INTERPERSONAL RELATIONSHIP

Social associations, connections, or affiliations between two or more people

o Vary in diff levels of intimacy and sharing - establishment of common ground - both in and out group
agree on this - diff perspective
Position in relationship, significant amount of time - can't be quantified but which has a bidirectional effect =
determine the kind of relationships

Why we form relationships?

Baumeister & Leary - 1995
Dissect whether relationships are a need or a want?
 Need to belong - need for frequent, non-aversive interaction, within an ongoing relational bond
 People form social attachments and resist dissolution of existing bonds – Bowlby’s social attachment theory
 Lack of attachment - ill-effects = health, adjustment and well-being
 Satisfying this need - 2 criteria:
1. Need for frequent, affectively pleasant interactions within a few other people
2. These interactions must take place in the context of a temporally stable and enduring framework of an
affective concern for each other's welfare.
1. Fundamental across variety of settings
2. Cognitive and emotional responses reflect subjective importance and concerns
3. Hedonic consequences - undesired state change and restore desired state - negative reinforcement to goal
attainment
4. Failure to satisfy fundamental motivation - produce ill effects - more than temporary distress – pathological?
5. Substitution and satiation -
6. Universality
7. Non-derivativeness
Cultural materialism - Harry - 1974, 1978, 1979
Assumption that human culture is shaped primarily by economic needs and opportunity, and so historical,
anthropological, sociological and other cultural patterns should mainly be analysed with reference to economic
causes
Contradictory theory/perspective to belongingness theory
Belongingness need
Human culture is at least partly adapted to enable people to satisfy the psychological need to live together -
along with economic needs
How do we know that belongingness/relationship is a need and not merely a want

ATTRACTION
Attitude - affective, behavioural and cognitive component - positive or negative way of looking at person - additional
desire to initiate contact or establish intimate relationship
Predictors - Propinquity effect = Familiarity, Mere exposure effect - Similarity effect = complimentary or opp attract
- Matching phenomena = matches attractiveness and other traits - Reciprocal liking = like to be liked - Physical
attraction = std of beauty? - Halo effect
THEORIES OF ATTRACTION:
Reinforcement theories/Reward theory of attraction - behaviour is rewarding to us or whom we associate with
rewarding events – association and mutuality
Learning approach - role of conditioning
Cognitive approach - Comparison level theory - attraction towards others in based on comparison of relationship to
some hypothetical baseline - Baseline is like a set level of expectation they have in mind - Comparison level for
alternatives - perception of likelihood of replacing the current relationship with a better one - Social exchange theory -
people's feeling about relationship depends on idea of what they deserve, what they invest, what they get in return and
prospect in another relation - Expect mutual reciprocation or exchange of compliment, discussion, affection, etc =
Investment model of relationships - Equity theory - people try to maintain a balance reward and cost of self and
partner/friend in a relationship = Theory of love – Sternberg – Passion, Intimacy, Commitment
Evolution and mate selection
Natural selection - survival of the fittest
Male compete and female choose - Sexy sons theory and good gene theory + psychoanalytical POV
?? Role of social media and digital networking in forming IP attraction ?? – flags, rizz, dating apps, trend of normal

Factors of close relationships - Quality time - Communication - Proximity - Expectations - Intimacy, passion,
commitment = Sternberg theory of love - Attachment styles - Previous experiences = own or observed - Equity -
between outcome and contribution - not necessarily equal outcome - Convenience orientation - Communal
relationship - Long term equity - pertinent for LT relationships - Self-disclosure and disclosure reciprocity

Hierarchy in intimate relationships

Exist in binary and non-binary – upward and downward communication ('A feeling for Hierarchy' - Mary Douglas)
Question of the 'other' - Irigaray & Guyn, 1995 = Equity and individualistic discourse (Irigaray)as opposed to
Beauvoir's (1952) equity and secondarity sex - Question of 'subjectivity' = Becoming a woman: Body, Authority and
Society - Chakraborty & De, 2019; Symbolic domain of phallocentric discourse, patriarchal bargain (kendiyoti, 1988),
Brahminical system & ajiviks = Violence in the language used in textbooks - promote socialization

