The motive to belong

The desire to fit in, belong and to have companions is a desire everyone experiences (Leary & Cox, 2008). The motive to belong is the emotional commitment to being a recognised member of a group of people, allowing an individual to have a sense of being a member of something greater and more crucial than them self (Cherry, 2013). According to Fiske (2004), this desire is inherent in humans. This can be evident in those who avoid the intake of food with the intention of making themselves more alluring to others (Gross, 2011). This blog aims to examine just why the motive to belong is so powerful people are susceptible to putting their self in danger in order to gain the approval of their peers.

The theory of evolution provides a reason for the existence of the motivation to belong. Our predecessors belonged to groups in order to survive; tribe members hunted, cooked and were assigned roles to support one another in hope to maximise survival chances (Taflinger, 1996). Belonging to a group to achieve survival is not as essential in modern Western society, yet in groups we are still inclined to protect our members and also the motive to belong in groups still exists (Fiske, 2004). Thus, the motive to belong goes beyond survival tactics, with the need to belong not just being a powerful motivation, but a fundamental one (Baumesiter & Leary, 1995).

A lack of belongingness is associated with a multitude of negative effects on health and general well being (Baumesiter & Leary, 1995). Scultheiss (2008) used the drive-reduction theory (Hull, 1935) to explain the motive to belong: Individuals do not wish to be alone for prolonged periods of time, nor do they want suffer the negative health consequences of being alone and subsequently take appropriate steps in order to evade these experiences. However, this theory cannot account for why an individual who may already have a groups of friends who they are in frequent communication with, may want to be a part of more than one group. Therefore, there must be positive benefits of belonging to a group which could provide a further driving force motivating us to seek belongingness, rather than it merely being about avoiding the negatives of being alone (Gross, 2011).

Watson and Clark (1994) revealed that there are positive outcomes of belonging to a group, with interacting socially being a highly influential predictor of elated emotion. Social contact within a group provides support on numerous levels, including tangible support and emotional support. Tangible support is a form of social support which is based on functional or material requirements. Gross (2011) stated that without tangible support it would be exceptionally hard to get by- even if the support is as minor as lending money to get a bus home. Emotional support is the acceptance and teaching given by the groups an individual is a part of (Taylor, 2011) and provides an individual with someone to confide in when they’re feeling a negative emotion; for example going to a friend when you’re angry so they can calm you down.

To conclude, the motive to belong goes beyond seeking survival as it was once believed. While it has been theorised that seeking belongingness is a result of aiming to avoid the negative aspects of being without group support, the true powerfulness behind our motive to belong is because of the positive benefits which can be gained when belongingness is found. While such positives can seem trivial, their impact and influence over our own emotions cannot be underestimated.

References

Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497-529.

Cherry, K. (2013). What Is The Need To Belong? Retrieved from             http://psychology.about.com/od/nindex/g/needtobelong.htm

Fiske, S. T. (2004). Social beings: A core motives approach to social psychology. New Jersey, US: Wiley.

Gross, J. (2011). Motivation and Emotion. In S. Snavely (Eds.), Psychology: 8th Edition. New York, US: WW Norton & Company.

Hull, C. L. (1935). The Conflicting Psychologies of Learning: A Way Out. Psychological Review, 42, 491-516.

Leary, M. R., & Cox, C. B. (2008). Belongingness motivation: A mainspring of social action. In J. Y. Shah & W. L. Gardener (Eds.), Handbook of motivation science (pp. 27-40). New York, US: Guilford.

Scultheiss, O. C. (2008). Implicit motives. In O. P. John, R. W. Robins, & L. A. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 603-633). New York, US: Guilford.

Taflinger, R. F. (1996) Social Basis of Human Behaviour. Retrieved from             http://public.wsu.edu/~taflinge/socself.html

Taylor, S. E. (2011). Social Support: A Review. In M. S. Friedman (Eds.), The Handbook of Health Psychology (pp. 189-214). New York, US: Oxford University Press.

Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1992). Affects separable and inseparable: On the hierarchical arrangement of the negative affects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 489-505.

Are men actually more aggressive than women?

A spectrum of behaviours which can cause both physical and/or psychological harm are what attribute to aggression. Aggression can be expressed in a variety of ways, including physical and verbal communication. Until recently female aggression has been perceived as such an anomaly that it failed to receive any attention by researchers. Buss (1961) went as far to say that aggression in women is such a rarity that time spent researching it is in fact not worth the effort. Research following these claims seemed to support what Buss (1961) had stated; for example Olweus (1978), who investigated bullying in adolescents, formed the view that bullying was so immensely irregular in girls that he removed them as participants from his studies. However, Bjorkqvist and Niemela (1992) brought to attention that the majority of studies and research conducted on aggression in humans had not only been conducted by men but the manner in which they were carried out allowed only certain types of aggression to be monitored (i.e. observational studies, the most widely used prior to this revelation, could only precisely identify physical aggression). This blog aims to see if the belief that men are substantially more aggressive than women still exists, looking also at research which takes on board more than solely physical aggression.

