Definition of Altruism

Why do people heip others? And when they do, is it for personal gain, or

with no expectation for a reward? When people display prosocial

behavior (behavior that benefits others), they may do so as an act of

altruism.

Definition

Altruism is voluntary and intentional behavior that is meant to benefit

another with no expectation of return,

However, prosocial behavior is not always the result of altrusm.

Sometimes, this behavior is the result of some egoistic goal

Definition of egoistic

Egoistic goals involve people helping others as a means of improving

their own welfare such as increasing self-esteem, easing feelings of

guilt, receiving praise, or alleviating distress.

Altruism can add several benefits to a person’s life including increased

social connectedness as well as better mental and physical health,

Altruism in Psychology

Some philosophers and social psychologists do not believe that humans

are capable of true altruism. They suggest that at our core, humans

recognize some level of personal benefit to exhibiting prosocial

behaviors and no act is truly selfless. However, others belleve that

altruism is possible and is primarily motivated by empathy

Empathy-Altruism Hypothesis

Empathy is in many ways a uniquely human emotion. It is our ability to

not just feel sorry for someone, but to attempt to take on their feelings as

if they were our own. Empathy is synipathy, compassion, tenderness,

concem, and sorrow all wrapped up in ane emotion. The empathy-

altruism hypothesis recognizes a relationship between empathy and

sitruistic behavior

Definition

The empathy-altruism hypothesis suggests that empathic emotion

produces altruistic motivation.

According to Eisenberg (2000), developing apathetic feelings and

connectedness with others may increase one’s likelihood to help

Altruism and Self-Expectations

Other times, the moral obligations we feel motivate prosocial behavior.

We all have values we live by and when those values are broken it may

cause extreme distress. To avoid this and to boost self-worth, one may

engage in prosocial behavior. Similar to the activation of social

expectations, this theory is also more of a cognitive process than an

empathic one, One may also question if prosocial behavior motivated by

self-expectations is true altruism, as one may gain the personal benefit of

reducing self-concept distress.

Altruism and Genetics

Some theories of altruism allude to Darwin’s Theory of Natural

Selection According to Schwertz (1977), some believe altruistic

behavior is motivated by some genetic advantage as well as one’s need

to survive. However, altruism is only genetically advantageous if it is

offered to those who are genetically related (kin selection), Altruism

puzzles evolutionary researchers when prosocial behaviors are directed

toward those who are not genetically related, therefore creating no

genetic advantage for an improved chance for survival.

When Do People Exhibit Altruism Behavior?

Helping others involves a five-step process

1. Notice an event

2. Interpret as an emergency

3. Assume responsibility for helping

4. Know how to help

5. Decision to help

If any one of these steps is interrupted, it is unlikely for a person to help.

For example, if someone does not assume responsibility to help because

others are around, it decreases the likelihood that they will help. This

concept is referred to as the bystander effect.

Definition
The bystander effect refers to a situation in which a person is less likely

to offer help when others are present.

The bystander effect usually occurs as a consequence of a diffusion of

responsibility which refers to a situation in which people share the

Responsibility to help.

Take the well-known case of Kitty Genovese whol brutally murdered in

her apartment. Several witnesses and neighbors reported that they could

hear her screams and cries for help, yet no one called the police until it

was far too late. This is a devastating case in which the bystander effect

kept Genovese from getting the help she desperately needed. Darley and

Latané (19686) suggested that the neighbors’ inactivity was due to the

simple fact that others were around.

Factors Increasing Altruism Behavior

Many factors may influence the likelihood of someone offering help. In

addition to an increased sense of responsibility, we may be more likely

to help if

The person appears to need help and deservers it

The person has similarities to

The person is a woman

We have time and are not in a hurry

We feel guilty

We are in a good mood

We are not preoccupied

Another possible factor that may increase one’s likelihood of helping is

simply the awareness of the bystander effect phenomenon. For example,

Beaman et al. (1978) performed a study in which some college students

are informed of the bystander effect and the control group is not. After

two weeks, more than half of the participants who were aware of the

bystander effect provided aid to someone in need (situations were staged

by researchers) compared to only one-fourth of the control group

participants rendering aid

Altruism Theory
Several altruism theories exist that attempt to explain cases in which a

person will exhibit prosocial behavior. These include the social exchange

theary, reciprocity norm, and the social-responsibility norm.

