Reading Blog 3/29 10pm

For this assignment, I read chapter 13. Chapter 13 discusses the role of attachment, anger and aggression. The chapter begins with discussing just what attachment is. Our handbook defines attachment as "...an innate psychobiological system that motivates them to seek proximity to supportive others in times of need". When going further in on attachment, the handbook talks about the different attachment styles. There are some that are very helpful and some that are not so great. This is where they introduce the role anger plays.
For example, the handbook points out functional anger, which is normally found in people that have secure attachment. The people that fit this category, while they get angry because of a person's behavior, are ready to accept the fact that they apologize and reform. They are willing to talk things out and hear the other person's side of the story.
Conversely, attachment-anxious individuals tend to intesify distress and brood over unpleasant experiences. While they have intense and prolonged bursts of anger, according to our handbook, a fear of separation and high level of dependency keeps them from expressing their feelings in a healthy way. This, in turn, makes them react in inappropriate manners when they encounter an insult or other provocation.
The remainder of the chappter goes on to apply these different attachment styles to different types of violence. The handbook covers domestic violence, antisocial behavior, intergroup aggressin, and the relationship between aggression and power.
The most interesting thing that I personsonally found in this chapter was when they talked about antisocial behavior.The handbook talks about how antisocial people who are attachment anxious are more likely to be antisocial than those who are avoidant and antisocial. However, these people are antisocial for different reasons. For example, the handbook talks about how they may just be looking for attention or expressing anger and resentment. Those who are aviodant and antisocial submit to antisocial actions in order to distance themselves from people.
I find this interesting because so many people are bent on saying that anyone who does this a certain thing are looking for attention. They say, "Oh...that person just knocked over their desk and put graffiti on the bridge? They just want attention." However, this is not the case and we need people to realize that.
Personally, I think this chapter really related to my expert topic. I can see kids being bullies because of attachment issues. They might not be getting enough care and attention at home, so they take their anger out on students that they see as being weaker just so they can get some sort of attention. Conversely, I can see avoidantly attached students being bullies because they want people to fear them and keep away. Either way, it seems fairly plausible. Most of my other psychology classes have also talked about attachment and how it can affect people. Kids especially would be at risk for being impacted by attachment issues, especially if their family life is not all that great.
Either way, attachment issues in general would be something else for me to potentially research when working on my expert topic. It would be very interesting to learn more about the role attachment plays in aggressive behavior, especially in younger individuals.

For this blog, I have chosen to do chapter 13, since chapter 18 deals with the tension and harmony in intergroup relations which doesn’t really have a lot to do with my expert topic. Chapter 13 discusses attachment styles and some theories and studies behind it. Also, the chapter discusses attachment and aggression, and how insecurity plays a large role in domestic violence, antisocial behavior, and intergroup aggression. Finally, the chapter touches on attachment and power, and how attachment styles relates to anxiety and power. At first when I started reading the chapter and how aggression and attachment deal with innate drives, I automatically though of Freud. I later found out that Bowlby was trying to distant himself from Freud by comparing infant’s reactions to separation or abandonement.

One of the topics in the chapter that really interested me was how insecurities make it more likely that people will experience anger of despair, which may or may not provoke aggressive behavior. Attachment insecurities can be seen in domestic violence in couples, anti-social behavior in a community such as delinquent behavior, and inter group violence, either being inter-ethnic or international. Domestic violence and anxiety somewhat go hand in hand. Insecurely attached individuals who are anxious are more vulnerable to get their feelings hurt or be threatened by abandonment. If they are avoidant, then they are more likely to not be affected by the conflict. When I think of anxious individuals, especially in a relationship, I think of desperate beings who will do anything to stay attached to their partner. So, if they are desperately trying to stay with them by being anxious then they are more likely to get hurt.

The handbook then goes on to discuss how power deals with attachment. The book mentions how people with an anxious attachment style are likely to want control over relationship partners also. But, they could also be reluctant to assert themselves because it could threaten relationship stability, which cause even more anxiety.

Functional anger was also discussed in the chapter. People who feel secure in attachment relationships are more likely to be optimistic about the partner’s willingness to apologize and “reform” after their feelings have been hurt. This makes sense because if the person is anxious and insecure in the relationship then they are more likely to seek out everything bad and only expect the worse.