It is clear that when limited to just physical methods, aggression is vastly more prevalent in males. Contradicting this Straus, Gelles, and Steinetz (1974), who studied domestic violence, found that no difference existed in the quantity of physical violence by either sex in a marriage. Instead, their study showed there were a larger number of reported severe injuries as a result of male violence. Research with likewise conclusions are however overwhelmed by the sheer number of studies which suggest that physical violence is seen considerably more in males. Such research covers physical aggression witnessed in animals, childhood and adults: Young male rhesus monkeys engage in largely more physically aggressive ‘play’ in comparison to their sisters (Harlow, 1962); within the human population, boys show higher physical aggression than girls on a worldwide scale (Geary & Bjorklund, 2000); adult male murderers exceed adult female murderers by a proportion of 10:1 (Anderson & Bushman, 2002). As highlighted in the study by Straus, Gelles, and Steinetz (1974), the use of physical aggression caused less harm when used by women, which could be due to females being physically weaker. Females being physically weaker on average compared to men has resulted in women developing different strategies to exert their aggression in order to achieve their desired results (Bjorkqvist, 1994). Subsequently, aggression in females has evolved in a way which reduces physical activity and offers a more hidden and oblique aggressive display (Campbell, 2005).

Kuschel (1992) researched aggression in females on the Bellona Island, their culture being renowned for intense male dominance and physical violence. Females on the Bellona Island had developed numerous methods to hurt the men on the island without using physical aggression. For example, to shame their husbands the women on the island created a mocking song which spread through the island. This research revealed how women were able to adaptively respond to an environment completely dominated by physical aggression with a form of verbal aggression which prevented the aggressor putting them self in direct physical danger. Females using non-physical forms of aggression were also found in western cultures. Studies have accumulated to show that girls favour indirect aggressive strategies, these strategies included gossip and breaking down the confidence of their victim (Hess & Hagen, 2006). The development of frontal lobes, which allow for self-restraint, occurs earlier in girls than in boys, providing evidence as to why girls avert from physical aggression at such a young age (Hay, 2011).

Removing focus from singularly physical aggression has allowed research to reveal that females use aggression in more subtle forms than men, yet still equally as regularly. Biological, evolutionary and cultural explanations have all been provided to offer reason for women’s differing approach in aggression. Regardless of whether it’s down to just one of these explanations or a combination of all three, when physical aggression is removed from under the microscope it is females who can be considered the aggressive sex, not men (Oesterman et al., 1998).

References

Anderson, C. A., & Bushman, B. J. (2002). Human aggression. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 27-51.

Bjorkqvist, K., & Niemela, P. (1992). New trends in the study of female aggression. In K. Bjorkqvist & P. Niemela (Eds.), Of mice and women: Aspects of female aggression. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Bjorkqvist, K. (1994). Sex Differences in Physical, Verbal, and Indirect Aggression: A Review of Recent Research. Sex Roles, 30, 177-186.

Buss, A. H. (1961). The Psychology of Aggression. New York, US: Wiley.

Campbell, A. (2005). Aggression. In D. M. Buss (Ed.), The Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology (pp. 628-653). New Jersey, US: Wiley.

Geary, D. C., & Bjorklund, D. F. (2000). Evolutionary developmental psychology. Child Development, 71, 57-65.

Harlow, H. F. (1962). The heterosexual affectional system in monkeys. American Psychologist, 17, 1-9.

Hay, D. F. (2011). The emergence of gender differences in physical aggression in the context of conflict between younger peers. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 29(2), 158-175.

Hess, N. H., & Hagen, E. H. (2006). Sex differences in indirect aggression; Psychological evidence from young adults, Evolution and Human Behaviour, 27, 231-245.

Kuschel, R. (1992). “Women are women and men are men”: How Bellonese women get even. In K. Bjorkqvist & P. Niemela (Eds.), Of mice and women: Aspects of female aggression. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Oestermen, K., Bjoerkqvist, K., Lagerspetz, K. M. J, Kuakiainen, A., Landau, S. F., . . . Fraczek, A. (1998). Cross-cultural evidence of female indirect aggression. Aggressive Behaviour, 24(1), 1-8.

Olweus, D. (1978). Aggression in the schools. Bullies and whipping boys. New York, US: Wiley.

Straus, M. A., Gelles, R. J., & Steinmetz, S. K. (1974). Behind closed doors: Violence in the American family. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.

Cognitive Reappraisal vs. Suppression; Forms of Emotional Regulation

 

Emotion regulation refers to the competence of an individual to acknowledge and react to past emotional experiences and understand these emotional experiences with the spectrum of emotions one has available. These reactions are necessary to be socially acceptable and also to allow an individual to have control over whether a spontaneous reaction is either warranted or to be postponed if required (Cole, Michel & Teti, 1994). Gross (1998a, 2007) stated emotional regulation covers the influence over emotions we experience, when we experience these emotions, and the way in which we portray them. The two forms of emotional regulation which have been exposed to the largest quantity of attention are cognitive reappraisal and suppression (Gross, 2001). This blog aims to explain these two forms of emotional regulation and compare them in terms of efficiency.