Social Exchange Theory

Social psychologists have identified several situations in which one may

exhibit altruistic behaviors with the goal of maximizing rewards and

minimizing costs. Consequentially, many would not consider this true

altruism due to the presence of an exchange.

Definition

The social exchange theory suggests that prosocial behavior is the result

of some exchange that maximizes reward and minimizes costs.

Altruism Theory: Reciprocity Norm

If someone does something to help us, we usually feel compelled to

return help, not harm, to them. This is referred to as the reciprocity norm

Definition
The reciprocity norm is the expectation that people want to offer help,

rather than harm, to those who have helped them.

This theory explains why we are more likely to “pay it forward” if

someone buys us a coffee because we become more generous when we a

treated generously.

Altruism Theory: Social Responsibility Norm

Finally, in acts of true altruism, we may offer help even if the cost

outweighs the reward when it relates to people who are in desperate

need or who cannot help themselves. For example, many of us feet

especially responsible to help young children and would likely help even

if it may put us at risk or offer no reward at all. This is the social-

responsibility norm

Definition

The social-responsibility norm refers to the expectation that people will

help those who need help

For example, if someone falls into a pool and they do not know how to

swim, people are likely to help, even if it means getting their clothes wet

and there is no real reward waiting for them.

Examples for Altruism

Altruism can come in many different forms and can vary greatly

depending on the situation. Here are some real-world examples of

altruism.

Giving to your church outreach or donating to a incal charity

Helping a neighbor with their grocery bags

Donating blood

Sharing your meal with someone Showing up to a protest as an ally.

Taking a friend to the airport

What is frustration in social psychology?

Frustration in social psychology, could be defined as a feeling or state of

being of irritation or anger due to something blocking the achieving of a

goal. According to the frustration-aggression theory, this leads to

displacement and aggression.

How does frustration lead to aggression?

Frustration leads to aggression in that a person may feel frustrated

internally, and some environmental factor or cue can increase that

frustration. The ensuing anger leads the person to behave aggressively,

sometimes displacing their anger, in an effort to achieve catharsis.

What is the frustration aggression theory in psychology?

The frustration-aggression theory in psychology is the idea that when

people are frustrated they act out aggressively. When the thing that

caused the frustration is unavailable for aggression, they may displace it

and put their aggression on something or someone unrelated.

Frustration And aggression

What is the Frustration Aggression Theory?

What is frustration-aggression theory? To be more precise, what is the

frustration- aggression hypothesis? Since it has never been proven as a

theory, the principle remains officially a hypothesis. The theory is not

that aggression automatically happens when someone is frustrated, but

rather the aggressor is frustrated at a lack of progress toward a goal and

engages in aggression. If possible, the person will aggress toward the

thing that caused their frustration; if not, they will displace that

aggression by directing it toward something or someone else

The idea of displacement is a person who is unable or unwilling to take

out their frustration on whatever is causing it, so they take it out on

something unrelated to what’s actually causing it. Perhaps the best

example of this is a person who takes out their frustration on their family

when they come home from work because work is frustrating, but

there’s nothing they can do in a professional sense to be “aggressive.”

Image of man siting in his car visibly frustrated with traffic People can

become frustrated at almost any inconvenient situation

Origin of the Frustration Aggression Hypothesis

Although frustration or being frustrated is often thought of as a state of

being or emotion, the ideas of John Dollard, Leonard Doob, Neal Miller,
O. H. Mowrer, and Robert Sears in 1939 suggested that frustration was

an event and detailed their frustration- aggression hypothesis in their

bo’k Frustration and Aggression. The central thrust of their research was

the observable traits and characteristics that surround the event of the

frustration. Their in’tial idea was that frustration always leads to

aggression, which always stems from frustration. In 1941, they refined

this notion to the idea that whenever frustration does lead to aggression,

it results in a lessening of that frustration, there leading to future

aggression.

