1 / 24

T h e Psychology of Revenge

T h e Psychology of Revenge. Kayla Martinez* & Adriel Boals , Ph.D *Ronald E. McNair Post-Baccalaureate Achievement Program Department of Psychology University of North Texas Denton, TX. Inequitable Relationships.

woody
Télécharger la présentation

T h e Psychology of Revenge

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The Psychology of Revenge Kayla Martinez* & AdrielBoals, Ph.D *Ronald E. McNair Post-Baccalaureate Achievement Program Department of Psychology University of North Texas Denton, TX

  2. Inequitable Relationships • A relationship is inequitable when an individual/group is harmed by another individual/group. • This causes the victim to feel stress. They will try to restore equity to ease the stress (Walster, Berscheid, & Walster, 1973). • The initial harm-doer now feels that there is an inequitable relationship and will try to exact revenge on the initial victim. • This creates a cyclical pattern of violence.

  3. The Cycle of Violence • When an individual or a group “becomes trapped in a circular or escalating process that perpetuates violence or leads to repetition of violent acts” (International Work Group on Death, Dying and Bereavement, 2005 p.586).

  4. The Psychology of Revenge & The World • A cycle of violence is more likely to occur when a violent act occurs in the direction of multiple people rather than a single individual (International Work Group on Death, Dying and Bereavement, IWG; 2005). • The Civil Rights Movement • Discrimination, segregation, and police brutality

  5. The Psychology of Revenge & The World • The death of Osama bin Laden • May 1, 2011 • Heightened security on the 10th anniversary of 9/11 and major holidays. • Famous tourist sites in the U.S.

  6. The Psychology of Revenge & The Home • Gelles (1980) found that those individuals who have experienced childhood abuse will be more likely to grow up to become child and spousal abusers themselves.

  7. Unknown Abusers? • We will examine whether or not an individual will exact revenge even when they do not know who their harm-doer is. We will observe if that individual, when given the opportunity, will exact revenge on an innocent person in order to restore equity to the relationship between the individual and the initial harm-doer.

  8. Our Hypothesis • We hypothesize that participants who are assigned to an anger induction condition will be more likely to exact revenge on an innocent person than will a participant who is assigned to be in a control condition.

  9. Methods • Students from the University of North Texas were recruited to participate through Sona. • They received 2 extra credit points in a psychology class for participating.

  10. Materials and Procedure • PANAS – Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (Watson, Clark & Tellegen, 1988) • Baseline for feelings/emotions • Positive and negative scales. • Demographics

  11. Materials and Procedure • Lobbestael et al. (2008) • How to push someone’s buttons: A comparison of four anger-induction methods

  12. Materials and Procedure • What is the name for a medical doctor who specializes in diseases of the skin? • Endocrinologist • Dermatologist

  13. Materials and Procedure • False feedback and honest feedback conditions. • Trivia Question Task • All participants will answer trivia questions (Nelson & Narens, 1980) and receive feedback about their performance on the task. • False Feedback – Told that they got 50% of the questions wrong, regardless if they answered correctly or not. • Exposed to a loud noise through the headphones and a big flashing red “X.”

  14. Materials and Procedure • Participants are informed that the previous participant assigned them to their condition. • They are then required to assign the condition of the next participant.

  15. Materials and Procedure • 1 = Very Pleasant • 2 = Pleasant • 3 = Neither Pleasant nor Unpleasant • 4 = Unpleasant • 5 = Very Unpleasant • Manipulation check • Considering the task (including the task itself and the feedback) you just completed, rate how pleasant or unpleasant you found the task to be. • How pleasant or unpleasant would it be to perform this task and receive honest/dishonest feedback rather than receiving dishonest/honest feedback? • Followed by a thorough debriefing

  16. Results • N= 93 • 32Males, 61 Females • 1.1% American Indian or Alaska Native, 7.4% Asian or Pacific Islander,14.9% Hispanic, 16.0% African-American, 54.3% White, 5.3% Other • Age • M=21.18, SD=5.399

  17. results Manipulation Check • Independent samples t-test • Participants in the false feedback condition rated their task as being significantly more unpleasant (M=3.56, SD=.990) than those in the honest feedback condition (M=1.93, SD=.648), t(84)=8.934, p<.01.

  18. Results False Feedback Selection for Next Participant • Logistic Regression • 8.5% of those in the false condition selected that the next participant be in the false condition, while 50% in the honest condition put the next participant in the false condition, Wald test = 11.55, p<.01.

  19. Results % Selected to False Feedback Condition • Logistic regression • Wald test = 3.32, p = 0.07 • Negative emotion appears to influence those in the honest feedback condition, but not those in the false feedback condition.

  20. Discussion • Our hypothesis was not supported by our results. • Those who were in the false feedback condition were not more likely to assign the next participant to the false feedback condition. • There was a significant difference on condition selection for the next participant between conditions. • There was a significant difference in the number of people put in the false feedback condition by the honest condition and the false condition. • Negative emotion seems to impact the selection made by participants in the honest feedback condition. • Participants in the honest feedback condition with a high negative score on the PANAS were more likely to put the next participant in the false feedback condition.

  21. Future Directions • Pro-Social Behavior • Empathy • ??

  22. References • Gelles, R.J. (1980). Violence in the family: A review of research in the seventies. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 42, 873-885. • International Work Group on Death, Dying and Bereavement, The. (2005). Breaking cycles of violence. Death Studies, 29, 585-600. Doi: 10.1080/07481180591004525. • Lobbestael, J., Arntz, A., & Wiers, R. (2008). How to push someone’s buttons: A comparison of anger-induction methods. Cognition and Emotion, (2), 353-373. Doi: 10.1080/02699930701438285 • Nelson, T., & Narens, L. (1980) Norms of 300 general-information questions: Accuracy of recall, latency of recall, and feeling-of-knowing ratings. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19, 338-368 • Walster, E., Walster, G.W., & Berscheid, E. (1973). New directions in equity research. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 25, 151-176. • Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS Scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063–1070.

  23. Acknowledgements • Dr. Adriel Boals all members of the Stress and Cognition Laboratory at UNT • Shana Southard-Dobbs, Eric Schuler, Forrest Lane, Mary Miller, Jenlyn Meyers, & Steffany Torres • Ronald E. McNair Post-Baccalaureate Achievement Program

More Related