The psychological structure of aggression across cultures

Abstract

Summary To date, the vast majority of the research on aggression has been conducted on Western samples. This research expands the culture‐bound understanding of aggression by examining universal and culture‐specific dimensions that underlie the psychological structure of aggression. Drawing on cultural logics of honor, dignity, and face, we examine the construal of aggression across Pakistan, Israel, Japan, and the United States. Multidimensional scaling analyses revealed potentially universal dimensions of aggression. In all four nations, dimensions of damage to self‐worth and direct versus indirect aggression emerged, and a physical versus verbal aggression emerged in Pakistan, Israel, and Japan. In addition, an infringement to personal resources dimension emerged in the United States and Israel, and a degree of threat dimension emerged in Pakistan. Further, results demonstrated cultural specificity in terms of (i) where aggressive behaviors fell along each dimension and (ii) meanings that defined each dimension across cultures. These findings have implications for the prevention and attenuation of intercultural conflicts as well as the advancement of the cross‐cultural psychology and the aggression literatures. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Agreeableness, antagonism, and mental health across cultures

“…To expand psychologists' understanding of aggression beyond Western societies, Severance et al (2013) used multidimensional scaling analyses of ratings on acts of aggression to explore perceptions between four cultures varying in "cultural logic" (Leung & Cohen, 2011). In Japan, a culture of face, self-worth stems from the views others hold, status in the hierarchy, and humility, modesty, and self-control.…”

“…In this interdependent context, maintaining harmony with the group is central, and conflict is handled indirectly (Leung & Cohen, 2011). There is strong differentiation between direct and passive aggression, but because violence is rare, verbal aggression that can damage reputation is seen as direct; because aggressive acts can seriously damage someone's self-worth, such acts are viewed as extremely immoral and callous (Severance et al, 2013).…”

In Praise of Gossip: The Organizational Functions and Practical Applications of Rumours in the Workplace

“…Although the use of gossip as a managerial tool is fraught with difficulties and presents counterproductive effects, ongoing cited literature (Severance et al, 2013) shows that gossip has many undesirable effects on the workers' well-being and the perceived organizational justice. Despite these negative aspects, gossip is ubiquitous, even in an era of widespread and pervasive social networks that could do without faceto-face relationships.…”

“…Almost always, in this field of study, the term "gossip" has negative connotations, and some people consider it improper (Kurland and Pelled 2000). In organizational literature, gossip is often considered like a form of aggression (Severance et al, 2013), also from a cross-cultural point-of-view. A paradox of gossip is that it is ubiquitous, though there are numerous social sanctions against it.…”

A cultural neuroscience perspective on North Korean strategic culture

“…Along similar lines, a study by Severance and colleagues suggests that there are ''important culture-specific (i.e., emic) construals of aggression that render identical acts to be perceived quite differently across cultures.'' 117 That is, the interpretation of aggressive or peaceful acts depends on the cultural syndrome of the actors involved.…”