Psychoanalysis – mags neg General 1NC

Narcissism causes violence—inflated egos are more vulnerable to criticism and respond with aggression

In contrast to the low self-esteem view, we propose that highly favorable self-appraisals are the ones most likely to lead to violence. As noted in the previous section, the traditional theories linking low self-esteem to violence suffer from ambiguities, inconsistencies, and contradictory empirical evidence. The opposite view therefore deserves consideration.

There are some bases for suggesting that egotism could lead directly to violence. People who regard themselves as superior beings might feel entitled to help themselves to the resources of other, seemingly lesser beings, and indeed they might even aggress against these lesser beings without compunction, just as people kill insects or mice without remorse ( Myers, 1980). Also, many violent episodes involve a substantial element of risk, and a favorable self-appraisal might furnish the requisite confidence to take such a chance. In plain terms, egotists might be more likely to assume that they will win a fight, and so they would be more willing to start it.

Our main argument, however, does not depict self-esteem as an independent and direct cause of violence. Rather, we propose that the major cause of violence is high self-esteem combined with an ego threat. When favorable views about oneself are questioned, contradicted, impugned, mocked, challenged, or otherwise put in jeopardy, people may aggress. In particular, they will aggress against the source of the threat.

In this view, then, aggression emerges from a particular discrepancy between two views of self: a favorable self-appraisal and an external appraisal that is much less favorable. That is, people turn aggressive when they receive feedback that contradicts their favorable views of themselves and implies that they should adopt less favorable views. More to the point, it is mainly the people who refuse to lower their self-appraisals who become violent.

Collective narcissism results in constant violence

However, narcissistic idealization of a group may also be a strategy to protect a weak and threatened ego. This possibility has been suggested by Adorno (1998; see also Arendt, 1971; Vaknin, 2003), Fromm (1941), and status politics theorists ( Gusfield, 1963; Hofstadter, 1965; Lipset & Raab, 1970). These authors suggested that narcissistic identification with an ingroup is likely to emerge in social and cultural contexts that diminish the ego and/or socialize individuals to put their group in the center of their lives, attention, emotions, and actions. Thus, the development of narcissistic group identification can be fostered by certain social contexts independent of individual-level narcissism.

Therefore, one form of narcissism does not have to automatically lead to another, and people can be narcissistic only at an individual or only at a collective level. The relationship between individual and collective narcissism, although positive, is likely not to be high. Most important, collective narcissism is expected to predict intergroup attitudes and actions, whereas individual narcissism is expected to be related to interpersonal actions and attitudes (see Abrams & Hogg, 1988; Crocker & Luhtanen, 1990; but see also Jordan, Spencer, & Zanna, 2005).

Collective Narcissism and Intergroup Aggression

According to the threatened egotism theory, individual narcissism is a risk factor that contributes to a violent and aggressive response to perceived provocation: unfair treatment, criticism, doubts, or insult. Interpersonal aggression is a means of defending the grandiose self-image. Narcissists invest emotionally in their high opinion of themselves, demand that others confirm that opinion, and punish those who seem unlikely to do so. Because they require constant validation of unrealistic greatness of the self, narcissists are likely to continually encounter threats to their self-image and be chronically intolerant of them ( Baumeister et al., 1996). Individual narcissists are suggested to possess high but unstable personal self-esteem (e.g., Kernis, 1993). Such personal self-esteem is vulnerable to sudden drops that produce heightened sensitivity to ego threats, in turn leading to hostility ( Bushman & Baumeister, 1998; Kernis, 1993). Thus, individual narcissism is related to cognitive, motivational, and emotional functioning that impairs interpersonal relations (e.g., Morf & Rhodewalt, 2001), even though it is, at the same time, associated with subjective well-being ( Sedikides, Rudich, Gregg, Kumashiro, & Rusbult, 2004). Few studies suggest that defensive personal self-esteem that is proposed to characterize individual narcissists ( Jordan, Spencer, Zanna, Hoshino-Browne, & Correll, 2003) may be also related to intergroup bias ( Jordan, Spencer, & Zanna, 2005).