Cognitive reappraisal, involves an individual changing how they interpret a particular situation which subsequently decreases their emotional response (Gleitman, Gross & Reisberg, 2011). An example of cognitive reappraisal could be thinking of a trial for a sports team as an opportunity to gain greater knowledge of the team and the other people an individual would be playing alongside; enabling the individual to see if it will be an enjoyable and worthwhile investment of their time. Thinking of the trial in this light, as opposed to deeming it simply a pass or fail judged on their performance, can contribute to reducing the emotional response towards the trial.

Alternatively, suppression as a form of emotional regulation happens when a person attempts to reduce the emotion they are showing to others (through use of facial expressions or their demeanour and behaviour). For example, rather than  getting angry at an umpire in a tennis match after a decision, an individual could hold his tongue and progress with the match regardless.

The suppression of emotions has negative influences on cognitive ability which reappraisal does not produce. A study by Richards and Gross (2000) which got participants to answer questions on material presented while both suppressing and not suppressing their emotions supports this. A heightened number of errors were recorded in participants while they were suppressing their emotions during the exposure to the material. Further supporting the negative effects of suppression on cognitive ability is the decrease in memory performance witnessed in participants suppressing their emotions (Richard & Gross, 2006). Participants who suppressed their memory performed equally as poorly in memory retrieval tasks as other participants who were instructed to pay no attention to material that was being presented to them. Cognitive ability is often of upmost importance in everyday life, particularly in a work environment. This highlights the benefits of using reappraisal as an emotional regulator compared to suppression; avoiding the cognitive costs of suppression.

Cognitive reappraisal has almost opposite influences on cognition for an individual. It has the ability to improve an individual’s mood as well as having no cognitive or physiological deficits (Gross, 1998b). Ochsner at al. (2004), who asked participants to use cognitive reappraisal when presented with negative images, found participants stimulated prefrontal regions of their brain’s and lessened stimulation in the amygdala. The prefrontal regions within a brain are linked toward other types of self regulation while the amydgala is linked with negative emotions (Gleitman, Gross & Reisberg, 2011). These studies shed positive light on the use of cognitive reappraisal as a tool for emotional regulation,  particularly when the previous mentioned experiments conducted on suppression suggest cognitive deficits.

Aldao, Nolen-Hoeksema and Schweizer (2010) compared reappraisal to suppression with the focus being on psychological disorders. Their findings revealed that with this comparison to suppression, reappraisal had a negative correlation with the majority of psychological disorders. This provides further beneficiaries for the use of cognitive reappraisal.

It is clear that the manner in which we regulate our emotions has huge impacts on us as individuals, with differences in consequences made substantially clear throughout this blog. While on the face of this blog it may seem reappraisal should be opted for every time as a tool to regulate our emotions, it is not that simple. Researchers have brought to attention the importance of context when emotional regulation is analysed, with it being suggested in some instances cognitive reappraisal may even be a poor form of emotional regulation to adapt adequately to an individual’s situation (Tamir, 2009). It is however becoming increasingly more glaring that the use of cognitive reappraisal should be the chosen form of emotional regulation when it is a viable option.

References

Aldao, A., Nolen-Hoeksema, S., & Schweizer, S. (2010). Emotion-regulation strategies across psychopathology: A meta-analytic review. Clinical Psychology Review, 30, 217-237.

Cole, P. M., Michel, M. K., & Teti, L. O. (1994). The development of emotion regulation and dysregulation: A clinical perspective.  Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 59, 73-100.

Glietman, H., Gross, J., & Reisberg, D. (2011). Motivation and Emotion. In S. Snavely (Eds.), Psychology: 8th Edition. New York, US: WW Norton & Company.

Gross, J. J. (1998a). The emerging field of emotion regulation: An integrative review. Review of General Psychology, 2, 271-299.

Gross, J. J. (1998b). Antecedent- and response-focused emotion regulation: Divergent consequences for experiences, expression, and physiology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 224-237.

Gross, J. J. (2001). Emotion regulation in adulthood: Timing is everything. Current  Directions in Psychological Science, 10, 214-219.

Gross, J. J. (2007). Handbook of emotion regulation. New York: Guildford.

Ochsner, K. N., Ray, R. R., Cooper, J. C., Robertson, E. R., Chopra, S., Gabrieli, J. D. E., & Gross, J. J. (2004). For better or for worse: Neural systems supporting    the cognitive down- and up-regulation of negative emotion. Neuroimage, 23, 483-499.

Richards, J. M., & Gross, J. J. (2000). Emotion regulation and memory: The cognitive  costs of keeping one’s cool. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79,  410-424.

Richards, J. M., & Gross, J. J. (2006). Personality and emotional memory: How regulating emotion impairs memory for emotional events. Journal of Research in Personality, 79(3), 410-424.

Tamir, M. (2009). What do people want to feel and why? Pleasure and utility in emotion regulation. Current Direction in Psychological Science, 18(2), 101-105.