574 Aggression, Violence, Evil, and Peace
sense that benefits to the self are sought without regard for in-
jury to the other. Research shows how many situations se-
duce persons to play aggressively even when this is not in
their best interest (Deutsch, 1958). And the game theory used
in the study of conflict is enriched by utilizing the perspective
of evolutionary biology (D. S. Wilson, 1998).
Scheff (1999) asserted that emotional sequences play a
crucial role in both interpersonal and intergroup conflict, and
he focused on the roles of pride and shame as signals of soli-
darity and alienation. He argued that if shame is acknowl-
edged, connections of solidarity and trust can be built.
However, shame is often unacknowledged. Such unacknowl-
edged shame may involve painful feeling with little ideation
and is often signaled by furtiveness. When it is bypassed, it
involves rapid thoughts that occur with little feeling and is
accompanied by hostility or withdrawal from the other in
ways that mask the shame. The unacknowledged shame feeds
on itself, and the person becomes ashamed that he or she is
ashamed, experiences a panic state, or enters a humiliated
fury. A typical pattern is to mask the shame with anger, and
Scheff sees such shame-anger loops at the heart of destruc-
tive conflicts. He suggested that they account for the need for
vengeance and are at the heart of deterrence strategy. The
danger of appearing weak, the underlying unacknowledged
shame, is euphemistically treated as face-saving and status
competition.
Seeing aggression as an aspect of conflict reminds us that
at least two parties are involved and that aggression increases
as the parties respond to one another. In their examination
of conflicts between individuals, groups, and nations, J. Z.
Rubin, Pruitt, and Kim (1994) described how conflicts esca-
late in aggressiveness. This escalation occurs in different
ways: Influence attempts move from light to heavy tactics,
from persuasive attempts to threats and violence; issues pro-
liferate from small to large so that parties become increas-
ingly involved in the conflict and commit more resources to
it; issues move from the specific to the general so that the
relationship between parties deteriorates; motivation shifts
from simply doing well for the self to winning and then
to hurting the other; and participants may grow from few to
many. Thus, the strength of the aggressive responses (from a
harsh word to a physical threat), the generalization of the at-
tack (from one aspect of behavior to a description of charac-
ter), and the extensity of the conflict (from a disagreement
over one thing to disagreements over many) all may increase.
Fortunately, such conflicts often subside, decreasing as for-
bearance prevails, tempers cool, and apologies are made. This
is particularly true when the parties to the conflict have com-
mon interests and a history of cooperation. However, conflicts
that spiral and escalate may lead to structural changes that
make it difficult for the conflict to subside. These involve psy-
chological transformations. When groups are involved, there
are changes in group and community dynamics. The psycho-
logical changes that occur involve the development of nega-
tive attitudes and beliefs about the other, the development of
competitive and hostile goals, and the deindividuation and
dehumanization discussed earlier. As R. K. White (1984) de-
scribed, an intensely negative image of the other begins to de-
velop, and the other becomes regarded as immoral, inhuman,
and evil. When groups are involved, they become polarized.
They become increasingly extreme in hostile attitudes and de-
velop norms that resist compromise as well as contentious
group goals that contribute to in-group solidarity at the ex-
pense of the out-group. They select militant leaders, become
more liable to the problems ofgroupthink(Janis, 1983), and
initiate the development of militant subgroups. The entire
community may become polarized as members are forced to
choose sides and neutrality becomes impossible without one’s
loyalty becoming questioned.VIOLENCE AND ITS CONTROLViolence seems to imply a damaging of the other, a hurting
that is more than temporary pain. However, what is consid-
ered to be violent often seems to depend on one’s side. Thus,
Blumenthal, Kahn, Andrews, and Head (1972) found that
persons tend to distinguish between the violence of those
they dislike and the “justified force” of groups they favor.
Further, the violence that is ordinarily considered is thedirect
violence involved in using force to injure, damage, or destroy
a person or to violate unjustly a person’s rights. We tend to
overlook indirect violence. In this section on violence we
consider the many forms of direct violence that occur be-
tween persons, within communities, and in and between soci-
eties. However, we also consider the violence that is done
when human beings are distorted and prevented from devel-
oping their potential, the structuralviolence described by
Galtung (1969).Personal ViolenceViolence often occurs in an interpersonal context. We first
consider men who are particularly prone to violence, and
then examine family violence, rape, and bullying.Violent MenMen committed about 90% of the violent crimes between
1960 and 1980 in the United States (J. Q. Wilson &