Suchergebnisse

In attitude theories, the view that man has limited powers of reason, primitive in-sight & a short memory is contrasted with the view that man continually seeks to make sense out of his world using powers of discrimination, self-criticism & insight. Proponents of each view find supporting evidence for it but neither specifies the conditions under which men act as the theory predicts. These 2 views of attitude formation & change can be reconciled by focusing on the functional relationships between att's & the needs they serve. 4 functions of att's for personality needs are identified & discussed: 'the adjustive function of satisfying utilitarian needs, the ego-defensive function of handling internal conflicts, the value-expressive function of maintaining self-identity & enhancing the self-image & the knowledge function of giving understanding & meaning to the ambiguities of the world about us.' The operation of these functions in attitude formation & the conditions under which att's are aroused is described. Consideration is given to the motivational impact of constellations of variables, e.g., in intergroup contacts & in attempts to control behavior through legislation which must be taken into account in attempting to predict attitude change. C. M. Coughenour.

A discussion of intergroup conflict based on the assumption that 'there is no longer a rational basis for war or violent struggle between groups or nations because of conflicts of interest or of ideology.' Background factors common to group conflict must take into account the differential motivational & cognitive processes of: the leaders, the factions, & the masses. 6 sources of irrationality common in many people are delineated & analyzed: (1) latent hostility, (2) situational frustration & displaced aggression, (3) defensive group identification, (4) institutional conformity, (5) apathy or withdrawal, & (6) cognitive nearsightedness of shortsighted self-interest. While these factors describe the general conditions which make war possible, they do not account for the dynamics of any specific conflict. 2 other elements must be considered in the process: the role of leaders & the role of factions or leadership groups. 4 types of conflict outcome can be distinguished: (a) stalemate of aggressive conflict in which there is no victory for either side but only a cessation due to exhaustion, (b) conquest & dominance as the result of successful aggressive struggle, (c) compromise, & (d) genuine solution of group conflict. One major condition facilitating (d) is: 'the consistent participation of the many members in group processes & group decisions in their functional & pol'al groups.' This type of participation is distinguished from token & minimal participation, routine compliant participation, & sporadic emotional participation. The determinants of consistent reactive participation by group members are traced to specific: personality variables, value systems, belief systems, & soc structure variables. Consistent reactive participation aids in the solution of group conflict because: the power drives of leaders are checked; leaders cannot take their people so readily into violent group struggle through the pressure of some special factions; the instrumentality for constructive solutions cannot rise above the level of the instrumental functioning of the groups themselves; the nature of the basic objectives of the group are dependent upon the consistent reactive participation of the many; & 'the involvement of the many in reaching a solution of group diff's makes possible a broader basis for finding common values & common paths.' I. Taviss.