In summary, a person has a goal; there is an unexpected obstacle to that

goal frustration kicks in, which leads to anger and then to the act of

aggression. person or object is unavailable or unable to be the victim of

our aggression, it ma displaced to someone or something else, which

results in catharsis for the individual. Catharsis

2 notes of frustration

Three psychological concepts which are often Discussed in tandem with

each other are frustration, anger, and aggression. Given that many
situations. We encounter give rise to their co-occurrence, it is tempting

to view them as interchangeable.

In fact, despite their often appearing together they are distinct concepts.

In the following sections, I will describe how frustration, anger and

aggression differ from each other and how they interact with each other

in situations we encounter.

What are frustration, anger and aggression?

Frustration and anger are both emotions while aggression is a behaviour.

Frustration is an emotion experienced when we are blocked from

achieving a goal. It arises when we get stuck in traffic on our way to a

destination and when we believe we are not making progress in our

career, school, sport, or other pursuit.

We can also experience frustration in relationships such with a partner

who does not want to commit to a long-term relationship or with a child

who repeatedly does not do what their parent wants or expects them to

do.
Anger is an emotion which can be experienced independent of

frustration as well because of it. We feel this emotion in situations when

we believe others are not behaving respectfully toward us- intentionally

or otherwise.

In the context of frustration, we often experience anger in relation to the

object of our frustration- that is, toward whoever or whatever we believe

is blocking us from achieving our goal. So, we feel anger toward are

partner who does not want to commit the long term relationship we seek,

we feel anger toward our child who repeatedly does not do

What we as a parent want or expect them to do, and we feel anger

toward our work supervisor who assigns us a large task on Friday

afternoon which must be completed by first thing Monday morning-

thereby preventing us from getting away for a relaxing weekend.

Aggression is a behaviour intended to cause physical or emotional harm

or damage to a person or an object. It includes actions such as hitting a

person or punching a wall as well as verbal forms of aggression such as

criticizing, insulting, or swearing at a person.

In anger management terms, aggression is considered a nonconstructive

way to manage or act on anger when we experience this emotion. It

contrasts with constructive alternative ways of managing or acting on

anger when we experience it. For example, if you were to experience

anger following someone behaving in a disrespectful manner toward

you, you could act on your anger constructively by letting the person

know how hurt you were by their behaviour or you could act on your

anger aggressively by hitting them or insulting them.

How frustration, anger and aggression operate in tandem

When frustration, anger and aggression operate in tandem with each

other, it is typically in the form of a sequence of events. Much like a

play in a football game, these events occur rapidly and are difficult to

notice in real time but can be analyzed when viewed like a play in slow-

motion video.

The sequence begins with the person experiencing frustration out of

believing that they are being blocked from achieving a goal. Please note

that they
Will feel frustration if they believe they are blocked. On some occasions

the evidence may indicate that they are indeed being blocked while on

other occasions they believe they are blocked even though the evidence

does not indicate this. This is a good example of the adage, ‘Situations

which are defined as real are real in their consequences’.

Once the person experiences frustration because they believe they are

blocked from achieving a goal, they may then experience anger in

relation to the perceived source of their frustration-that is, in relation to

whoever or whatever they believe is blocking them from achieving their

goal. Finally, the person may then behave aggressively toward the

perceived source of their frustration.

Using examples to illustrate this chain of events:

(1) You first feel frustration about believing you are blocked in moving

toward your goal of having a long term committed relationship. You then

feel anger toward your partner who does not want to commit as the

perceived source of your frustration. This may then lead you to behave
aggressively toward your partner-perhaps by behaving coldly toward

them or by criticizing them;

(2) You as a parent first feel frustration about believing you are blocked

in moving toward your goal of having your child do what you ask or

expect them to do. You then feel anger toward your child who does not

do what you want or expect them to do as the perceived source of your

frustration. This may then lead you to behave aggressively toward your

child-perhaps by yelling at them.

(3) You first feel frustration about believing you are

blocked in moving toward your goal of getting away for a relaxing

weekend. You then feel anger toward your supervisor who assigned you

a large task on Friday afternoon as the perceived source of your

frustration. This may then lead you to behave aggressively toward your

supervisor--perhaps by losing your cool when you see them.

