Although an estimated 57% of aggression in the workplace occurs in the presence of others (Glomb, 2002), researchers have yet to consider how observers’ attitudes and behaviours towards targets and perpetrators may be influenced. To address this gap, I draw on theories of priming (Bargh, 2006), relationships (i.e., power and liking), and perspective-taking (e.g., Batson, 1991; Davis, 1983; Parker, Atkins, & Axtell, 2008), to examine how observer attitudes and behaviours toward targets and perpetrators are affected by witnessed aggression. In Study 1, I use a lab-based experimental design, and find that observers develop more negative attitudes towards perpetrators than both non-perpetrators (between conditions) and targets (within condition), and engage in more deviance toward both targets and perpetrators of aggression (as compared to non-targets and non-perpetrators). In Study 2, using an email vignette design, I find that observers’ liking of and power relative to the target and the perpetrator influence observer reactions, as observers are more likely to report positive attitudes and behavioural intentions toward a liked actor than a disliked actor, regardless of whether the actor was the target or the perpetrator of the aggression. In addition, observers report more positive attitudes toward a high power actor than a low powered actor. In Studies 3 and 4, using a video-vignette and an event-based diary design, respectively, I find that observer attitudes and behavioural intentions are also influenced by observer perspective-taking. Specifically, observers who take the perspective of the target perceive the aggression as less justified and thus report more negative attitudes toward the perpetrator (Studies 3 and 4), more positive attitudes toward the target (significant in Study 4 only), fewer helping intentions toward the perpetrator (Study 3), and fewer deviant intentions toward both the target and the perpetrator (Study 3). In contrast, observers who take the perspective of the perpetrator perceive the aggression as more justified, and thus report more positive attitudes toward the perpetrator (Studies 3 and 4), more negative attitudes toward the target (significant in Study 4 only), greater helping intentions toward the perpetrator (Study 3), and greater deviant intentions toward both the target and the perpetrator (Study 3).

Although an estimated 57% of aggression in the workplace occurs in the presence of others (Glomb, 2002), researchers have yet to consider how observers’ attitudes and behaviours towards targets and perpetrators may be influenced. To address this gap, I draw on theories of priming (Bargh, 2006), relationships (i.e., power and liking), and perspective-taking (e.g., Batson, 1991; Davis, 1983; Parker, Atkins, & Axtell, 2008), to examine how observer attitudes and behaviours toward targets and perpetrators are affected by witnessed aggression. In Study 1, I use a lab-based experimental design, and find that observers develop more negative attitudes towards perpetrators than both non-perpetrators (between conditions) and targets (within condition), and engage in more deviance toward both targets and perpetrators of aggression (as compared to non-targets and non-perpetrators). In Study 2, using an email vignette design, I find that observers’ liking of and power relative to the target and the perpetrator influence observer reactions, as observers are more likely to report positive attitudes and behavioural intentions toward a liked actor than a disliked actor, regardless of whether the actor was the target or the perpetrator of the aggression. In addition, observers report more positive attitudes toward a high power actor than a low powered actor. In Studies 3 and 4, using a video-vignette and an event-based diary design, respectively, I find that observer attitudes and behavioural intentions are also influenced by observer perspective-taking. Specifically, observers who take the perspective of the target perceive the aggression as less justified and thus report more negative attitudes toward the perpetrator (Studies 3 and 4), more positive attitudes toward the target (significant in Study 4 only), fewer helping intentions toward the perpetrator (Study 3), and fewer deviant intentions toward both the target and the perpetrator (Study 3). In contrast, observers who take the perspective of the perpetrator perceive the aggression as more justified, and thus report more positive attitudes toward the perpetrator (Studies 3 and 4), more negative attitudes toward the target (significant in Study 4 only), greater helping intentions toward the perpetrator (Study 3), and greater deviant intentions toward both the target and the perpetrator (Study 3).

Research has linked narcissism to a tendency for becoming aggressive based on the perspective that narcissistic people are more prone to ego-threats and more prone to responding defensively to those ego-threats. Also, recent research has been examining the propensity for aggression to escalate as a means to justify prior aggression. This study examined the relationship between narcissism and escalation in aggression and possible mediators of increased aggression. If highly narcissistic individuals are more vulnerable to ego-threats and in turn justify their actions more, then their aggression might escalate more. To examine this, sixty-seven subjects who completed the Narcissistic Personality Inventory prior to the laboratory session were assigned to two groups using a bug-extermination method (though no bugs were actually killed) developed by Martens and his colleagues (in press). They either killed one or five bugs initially and then conducted a subsequent bug-killing task in which they controlled the number of bugs they killed. As predicted, participants who killed five bugs initially killed more bugs during the subsequent bug-extermination task than those who killed only one bug initially. Contrary to predictions, no effects of or interactions of narcissism with the initial bug-killing manipulation emerged. We did find, however, that a subtype of narcissism, that is superiority, affected the self-paced 20 seconds bug-killing behaviour. The limitations, further directions, and implications of this study are discussed.

This research dealt with attributions of intent to harm, responsibility, justification and affect made by subjects observing role-acted aggressive behaviour toward a victim. The primary question concerned the relationship between the types of attributions made (dependent variables) and the types of cues displayed by the protagonist (independent variables). The independent variables were systematically manipulated by depicting them, in ten different videotaped scenes. One hundred, male, undergraduate psychology students at the University of British Columbia were volunteer subjects. The results were analyzed by grouping the independent variables on two bases: (1) by a priori criteria, and (2) according to the subjects' perceptions. The first analysis used a three-way 2x2x2 ANOVA, where the three fully crossed factors were the presence or absence of implicit or explicit verbal cues, or nonverbal cues. Simple main effects analyses were conducted on significant interactions. Trend analyses established the effects of increasing the number of cues displayed. The second analysis used an eight group one-way ANOVA plus trend analyses. The protagonists' use of nonverbal cues or an increase in the number of cues displayed was found to decrease attributions of responsibility to the victim, increase the victim's likeability, decrease the justification of the protagonist and decrease his likeability. When the protagonist became very aggressive these effects were reversed. Implications for pacificism of this backlash effect against the victim were discussed. / Arts, Faculty of / Psychology, Department of / Graduate

The current study used secondary analysis of existing data to examine associations between bullying experiences, parental partner violence, and partner violence in young adulthood. We hypothesized that bullying in adolescence would be associated with witnessing parental IPV in adolescence and IPV in young adulthood. We believed that deficits in social information processing, particularly hostile attribution biases, would be associated with adolescent bullying. Lastly, we believed that decentering would act as a moderator, affecting the relationship between adolescent bullying and IPV in adulthood. We used correlational and moderation analyses to examine these hypotheses and found that relational bullying victimization was associated with witnessing parental IPV, and the frequency of bullying perpetration was associated with IPV perpetration in adulthood. We found that some aspects of bullying victimization were negatively associated with being unassertive, bullying perpetration was associated with hostile attribution biases, and the relationship between bullying and IPV was significant only at certain levels of decentering maturity.

In the current study, we investigated the association between relational aggression and measures of delinquency and overt aggression in a sample of detained adolescent girls. We also tested the validity of the distinction between reactive and proactive subtypes of relational aggression by testing their independent associations with important emotional, behavioral, personality, social, and cognitive variables that have been studied in past research and found to be important for distinguishing between reactive and proactive overt aggression. Our sample consisted of 58 predominantly African-American (78%) adolescent girls recruited from three juvenile detention centers in the southeastern United States. Participants ranged in age from 12 to 18 (Mn = 14.98; SD = 1.30). Relational aggression was measured using both self-report and observation, while overt aggression, delinquency, and social-psychological variables were measured using self-report only. As predicted, both self-reported and observed relational aggression were associated with higher rates of self-reported delinquency. Self-reported relational aggression was also associated with self-reported overt aggression, while observed relational aggression was not. On a self-report rating scale, we found evidence for four subscales that were moderately correlated and had good internal consistency. These subscales corresponded to the four aggressive subtypes (i.e., reactive overt, reactive relational, proactive overt, proactive relational). Further, we found evidence for divergence between reactive and proactive relational aggression on emotional dysregulation, CU traits, and positive outcome expectations for aggression, supporting the hypothesis that these are important subtypes that could involve distinct developmental processes, similar to reactive and proactive subtypes of overt aggression. Finally, this study found that relational aggression accounted for unique variance in callous and unemotional (CU) traits among detained girls, even after controlling for levels of overt aggression. The current findings highlight the importance of assessing relational aggression in detained girls and could have implications for designing more successful interventions for girls in the juvenile justice system.

