The Combative Dominance Syndrome

Motivation Analysis is looking for a few good minds

New - an essay discussing basic problems of world cultures: "The Combative Dominance Syndrome"

Human aggression against other humans has occurred throughout history but the resources for total human destruction were not available before World War II. Since the development of nuclear bombs and other weapons of mass destruction, it has become possible for humans to destroy all human life on this planet, either intentionally or unintentionally.

Perhaps our survival as a species will hinge upon how quickly we deepen our understanding of human destructiveness. This essay examines the possibility that needs other than aggression play a critical role in human against human violence.

Varieties of Human Against Human Destructiveness

Human destruction of other humans is not limited to warfare. As Arnold Ludwig extensively documents in his book "King of the Mountain: The Nature of Political Leadership," there is considerable human destructiveness in government and politics. Millions of lives have been lost under such autocratic rule as that of the Russian Communists and German Nazis. Minorities suffer at the hands of ruling elites that commandeer land, money, liberty, and life itself. Slavery continues to exist in the world. The American Indians and other societies have been driven from their lands, especially where the lands were valuable. Organized crime and adolescent gangs battle for money and turf control. Aggressive business practices lead to consumer harm when goods known to be harmful are marketed. Capital punishment can be considered a form of human against human violence that sends a message that killing others is OK.

All of these examples of "man’s inhumanity to man" could be written off as a legacy of aggressive "instinct" inherited from primitive (simian?) ancestors. Motivationally, human destructive behavior is more complicated. As will be discussed further on, aggression is an implementing motive asserted primarily for attaining sex, autonomy, and dominance. There is very little aggression for the sake of aggression. Aggression to obtain sex is used to subdue resistant individuals and is regarded as brutal and abnormal. Aggression to attain autonomy is used to gain freedom from control and is viewed positively by the oppressed and negatively by oppressors. Aggression to attain dominance is the most violent and general form of human aggression and is exponentially increased by fears of subjugation, subordination, and inferiority. In most cultures, combative dominance is disapproved at a verbal level even though it is widely practiced.

It is the thesis of this essay that the large majority of cases of intentional destruction of humans by humans is motivated by an obsessive drive for dominance and a phobic dread of inferiority and subservience.

The Dimensional Structure of the Motivation System

Behavior is best understood and changed by knowledge of the needs or motives that drive it. For background purposes it will be helpful to review the structure of the human motivation system as developed from motivational research on the 22 Murray based needs of the Picture Identification Test (PIT). (See Motivation Analysis and General Systems Point of View).

Multidimensional scaling analysis of Picture Identification Test (PIT) data obtained from over 8000 male and female subjects from diverse cultures and varied personality types has revealed three motivation dimensions. The dimensions are labeled the combative, the personal-social, and the competitive. The PIT motivational structure is presented in Table 1. The three dimensions provide three independent ways to structure the 22 Murray based needs to meet the opportunities and challenges of three basic types of situations. The situation types are indicated by the dimension names (i.e., combative, personal-social, and competitive). Table 2 lists the PIT needs, need clusters and their definitions.

The PIT motivation structure presented in Table 1 is quite stable. Multidimensional scaling analyses of PIT data of normal groups consistently produce a three dimensional structure that correlates in the .80s and .90s with the target model dimension measures.

For each dimension there is a proactive area at one pole and a reactive area at the opposite pole. For example, Table 1 shows needs such as aggression, defendance, and rejection in the proactive area of the combative dimension. In the reactive combative dimension area there are needs such as abasement, deference, affiliation, and nurturance. In each dimension, the reactive needs oppose and inhibit the proactive needs.

The needs closest to the top in the proactive area of a dimension are the most powerful proactive motives in the dimension. Needs closest to the bottom in the reactive area of a dimension are the needs most strongly opposed to the proactive needs in the dimension. In other words, the more extreme the location of a need, the stronger its proactive or reactive motivating power. In general, the mid level needs in each dimension are the most frequently activated but are less powerful than the more peripheral needs.

PIT Motivation Measurement

The PIT measures that produced the motivation dimensional structure differ from conventional personality measures. Most personality tests are based on verbal responses to verbal statements. Verbal symbols allow us to mentally consider events from other times and places ("where were you and what were you doing last year?"). Sensory responses are restricted to the here-and-now ("what are you seeing, hearing, tasting, feeling, smelling in this situation at this moment?"). PIT measures are derived from a projective technique based on sensory perceptions. Sensory stimuli place the subject in psychological real time reacting to immediate stimuli rather than to verbal thoughts and memories that may pertain to distant times and places. Stored thoughts and memories may be censored, altered for ego protection, or poorly recorded and remembered.