When frustration and anger lead to displaced aggression

(scapegoating)
On some occasions, we experience frustration followed by anger but we

behave aggressively toward someone or something other than the

perceived source of our frustration. This phenomenon is known as

displaced aggression or scapegoating. The latter term indicates that the

recipient of our aggression is an innocent third party who is undeserving

of our wrath.

But why would someone behave aggressively toward an innocent third

party rather than toward the perceived source of their frustration and

anger? There are two situations leading to displaced aggression and

scapegoating:

1. You view the perceived source of frustration as too powerful to

behave aggressively toward. For example, although you would like to

give your supervisor a piece of your mind for the extra work

They have assigned you which ruined your weekend plans you fear that

doing so could you your job. So instead, you overreact with a verbal

barrage toward a grocery store clerk who mistakenly scanned one or

your items more than once.

2. There is not a source of frustration and anger toward which you can

behave aggressively. For example, you may be frustrated and angry

that worldwide economic events have blocked you from achieving

your goal of making more money so you can afford a new car. Given

that you cannot behave aggressively toward the world economy, you

instead punch a hole in the wall of your home when you realize you

are not making any progress toward your goal of buying your dream

car.

How to manage frustration and anger to reduce aggression

Although unfortunately frustration, anger and aggression often operate

in tandem as described in this article, such a sequence of events

culminating in the negative outcome of aggression is not inevitable.

Learning and applying strategies to manage the emotions of frustration

and anger can help you to reduce the likelihood of behaving aggressively

when you experience these emotions.

Aggression
Aggression is a word that we use every day to characterize the behavior

of others and perhaps even of ourselves. We say that people are

aggressive if they yell at or hit each other, if they cut off other cars in

traffic, or even when they smash their fists on the table in frustration.

But other harmful acts, such as the injuries that sports players receive

during a rough game or the killing of enemy soldiers in a war might not

be viewed by everyone as aggression. Because aggression is so difficult

to define, social psychologists, judges, and politicians (as well as many

other people, including lawyers), have spent a great deal of time trying

to determine what should and should not be considered aggression.

Doing so forces us to make use of the processes of causal attribution to

help us determine the reasons for the behavior of others.

Social psychologists define aggression as behavior that is intended to

harm another individual who does not wish to be harmed (Baron &

Richardson, 1994).

Because it involves the perception of intent, what looks like aggression

from one point of view may not look that way from another, and the
same harmful behavior may or may not be considered aggressive

depending on its intent. Intentional harm is, however, perceived as worse

than unintentional harm, even when the harms are identical (Ames &

Fiske, 2013).

. For instance, a rugby player who accidentally breaks the arm of another

player or a driver who accidentally hits a pedestrian would not by our

definition be displaying aggression because although harm was done,

there was no intent to harm

A salesperson who attempts to make a sale through repeated phone calls

is not aggressive because he is not intending any harm (we might say

this behavior is “assertive rather than aggressive). And not all intentional

behaviors that hurt others are aggressive behaviors. A dentist might

intentionally give a patient a painful injection of a painkiller, but the goal

is to prevent further pain during the procedure.

Because our definition requires us to determine the intent of the

perpetrator, there is going to be some interpretation of these intents and

there may well be disagreement among the parties involved. The U.S.
government perceives the development of a nuclear weapon by Iran as

aggressive because the government believes that the

Weapon is intended to harm others, but Iranians may see the program as

a matter of national pride. Although the player whose arm is broken in a

rugby match may attribute hostile intent, the other player may claim that

the injury was not intended. Within the legal system, juries and judges

are frequently asked to determine whether harm was done intentionally.

Social psychologists use the term violence to refer to aggression that

has extreme physical harm, such as injury or death, as its goal. Thus

violence is a subset of aggression.

All violent acts are aggressive, but only acts that are intended to cause

extreme physical damage, such as murder, assault, rape, and robbery, are

violent. Slapping someone really hard across the face might be violent,

but calling people names would only be aggressive.

The type or level of intent that underlies an aggressive behavior creates

the distinction between two fundamental types of aggression, which are

caused by very different psychological processes.

