Search

Acculturation theories often describe how individuals in the United States adopt and incorporate dominant cultural values, beliefs, and behaviors such as individualism and self-reliance. Theorists tend to perceive dominant cultural values as "accessible to everyone," even though some dominant cultural values, such as preserving White racial status, are reserved for White people. In this article, the authors posit that White supremacist ideology is suffused within dominant cultural values, connecting the array of cultural values into a coherent whole and bearing with it an explicit status for White people and people of color. Consequently, the authors frame acculturation as a continuing process wherein some people of color learn explicitly via racism, microaggressions, and racial trauma about their racial positionality; White racial space; and how they are supposed to accommodate White people's needs, status, and emotions. The authors suggest that acculturation may mean that the person of color learns to avoid racial discourse to minimize eliciting White fragility and distress. Moreover, acculturation allows the person of color to live in proximity to White people because the person of color has become unthreatening and racially innocuous. The authors provide recommendations for research and clinical practice focused on understanding the connections between ideology, racism, microaggressions and ways to create psychological healing. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

By the late 1950s, Harry Frank Guggenheim was concerned with understanding why some charismatic leaders fought for freedom, while others sought power and domination. He believed that best-selling books on ethological approaches to animal and human behavior, especially those by playwright and screenwriter Robert Ardrey, promised a key to this dilemma, and he created a foundation that would fund research addressing problems of violence, aggression, and dominance. Under the directorship of Rutgers University professors Robin Fox and Lionel Tiger, the Harry Frank Guggenheim Foundation fostered scientific investigations into the biological basis of human nature. This essay analyzes their discussions of aggression as fundamental to the behavior of men in groups in order to elucidate the private and professional dimensions of masculine networks of US philanthropic and academic authority in the late 1960s and 1970s.

During the decade surrounding the Second World War, an extensive literature on the biological and psychological basis of aggression surfaced in America, a literature that in general emphasized the significance of learning and environment in the origins of aggressive behavior. Focusing on the animal behavior research of Warder Clyde Allee and John Paul Scott, this paper examines the complex interplay among conceptual, institutional, and societal forces that created and shaped a discourse on the subjects of aggression, dominance, and leadership within the context of World War II. The distinctions made between sexual and social dominance during this period, distinctions accentuated by the threat of totalitarianism abroad, and the varying ways that interpretations of behavior could be negotiated attests to the multiplicity of interactions that influence the development of scientific research.

Masculine facial morphology (e.g., larger jaw, prominent cheekbones) have been linked to a suite of social outcomes—including greater wealth, career progress, romantic desirability, and even greater political success. A leading explanation for these links is that dominant facial structures represent honest cues of physical dominance and fighting ability. Třebický et al. (2013) published the first study to demonstrate that masculine facial cues (e.g., large nose, deep-set eyes) similarly predict both dominance judgments and real-world fighting success, but no studies have replicated these popular findings that a large and specific assortment of masculine facial structures are implicated in both fighting ability and dominance perception. Thus, we conducted a pre-registered direct replication and extension of Třebický et al. (2013). Two separate samples of United States MTurk participants rated 516 UFC fighters' facial photographs on perceived aggressiveness (N = 500) and fighting ability (N = 500). Results showed that perceived aggressiveness was associated with masculine facial morphology (e.g., large nose, deep-set eyes) independent of bodily size. There was also some evidence that perceived fighting ability was associated with masculine facial morphology, which disappeared after controlling for bodily size. There was no support for the relation between facial structure and fighting success, and there were often negative relations between perceived aggressiveness and fighting ability on fighting success (i.e., more successful fighters were perceived as less successful and aggressive). We argue that our evolved psychology differentially processes the distinct avenues to victory that constitute overall fighting success (e.g., knockout versus submission wins). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Why some people, and not others, exhibit aggression remains unknown. Research points to certain personality traits being linked to either proactive or reactive aggression, or both. The current study attempts to address these gaps from the perspective of revised Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory (rRST). Using 146 participants, results revealed Behavioral Approach System (BAS)-Impulsivity and the Behavioral Inhibition System (BIS) predicted proactive and reactive aggression. Defensive Fight predicted reactive aggression. BAS-Impulsivity predicted proactive aggression partially mediated by Social Dominance Orientation. These findings suggest proactive and reactive aggression are motivated by a combination of anxiety and rapid, approach-motivational personality traits. This study provides further understanding of the specific relations between rRST and aggression, is integrated into the general aggression model, and has implications for treatment of aggressive individuals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We addressed whether narcissism and self-esteem synergize to enhance assertive responses and deter aggressive responses to ego-threatening provocation. Participants (N = 448) completed measures of narcissism and self-esteem, imagined ego-threatening provocation, and indicated their aggressive and assertive responses. Participants also completed individual difference measures of agreeableness, openness, status/dominance motivation, and endorsement of the notion that aggression begets power. Narcissism and self-esteem interacted to reduce aggressive responses but enhance assertive responses to ego-threat; moreover, this interaction related to enhanced agreeableness, openness, status/dominance motivation, and reduced endorsement of the belief that aggression begets power, and these relations accounted, in part, for relations between the interaction and aggressive and assertive responses. Broadly, the findings contribute to the contentious issue of how self-evaluation influences responses to ego-threat; specifically, we would suggest that this issue be conceptualized in terms of synergistic effects of narcissism and self-esteem and distinguish between assertive versus aggressive responding. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]