Synchronic Motivation Measurement

Conventional personality tests ask subjects to make ratings of behaviors without concern for whether traits or behaviors are expressed simultaneously or at different times. The PIT technique asks the subject to rate each of the 22 needs for strength of expression in each of 12 facial photographs. Needs rated as expressed in the same photo are thus perceived as needs expressed synchronically (simultaneously) whereas needs rated as expressed in different photos are needs the subject feels are expressed at different times.

The importance of synchronic motivation measures may be illustrated by two people, A and B, who each have strong needs for dominance and deference. Person A has these incompatible needs conceptually separated with regard to synchronic expression. He can thus choose to assert dominance or deference according to circumstances (i.e., whether he is a recognized authority in the situation). If A’s judgment is good, this ability to appropriately select either dominance or deference prevents inner conflicts. In contrast, person B does not have these needs synchronically separated and therefore tries to express both needs simultaneously. B’s efforts to simultaneously express dominance and deference cause him to have inner conflicts and confuses others. It is very important, with regard to understanding an individual’s adjustment and behavior, to know whether the person has conceptualized incompatible needs for synchronic or asynchronic expression.

Need Attitudes and Values

The PIT pictures are first given evaluative ratings by the subject. These attitude ratings are correlated with the subject’s need ratings. The correlations provide value or attitude measures for the needs in the overall motivation system. There are definite values attached to each of the 22 needs measured by the PIT. Most of the proactive combative dimension needs are viewed quite negatively. The proactive personal-social area needs are generally viewed quite positively. The proactive needs of the competitive dimension are generally positively viewed.

Dimension Weights

One of the measures provided by the PIT multidimensional scaling process is quite important for understanding human behavior. This variable is the amount of space a dimension occupies relative to the subject’s total dimensional space. In PIT terminology this dimensional space is referred to as the weight of the dimension. The greater the relative space occupied by a dimension, the greater the weight of the dimension. The weight score for a particular dimension indicates the amount of perceptual attention given to stimuli associated with the dimension.

For over 80% of subjects the combative dimension has the greatest weight. On average it receives approximately 40% of the total dimensional weight. This translates to 40% of the average person’s perceptual attention. The personal-social and competitive dimensions each receive approximately 30% of our attention. Thus the combative dimension receives a third more attention than either of the other two dimensions. Many subjects with adjustment problems have even greater combative dimension weights.

One may wonder why the combative dimension has the largest weight when the combative needs are viewed negatively. Attitudes and perceptual attention are independent variables. We are often aware of sights and sounds we don’t like and we like and admire some things we seldom perceive.

The Ego Needs

The six most self serving of the 22 PIT needs are called ego needs. The ego needs form an important motivation subsystem. Three of the ego needs (sex, autonomy, and dominance) are the three primary self oriented motivation goals. The three other ego needs (aggression, defendance, and rejection) implement and support the ego goal needs. In the top part of the proactive area of the combative dimension all six of the ego needs are located in a tight cluster (see Table 1). This motivation subsystem is the dominant control center for will power and combative self assertion.

The Avoidance Needs

There are three avoidance needs in the PIT motivation system (blame, harm, and inferiority avoidance). The avoidance needs are inhibitors – they motivate people not to do things that might result in blame, harm, or failure. Blame (and punishment) are administered by other people. Harm is inflicted by physical forces. Inferiority feelings are psychologically self administered (e.g., A "B" grade might be regarded as a sign of success by one student and a symbol of failure by another.)

Dimension Differences in the Dominance Need

Although each need maintains its basic motivational character in each of the three dimensions, its function may be modified by the different associations it has in the different dimensions. This is a general systems principal. For example, a chemical element affects and is affected by the different elements of the various compounds with which it may be combined.

The character of the dominance need in the competitive dimension is different from the character of the dominance need in the combative dimension. In the competitive dimension, dominance is proactively associated with personal-social needs (affiliation, play, nurturance, sentience) and the rational needs (understanding, achievement, order) and is strongly under the influence of the exhibition need. Thus, competitive dominance is active in friendly sports activities and in the display of excellence in objectively evaluated knowledge and skills. By contrast, combative dominance aims for acquiring material wealth and control of others by power and force. 

The Combative Dominance Syndrome

The avoidance needs are usually located in the reactive areas of the dimensions (see Table 1). Inferiority avoidance is a notable exception. In the combative dimension it is located in the proactive area closely associated with the dominance need. This means that in combative situations, fears of inadequacy combine with the drive for dominance. The two needs support and increase each other’s motivational power. One can avoid weakness and inferiority by gaining dominance; conversely, reducing one’s weakness can help attain dominance.