The threatened egotism theory explains the link between individual aggressiveness and retaliatory aggression in interpersonal contexts. We argue that collective (rather than individual) narcissism explains variance in intergroup (rather than interpersonal) aggressiveness and hostility. The mechanism underlying this relationship should be analogous to the mechanism underlying the link between individual narcissism and interpersonal aggressiveness (see Baumeister et al., 1996; Emmons, 1987; Staub, 1989, for suggestions that some form of group-level narcissism should be linked to intergroup aggressiveness). Collective narcissists are assumed to be emotionally invested in a grandiose image of their ingroup. This image is excessive and demands constant validation. Therefore, it is vulnerable to challenges from within (e.g., internal criticism) or from outside (e.g., from outgroups that endanger or put into doubt the prominence of an ingroup). It is expected that intergroup hostility and aggression are a means of protecting the group’s image. Thus, collective narcissists are expected to be particularly prone to interpret the actions of others as signs of disrespect, criticism, or disapproval of an ingroup and to react aggressively. They are also expected to react aggressively to actual criticism and other situations that threaten a positive image of an ingroup. They are expected often to feel unfairly and unjustly treated in an intergroup context, because no treatment or recognition is seen as good enough for the deserving ingroup. Moreover, it is expected that collective narcissists are not willing to forgive and forget previous insults or unfairness to an ingroup experienced from other groups. Thus, they are likely to hold prejudice toward outgroups with whom they share a history of mutual grievances and wrongdoings. Collective narcissism is also expected to predict a preference for violent and coercive actions toward outgroups in intergroup conflicts and a likelihood of perceiving intergroup situations as conflictual, even before they turn into open conflicts. In an intergroup situation that is not yet an open conflict, people who are sensitive to signs of disrespect are more likely to interpret ambiguous events in an ingroup-threatening manner and to react aggressively.

Turns the Case (Constitution)

Policy narcissism will undermine the Constitution and focus power in the executive—turns the case

The more serious point is how grossly disorienting narcissistic polity disorder can be—not merely in foreign policy, in which it demands boots on every ground (has it occurred to McCain, by the way, that bogging ourselves down in Syria would have diminished the credibility of any American deterrent against Russia?)—but in constitutional balance too. If any adverse event anywhere in the world is America’s fault, America must be empowered to inhibit any such event, and the only person capable of moving on that fast of a pivot is the president—which may explain why neither McCain nor Graham has yet met a presidential national security power he did not like.

To the extent that requires listening to absurdities like the comical linkage of Benghazi to Ukraine, the cost is minimal. But to the extent attempting to render matters otherwise requires empowering individuals beyond what the constitutional balance can bear, the price is palpable. Constitutional imbalance may thus be one of the most reliable diagnostic signs of narcissistic polity disorder. The good news is that this appears to be more a disorder of the ruling elite than of the body politic. Graham and McCain are far gone. It may not be too late to save others.

Empathy Alt

Empathy for the other breaks narcissism and is necessary for the survival of all humanity—our alternative is the only one with rigorous scientific support

KAIVALYA 2013 (Alanna, author of several books, “Rethinking the Demise of Narcissus: Healing Modern Day Narcissism,” The Kaivalya Yoga Method, December, 2013, http://alannak.com/resources/blog/rethinking-narcissus-healing-modern-day-narcissism)

