Search results

This study examines the relationship between in-group identification, intergroup schadenfreude, and the tendency to aggress against out-group members. More specifically, it assesses whether intergroup schadenfreude mediates the identification–aggression link.

This study is a cross-sectional study with the variables studied being in-group identification, intergroup schadenfreude, and tendency to aggress toward out-group members. A total of 123 participants were recruited for this study and questionnaires measuring each variable was administered to participants.

The results from a cross-sectional survey indicate a positive correlation between in-group identification and intergroup schadenfreude and between intergroup schadenfreude and tendency to aggress against out-group members. The results from this study also show that intergroup schadenfreude mediates the relationship between in-group identification and the tendency to aggress against out-group members.

Given the nature of cross-sectional study, claims regarding causal nature of the variables studied could not be made. Further, this study was also contextualized within the political context making expression of schadenfreude more “acceptable” and more easily expressed among participants. Suggestions for further research suggestions are discussed is light of these limitations.

Findings of this study highlight the importance of understanding intergroup schadenfreude in group contexts, and how such emotions can be employed by leaders to instigate, rather than diminish aggressive tendencies against out-group members.

This is one of the few studies to demonstrate that rather than diminishing tendencies to engage in aggressive behaviors, schadenfreude, when experienced within group settings, can instead elicit intentions to aggress against rival or opposing group members.

By so doing the current research manuscript will offer a series of new insights into the problems and prospects of war, peace and conflicts. In order to shed new lights on the pressing issues related to peace, we will approach the problem and prospects of war and peace from new angles and thereby evade the dominant tradition, methodology and models within which the existing work had proceeded so far. Let us have a look at the central issues that our work will examine in great detail.

The fundamental idea that we seek to establish in this chapter is that the establishment of regional or local, peace calls forth global peace. In other words, our argument is that local and regional conflicts are partly driven by global factors, especially what is commonly known as international tension. In order to achieve meaningful and sustained peace, there is a reason to believe that it is mandatory to manage and contain international tensions. The main thesis of this chapter is to explain or posit, conflicts as a product of continuing international chasms, splits and differences of political and social ideologies in our modern world. Thus, we argue that conflicts are, to some extent, driven by international tension or global, ideological and geo-political factors. Notwithstanding the global influence, local factors – such as income inequality, income growth or lack of it, political institutions – can and do exacerbate conflicts and a peaceful resolution of conflicts becomes a difficult phenomenon.

The fragmentation can either lead to an all-out civil war as in Sri Lanka or a frozen conflict as in Georgia. One of the main characteristics of fragmentation is the control of group members by their respective leaders. The chapter applies standard models of non-cooperative game theory to explain the endogenous fragmentation, which seeks to model the equilibrium formation of rival groups. Citizens become members of these rival groups and some sort of clientelism develops in which political leaders control their respective fragments of citizens. Once the divisions are created, the inter-group rivalry can trigger violent conflicts that may seriously damage the social fabric of a nation and threaten the prospect of peace for the people for a very long time. In other words, our main goal in this chapter is to understand the formation of the patron–client relationship or what is called clientelisation.

In this chapter, I use the term “biopolitics” to mean evolutionarily informed political science. Politics has been characterized as “Who gets what, when, and how” (Lasswell, 1936), but rather than about material possessions, politics is understood to be about power, more specifically about collective power, especially differential group power competition, hierarchy and stratification in power distribution, and the universal struggle to enhance power, and to maintain or challenge/destroy this status quo. Politics “should be found in any system of nature in which conflicts of interest exist among cooperating organic units” (Johnson, 1995, p. 279). My main focus will be competitive intergroup relations in monkeys and apes, or as I (van der Dennen, 1995) called it “intergroup agonistic behavior” (IAB). I also briefly treat interindividual and intercoalitionary agonistic behavior when relevant.

In this paper, we explore the conditions under which organizations that compete in both market and non-market domains might engage in collective strategy. We study low-power FM radio activists in the U.S., who employed a collective strategy both within and across geographic communities to gain the right to broadcast in low-power broadcast spectra. By comparing and contrasting two stages of the micro-radio movement, we argue that, under certain conditions, for collective strategy to be viable, organizations competing on the dimensions of both ideology and resources must recognize themselves as members of an identity group, based on their common struggle against a stronger, more salient enemy. We highlight the role of collective strategies in the processes of organizational ecology, and discuss the generalizability of our argument.