China
Africa
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
Self-Construal and Anger Action Tendencies in Hong Kong and the United Kingdom
Published in Walter J. Lonner, Dale L. Dinnel, Deborah K. Forgays, Susanna A. Hayes, Merging Past, Present, and Future in Cross-Cultural Psychology, 2020
Research has supported the notion that action tendencies such as to attack or aggress are associated with the experience of anger. In an early study of self-reported anger Gates (1926) found that the action tendencies during episodes of anger were aggressive (either direct physical aggression or verbal aggression), even though the actual instances of aggression were rare. This was supported by Davitz (1969) who found that a dominant response when angry is the felt tendency to engage in physical aggression. However, attack is only one action tendency associated with anger. Gates reported other action tendencies associated with anger such as To injure inanimate objects’ or ‘to run away, leave the room’. Averill (1982) identified four types of impulses that are felt during an angry episode; 1) Direct aggression (verbal, physical or removal of some benefit); 2) Indirect aggression (telling a third party, harming someone close to the object of your anger); 3) Displaced aggression (aggression towards a non-human object); Non-aggressive responses (calming activities, talking it over peacefully). These have been supported in subsequent single culture studies (e.g., Tangney, Wagner, Marschall, & Gramzow, 1991). Averill found that although the direct aggression impulse was common, the most frequent behavioural responses was to engage in calming activities, with actual aggression relatively rare. Averill also found that other impulses were frequently felt during an angry episode. However, neither Averill nor Tangney et al. examined the influence of culture on action tendencies.
Social Psychology
Published in Mohamed Ahmed Abd El-Hay, Understanding Psychology for Medicine and Nursing, 2019
Scapegoating is a type of displaced aggression in which hostilities triggered by frustration are redirected at “safer” targets (Nelson, 2006). Prejudice may be a form of scapegoating, blaming a person or a group for the actions of others or for difficulties experienced in everyday life. Evidence for the scapegoat theory of prejudice comes from finding high level of prejudice among economically frustrated people, and from experiments in which a temporary frustration intensifies prejudice, e.g., when a group of young European Americans men at a summer camp failed in a difficult test and missed their weekly entertainment, attitudes toward Mexicans and Japanese ethnic groups were rated lower after being frustrated (Miller & Bugelski, 1970). Similarly, students who experienced failure or were made to feel insecure often restored their self-esteem by derogating an opposing or competing person (Crocker, Thompson, McGraw, & Ingerman, 1987). This is why a rival’s misfortune sometimes provides a feeling of pleasure. By contrast, those made to feel loved and supported have become more open to and accepting of others who differ (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2001). Scapegoating was also observed following the 9/11 attacks in the United States, some outraged people attacked innocent Arab-Americans.
Narcissism and Reactions to a Self-Esteem Insult: An Experiment Using Predictions from Self-Report and the Rorschach Task
Published in Journal of Personality Assessment, 2021
Emanuela S. Gritti, Gregory J. Meyer, Robert F. Bornstein, David P. Marino, Jodi di Marco
On the other hand, the relationship between self-reported narcissistic vulnerability and variability in self-rated hostility over the course of the study provide further understanding for triggers of narcissistic anger. In contrast to Rhodewalt and Morf (1998) and Stucke (2003), who focused on self-reported grandiose narcissism and overly positive self-image in eliciting resentment and irritation after an ego-threat, our findings suggest an important role for the covert and vulnerable facet of narcissism in determining aggressive reactions to self-esteem insults. This is consistent with more recent experimental evidence (Krizan & Johar, 2015) that self-reported vulnerable narcissism, and not grandiosity, is a predictor of both reactive and displaced aggression in response to a provocation. Furthermore, our findings that self-reported vulnerability predicted variations in negative affect (guilt, sadness, and fear) and self-esteem during the study are consistent with those of Krizan and Herlache (2018) and others (Miller et al., 2013) who point out how people with vulnerable narcissism are higher in neuroticism and have reactions such as depression and shame after an insult.
Trickle-Down Effects of Positive and Negative Supervisor Behaviors on Service Performance: The Roles of Employee Emotional Labor and Perceived Supervisor Power
Published in Human Performance, 2018
Nai-Wen Chi, Yen-Chun Chen, Tun-Chun Huang, Shih-Feng Chen
Service sabotage refers to employee intentional behaviors that harm customers’ interests (Harris & Ogbonna, 2002). According to the displaced aggression perspective, displaced aggression occurs when a person who is abused aggresses against a seemingly innocent target rather than retaliate against the source of the initial abuse (Denson, Pedersen, & Miller, 2006). In the context of the service industry, because service employees are often unable to retaliate toward abusive supervisors due to the asymmetric supervisor–employee relationship and potential punishment from that supervisor (Aryee et al., 2007; Wo et al., 2015), they might reduce such tension by engaging aggressive behaviors toward the customers. Therefore, when employees are abused by their supervisors, they may engage in deviant behaviors toward customers with intent to jeopardize service quality and organizational goals (i.e., service sabotage) to vent their tension and frustration. Hence, we propose the following: Abusive supervision will increase subordinates’ service sabotage.
Intending to Leave But No Place to Go: An Examination of the Behaviors of Reluctant Stayers
Published in Human Performance, 2019
Sharon Sheridan, Craig Crossley, Ryan M. Vogel, Marie S. Mitchell, Rebecca J. Bennett
Although turnover intentions capture the staying versus leaving dimension of the Hom et al. (2012) typology, we recognize that our theoretical framework focuses on just one potential antecedent of turnover intentions and associated behavior: work frustration. We argue, though, that the negative affective reaction of frustration likely plays an important role in many of the other conceptual explanations for workplace deviance (e.g., work stress and constraints: Spector & Jex, 1998; organizational injustice: Skarlicki & Folger, 1997; abusive supervision: Tepper, 2000; coworker deviance: Robinson & O’Leary-Kelly, 1998; displaced aggression: Mitchell & Ambrose, 2007). Whereas the broader perspectives of workplace deviance were beyond the scope of this initial study of reluctant stayers, future research may expand models of reluctant stayers to consider these or other specific causes of frustration. Indeed, one might reasonably wonder whether the causal ordering implied in our model should reflect frustration as a mediator rather than an antecedent of turnover intentions. Mindful of this, we explored an alternative first-stage moderated mediation model where turnover intentions and job alternatives interact to indirectly influence performance and deviance through frustration. However, the results were not supportive of this model. Nevertheless, future research might explore whether specific targets and feelings of frustration—as opposed to the generalized feeling of work frustration in our study—that arise in situations where people feel trapped in their positions may provide an even deeper understanding of employees’ frustrated responses.