Indeed, the remedy for narcissistic tendencies is to get over oneself and love another. Because, “here in the United States, we have taken the desire for self-admiration too far—so far that our culture has blurred the distinction between self-esteem and narcissism in an extreme, self-destructive way” (Twenge & Campbell, 18). The obsessive use of self-reflective outlets of the digital age are contributing to disconnection, rather than connection. Connection to others is what will turn the tides. It is what provides the substrate for the potential of mental health and well-being. This has been shown over and over again in a series of studies with various psychologists, maybe none so dramatic as the work of Harry Harlow and his experiments with baby rhesus monkeys in which he substituted their real mothers for wire-frame mothers. The lack of connection to their real mothers resulted in significant mental health disorders and “baby monkeys without playmates or real mothers behaved in socially incompetent ways” (Honig, web). In the modern, scientifically based age, researchers are taking a different look at the importance and effects of empathy and connection in the human being. At the University of California, researchers, Dr. V.S. Ramachandran and Dr. Dacher Keltner, are studying the neuroscientific aspect of empathy in something called, ironically, mirror neurons. These are neurons that fire in the brain when the brain recognizes something (an experience, a sensation, a situation) it has encountered before. For example, when someone is poked with a needle in their arm and another person witnesses it, the witness will empathize because their mirror neurons will produce the same neurological effect as if he or she were being poked with the needle. It is the neuroscientific reason why humans can step into someone else’s shoes. These mirror neurons cannot distinguish between a real and imagined experience, so witnessing another’s pain is literally the equivalent of experiencing it oneself. Cognitively speaking, everyone is capable of putting themselves in everyone else’s shoes through this mirroring effect in the brain.

But, of course, interaction with another human being is necessary to experience this mirrored empathy. Solving the problem of narcissism may not be as simple as activating mirror neurons, but it certainly provides a starting point. Focusing on the power of interconnectivity increases mental health and well-being and, actually, ensures our survival as a species. Despite the bad reputation Charles Darwin received for his treatise on The Origin of the Species, he is quoted as saying, “Sympathy is the strongest instinct in human nature.” Science is showing that rather than the old oft-quoted adage “survival of the fittest,” survival and evolution as a species has been dependent on interactivity and the ability to cultivate compassion and sympathy for fellow humans. In a recent study by Corradini and Antonietti, mirror neurons are explored as the basis of empathy, as well as the key to understanding the intentions of others and in it they determined “that the activation of the Mirror Neuron System in preadolescents while observing and imitating emotional facial expressions is positively correlated with the level of empathic skills” (1155). It is only through the external mirror of relationships to others—psychologically, and neuroscientifically—that humans are able to discern how the actions of one will affect another. Amazingly, there doesn’t even need to be a common language because “intentions are embodied. Such an embodiment is shared both by the actor and the observer” so that by merely looking outside oneself “others are conceived not as bodies endowed with a mind but as persons like us” (Corradini & Antonetti, 1155). Jungian thought would agree from a psychological point of view, that it is through the lens of relationship to another that unconscious projections are brought to life so that they may be resolved. It is through relationship that humans have learned not just to interact and create healthy human relationship, but also to avoid unhealthy relationship and destructive behavior. Through empathy, humans have built bonds that help one another to survive—in the most primal sense of the word, but also in the psychological sense—by building healthy relationships that allow for growth and harmony. As the tragic story of Narcissus illustrates, without connection to others, one cannot survive. Loneliness may be the most tragic affliction of humankind, as it cuts us off from the life-giving source of connection that fuels psychological, emotional and physical well-being. In the words of Narcissus, “Was ever...anyone more fatally in love? And do you remember anyone who ever thus pined away? It both pleases me and I see it; but what I see and what pleases me, yet I cannot obtain...we are kept asunder by a little water” (Ovid, 67). A little water, indeed. It is cracking through the surface of the water and delving into the depths through relationship and support of others that heals both the surface wounds and reveals the true nature of what lies beneath that perfect reflection. Without the ability to reach out, those with narcissistic tendencies may never reach in to dredge up the depths of their soul to lay it bare and open for all—including themselves—to see. It is when a human sees the reflection of his own depths in another that the wound of Narcissus can be healed, by stepping through the surface of the water to pull up the soul that lurks below.