According to Bowlby, humans are born with an innate psychobiological system that motivates them to seek proximity to supportive others. In relation to my expert topic, this would exemplify how elders who were born with this system usually form attachment styles in childhood, which would affect the rest of their lives. If their attachment style is in the first dimension, which is anxiety, then they will most likely worry that their attachment figure will not be available in times of need. For example, when dealing with financial abuse of the elderly, people who are abusing the elder usually confide with them in order to get closer. So , the closer the abuser gets to the elderly person, then the more attached the older adult feels.

For this Tuesday’s reading blog post, I decided to read Chapter 18: Tension and Harmony in Intergroup Relations. The main point set forth by the authors is that harmony may actually impede healthy and necessary social change. At first this seems counterintuitive, however the authors made a solid case for this assessment. They start by pointing out that tension between groups and lack of harmony can actually be a good thing. Tension between groups can create pressure for changing unequal structures in the direction of equality (p. 334). For instance, the tension between minorities and whites came to a boiling point during the 1960’s which resulted in a large-scale societal movement towards equality: The Civil Rights Movement. Thus, harmony isn’t always a good thing. “Because the disruption of harmony is often necessary for stimulating change toward social equality, efforts to create harmony between groups may in fact work to undermine these potential changes.” (p.334)
The authors also go into detail about who exactly are the likely agents of social change: those in the disadvantaged group. Afterall, it doesn’t make sense for those in the advantaged group would have a problem with or a desire to change the status quo. This push for equality is what the authors described as ‘collective action’. They also make the distinction between normative collective action and non-normative collective action. Normative collective action involves behaviors such as legal rallies, writing to your senator, or signing a petition. Non-normative collective action involves more violent actions such as murdering innocent individuals and destruction of property.
The authors also describe various predictors of collective action. One of the most important of these predictors involves members of the disadvantaged group’s recognition that intergroup inequality does exist and that they are the ones who are at a disadvantage. This awareness depends on intergroup comparisons. Another predictor involves being able to perceive an external source as responsible for their situation, and not themselves for instance. Thus the authors argue that, “The focus on commonalities is likely to reduce awareness of structural inequality…the fact that this reduced awareness is likely to be coupled with positive attitudes toward the outgroup, makes the reduced motivation for change even more likely, because disadvantaged group members are less likely to attribute unfair or unjust acts to members of the outgroup.” (p.339) The authors presented research evidence (in the form of a lab study and two field studies) that supports their hypothesis in the remaining pages.
This entire chapter was interesting to me and I would go as far as saying it is my favorite chapter thus far. It made me look at things in a completely different way. Throughout my education, one popular theory that would always come up when discussing possible ‘solutions’(for lack of a better word) or remedies to intergroup conflict has been the contact hypothesis. The main idea of the contact hypothesis is to create situations in which members from opposing groups spend time together, and/or get to know one another whether in a work setting, school setting, or what have you. According to the contact hypothesis, getting to know someone reduces biases and stereotypes about the other person and their group. I always thought this was the best way to help remedy intergroup conflict and foster mutual respect and admiration for opposing groups. After reading the chapter however, the contact hypothesis doesn’t seem like such a great idea after all. It makes me wonder what we can do to increase rapport between different groups while at the same time maintaining a healthy level of tension that will help induce positive social movements toward obtaining equality. As with any social issue, there is never a simple solution.

I read chapter 13 for this assignment because it was closer in relation to my expert topic. This was an interesting chapter which describes attachment and what issues arose with it, such as anger and aggression. I have had many classes that have discussed the issue of attachment before, but it was intriguing to read information coming from a different source, and one mostly focused on violence too.

The book described a bit what exactly avoidant attachments and anxious attachments were, and how anger is portrayed in each. I found it very interesting how relationships were formed with those having an attachment style other than secure, which is the preferred form of attachment. Often those who had avoidant attachments in adulthood tended to have less anger with a partner due to the need for detachment, also known as a withdrawal from conflict. However, there was a contradictory statement saying that avoidant people can become violent in the midst of escalating domestic conflicts; even more so when one’s partner is anxiously attached and would demand further involvement (Shaver and Mikulincer, 2011). I would like to see more information and possible studies to determine how far an avoidant person would have to be pushed to use aggression, even when it is not considered first nature. What I actually did find surprising was anxiously attached people (and more specifically men) were more likely to behave in aggressive and violent ways. Jealousy would often be a big trigger in these instances due to insecure attachments, along with a correlation of abuse and coercion that cannot be explained by other factors. The book did not go into any more detail about why an anxiously attached person would behave this way, which left further interests to be delved into.

