositions. I have always related sentiments to sentimental things such as something that a person thinks is special to them. Before reading this chapter, I was not aware of this term being used to describe how it is different than states and moods. This is because moods do not typically hold a well-defined object.
Another thing I found to be interesting in the chapter is how you need both anger and hatred in order to do a violent act. I do have a temper, so I can see how you need anger in order to punch something like a pillow. I was not aware that you need both, and that hatred by itself lacks the anger related sense of power that makes aggression possible.
This chapter relates to my topic elder abuse because for someone to commit any form of violent act against elders, then they have to have both anger and hatred towards them. Also, in relation to today’s video of intergroup violence, an elder who is either a grandparent of a gang member or is in relation somehow to a gang member can be affected by the violence. The violence of a gang could be due to the political and military action being done, by the outgroup, and of course by the ingroup.
Chapter 17 focuses on the roles anger and hatred play in situations of intergroup aggression. Generally speaking, emotions, especially anger, are powerful in driving people to behave aggressively. Intergroup conflicts are defined as situations in which members of conflicting societies/groups view the current conflict as a situation in which the opposing group’s actions are unjust, unfair, and go against acceptable social norms. Each group perceives the opposing group is in the wrong and they are in the right. The author focuses on two studies of intergroup conflict throughout the chapter: 1. U.S. decision to invade Iraq; 2. Israel’s decision to initiate a large-scale military action against the Palestinians.
The author suggests that in the absence of long term hatred toward an out-group, anger doesn’t always lead to group members supporting aggression as a whole. The author argues that in some situations with the absence of long term hatred toward an out-group, peaceful outcomes may arise. The author also argues that strong support for large scale aggressive behaviors (e.g., U.S. invading Iraq) is produced when short-term anger and long-term hatred are combined. I thought it was interesting to note that, according to the author, anger and hatred alone do not lead to violent behavior, which after thinking about it more makes some sense. The chapter includes a graph of the interaction between anger and hatred and how that interaction affects support for aggressive behaviors specifically related to actions toward Palestinians. The chart showed that “anger was associated with heightened support for aggressive actions only in the presence of long-term hatred.” One main point the author wants readers to get out of the reading is the relationship between anger and support for aggression depends on the level of hatred toward the out-group.
This chapter definitely relates to my area of expertise: gangs, specifically girl gangs. Gang violence is a prime example of intergroup violence. Rival gangs engage in aggressive behaviors (e.g., shooting, stabbing, beating up) against each other in a constant power struggle over each other’s territory, drug operations, etc. More often than not, rival gangs have long-standing hatred and anger towards one another which only further supports retaliatory behaviors against each other. As we discussed in class today, the power struggle currently going on between gangs in LA seems to be a racial war between gangs. For LA County in particular, most of the case load for officers in the gang division include cases where Hispanic gang members are killing African-American gang members and vice versa. For girl gangs in particular, the same can be said for some girl gangs but not others. There are very few girl-only gangs in existence today; most girl gangs are branches of male gangs that take on the ideals, rules, etc of the male gang. Understanding how feelings of anger and hatred shape perceptions of gangs can be helpful for people/organizations whose focus is develop prevention/intervention programs that will someday hopefully help the gang situation in some way.
Chapter 17 was a discussion of intergroup aggression and how emotions play a role in the general acceptance or rejection of aggression among groups. The authors specifically discuss the role of anger and hatred in the development of aggression between groups. The authors reject the contention that rational choice can alone explain the differences in aggression among groups. They stress the importance of understanding the emotions involved in group conflicts and also understanding the important distinctions between anger and hatred.
Emotions are defined as "flexible response sequencecs evoked when a person evaluates a situation as offering important challenges or opportunities." Emotions are the focal point of this chapter and are considered by the author to play the largest role in aggression between groups. The appraisal-based model is a model used to explain how a conflict is processed and how support for aggressive acts form. According to this model, how a conflict affects a person's attitude for a response to the outgroup is determined by a discrete emotional response to the event. This response is influenced by the long-term emotional sentiments the person has acquired toward the outgroup. The author uses this model to show how the person's discrete emotional reaction to a conflict influences their decision to use aggression or not. After discussing several studies and evidence, some conclusions made by the author concerning emotion and aggression were:
-"Anger toward the outgroup led to political intolerance only if it was supported by hatred"
-"Anger was associated with heightened support for aggressive actions only in the presence of long-term hatred"
-"Long-term sentiment and a momentarily triggered discrete emotion toward an outgroup will lead to support for intergroup aggression"
-"Combined influences of short-term anger and long-term hatred are likely to produce strong support for large-scale aggression"
These conclusions are important in showing how anger and hatred interact to influence aggression. A point I though was interesting was the notion that groups support aggression because the groups are unchecked by empathy for the outgroup. I thought this was a really good consideration concerning group aggression. When a conflict arises, it is seldom we set aside the anger or hatred and use empathy for the opposing group or person. It takes strength and self-assurance to set aside our own emotions to feel anothers, and our own enotions often alter our ability or willingness to do so. Thinking about war, genocides, or gang violence, empathy could be a valuable tool and could prevent devastating conflict.