Solves Violence

Our alternative solves international violence—we’ve got empirical and experimental evidence

CAI AND GRIES 2013 (Huajian Cai1 and Peter Gries2 1Key Laboratory of Behavior Science, Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China, 2Institute for US–China Issues, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma, USA, National narcissism: Internal dimensions and international correlates, PsyCh Journal 2)

Consistent with previous research on collective narcissism (de Zavala et al., 2009), we found low correlations between national narcissism and individual narcissism, but moderate correlations with CSE (Study 1 and Study 2), as well as SDO and RWA (Study 1). The low to moderate correlations suggest that national narcissism is both conceptually and empirically distinct from these related constructs. National narcissism was the most stable and powerful predictor of variance in all outcome variables. Notably, it predicted not only political outcomes (such as international attitudes and foreign policy preferences, Study 1 and Study 2) but also an economic outcome (purchase intentions, Study 2) over and above individual narcissism, CSE, and variables such as SDO and RWA, which are well established as reliable predictors of attitudes and behaviors towards outgroups. By contrast, individual narcissism and national CSE did not contribute any unique variance to the political outcome variables. This suggests that individual narcissism does not impact attitudes towards international affairs and that national narcissism, an excessive love of one’s nation, is more harmful than patriotism (national CSE), a more positive love of or loyalty to one’s own country. Drawing on Brown et al. (2009), we further hypothesized that national narcissism would be composed of two distinct internal dimensions, national grandiosity and national entitlement. Our data supported this idea. First, like national narcissism, both national grandiosity and national entitlement were positively and moderately correlated with national CSE (Study 1 and Study 2), SDO, and RWA (Study 1). Second, although national grandiosity and national entitlement were significantly correlated with each other, they both predicted national narcissism uniquely. Notably, this pattern held true in both China and the U.S., suggesting the robustness of the relations. These findings provide convergent evidence about the distinctiveness and relatedness of national entitlement and national grandiosity as two internal dimensions of national narcissism.

By using diverse outcome variables, we found ample evidence of the unique predictive power of national entitlement and national grandiosity. For policy preferences toward the competing nation, both national entitlement and grandiosity were uniquely predictive (in both the U.S. and China); for prejudice against the people of the competing nation, national entitlement was predictive (in both the U.S. and China), but national grandiosity was not; for negative attitudes toward the competing government, both national entitlement (in China) and national grandiosity (in both the U.S. and China) were predictive; and for purchase intentions, both national entitlement and national grandiosity (in China) were predictive. These findings suggest that both national entitlement and national grandiosity are useful and distinctive, although their predictive ability varied by outcome variable and culture. A strength of our study is that we used relatively diverse samples from two different cultures. Psychological research is increasingly criticized for relying too heavily on well educated and largely White college students, undermining the external validity of research findings (e.g., Henrich, Heine, & Norenzayan, 2010; Kitayama, 2010). As noted above, only 44.8% of the Study 1 sample and 64% the Study 2 sample were college students, the participants’ age ranged from 18 to 66 years (Study 1) and 11 to 66 years (Study 2), and our second sample was not White but Chinese. Replication in other countries, particularly those associated with different psychological distances (or those construed at different levels; Trope & Liberman, 2010), however, is still needed to determine whether the findings obtained in this study can be reliably generalized to other international contexts.

The findings reported in this study have important implications. Theoretically, we contribute to the extant literature by introducing and validating the concept of national narcissism and its two internal dimensions, national grandiosity and national entitlement. This has implications for both individual difference psychology and political psychology. These findings also have foreign policy implications. If national narcissism and its internal dimensions appear to have a greater impact on international attitudes than even CSE, SDO, and RWA, might some of the therapeutic interventions suggested in the narcissism literature be applied to national narcissism? We hope that national narcissism can help bridge the gap between the social psychological and personality sciences on the one hand, and political psychology on the other hand, and perhaps even contribute to the reduction of global conflict.

