Individual differences in sensitivities to aggressive events:
Situational Triggers of Aggressive Response
Claire Lawrence
Nottingham University
Measures of trait aggression are typically used to predict who is likely to act aggressively in any given situation. However, reactive aggression is typically the result of the interaction between the person and the situation, and may be determined not solely by trait aggression, but by individuals’ sensitivity to potential triggers in their environment such as provocations from others and frustrations (Anderson & Bushman, 2002). I will present three studies outlining the impact of individual differences in sensitivity to aggressive triggers (Lawrence, 2006). I will report the generation of the scales assessing individuals’ sensitivity to frustration (SF) and provocation (SP). I will then present data showing the impact of these sensitivities on the way in which behavior of other individuals are interpreted. Finally, the influence of individual differences in sensitivity to provocations (SP) as opposed to sensitivity to frustrations (SF) on provoked aggressive behavior will be presented. The implication of such sensitivities for models of aggressive behavior will be discussed.
Thursday, 18 April 2013
Interdisciplinary work
Part of the subtext to the current research chatter at Middlesex University addresses the need to work across departments and grow fruitful networks. The recent poster conference and the forthcoming meeting on fairness are all a part of that aim. With this in mind, Fabia Franco sent the following link to a Guardian article on just that topic:
How to inspire interdisciplinarity.
How to inspire interdisciplinarity.
Wednesday, 10 April 2013
Psychology Placement at Middlesex University
Placements at Middlesex
University date back to 1968, and since then have played a significant role in
providing relevant work experience to complement the academic training gained
at university, thus enhancing employment opportunities. Indeed the placement
programme has also played an essential role in providing the experience
required for those students wishing to continue at postgraduate level in areas
such as Educational, Clinical, Forensic and Occupational Psychology.
The Placement is normally
for one academic year (33 weeks), and in most cases is based at an established
organisation within the UK. In some cases there have been a number of overseas
placements in the USA and Canada, and more recently there have been internal
placements within the Psychology Department.
At the beginning of each
academic year the students enrolled for the Sandwich Degree register with the
Placement Officer and are introduced to the Psychology Placement coordinator.
This it to ensure that they receive full support in their preparation for, and
placement at, their chosen organisation.
The placement year commences
after students have successfully completed their second year of BSc studies at
University. Each student will then be assigned an academic member of the
Psychology Department to act as their visiting tutor. The visiting tutor’s role is to liaise with
the organisation regarding the student’s progress and fulfilment of the
placement requirements.
A wide range of influential
and established organisations are involved with the placement programme, for
example Great Ormond Hospital School, St Georges Hospital, Priory Hospital,
Institute of Psychiatry, Institute of Education, University College London,
Holloway Prison, and the Metropolitan Police. Students’ involvement in such
organisations includes engaging in everyday activities, for example classroom
education within the hospital school and running of anger management courses
for the prison inmates. In addition, placement students have been engaged in a
wide range of clinical and educational research, for example eating disorders,
obsessive compulsive disorders, autism and stuttering, and investigating the
psychological factors in relation to male and female rape.
During the placement year,
students are required to keep a log-book for each week’s activity, to produce a
critical review of their placement year and to make a presentation to the
university organised Placement Conference. Indeed the Placement Conference has
been a great success during the past 19 years of its addition to the placement
programme. This is an opportunity for students to get feedback on what placement students have been
engaged in and achieved at their placements, to learn about any new
departmental and curriculum changes since being away from university and an
opportunity for future placement students to learn more about different
placements in preparation for their own placement (attached the programme for
this year’s Placement Conference).
Furthermore, the placement
year is expected to provide an excellent opportunity for the students to
develop and complete a scientifically based project in line with their
placement experience, and submit as their final year BSc dissertation. Indeed a
number of students have managed to have their final year dissertation based on
research at their placement published in refereed journals.