This chapter did not directly relate to my expert topic, but there are useful aspects I can incorporate. Overall, I found this chapter extemely interesting and very prevalent to not only group conflict but also on a more conventional level concerning individual emotion.
This chapter focuses on how the emotions of anger and hatred effect actions of aggression in conflicts of intergroup relationships. This chapter was fairly simple in the research that was explained. The author explained initially in the chapter that social psychology often explains anger as the most predominant factor regarding aggression, but that some individuals are also able to control their emotions so as to not become aggressive. Therefore, the author chooses to focus on any differences regarding aggression when a one feels hate versus anger toward a group. These two concepts are discussed as well as differentiating several factors such as emotions and sentiments as they are related to aggression. The difference between anger and hatred is differentiated by stating that anger causes an action in the attempt to right a wrong, while hatred is more avoiding the outgroup because of perceived inability or want for change. The author concludes that anger and aggression depend on the level of hatred one feels for a group. Findings suggest that “anger interacts with hatred to fuel aggression.” Studies seem to show that having short term anger and long term hatred is the factors that can cause the most serious aggressive acts.
This chapter relates directly to my area of expertise of youth violence. Much of my research includes the group versus individual aspects of youth violence. A part of group violence includes gang activity and a part of individual violence includes the environment/activities the child is surrounded by. The author did well in differentiating anger from hatred. This concept can become very complex when discussing violence and aggression, as the terms/feelings are often used interchangeably. Separating these is extremely important for our youth. Teaching children that it is okay to be angry with someone or about something, and learning to handle that emotion appropriately. It does not mean that the child has to grow hateful feelings toward that person or thing. It is here that it often can become confusing and be seen or displayed in the form of aggression or violence. Group violence within youth often is seen in the form of gangs. These individuals have not completely matured yet, but are often put in positions to make “big” decisions. Whether it means joining a “family” to take care of them and putting in “work” in order to be accepted, the ultimate reward of being accepted outweighs being left to fend for one’s self. Any anger these children may have about life in general can be transformed into anger towards others—often the rival gang or rival individuals in the neighborhood. This environment breeds the mentality that handling your anger means taking care of business in a violent way to prove yourself to the rest of your “family.” This relationship between anger, hatred, and aggression only perpetuates the chaos that consumes many of these children’s lives.
Chapter 17 is about intergroup aggression and how anger and hatred contribute. Intergroup aggression happens when a group retaliates against the actions of another group but fail to see the wrongness of their own actions because of a biased view. Large-scale aggression arises from short-term anger and long-term hatred. Anger alone does not predict intergroup aggression but it can lead to support for aggression. An emotion like anger can trigger action tendencies that may lead one to support aggression. This happens when it is thought that the aggression will achieve the goals that have been brought about by the felt emotion (anger).
It is also important to look at intergroup emotions. These are emotions felt because of association with a group. The text used examples like 9/11 to illustrate some ideas and it could work to explain this one also. Many people who were not directly affected by that day still felt angry because they are part of an intergroup, the U.S. People wanted to retaliate because their nation was attacked. Many Americans felt threatened even if the event was not experienced directly. Some Americans developed hatred because of the constant rehashing of the day on television, in the paper, magazines, and basically everywhere you looked. After 9/11, you couldn’t go a day without thinking about it because there was always some sort of reminder or enforcer. We were basically told that we should be sad or angry and feel threatened even if we don’t really know why. This impacted me because I was only 12 years old. At such an immature and impressionable age, I was made to feel sad and angry but I didn’t really understand fully the reason why. At that time, my anger created action tendencies which would be fulfilled by returning the attack and this was the case with many. Knowing what I know now, we have lost many more people from our nation than if we would have not gone to war or at least if we would have known what we were doing. I believe this may be the feeling of ex-gang members also. They realize their attacks were unnecessary and did not solve anything. Intergroup emotions really make sense when you can personalize them. It can also be made very simple. I think about when I was little and my friends didn’t like someone, I didn’t like that person either even though they may have done no wrongs toward me personally.
I found the studies about hatred and anger very interesting. It was found that only hatred was associated with aggression toward an outgroup. Anger was associated with correction or wanting to correct and/or redirect behavior that they saw as unfair. One line in the book describes the relationship by saying “anger interacts with hatred to fuel aggression.” One study looked at political intolerance in relation to anger and aggression. It was found that anger produced political intolerance only if supported by hatred. It was also found that political intolerance was reduced in cases where hatred did not accompany anger. Therefore, anger alone was found to have no direct influence on political intolerance.
My expert topic is familial influence. This chapter relates to my topic because family is definitely a group. There are also many instances of intergroup aggression with families being the participating parties. I’m thinking about this from a learning/modeling perspective. A child may feel anger or hatred to the outgroup family but they may just be feeling intergroup emotions. The child may not even know why the aggression and feelings are occurring. The child may just learn that that is just how it is between the families and so they go along with it. The child may also look up to the older people in the family participating in the aggression which can lead the child to want to become an aggressor. This can be applied to gang activity also. If you are a gang member’s younger sibling, for example, then you may see the rival and rival’s younger family member as an enemy. You also may want to participate in the aggressive activity. This chapter was helpful in understanding intergroup violence by providing terms and specific ways to talk about why it continues and escalates.
Chapter 17 discussed intergroup aggression and what the roles anger and hate provided to said aggression. While reading the chapter, it seemed to be more geared towards political intergroups rather than social. The chapter described how emotions tied in with a person’s behavior and what changes certain emotions made, such as a discrete emotion being more likely to motivate support for aggressive behavior if certain other stipulations are met. Also mentioned within the chapter is the use of an appraisal based model, which shows how conflict-related events are turned into support for an aggressive action, which the book states as more political or militarily based.
The part I found most interesting, however, was the mention of the studies within the chapter that also focused on how anger and hatred intertwine to affect aggression within a group. In one study, 313 Israelis were selected for questioning. The study had regressed the emotions down to anger and hatred with definitions for each. Anger was associated with the goal of correction and hatred was the only emotion associated with goals of exclusion and attack. In the result of the study, it was shown that anger was what caused people to take action to right a specific wrong whereas hatred reflects avoidance of any dealings with the outgroup based on having given up the outgroups capacity for change. Also, those who reported higher levels of hatred were also more likely to support other various violent actions. And actually, the key emotional goal of those with anger is the wish to correct and redirect behavior that they perceive to have been unfair and unjustified (Shaver and Mikulincer, 2011).
This is somewhat surprising due to anger normally being perceived as a negative emotion. It is difficult to actually think of anger being helpful, but in the chapter anger could go either way. People have the feeling of more control when angry, which then can lead them to believe they can make beneficial decisions. This could be construed as helpful to the person emotionally, but not on an intergroup level. And as mentioned earlier, anger is a discrete emotion (which is more on the negative side). This I actually found to be quite surprising due to how positively anger was viewed in this chapter.
Also, anger seems to be more negative when interacting with hatred. For example, anger had almost no negative influence on political intolerance except when supported by hatred. While reading this chapter, it seemed like there were many conflicting parallels between whether anger was good to an intergroup or disruptive, but the chapter seemed to find anger beneficial when not influenced by anger.
In Chapter 17, Halperin put forth a theory that invoked anger and long-term hatred for an outgroup interact with each other to produce a supported response of aggression. Halperin also states that by themselves, anger and hatred are not enough to produce the same response.
To me this theory makes a lot of sense. A group that possesses hatred for another group over a period of time would develop ideas or beliefs about the characteristics of the opposing group that would be negative in nature. Only when provoked, would they seem justified to react with aggression against the opposing group so that they could maintain their perceptions that the opposing group is bad while they are the good guys. Inevitably, over long periods of time, each act made by the opposing group would only reinforce their perceptions about them.
In a way, the thought process behind the aggression is similar to the fundamental attribution error but only on a much larger scale. The one group interprets the acts made by the other group as being internal traits (such as being evil or immoral). They perceive their own acts that they make out of retaliation as being situational (they did what they did because that's what they had to do) and that it does not reflect their true character.
I think that this chapter can be related to my expert topic. After all, in a school setting there are groups (or cliches) go through this experience. Through the PBIS program, it is my belief that it helps bring the school together as a whole by teaching kids young how to handle themselves in social situations that are frustrating and aggravating to them. It also teaches the benefits of effective communication between themselves and their peers. By implementing this program at a young age and reinforcing it through out their school years, I truly believe it has the ability to reduce violence because it implants positive behaviors and concepts within the child at a time where they are most impressionable. The continued reinforcement of the program then helps to cement these behaviors and concepts into internalized beliefs on how they should behave.
This entire chapter was interesting for the simple fact of how it broke down anger and hatred into deeper meanings and understandings. When we think of anger we think of someone getting mad. When we think of hatred we think of someone having strong dislike toward someone. When we think of intergroup hatred we quickly think of racism or Hitler's hate toward Jews. This chapter goes further into this topic and breaks down how they start and what situations and events can lead up to them.
Hatred or anger toward group is believed to start with "intergroup emotions", which is emotions individuals develop from a particular group they're a member of or associate with. This term matches well with the Gang video we watched in class. A lot of them said as a Hispanic in LA, you're almost bred to hate blacks when you associate with the mexican gangs in any kind of way. Most of them had never had a bad encounter with a black person but because the group they associated with stressed dislike toward them, it was almost automatic unless you had no connections with gangs.
I can't really say much SURPRISED me in this chapter, but I am very familiar with the section on a society as a whole being victimized from just one tragic event that may not have even happened to them directly. I spoke on the story in class about my friend (African American) in Indiana being killed by a group of mexican gang members and the guys from his neighborhood retaliated by beating down any mexican they crossed paths with at school the next day. He was a charismatic young man in his neighborhood and his death impacted the hearts of a lot of people who grew up with or watched him grow up and the anger, which converted into hatred, caused a riot between the two races (including non-gang members).
One thing that shocked me a little is the approach they were describing that they hoped would help control or prevent anger/hatred rages. Personally I don' t feel a military approach. Knowing how a lot of gangs think and react it may just cause an even bigger disaster than there already was. They guy in the video said it best, "They'll never get rid of gangs. If they could they would have done it a long time ago." There are ways that could help control anger/hatred acts, but it takes a large group effort, and violence vs. violence is not the answer. This gang approach was just an example that everyone is familiar with, but these hatred crimes/wars could be over anything. Something as simple as religion.
This chapter related to my topic of expertise (Why rapists rape) a LITTLE bit in how it disgust hatred and anger acts of aggression which is pretty much what most rape cases are. The victim isn't necessarily the main target that the rapist hates or has anger towards. A lot of times it's women in general. Most rapists were abused by their mothers at a young age, and raping women (for whatever reason) helps them gain a feeling of dominance over women since they were dominated by a woman/women years before.
This chapter as a whole could help me come up with my own theories that may help rehab rapists or understand why they do what they do. Aggression and hatred can relate to just about ANY crime or physically aggressive situation rather it's involving two people or an entire group.
Chapter 17 looks at the emotional aspects that come into play during intergroup aggression. More specifically, how anger and hatred play out during intergroup disagreements or fights. In addition, military regulations and emotions are also researched, which gives an interesting insight into the world of war. Considering that soldiers are more likely to experience severe psychological disorders, I personally think it is very important to look at how they were trained and how they deal with the aggression that they are taught to have and take out on their opponent.
Post Traumatic Stress Disorder if very real to me, as my dad experiences it’s effects often. It’s a very scary experience, and I wish I could say that he has gotten better over the years. PTSD is something that stays with the victim for the rest of their lives. There are many different triggers that my dad experiences; the biggest and most recent one being the floods of 2008. It can be different for everyone, but when my dad is reminded of the Vietnam War he is definitely not the same person. It’s devastating that soldiers are forced to experience the tragedy of war first hand, and I think that we need to take more care in rehabilitating these soldiers when they return from duty. It’s enough that he had to experience the war once; let alone over and over again in his dreams or when he is exposed to a trigger. The chapter discusses how aggression is handled in the military and how the intergroup dynamics make all the difference when you are in war. I think this is very true; as the platoons become like brothers and fight to keep each other alive. Soldiers are forced to mentally group the opponent in the war; and think of each of them as the lone person they are fighting the war against. If they were to think of each of the opponent’s soldiers as normal people with families and friends-there is no way any of them could get through the war and survive. We talked in class about the feeling of killing before the other person kills you, and I think they same principles can be applied here. In this type of setting it’s “kill or be killed,” which can produce aggression in someone who would not normally react in a violent manner. I think the military strives to bring this part out of every soldier in order to keep as many of them alive as possible. It’s the effects afterward that need to be further examined; how to undo that aggressive damage that they have been instilled with since the beginning of their training.
I also have a friend who completed two tours in the War on Iraq just a few years ago. He still displays the feelings of hatred that he has towards the Israeli and Iraqi people as a whole, something that he has been trained to do since he was 19. These feelings can be hard to distinguish, as I can’t even imagine the things that he experienced while he was in Iraq. The intergroup feelings that he has established through this militarily training formed and out-group to all people of that culture, and now he has trouble separating that out-group even though he has finished his tours in the war. Violence is something that should be treated carefully, as aggression can come in many forms. Violence also has the capability to change lives forever, in more ways that one. The psychological effects that aggression has on people can be very traumatic, and leave scars forever. We need to find out more about aggression in general in order to be able to better control the results we receive from it.
Chapter 17 was a chapter that was full of technical jargon. I thought that reading through it was a little difficult because of this. Once you go through it and read it again, you can pick out the main points and see that most of the chapter is studies that strengthen the main point. Basically, the author is talking about how anger and hatred relate to intergroup aggression. The point that the author makes throughout the reading and supports is that intergroup aggression occurs when there is an event that provokes anger and is combined with a long-term hatred for the outgroup. The author makes sure that it is known that intergroup aggression does not occur without the combination of those two factors. They talk about the World Trade Center attacks of 9/11 as an example. With this they also state that intergroup aggression is often started when the group feels the provocation indirectly. Like the attacks of 9/11, most people felt the hurt and anger indirectly. The anger spread across the nation as people practically watched the attacks happen. This alone does not cause aggressive behavior towards the provocateur, however. There was a long-term hatred for the groups that committed the terrorism, so this combined with the extreme anger from the event, made the nation decide to retaliate with a war.
I think that this concept can very much be used to explain gang activity like we discussed in class. We watched the Gangland episode that discussed race wars between the gangs of LA. Race is a great example of how intergroup aggression occurs. The gangs didn’t start out as race wars. They started out protecting their own neighborhoods. Eventually it built up to become a race war. Each group, black or Hispanic, might do something, even minor, that triggers anger in the other gang. Since these gangs have such long-term hatred for the person of the other race, they see it as something meant to hurt them and they retaliate. In the video, they discussed how the Hispanic gangs north of 206th street would cross over and shoot random blacks just because they were black. The shooting of the 14-year-old girl sparked anger from the blacks. Since the race war had been going on, they had that hatred already there. This sparked retaliatory behavior. It is a cycle that continues as long as that hatred is there. Even things that would not seem to create aggression would because that hatred is there. It is a difficult problem, because eliminating that hatred is very problematic. Media, who portrays these groups even worse, often fuels it. Then a widespread prejudice and hatred is created. This will keep going through groups and generations and is very hard to stop. The gang member in the video made a good point that if we could eliminate gangs, we would have done it a long time ago. This cycle is something that will keep gangs going as long as society has hatred for other groups. I found this chapter interesting and when I read the first few paragraphs, I immediately thought that it sounded much like the general aggression model. It is how you perceive the other and the hatred fuels the cycle and perception of intentional hurt.
This chapter took an interesting look at the interactions of anger and hatred and how they relate to violence. I really had never thought of the two as entirely seperate emotions, but the way the author presents it makes alot of sense. I like the way the differences and similarities were laid out, it gave me a good handle on exactly why the author chose to seperate the two. One aspect I'm not sure if I fully agree with is that violence ocurs when both anger and hatred are at work, and not just when one is angry. I personally hate very few people, but I have been angry at many in my lifetime, and admitedly violent on very rare occasions. I have posted before that my first marriage was an abusive one, and I'm wondering how the violence experienced there fit into this anger/ hatred model? I get stuck on the fact that however dysfunctional it may be, there may still be some residual feeling of love for the other person in some relationships. Do we need to look at this as misconstrued emotion? Is it really just control and hatred in disguise? I think the level of hatred the author calls upon for this interaction of anger and hatred does not conform well to all acts of violence, but works well for the intergroup violence she focuses on. The chapter begins with an example using the 9/11 attacks. I immediately thought of the hatred for some islamic groups I have seen in some of the individuals I know after coming home from serving overseas. One specifically stuck in my mind while reading this chapter. While Jeff was serving in Iraq he had the misfortune of being on a vehicle that ran over a land mine. He suffered wounds to one side of his face, but even worse, he watched his friend die by his side. He hates the terrorists groups, he hates the war, he is an angry person. He is not alone. To make it easier to kill the people who they feel are a threat, some of the soldiers do not hesitate to use deragatory terms to describe them, they use faces of notorius "bad guys" for target practice, they scrawl threatening messages across bombs intended for those they are about to attack. Jeff signed up for another term of service in Iraq. There is a profound difference in him now compared to before his first time in Iraq. He started out as the patriotic son of a preacher serving his country and has morphed into a man with holding a gun and a grudge. This is the epitome of anger and hatred working together to create violence.
as far as my expert topic goes, I hesitate to relate sibling violence to any level of hatred. I find often that research doesn't support that siblings truly hate eachother, but are motivated by other factors such as jealousy or the need for attention. Anger is definately a motivating factor for sibling violence, and children tend to not have nearly the same amount of control over these types of emotions as adults do and are more likely to lash out towards siblings simply because they cannot handle such overwhelming emotions. I do think that anger and hatred in children is different than that we find in adults. As i mentioned, Children are not always equipped to handle these stron emotions and may be prone to violent outbursts at lower levels of anger and hatred than adults. they may also have more violent outbursts that are misdirected towards people or things that are not the initial cause of their anger. I feel like anger and hatred do play a role in sibling violence, but it is not the same role as in intergroup violence.
Chapter 17 was about intergroup violence. It began by analyzing the biases that occur in this type of violence. One group will view a different outgroup as going against social norms, being a threat, or deserving of some sort of retaliation.
There are many aspects of intergroup violence discussed in this chapter. One is the concept that a group will first analyze and appraise the actions of another group. This will cause emotions to surface, especially anger. According to this chapter, aggressive retaliation is most supported by long-term hatred and short-term aggression. This makes perfect sense in the example given by the book of the 9/11 attacks in New York City. Americans were angered after these events took place, and sought justice upon those responsible. The War on Terror has been a very drawn out one. We have now been fighting this war for ten years, and finally recently killed Osama Bin Laden, who was a major culprit in the 9/11 attacks. The fact that this war has been so long-term certainly matches up with the information given in chapter 17.
One interesting thing that this chapter discusses is the difference between hatred and anger. Anger is associated with the perceived unjust or unfair actions of another group, while hatred is associated with the nature of the group itself. This idea makes much sense when related to the War on Terror. America went to war not solely because we hated Iraq (although some probably did,) but rather mainly because we as a nation felt that our country was treated unjustly in the 9/11 attacks, and we sought justice for these actions. For intergroup violence to occur, both anger and hatred must fuel it in some way.
Purely by the title, this chapter seems to be based more on common sense. Just at first glance I can say that of course anger and hatred make sense to lead to violent behavior. In my mind, there has to be that motivation behind it in order to create such a physical outburst of violent behavior. I acknowledge that anger and hatred are very much connected, but I hadn’t ever viewed them as both completely necessary to create violence. I believe that you can have anger without hatred, but not hatred without anger. There has to be that anger rooted within hatred to develop far enough to spark violence.
The author tied these thoughts to military conflicts as far as anger or hatred being the root of the violence outbreaks. I think some of the deep-seeded anger or hatred is bred from generations and societal views, not necessarily individual feelings. We have discussed in class the in-group/out-group conflicts and how feelings of animosity build up.
Unfortunately, some children are born into these countries that are fighting and grow up with violence all around them. They are told to hate a certain group just because their whole family does. They have hatred engrained in them from the beginning. The violence that they commit is based on the hatred from those who brought them up.
I do agree that there is a difference between anger and hatred. I will fully admit I have a temper and can sometimes get angry easily, but I wouldn’t say I have any hatred toward anyone. The only violence I’ve ever engaged in would be with my sister, and as we have discussed, the sibling violence is a bit more accepted in society. Although she is four years older than me, I was always the more aggressive one and causing more harm. I have never felt feelings so intense that I would call hatred, and I hope I never do.
The in-group/out-group hatred ties into my topic regarding the gangs that are bred into hating each other. It also may fit into the mindset the vigilantes/Minutemen have toward immigration. It is not based in much truth, but they develop such strong feelings of anger and hatred toward these people to the point of acting out violently against them.