Solves China

Narcissism underpins US-China relations—the alt is necessary to avoid war

CAI AND GRIES 2013 (Huajian Cai1 and Peter Gries2 1Key Laboratory of Behavior Science, Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China, 2Institute for US–China Issues, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma, USA, National narcissism: Internal dimensions and international correlates, PsyCh Journal 2)

We chose the case of U.S.–China relations for several reasons. First, America is an established superpower today while China is a former and rising superpower. As citizens of powerful nations, Americans and Chinese are more likely than people from other nations to maintain narcissistic feelings about their nations (Young & Pinsky, 2006). Second, because they are competing for global influence, both Americans and Chinese tend to view each other as peer competitors, and thus as threats to those high on national narcissism. Third, from a foreign policy perspective, U.S.– China relations are intrinsically important as the most consequential bilateral relationship of the 21st century. If national narcissism is found to operate in the context of U.S.–China relations, therapeutic interventions suggested in the narcissism literature may be able to contribute to the prevention of future U.S.–China conflict.

A2: Only Individual Psychology

There’s quantitative data to support our argument for collective narcissism

BAUMEISTER et al 1996 (Roy F. Baumeister Department of Psychology, Case Western Reserve University; Laura Smart Department of Psychology, University of Virginia Joseph M. Boden Department of Psychology, Case Western Reserve University, Relation of threatened egotism to violence and aggression: The dark side of high self-esteem. By: Baumeister, Roy F., Smart, Laura, Boden, Joseph M., Psychological Review, 0033295X, 1996, Vol. 103, Issue 1)

The most important situational factor that interacts with favorable self-appraisals to cause violence is an ego threat. The evidence conformed broadly to the view that violence is often caused by an encounter in which a favorable self-appraisal is confronted with an external, less favorable evaluation. In all spheres we examined, we found that violence emerged from threatened egotism, whether this was labeled as wounded pride, disrespect, verbal abuse, insults, anger manipulations, status inconsistency, or something else. For huge nationalities, medium and small groups, and lone individuals, the same pattern was found: Violence resulted most commonly from feeling that one’s superiority was somehow being undermined, jeopardized, or contradicted by current circumstances.

We do not wish to claim that threatened egotism is the sole cause of aggression, and indeed there is ample room to discuss biochemical or genetic causes, modeling effects, instrumental aggression, and other factors. But in terms of the potent link between self-appraisals and violence, the discrepancy between favorable self-views and external threats is the most important cause.

The theory that the discrepancy between self-appraisals and external evaluations causes violence led to the further prediction that violence would be increased by anything that raised the frequency or impact of such discrepancies. We proposed that inflated or unrealistically positive self-appraisals would tend to lead to violent responses, because to the extent that feedback clusters around accurate, realistic appraisals, it will tend to contradict such unrealistically favorable opinions of self. There was moderate support for that view, including evidence about tyrants, career criminals, psychopaths, and convicted rapists. Also, some of the most effective direct predictors of violence were narcissism scales, particularly subscales for grandiosity and exhibitionism. It remains to be determined how these self-enhancing illusions compare with the positive illusions of nonviolent people and how widely disseminated they are. For the present, however, it seems reasonable to accept the view that inflated, overly positive self-appraisals are associated with violence.

A2: Our Case Matters

Violence is not rational—our theory is the only one that accounts for any of their impacts so offense only goes one way

BAUMEISTER et al 1996 (Roy F. Baumeister Department of Psychology, Case Western Reserve University; Laura Smart Department of Psychology, University of Virginia Joseph M. Boden Department of Psychology, Case Western Reserve University, Relation of threatened egotism to violence and aggression: The dark side of high self-esteem. By: Baumeister, Roy F., Smart, Laura, Boden, Joseph M., Psychological Review, 0033295X, 1996, Vol. 103, Issue 1)

Only a minority of human violence can be understood as rational, instrumental behavior aimed at securing or protecting material rewards. The pragmatic futility of most violence has been widely recognized: Wars harm both sides, most crimes yield little financial gain, terrorism and assassination almost never bring about the desired political changes, most rapes fail to bring sexual pleasure, torture rarely elicits accurate or useful information, and most murderers soon regret their actions as pointless and self-defeating ( Ford, 1985; Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990; Groth, 1979; Keegan, 1993; Sampson & Laub, 1993; Scarry, 1985). What drives people to commit violent and oppressive actions that so often are tangential or even contrary to the rational pursuit of material self-interest? This article reviews literature relevant to the hypothesis that one main source of such violence is threatened egotism, particularly when it consists of favorable self-appraisals that may be inflated or ill-founded and that are confronted with an external evaluation that disputes them.