In short it has generally
been the case that students who successfully completed their placement year
benefited greatly in practical experience in relation to the application of
theoretical concepts gained at university, showed a greater sense of maturity
and self confidence, developed an insight into their strengths and weaknesses, developed an appreciation of
the reality of work and organisation and, most importantly, enhanced their
career prospects. Indeed a number of our BSc graduates in Psychology have been
in positions of full-time employment with their placement organisation, for
example the Metropolitan Police, Priory Hospital, Institute of Psychiatry,
Institute of Education and St Georges Hospital.
Wednesday, 3 April 2013
European Human Behaviour and Evolution Association Conference 2013
Last week I attended EHBEA2013 in Amsterdam. This was the eighth meeting of the association, the ninth will be held in Bristol.
EHBEA is not an exclusive evolutionary psychology organization but rather one that encourages contributions from evolutionary psychology, human behavioural ecology, cultural evolution, behavioural economics and other traditions. The only stipulation is that the hypotheses are drawn from evolutionary theory. This year's meeting conformed to this ambition (click on the EHBEA2013 link above for more details).
One thing that caught my imagination was work on public goods games (PGG). PGG work as follows:
(1) A group of people each have individual pots of money;
(2) They are asked to make a contribution to the common pot;
(3) When all contributions are made the pot is multiplied (the multiplier varies from experiment to experiment);
(4) The new amount in the common pot is divided equally between all the players.
A key thing to note is that players do not have to contribute to the common pot and most games are conducted anonymously.
Free-riding in this game is a rational strategy under neo-classical economic assumptions and also possible fitness maximizing assumptions of a certain sort. Make no contribution, but still yield a return and watch your money grow! Given anonymity one might predict a zero contribution would be the normative response, but in fact this has been shown not to be the case time and time again. People make 'generous' contributions that do fall off over repeated plays but still remain well above zero. Of course, there are some free-riders, but it is not a majority strategy.
This paper by Simon Gachter, one of the keynote speakers this year, takes you through some interesting details. One detail that he discussed at the meeting was the effect of social contact. If players get to meet, with no proper interaction, for 30 seconds or so just before they go to their anonymized computer terminals to play, the average contribution goes up and remains higher than normal, in spite of a standard decline in contribution over repeated plays. This social meeting is minimal, with no conversation or any information exchanged. They just see each other for a short spell.
This is of interest to evolutionary theorists because cooperation of any sort is a hard thing to stablize in populations. Check this paper out for a clear-sighted view on the field. It might also be interesting to those managing people to solve a collective action problem. Our department is one such space with parallel iterated collective action games ongoing. Whether or not they are all technically public goods games is something to ponder, as is the possibility of rendering them so, should they fail to conform.
I had some other thoughts about the trip which can be found here.
Tom Dickins
EHBEA is not an exclusive evolutionary psychology organization but rather one that encourages contributions from evolutionary psychology, human behavioural ecology, cultural evolution, behavioural economics and other traditions. The only stipulation is that the hypotheses are drawn from evolutionary theory. This year's meeting conformed to this ambition (click on the EHBEA2013 link above for more details).
One thing that caught my imagination was work on public goods games (PGG). PGG work as follows:
(1) A group of people each have individual pots of money;
(2) They are asked to make a contribution to the common pot;
(3) When all contributions are made the pot is multiplied (the multiplier varies from experiment to experiment);
(4) The new amount in the common pot is divided equally between all the players.
A key thing to note is that players do not have to contribute to the common pot and most games are conducted anonymously.
Free-riding in this game is a rational strategy under neo-classical economic assumptions and also possible fitness maximizing assumptions of a certain sort. Make no contribution, but still yield a return and watch your money grow! Given anonymity one might predict a zero contribution would be the normative response, but in fact this has been shown not to be the case time and time again. People make 'generous' contributions that do fall off over repeated plays but still remain well above zero. Of course, there are some free-riders, but it is not a majority strategy.