When reading the part about antisocial behavior, it was very intriguing to see some statistics about criminal behavior and insecure attachments. There were actually different reasons as to why an avoidant person would commit crime (to distance oneself from others, violation of the rules just to show lack of concern for others) and why and anxiously attached person would commit crime (crying out for attention, expressing anger and resentment). In either case, aggressive acts still occur, with avoidant persons in the majority. This was surprising due to the earlier statements in the book about how avoidant people are generally the less violent. When thinking of the acts in a way other than being mainly aggressive in nature, it begins to make more sense. Avoidant people often have difficulties making new and lasting relationships with others and often want to be left alone due to their inability to socialize. This can lead to harmful acts with aggression being secondary in nature, and keeping others away as the primary focus.

However, when reading through the book, it was encouraging to hear that attachments can be changed for the better. The most notable changes would often be made in adolescence, where one would still be quite malleable, but adults can change to a secure attachment if helped; and the help can really come from anyone with a secure attachment (sometimes insecure attachments are changed just by observation).

When I read the parts over power and objectification, there were not really any surprises. Those with avoidant attachments that are given power, often use said power to their own advantage and are more likely to objectify others. Those with anxious attachments are more likely to fear power, which would make sense in a general term, but as mentioned earlier with cases of anxiously attached people more likely to hurt their partners I found it somewhat conflicting. Of course, those with secure attachments are far less likely to abuse power and objectify others for their own purposes, which the book seemed to want known that objectification of others could still happen because securely attached people are still human.

Chapter 13 was about the role of attachment on anger and aggression. It starts out by discussing the different types of attachment insecurity that they explore throughout the chapter. According to the chapter, a person’s attachment style is “the pattern of relational expectations, emotions, and behavior that results from a particular history of attachment experiences.” The first style they discuss is attachment anxiety. This is where a person worries that an attachment figure, even adult relationship partners, will not be there in times of need. The second is attachment avoidance. This is where the person “distrusts relationship partners’ goodwill and strives to maintain behavioral independence and emotional distance from partners.” They typically measure these with self-report scales. Research has typically shown that attachment styles are formed in child-hood, but the authors make a point to show that memorable interactions throughout life can alter a person’s style. They discuss that attachment anxiety results in hyperactivating strategies where temperamental factors results in energetic, insistent attempts to attain proximity, support, and love. In contrast, attachment avoidant people learn that relying on attachment figures is not an effective way to cope with threats. They will downplay threats, inhibit worries and negative emotions, and perform coping strategies known as deactivating. These people want to keep away the feeling of frustration and the pain of rejection, punishment for expressing feelings, or abandonment.

The chapter discusses how avoidant people’s anger is different than anxiety people’s anger. Avoidants’ anger tends to be expressed only in indirect ways. They do not report anger because it implies emotional investment in a relationship. They do tend to attribute hostile intent even when the other’s behavior is unintentional. Avoidants are also hostile when they worry about an upcoming painful task. Anxious people intensify distress. They often direct anger at themselves though because of a fear of separation, desperate desire for love, and high dependency. They don’t want to risk losing that person because they take something out on them.

They then go on to discuss how the different styles affect aggression. They discuss it in three different sections: domestic violence, antisocial behavior, and intergroup violence. In terms of domestic violence, the chapter says that it is an exaggerated form of protesting a partner’s hurtful behavior. Thinking about this, it makes sense that anxious individuals would demonstrate this more than avoidant individuals. They do say that avoidant people become violent in the midst of escalating domestic conflicts. This is even worse if their partner is anxious and demands involvement. Men who scored high on attachment anxiety report more severe and frequent abuse and coercion during couple conflicts.

They found that both avoidant and anxious engage in antisocial behavior more often than those with secure attachment, but they do for different reasons. Obviously, anxious people do so to cry out for attention or express anger and resentment. Avoidants do it to distance themselves and show their lack of concern for others. Studies show that if you can help a troubled and delinquent adolescent form a positive secure attachment with a staff member, you can reduce their antisocial behavior.