The focus on egotism (i.e., favorable self-appraisals) as one cause of violent aggression runs contrary to an entrenched body of wisdom that has long pointed to low self-esteem as the root of violence and other antisocial behavior. We shall examine the arguments for the low self-esteem view and treat it as a rival hypothesis to our emphasis on high self-esteem. Clearly, there are abundant theoretical and practical implications that attend the question of which level of self-esteem is associated with greater violence. The widely publicized popular efforts to bolster the self-esteem of various segments of the American population in recent decades (e.g., see California Task Force, 1990) may be valuable aids for reducing violence if low self-esteem is the culprit—or they may be making the problems worse.

A2: Framework

The myth of American superiority fosters bad policy and also interpersonal violence and contempt for cultural difference

CALDWELL 2006 (Wilbur, author of several books, American Narcissism: The Myth of National Superiority, pp. 141-142)

Still, what is remarkable about the American myth of national superiority is neither its all inclusive scope nor its blind audacity. As Orwell points out, such myths are typical of modern nationalism everywhere. What is extraordinary about the American conviction of national superiority is the fanatical fervor with which it is believed and the ferocious tenacity with which it is defended. Self-serving ideas of American superiority generate pseudo-religious feelings, notions of serving something larger than the self, and unshakable cer- tainties that such ideas are right.561 Many today place “an excessive, exaggerated and exclusive emphasis" on the superiority of the nation at the expense of other critical values.562 This vain obsession results in an overestimation of the nation and of co-nationals to the detraction of all other nations and national peoples. As Kecmanovic observes, the logical result of such an overestimation is "dislike and hostility" toward other nations and other nationals and "a belief that they are inferior and deserving of contempt."563 This in turn results in placing national issues above broad humanitarian issues.

American contempt for other nations has followed hand in hand with notions of American superiority and faith in a national providential destiny. Despite its universal intent, the rhetoric of America's presumed predestined mission abounds with aggressive language, threats, and culturally denigrating slurs. John O’Sullivan, the “author" of Manifest Destiny, lashed out at a world of inferior nations:

For this blessed mission to the nations of the world, which are shut from the light giving light of truth, has America been chosen; and her high example shall smite unto death the ty ranny of kings, hierarchs and oligarchs, and carry the glad tidings of peace and good will where myriads now endure an existence scarcely more envi able than that of the beasts of the field.564

Linking other nationals to “the beasts of the field” exemplifies a kind of dehumanization that is often the natural conclusion of American contempt for non Americans. According to Kecmanovic, this kind of dehumanization is widely employed in the denigration of rival national groups.565 Underlying the de humanization of non-Americans is the notion that Americans are a “pseudo species” created with “supernatural intent" and possessors of not only a “distinct sense of identity," but the only “true human identity."566 The logical result of such a belief is to place the nation of “true humanity" above all other “sub human" nations, thus in effect placing the national cause above the cause of mankind as a whole. This reordering of priorities has a tendency to “falsify', to misrepresent the real relations between national groups and the intensions of the people."567 We arc human. They are not. It is the nationalist’s classical justi- fication for murder.