This paper by Simon Gachter, one of the keynote speakers this year, takes you through some interesting details. One detail that he discussed at the meeting was the effect of social contact. If players get to meet, with no proper interaction, for 30 seconds or so just before they go to their anonymized computer terminals to play, the average contribution goes up and remains higher than normal, in spite of a standard decline in contribution over repeated plays. This social meeting is minimal, with no conversation or any information exchanged. They just see each other for a short spell.
This is of interest to evolutionary theorists because cooperation of any sort is a hard thing to stablize in populations. Check this paper out for a clear-sighted view on the field. It might also be interesting to those managing people to solve a collective action problem. Our department is one such space with parallel iterated collective action games ongoing. Whether or not they are all technically public goods games is something to ponder, as is the possibility of rendering them so, should they fail to conform.
I had some other thoughts about the trip which can be found here.
Tom Dickins
PsychTESTS feedback
What did you think of
PsycTESTS? Do you want the University to try and keep it?
Thanks to everyone who had a play with PsycTESTS during our free trial last month.
Feedback from staff and students has been good so far, and it has definitely saved dissertation students time.
BUT – I need one
more thing from you!
The ONLY way I
can try and get us an ongoing subscription to PsycTESTS is to gather feedback from you all showing that it is useful ! So please take a few minutes
to respond by filling out this quick online survey.
Equally if you didn’t find it useful tell us! If you think it’s flawed, tell us how and what resources you’d prefer!
Thanks all, Viv
Vivienne Eades
Phone: 0208 411 3643
Email: v.eades@mdx.ac.uk
Website: Psychology
library guide
New to the library
New to the
library! Latest research from National Academy of Sciences
The
library has extended its access to PNAS: Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences of the United States of America to include the
latest 6 months of research, e-pubs and pre-pubs. We previously only had access
with a 6 month embargo.
This
means you can now get access to the latest Psychology research undertaken by
the NAS.
Access PNAS like all other journals through the library catalogue or E-journals list - make sure you remember to log into MyUniHub!
New! This
month in the Psychological and cognitive sciences:
Image property and courtesy of http://www.pnas.org/ (current issue)
The changing profile of surrogacy in the UK – Implications for national and international policy and practice
The changing profile of surrogacy in the UK – Implications for national and international policy and practice
Marilyn Crawshaw, Eric Blyth & Olga van den Akker
Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law
Volume 34, Issue 3, 2012, pp. 267-277
Abstract:
Since 2007, the numbers of UK Parental Orders granted following surrogacy have markedly increased. More recently, eligibility criteria have been extended to unmarried heterosexual couples and same-sex couples rather than only married couples. Numbers seeking fertility treatments, including through surrogates, outside their country of residence have also increased. This paper presents the limited data currently available – from UK General Register Offices, Child and Family Court Advisory and Support Service for England and the UK surrogacy agencies: COTS, Surrogacy UK, British Surrogacy Centre – to consider potential reasons for the increase and to consider policy and practice implications. It charts the apparent decline in involvement of surrogacy agencies and suggests the potential for exploitation where scrutiny of arrangements and follow up are limited. It recommends improvements to data collection and argues the need for a more integrated approach to review of surrogacy arrangements both nationally and internationally.
Marilyn Crawshaw, Eric Blyth & Olga van den Akker
Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law
Volume 34, Issue 3, 2012, pp. 267-277
Abstract:
Since 2007, the numbers of UK Parental Orders granted following surrogacy have markedly increased. More recently, eligibility criteria have been extended to unmarried heterosexual couples and same-sex couples rather than only married couples. Numbers seeking fertility treatments, including through surrogates, outside their country of residence have also increased. This paper presents the limited data currently available – from UK General Register Offices, Child and Family Court Advisory and Support Service for England and the UK surrogacy agencies: COTS, Surrogacy UK, British Surrogacy Centre – to consider potential reasons for the increase and to consider policy and practice implications. It charts the apparent decline in involvement of surrogacy agencies and suggests the potential for exploitation where scrutiny of arrangements and follow up are limited. It recommends improvements to data collection and argues the need for a more integrated approach to review of surrogacy arrangements both nationally and internationally.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)