Emotional or impulsive aggression refers to aggression that occurs

with only a small amount offorethought or intent and that is determined

primarily by impulsive emotions. Emotional aggression is the result of

the extreme negative emotions we’re experiencing at the time that we

aggress and is not really intended to create any positive outcomes. When

Nazim yells at his boyfriend, this is probably emotional aggression-it is

impulsive and carried out in the heat of the moment. Other examples are

the jealous lover who strikes out in rage or the sports fans who vandalize

stores and destroy cars around the stadium after their team loses an

important game.

Instrumental or cognitive aggression, on other hand, is aggression

that is intentional and planned. Instrumental aggression is more

cognitive than affective and may be completely cold and calculating.

Instrumental aggression is aimed at hurting someone to gain something

attention, monetary reward, or political power, for instance. If the

aggressor believes that there is an easier way to obtain the goal, the
aggression would probably not occur. A bully who hits a child and steals

her toys, a terrorist who kills

Sometimes it 1s hard to distinguish between instrumental and

emotional aggression, and yet it is important to try to do so. Emotional

aggression is usually treated differently in the legal system (with less

severe consequences) from cognitive, instrumental aggression. However,

it may well be the case that all aggression is at least in part instrumental

because it serves some need for the perpetrator. Therefore, it is probably

best to consider emotional and instrumental aggression not as distinct

categories but rather as endpoints on a continuum

Social psychologists agree that aggression can be verbal as well as

physical. Therefore, slinging insults at a friend is definitely aggressive,

according to our definition, just as hitting someone is.

Physical aggression is aggression that involves harming others

physically for instance hitting, kicking, stabbing, or shooting them.

Nonphysical aggression is aggression that does not involve physical

harm. Nonphysical aggression includes verbal aggression (yelling,

screaming, swearing, and name calling) and relational or social

aggression, which is defined as intentionally harming another person s

social relationships, for instance, by gossiping about another person,

excluding others from our friendship, or giving others the “silent

treatment” (Crick & Grotpeter, 1995). Nonverbal aggression also occurs

in the form of sexual, racial, and homophobic jokes and epithets, which

are designed to cause harm to individuals.

The following list (adapted from Archer & Coyne, 2005) presents some

examples of the types of nonphysical aggression that have been

observed in children and adults. One reason that people may use

nonphysical rather than physical aggression is that it is more subtle.

When we use these techniques, we may be able to better get away it-we

can be aggressive without appearing to others to be aggressing.

• Gossiping • Spreading rumors

• Criticizing other people behind their backs • Bullying

• Leaving others out of a group or otherwise ostracizing them

• Turning people against each other

• Dismissing the opinions of others

“Stealing” a boyfriend or girlfriend

Threatening to break up with partner if the partner does not comply

Flirting with another person to make a partner jealous

Although the negative outcomes of physical aggression are perhaps

more obvious, nonphysical aggression also has costs to the victim.

Raig (1998) found that children who were victims of bullying showed

more depression, loneliness, peer rejection, and anxiety in comparison to

other children. In Great Britain, 20% of adolescents report being bullied

by someone spreading hurtful rumors about them (Sharp, 1995).

Girls who are victims of nonphysical aggression have been found to be

more likely to engage in harmful behaviors such as smoking or

considering suicide (Olafsen & Viemero, 2000). And Paquette and

Underwood (1999) found that both boys and girls rated social aggression

as making them feel more “sad” and “bad” than did physical aggression.

Recently, there has been an increase in school bullying through

cyberbullying -aggression inflicted through the use of computers, cell

phones, and other electronic devices (Hinduja & Patchin, 2009).

One notable recent example was the suicide of 18-year-old Rutgers

University student Tyler Clementi on September 22, 2010. Tyler’s last

words before he died were shared through an update to his Facebook

status:

“jumping off the gw bridge sorry”

Clementi’s suicide occurred after his roommate, Dharun Ravi, and

Ravi’s friend Molly Wei secretly enabled a remote webcam in a room

where Tyler and a male friend were sharing a sexual encounter and then

broadcasted the streaming video footage across the Internet.

Cyberbullying can be directed at anyone, but lesbian, gay, bisexual, and

transgendered (LGBT) students are most likely to be the targets (Potok,

2010).
Blumenfeld and Cooper (2010) found that 54% of LGBT youth reported

being cyberbullied within the past three months.

Hinduja and Patchin (2009) found that youth who report being victims

of cyberbullying experience a variety of stresses from it, including

psychological disorders, alcohol use, and in extreme cases, suicide. In

addition to its emotional toll, cyberbullying also negatively affects

students’ participation in, and success at, school.

From pictures

Hostile or instrumental aggression

Humans engage in aggression when they seek to cause harm or pain to

another person. Aggression takes two forms depending on one’s

motives: hostile or instrumental. Hostile aggression is motivated by

feelings of anger with intent to cause pain; a fight in a bar with a

stranger is an example of hostile aggression.

Egotism

excessive use of the first person singular personal pronoun

an exaggerated sense of self-importance

the practice of talking about oneself too much

Underachievement?

The definition of underachievement is: "Poorer than expected

performance".

In other words: you expect a student to accomplish good work in your

classroom, as the student has all the capabilities. In reality, that student

can't live up to its own competences, and fails to deliver high quality

work.

Other descriptions include:

"Underachievement is defined as a discrepancy between a child's school

performance and some index of his or her actual ability, such as

intelligence, achievement, or creativity score, or observational data" -

Davis and Rimm 1985

Social exclusion
Social exclusion can operate across cultural, economic, political and

social dimensions.¹

The Social Exclusion Monitor states that social exclusion may arise

when ‘an individual experiences multiple, overlapping problems such as

unemployment, poor health and inadequate education, which stops them

from fully participating in society

The Australian Social Inclusion Board defined social inclusion as having

the resources, opportunities and capabilities to learn, work, engage and

have a voice.

Ego threats

Ego threats are often handled Any thought, idea, or action that causes

pain, anxiety, sadness, or anger Ego threats may arise internally, as for

example when one realizes the misaligned nature of one’s actions, or

externally, as for example when an external source attacks the self-

esteem.

Theories of leadership
Classical Leadership Theories

.Trait Theory

Trait theory posits that effective leaders possess certain inherent

characteristics that distinguish them from non-leaders. Notable theorists

such as Stogdill (1948) and Mann (1959) have identified traits such as

intelligence, assertiveness, and adaptability as key to effective

leadership.

Behavioral Theories

Behavioral theories of leadership, such as those proposed by Lewin and

the Managerial Grid by Blake and Mouton, suggest that leadership

capabilities are not inherent but can be learned and developed. Lewin’s

framework categorizes leadership styles into autocratic, democratic, and

laissez-faire, with each style suited to different situations.

Contingency Theories

Fiedler’s Contingency Theory

Fiedler’s Contingency Theory argues that no one leadership style

Is best; instead, the effectiveness of leadership is contingent on

Both the leader’s style and the situational favorableness.

Path-Goal Theory

Developed by Robert House, this theory proposes that a leader's

behavior is contingent upon the satisfaction, motivation, and

performance of her followers. Leaders adjust their styles depending on

the environmental contingencies and follower characteristics.

Modern Leadership Theories

Transformational Leadership

Transformational leadership, as conceptualized by Burns and later

expanded by Bass, involves leaders who inspire and motivate followers

to achieve extraordinary outcomes and initiate significant changes

Relationship Theories of Leadership

Also Known As: “Transformational theories.”

Core Focus:
✔ These leaders motivate and inspire by helping group members see the

importance and higher good of their tasks.

✔ They focus not only on group performance but also on helping each

member reach their potential through ethical and moral standards.

Behavioral Theories of Leadership

.Core Idea:

This theory posits that effective leadership behaviors can be learned

rather than being inherent, contrasting with the Great Man’ theory.

Focus

✔ Centers on the actions and behaviors of leaders to influence followers

Positively.

✔ Leadership effectiveness can be significantly enhanced through

teaching and observation.

Participative Theories of Leadership

Overview:
Emphasizes the democratic involvement of each member of the team in

the

Decision-making process, reflecting a transformational approach.

Key Features

 Encourages input from group members, making the decision-

making process more inclusive and integrative.

 Increases engagement and commitment among team members,

fostering a supportive and collaborative environment.

Transactional Leadership

This leadership style is based on a system of rewards and penalties. It is

a contrast to transformational leadership and involves guiding followers

through structured tasks and responsibilities.