Their framework arguments are symptomatic of narcissism—in reaction to criticism, they cry fairness and think we should be punished

DE ZAVALA 2009 (Agnieszka Golec de Zavala Department of Psychology, School of Health and Social Sciences, Middlesex University, London, United Kingdom; Aleksandra Cichocka Department of Psychology, University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland Roy Eidelson Edielson Consulting, Philadelphia, PA Nuwan Jayawickreme Center for the Treatment and Study of Anxiety, University of Pennsylvania, “Collective Narcissism and Its Social Consequences,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 00223514, 2009, Vol. 97, Issue 6)

The threatened egotism theory explains the link between individual aggressiveness and retaliatory aggression in interpersonal contexts. We argue that collective (rather than individual) narcissism explains variance in intergroup (rather than interpersonal) aggressiveness and hostility. The mechanism underlying this relationship should be analogous to the mechanism underlying the link between individual narcissism and interpersonal aggressiveness (see Baumeister et al., 1996; Emmons, 1987; Staub, 1989, for suggestions that some form of group-level narcissism should be linked to intergroup aggressiveness). Collective narcissists are assumed to be emotionally invested in a grandiose image of their ingroup. This image is excessive and demands constant validation. Therefore, it is vulnerable to challenges from within (e.g., internal criticism) or from outside (e.g., from outgroups that endanger or put into doubt the prominence of an ingroup). It is expected that intergroup hostility and aggression are a means of protecting the group’s image. Thus, collective narcissists are expected to be particularly prone to interpret the actions of others as signs of disrespect, criticism, or disapproval of an ingroup and to react aggressively. They are also expected to react aggressively to actual criticism and other situations that threaten a positive image of an ingroup. They are expected often to feel unfairly and unjustly treated in an intergroup context, because no treatment or recognition is seen as good enough for the deserving ingroup. Moreover, it is expected that collective narcissists are not willing to forgive and forget previous insults or unfairness to an ingroup experienced from other groups. Thus, they are likely to hold prejudice toward outgroups with whom they share a history of mutual grievances and wrongdoings. Collective narcissism is also expected to predict a preference for violent and coercive actions toward outgroups in intergroup conflicts and a likelihood of perceiving intergroup situations as conflictual, even before they turn into open conflicts. In an intergroup situation that is not yet an open conflict, people who are sensitive to signs of disrespect are more likely to interpret ambiguous events in an ingroup-threatening manner and to react aggressively.

More Social Science Data

Social science data confirms our impact

GRIES 2014 (Peter Hays Gries is the Harold J. & Ruth Newman Chair & Director, Institute for US-China Issues and Professor in the Department of International and Area Studies at the University of Oklahoma, The Politics of American Foreign Policy: How Ideology Divides Liberals and Conservatives Over Foreign Affairs, pp 119-120)

The survey data suggests otherwise. Patriotism, nationalism, and national narcissism all correlate positively and strongly with our measures of support for the use of military force (r = .49, .58, .55, respectively) and overall desires for tougher foreign policies (r = .21, .26, .27). Indeed, of the fifteen countries we measured foreign policy preferences towards, patriotism correlated significant- ly with all except South Korea, Japan, and Germany, nationalism with all except Japan and Germany, and national narcissism with all except England. In other words, these three different measures of Americanness correlated positively with desires for tougher policies towards specific foreign countries the vast ma-jority of the time. In general, the correlations were the highest for countries seen as posing the greatest threats to the United States, such as Iran (r = .34, .38, .28, respectively) and North Korea (r = .29, .29, .17). As we will see in Chapter 8, the one exception was Israel: greater patriotism (r = -.22), nationalism (r = -.30), and national narcissism (r = -.21) as an American were associated with desires for friendlier policies towards Israel.

Directory: file -> view
view -> Western Europe after wwii
view -> Author study: paul fleischman
view -> Qpa1 7ela study Guide
view -> Arctic Oil/Gas Neg
view -> November 1970 Approximately 150,000-500,000 deaths Bhola Cyclone Bangladesh
view -> Grade Level: 6 Unit of Study: Caribbean glce
view -> Citation: Duffield, Katy
view -> Table of Contents Lesson #
view -> Chinese Wind Energy Disad

Download 1.71 Mb.

Share with your friends: