While initiating a conflict can sometimes lead to maximizing ingroup gains, it comes at high costs for the individual. Nevertheless, certain individuals are motivated to do so. The individual’s...Show moreWhile initiating a conflict can sometimes lead to maximizing ingroup gains, it comes at high costs for the individual. Nevertheless, certain individuals are motivated to do so. The individual’s need for affiliation might influence this because people high in the need for affiliation find good interpersonal relations important and want to benefit the ingroup (McClelland, 1961). This study hypothesizes that a high need for affiliation compared to a low need for affiliation increases the likelihood of investing in outgroup harm and thus initiating conflict. Participants (N = 126) engaged in the Intergroup Prisoner’s Dilemma-Maximizing Difference (IPD-MD) game with modifications of efficiency (Halevy et al., 2008). They responded to the six-item Unified Motive Scale (UMS-6) measure of the need for affiliation (Schönbrodt & Gerstenberg, 2012). Opposite to the hypothesis, the findings showed that a low need for affiliation predicted inclinations for initiating conflict if initiating conflict maximized the gains for the ingroup. Surprisingly, thriving for maximum gains for the ingroup motivated people with a low need for affiliation to initiate conflict but not people with a high need for affiliation. Possibly, the increased need to be cooperative amongst people high in the need for affiliation also comprises the outgroup (Halevy et al., 2008), inhibiting people high in the need for affiliation to initiate conflict. This work suggests that alternative individual differences, like ingroup identification, should be studied to enhance understanding of why, when and by whom conflict gets initiated.Show less
With the increase in polarization worldwide, the danger of democracies not working anymore and societies breaking apart has become an increasingly real prospect. Previous research concluded that,...Show moreWith the increase in polarization worldwide, the danger of democracies not working anymore and societies breaking apart has become an increasingly real prospect. Previous research concluded that, in general, Rightists tend to be more aggressive towards outgroup members than Leftists; recent studies, however, have challenged this by proposing affective responses are symmetrical in both groups. 200 Leftists and 200 Rightists were recruited from the United Kingdom and the United States with the aim of finding differences in aggression directed to ingroup and outgroup members. Using the Attacker-Defender Contest to assure context-neutrality and a mixed ANOVA to test for interactions between political ideology and aggression, results showed an increased rate of aggression towards outgroup members by Leftists only. Furthermore, a statistically significant interaction between political ideology and aggression was found.Show less
Political ideology has been at the center of social psychology research over the years. Researchers are trying to find out whether rightists and leftists have fundamental differences, or whether...Show morePolitical ideology has been at the center of social psychology research over the years. Researchers are trying to find out whether rightists and leftists have fundamental differences, or whether this can be attributed to context. I am researching if the relationship between ideology and anti-social behaviour towards the out-group is mediated by stereotypes about morality, warmth, competence, and aggression of that out-group. Research has confirmed higher support for aggressive measures by rightists over leftists. Therefore, I argued that there will be a difference in anti-social behaviour/tendencies between rightists and leftists. Furthermore, research regarding stereotypes also shows how these affect behaviour. Thus I hypothesised that both leftists and rightists will engage in anti-social behaviour when holding a negative stereotype about the target group. This was tested using an online-based experiment, where participants were asked to play two economic games (Joy of Destruction and Attacker-Defender game) and fill out a questionnaire. First, two logistic regression analyses were performed to test whether there are anti-social behaviour differences towards the out-group depending on ideology. This was significant. Second, several mediation analyses were performed to see whether the relationship between ideology and anti-social behaviour is mediated by stereotypes. Some of these mediation analyses were found to be significant, showing that anti-social behaviour can vary depending on ideology through stereotypes as a mediating variable.Show less
This paper seeks to investigate if childhood poverty has an effect on aggression towards outgroups in adulthood. While previous research has suggested that childhood poverty has a negative effect...Show moreThis paper seeks to investigate if childhood poverty has an effect on aggression towards outgroups in adulthood. While previous research has suggested that childhood poverty has a negative effect on behavior in teenage years and on physical health during adolescence and beyond, there has not been much literature on childhood poverty and its behavioral effects in adulthood. I looked specifically if childhood poverty would have negative behavioral effects, in this case aggression towards outgroups, in adulthood. Our sample consisted of 802 members from the United Kingdom and the United States of America, 362 of which reported having experienced poverty during their childhood. They played the Joy of Destruction game, which measured aggression towards an outgroup and then filled in an online questionnaire which include current socioeconomic information and experiences of childhood poverty. The results indicated that people who experienced childhood poverty displayed more aggression towards members of an outgroup. This result contributes to the existing literature that having adverse experiences during childhood will have a negative effect on one’s behavior in adulthood.Show less
Violent political events can be manifestations of anti-social preferences against outgroup members. Prior studies have already found differences between leftists and rightists in presenting anti...Show moreViolent political events can be manifestations of anti-social preferences against outgroup members. Prior studies have already found differences between leftists and rightists in presenting anti-social preferences. Political extremism was also found closely correlated with anti-social events. However, studies about the ideological difference in antisocial preferences against outgroups and the interactive effect of ideology and political extremism on anti-social preferences against outgroups are required for a better understanding of real-life violent political events. In a large experimental study (n = 769), I examined two hypotheses: (1) Rightists have higher anti-social preferences against outgroup members than leftists; (2) Levels of political extremity may moderate the relationship between ideology and anti-social preferences against outgroup members. Participants were asked to play the Joy of Destruction game with members of different ideology, same ideology, different nationality, and same nationality from them respectively. After the game, participants were asked about their political orientation and levels of political extremity. The results showed rightists have higher anti-social preferences against national outgroups than leftists; no significant difference in anti-social preferences against ideological outgroups was found between rightists and leftists. The level of political extremity was found not significant in moderating the relationship between ideology and anti-social behaviors against both ideological outgroups and national outgroups. These findings filled the gap for us to understand the ideological differences in anti-social preference against outgroups and they may stimulate future research.Show less