In terms of intergroup aggression, researchers found that anxious people showed more hostile responses to outgroups. They also found that they can reduce the hostile actions by providing security-related words or pictures. If these anxious people thought about a person that provided security, they were less likely to be angry and aggressive toward an outgroup. When provided with a name of someone who was not an attachment figure, people with an anxious attachment gave outgroups, rather than ingroups, more hot sauce when told the person didn’t like hot sauce.

They also talked about attachment and power. In short, avoidant persons, when presented with a situation that gives them power, use power to objectify others. They act on their preference for autonomy and distance. They use people for personal need and satisfaction. In contrast, anxious people are ambivalent about power and dominance. They do not want to do something to provoke a partner’s resentment, create conflict, and threaten relationship stability. They are less likely to choose a risky plan when given power than a safe plan.

I think that this can relate to my expert topic of addiction to lying. I think that the addiction to lying can be more associated with the attachment anxious style. I discussed before how the addiction of lying often forms because there is a familial expectation to act a certain way. Usually it is masking a familial problem. The person probably does not have a secure attachment with their family and friends, so they have a fear of not living up to expectations. They try to compensate by creating this person that people want them to be so that they can try to have more attachments. They want to be loved, so they conform to what they think they should be to get that. This can also explain the aggression and anger that occur when someone confronts a compulsive liar. The chapter discussed how anxious people are more likely to engage in domestic violence because they are trying to battle what the person did to them. They are trying to save the relationship and don’t want them to leave. A compulsive liar often gets angry and aggressive when someone confronts them about the lie because they do not want that attachment that the lie gives them to go away. They get that way to try to convince the other person that this is whom they really are. I have not seen actual studies backing up my hypothesis, but it makes sense to me and is a theory I will look further into for my project. I think all of this is really interesting because a lot of it is opposite of what someone would think. It is interesting that connections with other people can affect how you think and act so severely.

I chose to read chapter 13 on attachment, anger, and aggression. I chose this chapter because although it does not directly relate to my expert topic, there are similarities present. Attachment and aggression may be involved in self harm behavior, which is my expert topic. If a person is an avoidantly attached person, they will view other people negatively and will not try to relate to these other people, according to this chapter. This could potentially help us understand some self harm behavior.

The chapter itself mainly focused on how power, attachment type, and aggression are linked together. One interesting thing that it focused on was the aspect of power. The studies discussed in this chapter suggest that people with different types of attachment will handle power differently. Those who are securely attached as adults will use their own power to benefit and help others, while those who have an anxious attachment style will be less comfortable using power. I think this aspect is interesting because power most certainly is involved in intergroup violence, which we are currently discussing in this class.

In the Gangland episode that we watched in class, power was a large factor in gang-related violence. Those individuals with more power also acted more violent and aggressively. It would be interesting to study the attachment styles of these individuals.

Another aspect that this chapter discussed was how attachment anxiety is related to intergroup aggression. The chapter stated that when an individual is securely attached or feels secure, he or she will act less aggressive toward an individual of an outgroup. This is extremely important information to have with our focus on intergroup violence. These studies suggest that intergroup violence may be decreased by providing secureness and attachment to these individuals.

Although attachment is often seen in infancy and early childhood, it is also carried throughout the adult life. This is especially visible in romantic relationships, which this chapter also discusses. Those with anxious attachment styles will tend to have very long and intense periods of anger. However, because they are so anxious about not having attachment, they do not outwardly express this anger, but rather often express it to themselves. This was something that was also extremely interesting to me and relates to my topic of self harm behavior. Perhaps some people who engage in self harm behavior are, in fact, anxious about attachment and direct their anger toward themselves. This could be seen in any given interpersonal relationship, but would be very intense in a romantic relationship. I am interested to learn more about self harm behavior and how the individual's own characteristics relate to it.