Ending Intimate Relationship

India - lowest divorce rates - Hallowed customs - Tied to religion - Social stigma - Economic dependence - Belief in
family structure - Belief in retention of relationship
Divorce and institutionalised intimate relationship - society involvement: Ducks theory (1982)

Predisposing factors:
 Family attitude - ill-treated and no
respect
o Minority religion
 Need for approval.
o Low self-esteem
 Impulsive
 Easily trusting

GROUPS: SMALL GROUPS AND

FUNCTIONS
Social Influence processes in groups
Groups and their necessity
Group: 2/more people - interact and interdependent - have common needs and goals - influence each-others
Why join group – common goals, affiliation, n reln, distinction from outgroup, define self
Smaller groups more cohesive than larger groups (ideally 3-6 members) = common purpose, belongingness
Functional component: Social norms - Social roles - Cohesiveness - Group diversity (token representation)
Groups: social development and sustainability
Promotion of micro-credit self-help groups for poverty alleviation = Social Saheli – Asha workers and anganwadi
Grouping for social justice = butterfly effect – gulab gang, BLM
Grouping for resilience and coping and connections = Anonymous groups – AA
Support-groups for realization of the commonality of issues (Chakraborty, 2023) = Superwoman identity of working
mothers - cause dissatisfaction = Mothers with special children > support mothers with typically developing children
Realise that people in the self-help group have a common threat and similar sufferings
Groups: influences and individual's behaviour
Social facilitation - when presence of others energizes us (Zajonc, 1965; Geen, 1989)
Group work - Audience - Usually people perform better in simple tasks and worse in complex tasks - Arousal
and dominant response (Zajonc, 1965; Schmitt et al., 1986) – Hawthorne effect -
Social loafing - tendency for people to relax when they are in the presence of others and their individual performance
cannot be evaluated = Cultural difference - western people > asian people (Karau & Williams, 1993)
Factors -
Individual
performance
evaluation - Group
cohesiveness -
Complexity level of
task (better in
complex)

Deindividuation -
loosening of usual
behavioral constraint
when in a crowd -
lesser chances of
being identified for
own behavior =
power of anonymity = less accountable = more obedient to group norm
Cyber bullying – mob beh, violence and lunching

Group think - decision process in which maintaining group cohesiveness and solidarity is more important than taking
realistic approach = Features - Process loss = Incompetence and hierarchy - Communication problem - horizontal and
vertical comm problems -
Failure to share unique
information (McLeod, 2013) -
Transactive memory = help fill
gaps that could have been
missed out

How to avoid group

think?
Remain
impartial as a
leader - Seek
outside
opinions -
Create
subgroups -
Seek
anonymous opinions - secret voting

Group polarization - tendency of group members to arrive at decision that are extreme than the initial
inclination.
o Persuasive arguments - by some or several members can works
o Social comparison - maintaining individual stand, by being a little more extreme

AGGRESSION (behavioural component of emotions)