This study seeks to explicate the impact of sex and gender in the relationships among attachment, romantic jealousy, and aggression. Attachment theory (e.g., Bowlby, 1969) posits that unique attachment styles develop based on experiences with primary caregiver(s). These attachment styles (e.g., secure, preoccupied, dismissing, and fearful) are enduring, and come to define attachment in adult romantic relationships (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1992; Hazan & Shaver, 1987). Attachment theory argues that differences in jealousy in adult romantic relationships are a function of attachment style (e.g., Guerrero, 1998). Similarly, attachment frameworks explain aggression (e.g., physical, verbal, and indirect/social/relational) as a function of attachment style, suggesting that these constructs (both aggression and jealousy) are borne from early childhood experiences. Theories that posit sex and gender differences, however, argue that aggression and jealousy are rooted in biological (i.e., sex-linked), evolutionary (i.e., adaptive), and social (i.e., learned) explanations of how men and women differ.This study aims to examine these theoretical perspectives in an attempt to further understand how differences between the two (attachment and sex/gender theories) can be explained. Results from this study indicate that sex and gender are unique, and do have differential effects on the relationships among attachment, aggression, and romantic jealousy in romantic relationships. Though the moderating effects of sex and gender are not always strong, findings from this study suggest that biology, evolution, and socialization likely interact and influence variability in attachment, aggression, and romantic jealousy.

Zugl.: Magdeburg, University, Diss., 2008.

No description available.

Den här studien behandlar fenomenet ostracism/exkludering och dess konsekvenser. Studiens centrala syfte var att undersöka om det finns någon koppling mellan ostracism och aggressivt beteende, och hur kopplingen mellan exkluderade personer och deras aggressiva beteende i så fall kan förklaras. Studien är en litteraturstudie och utgår enbart ifrån artiklar som är hämtade inom det socialpsykologiska forskningsfältet. Den insamlingsmetod som har använts är inspirerad av ett systematiskt tillvägagångssätt. Artiklarnas påvisade samband mellan ostracism och aggressivt beteende har tolkats utifrån ett antal teoretiska begrepp och förklaringsmodeller som exempelvis: frustration, kontroll, hämnd, samt behov-hot modellen. Studiens resultat visar att det finns en stark koppling mellan ostracism/exkludering och aggressivitet, och att aggressivitet manifesteras olika beroende på sammanhanget. Resultatet visade att antisocialt beteende i form av aggressivitet var ett sätt att skaffa fördelar, exempelvis genom att ta kontroll över andra, få ur sig frustration etc. Det visade sig också att kontrollfaktorn var en faktor som var återkommande och viktig. Att inte ha någon makt eller kontroll att förändra negativa skeenden eller hur andra människor agerar verkar vara en starkt bidragande faktor till aggressivitet. Förhoppningen med denna studie är att den ska kunna visa på komplexiteten i fenomenet ostracism och att den ska kunna användas i det sociala arbetet för att bättre kunna förstå orsakerna till beteendet hos exkluderade individer i olika sammanhang. / This study adresses the phenomenon of ostracism/exclusion and its consequences. The main purpose of this study is to examine if there is a connection between ostracism and aggressive behaviour, and if so, how the connection between excluded individuals and their aggressive behaviour can be explained. This litterature review will be solely based on scientific articles derived from the researchfield of socialpsychology. The method for collecting data has been based on a systematic review. The articles proven connection between ostracism and aggressive behaviour has been interpretated on the basis of several theoretical concepts as for example: frustration, control, revenge and the need-threat model. Results of the study shows that there is a strong link between ostracism/exclusion and aggressive behaviour. And that aggression manifests itself differently depending on the context. The result showed that anti-social behaviour in the form of aggressiveness where one way for the individual to gain advantages, for example by taking control of others, relieving frustration e.d. It also showed that the control-factor was a factor that was recurrent and important. Not having any power or control to change the negative course of events or how other people behave was a strong contributing factor for aggressiveness. The hope of this study is that it can demonstrate the complexity of ostracism and that it could be used in the field of social work to better understand the reasons for aggressive behaviour in excluded individuals in different contexts.