For this Reading Blog I chose to read chapter 13 because it more closely related to my Expert Topic area. I’m really interested in the development of children, so the area of attachment and how it relates to aggression and anger really intrigued me. I have learned a lot about the attachment theory in many of my other classes in the psychology and family services departments. Although the theory does get some negative feedback, I think that the base of the theory has some definite truths behind it. It’s really interesting to see something that you learn about over and over again really play out in real life. I work at a Child Development Center, and sometimes it is very clear which attachment style each child has established for themselves. The differences between the attachment styles are clear, and something that you can point out through specific example of how the child interacts with their parents, teachers, and the other students in the class room. It is also interesting to watch how these children react in situations that involve anger and stress (something that happens pretty often in a room full of 2 year olds). Some of the children take to direction and instruction during this time much better than others, who may become more aggravated or aggressive when they are instructed not to act violently against their classmates when they are angry. This reminds me a lot of what is discussed in the chapter, about how social situations can be determined or altered by the type of attachment style that they have become accustomed to.
I found this really great literature review website that contains a lot of information related to culture difference in attachment style, which relates my expert topic of how culture differences effect childhood violence to chapter 13. http://www.attachmentacrosscultures.org/research/ divides results into categories of countries, so that the culture differences are easy to see from one country to the next. The research shows that the wishes or hopes of the parents as far as what type of attachment style they want their children to have differs across culture. In addition, the responses that the children gave when their caregiver returned we’re much different across cultures. That is, some cultures engaged in a more openly affectionate manner than other cultures. This leads to an interesting question as to whether or not the affection that is considered appropriate in different cultures leads to more or less violence within that culture. “One of the complexities of cross-cultural research is the recognition that infants and children learn to behave in a manner conducive to their successful adaptation within the cultural norms around them. Although, the intuitive part of the infant-mother attachment experience is well accepted, the observed relationship reflects the required patterns of their immediate social milieu. The infant behaves in a manner that responds to maternal behavior that is both intuitive and reflective of expected behaviour in their community.” This is an important point when looking at culture differences, especially in relation to violence. Much of what we are researching is based on social norms, which obviously change across cultures. This makes for a difficult topic to examine and compare against our own culture.
I especially think that the area on Domestic Violence was really interesting, as it is something that is viewed very differently across cultures. I think that the aspect of religion plays a large part in the acceptance of domestic violence, something that is not addressed within the chapter. I also think it is interesting that antisocial behavior is addressed, and think that it is one area of violence that is often ignored or pushed to the back burner. Power, on the other hand, is a major part of aggression and violence and I think that it is at the root of a lot of violent issues our world faces. The concept of power is one that consistently shows up in violent situations, and I think that related this issue to attachment makes for a really smart explanation of the connection between childhood and violence.

For this assignment I decided to read chapter 13 on attachment, anger, and aggression. I recently took another seminar course in developmental psych and we spent a lot of time focusing on the different types of attachment theories. One thing I found interesting in research I read for that class and didn't see in the text was the link between absent parents and future relationship problems, violence and anti social behaviors. I did more in depth research on the negative outcomes for females without the presence of a biological father. To sum it up, theres not very good outcomes for females who grow up fatherless. A step parent doesn't fix the problem, and the mother being gone isn't nearly as bad. So what is it about females attachment to thier fathers that keeps them out of jail, out of gangs, going to college or finishing highschool, lowers teen pregnancy and abortion rates, and eventually leads to lower divorce rates and stops the cycle of girls growing up fatherless having kids who grow up fatherless? We need to take attachment theories seriously if we are to prevent the negative side effects of being raised in an avoidant/ anxious attachment relationship home.
One thing this chapter brings to mind is the clip from freakanomics we watched in class on the lowered violence rates in the 90's. If we buy into the theory that lowered violence rates are truly due to legalizing abortion, there is a simple train of thought to follow. Legalizing abortion prevented many unwilling mothers from becoming mothers. These women may have been young, not educated or gainfully employed, unmarried or in a relationship that wasn't going to last. All of these factors may lead to a mother who raises an unwanted child, which in turn may lead to less than secure attachment between mother and child or lacking the attachment to a father in the home. These children of negative attachment homes grow up and contribute to the higher crime rates. But of course this was thwarted by Roe vs Wade allowing mothers to choose to be a mother now or have a legal abortion. This leads to mothers who are ready, who choose to be mothers, who can bond with baby and have healthy secure attachments, and eventually lead to drops in the national crime rates.
I for one have no problem finding alot of truth and relatable concepts in this chapter. I also think we need to prepare expectant parents for what it is really like to raise a child so we can possibly promote healthier attachments now and preventing violence and crime down the road. There are local programs such as Young Parents Together (http://www.allenwomenshealth.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=120&Itemid=140) where young mothers and fathers can find resources for help and a forum for asking questions on how to be a better parent. They also have group meetings to help educate young parents on positive ways to interact with thier children and provide a social network. I think groups like this one are great at focusing on the early development of a child as a tool to promote better outcomes for both the child and our community in the long run.

Freebie