Phy or verbal behaviour intended to hurt someone
Hostile aggression = affective aggression - Instrumental aggression = instrumental to gain something
3 big ideas differentiating theories:
Biologically rooted aggressive drive
Jean-jacques Rousseau - blames society, not human nature
Thomas hobbes - credits society for restraining fundamentally aggressive humans.
Sigmund and Konrad Lorenz - 20th century - argues in favour of fundamental aggressive behaviour of human
Instinct theory and evolutionary theory – innate, unlearned universal beh pattern exhibited by all memb of specie –
self – preservation
Neural influence - complex neural systems facilitates aggression – PFC = break to deeper brain fac aggression
Genetic influences - Lagerspetz - showed aggressive streak is genetically passed on; Wilkowski and Robinson - 2008 -
temperament are blueprints of genetically carried over emotions; Huesman et al - 2003 - twin studies showing
genetic influence in aggression
Biochemical influence - blood chemistry influences neural sensitivity to aggressive stimulation = Alcohol - MacDonald
et al., 2000; Testosterone - Dabbs et al., 2001; Low serotonin - Crockett et al., 2008
Aggression as a natural response to frustration
Frustration aggression hypothesis - frustration (blocking of goal-directed behaviour) triggered readiness to aggress
(Dollard et al., 1939); Revision - Berkowitz (1989) - role of 'anger' remotion related to perception of unjustified
frustration/intention of frustration source
Displacement - Relative deprivation = Lower happiness and higher crimes rate in socially deprived communities
(Hagerty, 2000).
Aggression as a learned behaviour
Rewards of aggression - reinforcing role of fear among targets related to aggression - McCarthy & Kelly, 1978 =
Martyr ideation in terrorism = Cultural reinforcement of aggressive behaviour in patriarchal society = Literature -
holy and ancient scripture mentions perpetuation of violence - print media justifies aggression = Movies = Aggression
by women and across gender spectrum - based on power hierarchy = Patriarchal bargain - Kandiyoti - easy to
identify with aggressor - women take role of
perpetuator of patriarchy - senior woman is
the dec maker for dowry deaths and female
infanticide = Aggression has been view
justified to gain power or influence - multiple
marginalisation, aggression as only means of
gaining power
Chakraborty & De - 2011-2019 = Aggression
towards others: protector - Aggression
towards victims: perpetrator - Protector has
the 'power' to become perpetrator
Observational learning - combined role of
observation, imitiation, and
reward/punishment from environment -
Bandura 1977

Individual differences in Aggression

Aversive incidences - pain, heat, attacks, witnessing violence (Children witnessing violence in India: Nature, risk
factor, impact and prevention strategies - Chakraborty and Kumar 2022) - Vicarious learning of aggression - Use
preventive models – Arousal - Aggressive cues - Media influence - Sexual violence - distorted perception of sexual
reality, perception of power-hierarchy - Radical violence - Religious violence - Catharsis view of aggression - release
of aggressive drive though acting out or fantasizing –
Media influence on thinking: Desensitization - with continual repeated exposure - Social scripts - de-escalation, social
cultural script of acceptable violation - De-escalation: normalization of micro-aggression - eg dowry case - shut up -
keh diya bas keh diya - Micro-aggression is accumulated and accentuated due to de-escalation - only reported when
it blows full scale in a gross level of violence - Altered perception - creating a culture of fear and in response either
aggression/withdrawal - Cognitive priming - relation to frequency of watching - Concept of 'stylized violence' &
schadenfreude - enjoy watching violence, pain and suffering
Desensitization and detachment - recognise that what is being watched is not real - cognitive dissonance ==
desensitization towards fantasied and fictional violence
Sensation seeking and arousal - emotional, visceral and response - can cause adrenaline rush - see the
movements as those of Ballet - how novel can it get -
Schadenfreude - enjoying other's pain and suffering - people getting justice and what they deserve

GENERAL AGGRESSION MODEL (GAM) - Anderson and Bushman (2002)