.Management Theories of Leadership

Overview

These theories, also known as transactional theories, concentrate on the

Mechanisms of supervision, organization, and group performance.

Framework:

✔ Leaders motivate followers by rewarding successful outcomes and

penalizing failures.

Commonly utilized in business settings where efficiency and goal

achievement are paramount.

Contingency Theories of Leadership

Foundation: These theories suggest that the effectiveness of a

leadership style is contingent on matching the leader’s style to the right

situational context.

Dynamic Adjustment

✔ Leadership effectiveness hinges on the appropriateness of the

response to environmental and task-related variables.

✔ Leaders must evaluate and adjust their management styles based on

situational demands to maintain efficacy.

What Are the Five Conflict Resolution Strategies

Different people use different methods to resolve conflict, and most

people have one or more natural, preferred conflict resolution strategies

that they use regularly. It is possible to scientifically measure an

individual’s inclinations toward specific conflict resolution strategies. In

this article, we will discuss the five different categories of conflict

resolution from the Thomas-Kilmann model, as well as their advantages

and disadvantages.

The Thomas-Kilmann Model

The Thomas-Kilmann Model identifies five different approaches to

resolving conflict. These approaches include:

Avoiding

Someone who uses a strategy of “avoiding” mostly tries to ignore or

sidestep the conflict, hoping it will resolve itself or dissipate.

Accommodating
Using the strategy of “accommodating” to resolve conflict essentially

involves taking steps to satisfy the other party’s concerns or demands at

the expense of your own needs or desires.

Compromising

The strategy of “compromising” involves finding an acceptable

resolution that will partly, but not entirely, satisfy the concerns of all

parties involved.

Competing

Someone who uses the conflict resolution strategy of “competing” tries

to satisfy their own desires at the expense of the other parties involved.

Collaborating

Using “collaborating” involves finding a solution that entirely satisfies

the concerns of all involved parties.

The Thomas-Kilmann model identifies two dimensions people fall into

when choosing a conflict resolution strategy: assertiveness and

cooperativeness. Assertiveness involves taking action to satisfy your

own needs, while cooperativeness involves taking action to satisfy the

other’s needs.

Each of the conflict resolution strategies above involves different

degrees of assertiveness and cooperativeness. For example, while

accommodating includes a high degree of cooperativeness and a low

degree of assertiveness, competing consists of a low degree of

cooperativeness and a high degree of assertiveness.

Choosing the Right Conflict Resolution Method

Even though you may prefer one of the conflict resolution strategies

discussed above over the others, all of these strategies can be used

effectively in certain situations.

For example, if the issue is minor and won’t have lasting consequences,

it may be in your best interest to accommodate the other party rather

than to try to serve your own needs. However, if the issue is more severe

and will impact multiple people, it may make sense to choose a strategy

with more assertiveness.

To choose the best conflict resolution method in any given situation, you

need to consider several factors, such as:

How important your desires are.

The impact on you or others if your desires are not served.

The consequences of choosing to be more assertive.

Whether a collaborative or cooperative solution exists.

Improving Your Ability to Resolve Conflict

Being able to choose and apply the best conflict resolution strategy

effectively is made possible by developing better conflict resolution

skills. Examples of conflict resolution skills that can help you include

the ability to:

Listen effectively.

Identify specific points of disagreement.

Express your own needs clearly.

View conflict as an opportunity for growth.

Focus on specific issues without generalizing or escalating the situation.

Although you may have a proclivity towards a specific type of conflict

resolution, you are not required to use this strategy in every situation.

With time and effort, you can learn new conflict resolution skills that

improve your ability to negotiate and resolve issues with others.

Eventually, you will be able to select and use the conflict resolution

strategy that is best for the situation, as opposed to the one that is most

comfortable or familiar.

Threatened Egotism Theory

Definition

The threatened egotism theory of aggression states that violence is

related to a highly favorable view of the self, combined with an ego

threat. This theory does not suggest that high self-esteem necessarily

causes violence or that there is any direct relationship between self-

esteem and violence. Furthermore, although there is evidence that most

violent criminals, bullies, and terrorists tend to think highly of

themselves, most people who think highly of themselves are not violent.