Comprehensive, integrative framework for understanding aggression.
Considers the role of social, cognitive, personality, development
 Proximal processes of GAM - how person and situation factor influence cog, feelings and arousal (input)
which in turn appraisal and decision making processes (routes), which in turn influence aggressive or
 nonaggressive behavioural outcomes. Each cycle of proximal processes serves as a learning trial that affects
the development and accessibility of aggressive knowledge structures.
 Distal processes of GAM - how biological (ADHD, impaired executive functioning, hormones imbalance, low
serotonin, low arousal, etc) and persistent environmental factors (cultural norms supportive of violence,
maladaptive family structure, difficult life conditions, deprivation, victimization, violent neighbourhoods,
violent peer groups, group conflicts, diffusion of responsibilities, chronic exposure to violent media, etc) can
influence personality through changes in knowledge structure.
 GAM - applied to media violence effects,
domestic violence, intergroup violence,
temperature effects, pain effects, and the
effect of global climate change.
 Determinants of aggression
Person factor - Gender difference in aggression -
Trait anger - Unemotional personality trait - Toxic
masculinity - difficult to express vulnerability - anger
iceberg - Impulsivity, executive control, and self-
control - Intelligence, Personality traits - the 'big
five', hormones, genetic predisposition.
Environmental and cues for aggression provocation -
Weapons - Violent environment/ media –
environmental stressors - Anonymity - Lack of legal
repercussion or consequence of actions - Social
rejection = acid attacks – Substances use
Factors mediating aggression – Emo, cog, arousal.
Forms of aggression - Genocide = deindividuation,
dehumanization (Stanford prison experiment - giving
people numbers - holocaust - hiding eyes),
delegitimization (using term 'anti-national' says
legitimate right to justice is taken away - partition or
war situation with refugees – Terrorism -
Interpersonal violence - Gender-based
aggression/sexual aggression

GENOCIDE
Staub's analysis "roots of evil" (1989, 1996, 1999) - Cultural and psychological origins - Interdisciplinary, multilevel
analysis - Breadth and dynamism - Application of empirically established concepts - obedience, conformity, pluralistic
ignorance, societal values and citizens - Role of bystanders
Preconditions:
 Severe, persistent, difficult life conditions and aftermath
 Sociocultural characteristics - strong respect for hierarchal authorities, tendency to devalue outgroup,
history of aggression as a tool, defending self and group, follow an authoritarian leader, idealize group over
others, delegitimization = Historicism - perpetuating historical influence across ages
Criticism:
Overgeneralized the precondition - aboriginal societies where aggression is for hunting or survival but not IPR - What
about non-genocidal societies - Actual life conditions create preconditions - Indigenous communities
Other factors: Role of witnessing violence and ACE – Victimhood lead to genocide - Soviet union - kulaaks - victims
become perpetrators = Similar to Donald trump

DOMESTIC, INTERPERSONAL VIOLENCE

Trauma - learned helplessness - repression - displacement - self-esteem - self-recognition - inferiority/superiority
complex - sum cost fallacy (since been in relationship for so long, they continue to be in it) - sense of agency -
dependence - gaslighting - rationalisation - social construct + aggression - locus of control - internalisation of self-
blame or guilt - lack of self-regulation.
Battered relationship - Control through power - sense of identity and self - verbal abuse translates to emo-psy-sex-
eco-phy abuse - male entitlement and privilege - Mperpet : Wperpet = 95:5 - child = abused, emotional impact,
confuse aggression for love - minimisation of abuse - rationalization - externalization ---- Therapists talks about
domestic violence
Trauma - multilevel - multigenerational that can be passed on in different manner -
Where to seek help?
 Special women police station
 Individual therapy for the perpetrator

REDUCING AGGRESSION:
 Expertise
 Individual factors of perpetrators and victims
 Causes of aggression
 Manifestation of aggression
 Culturally sanctioned aggression
Two myths:
1. Catharsis – help channel other emotions
2. Punishment - justify it as a punishment for action.
Techniques:
1. Proactive aggression: differential reinforcement of nonaggressive behaviour, social skills training, reality
therapy - behavioural in nature
2. Reactive aggression: cognitive based therapy or intervention - more cognitive in nature with distortion of
cognition and schema