An accurate characterization of the theory is that violence is perpetrated

by a subset of people who exhibit an unstable and overly inflated high

self-esteem. They respond with hostile aggression to what they perceive

as challenges to these self-views to express the self’s rejection of ego-

threatening feedback.

Context and Importance Threatened Egotism Theory

It run counter to the widely held belief that low self-esteem is the cause

of violent behavior. High self-esteem has traditionally been viewed as an

unqualified asset and something that everyone should strive to achieve.

Much of the self-help literature stems from this notion that high self-

esteem is essential for success in one’s relationships and careers and that

one can develop high self-esteem by adhering to prescribed formulas.

Many school systems have adopted policies that operate on this premise

and offer praise and rewards to children for effort as much as for
achievement. The threatened egotism theory of Faggression casts serious

doubt on this school of thought and instead suggests that artificially

inflating self-esteem without accompanying boosts in achievement or

other bases for feeling good about one’s self can do more harm than

good. The theory suggests that it is these people—those with grandiose,

unstable self-esteem— who are most likely to respond violently in

response to unfavorable feedback or other types of threats to their self-

conceptions. It is these people who find criticism particularly threatening

and lash out against its source.

Evidence for Threatened Egotism Theory

Evidence supporting this theory comes from diverse sources, such as

studies of violence in laboratory settings, criminological surveys, and

historical accounts, and includes a wide range of violence, such as

murder, assault, rape, domestic violence, bullies, youth gangs, terrorism,

repressive governments, tyranny, warfare, prejudice, oppression, and

genocide. The common theme throughout these studies is that those who

perceive a threat to their high self-esteem are most likely to perpetrate

violence. Threatened egotism has been measured in a variety of ways as

well, such as perceived disrespect, wounded pride, insults, verbal abuse,

or unfavorable feedback. In addition, the same pattern was found for

nations, medium and small groups, and lone individuals. It is important

to note that the theory does not claim that threatened egotism is the only

cause of aggression since there are likely numerous other factors, such

as biochemical or genetic causes, family environment, and other factors

that have yet to be identified. Studies indicate that threatened egotism is

a cause of violence in a substantial number of con-texts, but there are

other possible variables that might play important roles in predicting

violence.

Evidence from research examining how violent groups and individuals

view themselves provides support for this theory, as does an examination

of how egotism predicts violent behavior. Research studies with

narcissistic people (those who are likely to have high self-esteem that is

not well founded) have shown that they respond to negative

interpersonal feedback with aggression toward the source of the

feedback. In one laboratory study, participants were instructed to write

an essay expressing a particular attitude toward abortion and were then

led to believe that another participant was going to evaluate the essay

and give feedback. The feedback was construed so that it was positive

for half the participants and negative for the rest of the participants. The

researchers found that when the essay was evaluated negatively,

participants were more likely to blast the other participant with loud

noise on a subsequent competitive task that involved punishments for

incorrect answers. These aggressive responses were the strongest among

the participants who scored high on a narcissism scale, indicating that an

inflated view of the self that is challenged is most associated with

aggressive behavior.
Some research compares rates of aggression between groups that are

known to differ on egotism. Psychopaths, for example, commit a

disproportionately high level of violent crimes and exhibit a highly

inflated view of their abilities and importance in the world. In addition,

the well-documented relationship between alcohol consumption and

aggression can be understood in the context of this theory. Evidence

indicates that when people drink, they tend to rate themselves more

favorably than they would otherwise, creating a temporary state of high

self-esteem. An examination of violent offenders also suggests strong

tendencies toward egotism. Men who are imprisoned for murder or

assaults tend to commit these crimes in response to when they perceive

they were insulted, belittled, or simply had their pride wounded.

Threatened Egotism Theory Implications

This theory has had a strong influence on how violent behavior has been

understood and on the development of appropriate interventions.

Although it may, in some ways, seem counterintuitive that high self-

esteem would not be protective against ego threats, an important

component of this theory is that an unstable, inflated sense of self is the

type that is most harmful. This form of self-esteem is particularly

vulnerable to threats and proneness to violence. This theory provides

compelling evidence that attempting to boost self-esteem to cure

underachievement, social exclusion, and aggressive tendencies is

counterproductive and potentially harmful.