TERRORISM
Politically motivated violence, perpetrated by individuals, groups or state-sponsored agents, intended to instil
feeling of terror and helplessness in a population in order to influence decision making and to change
behaviour.
Terrorist act as a final step on a narrowing staircase - The staircase to terrorism: A psychological exploration
(Moghaddam, 2005)
Outcome policies - short-term goals, nourishing contextualised democracy - one individual's hero, become another
individual's terrorist = difference between surgical strike and terror attack = collateral damage, who dying is okay and
who dying isn't
Need to combat terrorism:
1. Subjectively interpreted values and beliefs often serve as the most important basis for terrorist action
2. The actions of terrorist are intended to bring about specific psychological experiences - that is, terror and
helplessness (Moghaddam & Marsella, 2004)
3. Terror often has extremely harmful psychological consequence (Schlenger et al., 2002)
 A central proposition is that terrorism can best be understood through a focus on
o Psychological interpretation of material conditions
 Using religioun and good afterlife as the reason
o The options seen to be available to overcome perceived injustices, particularly those in the
procedures through which decisions are made (Tyler & Huo, 2002)
 Soviet sense of victimization
What has led to new theorization:
 Little validity in explanation of terrorism that assume a high level of psychopathology among terrorists or the
terrorist come from economically deprived backgrounds or having little education
 Attempt to profile terrorists and to identify demographic and socio-economic factors associated with
terrorism
  Incorporated within a
broader conceptual
account of processes
leading to terrorist
acts.

STAIRCASE MODEL OF
TERRORISM:
Ground floor: psychological
interpretation of material
conditions
Perceived level of injustice –
feelings of frustration -
Victimization - brain washing
sleeper cells – relative
deprivation = role of media
 Central role of psychological factors - poverty and lack of education are problematic – lack of social and
moral education; however not characteristic in Al-Qaeda association (Singapore Ministry of Home Affairs,
2003) and (Bodansky, 2001).
First floor: perceived option to fight unfair - Search of solution to what they perceive to unjust treatment
 2 psychological factors that shape their behaviour:
1. Perceived responsibility for personal mobility to improve their situation
2. Perception of procedural injustice
 Opened by talented persons motivated to make progress up the societal hierarchy
 Displacement of aggression - vehemently blame others
Second floor: displacement of aggression
 Readiness to physically displace aggression and actively seek out opportunities to do so - take actions against
perceived enemies = more deeply engaged in a morality that condones terrorism.
Third floor: "moral engagement"
 Most important transformation - gradual engagement with the morality of terrorist organization, terrorism =
justified strategy.
 Terrorist organization arise as a parallel or shadow world, with parallel morality that justifies "the struggle"
to achieve the "ideal" society by any means possible.
 Mainstream perspective lens - terrorists are "morally disengaged", particularly because of their willingness
to commit acts of violence against civilians. However, from the perspective of the morality existing within
the terrorist groups - terrorism is "morally engaged" and it is the "enemy" government and their agents who
are morally disengaged.
Fourth floor: solidification of categorical thinking and the perceived legitimacy of the terrorist organization
 Enter the secret world of the terrorist organization, there is little or no opportunity to exit alive.
 Immersion in secret, small-group activities lead to changes in perception among recruits: a legitimization of
org and its goals and a belief that the ends justify the means - strengthening the categorical us-vs-them view
of the world
 Social categorization is a powerful psychological process (McGrathy, 1999) - group favouritism and out-group
discrimination even when the basis of categorization is trivial in the real-world context ( D.M. Taylor &
Moghaddam, 1994, chapter 4).
 A categorical us-vs-them view of the world is one of the hallmarks of terrorist organization and the
individuals attracted to them (Pearlstein, 1991; M. Taylor, 1988).
Fifth floor: terrorist act and sidestepping inhibitory mechanism
 How terrorist organizations train their members to carry out the terrorist acts that kill innocent civilians?
o Collateral damage concept
1. Social categorization - civilians as a part of outgroup
2. Psychological distancing – exaggerating difference between in-group and out-group

"Decision tree" of terrorism - conceptualisation of behaviour – floor 1 to floor 5

What are some of the policy Implications?

 Solid foundation of contextualized democracy = minimal incentive for individuals to climb to higher floors
 Morale problem = prevent disaffected youth and others from becoming engaged in the morality of terrorist
organizations - no technological solution (Moghaddam, 1997).
 Existing short-term solutions – immediate political demand and not scientific understanding – shift to long
term policies
 Focus on policies – individuals – need to address foundational problems at bottom staircase.