Behavior motivated by the combative dimension dominance and inferiority avoidance needs along with the ego implementing needs (aggression, defendance, rejection) is labeled the combative dominance syndrome. This syndrome is the driving force in those who constantly seek material wealth and personal control over others. In this group fall dictators, tyrants, members of dominant castes, criminals, war lords, "robber barons," many of the super wealthy, racists, sexists, many large corporation executives (and their hand picked board members), religious fundamentalists and fanatics, and a sizable number of politicians. At a more disguised and indirect level, telemarketing, spam, and other aggressive forms of advertising are not efforts to provide information to inform the public. They are combative efforts to manipulate (dominate) people into buying the advertised products.

Combative Dominance and Economic Crises

The combative dominance syndrome is the major cause of large economic crises (see "The Great Crash, 1929" by John Kenneth Galbraith). The most recent example of corporate combative dominance culminating in disaster was the bursting of the 1990s economic bubble. In the early 2000s many corporations went bankrupt or suffered large stock value losses as a result of aggressive overextension (greed) and fraudulent accounting to seduce investors. It is noteworthy that most of the top executives of these organizations emerged from their company’s bankruptcy or downfall quite well. They, of course, were insiders who knew when to take the money and run. By contrast, company workers lost much and sometimes all of their retirement pensions and life savings. Outside stock holders (some greedy but out of the loop and some just naïve and trusting) took large financial hits. The CEOs of these corporations were driven by the combative dominance syndrome. They manipulated government legal systems (e.g., electricity regulation in California) and ignored regulatory procedures to obtain their personal combative dominance goals.

To extend a well known Biblical phrase: The love of power and the fear of failure is the root of all evil.

The Combative Dominance Syndrome in Politics

The combative dominance syndrome is more at home on the political right (hawks) than on the left (doves). (In fairness to hawks and other birds of prey, it should be noted that they use their aggression for their own and their progeny’s survival and do not try to dominate and corner the rabbit and mouse markets.) Political conservatives are strongly concerned with preserving and augmenting personal independence and power (less government and more entrepreneurial freedom) and unenthusiastic about caring for (coddling) lesser beings. Present political conservatives (i.e., the G.W. Bush – Cheney administration) proclaim religious dedication and like to be thought of as "compassionate conservatives" - somewhat of an oxymoron in light of their policies and practices. On the extreme left there are some leaders also driven by the combative dominance syndrome, especially after they have secured power and control (e.g., Stalin).

Politically, the combative dominance syndrome primarily motivates efforts to attain personal and individual power. It does not motivate efforts to improve the common good. However, those with power have little trouble finding followers who seek security and material benefits from the powerful.

Where do protestors and activists fit in with regard to dominance and politics? Generally, protestors can’t exist except in democracies where they form group movements to seek freedom from what they consider to be unfair or dangerous political policies or practices. There are some protest leaders who are motivated by the combative dominance syndrome. (These are the ones that see which way the parade is headed and jump out in front when it looks profitable). However, most activist-protestors are seeking freedom to pursue policies that, in their opinion, aim for the common good. Activists seeking a common good need to be distinguished from opportunists who seek personal power.

We tend to perceive what we value or fear and this determines what we look for in situations. A deer hunter in the woods concentrates on signs of deer; a botanist in the same woods is more attentive to plants and trees. Of course, unusual shocking stimuli (such as an explosion, a bad wreck, a sudden fire, etc.) will grab everyone’s attention for the moment. However, no two people perceive a shared situation exactly the same, not only because of differences in their physical points of view but also because of differences in their perceptual sets (see Mental Sets).

It is important to understand that perceptions provide strong stimuli for combative dominance. An indicator of the importance of perception in personal and social adjustment is provided by basic symptoms of mental illness. Hallucinations and delusions are manifestations of severe mental pathology. Many psychotic patients feel that they perceive sights, sounds, odors, and tactile sensations that others do not perceive. Mental health professionals assume that they project their mental activities outward on their environment (i.e., they hallucinate). Delusional patients may perceive stimuli accurately but tend to create unrealistic interpretations of their percepts (e.g., the paranoid schizophrenic who interprets smoke from the hospital chimney as a sign that "they" are burning inmates and will soon put him in the furnace).

The themes of hallucinations and delusions indicate the preoccupations of psychotics with fears of inadequacy and grandiose desires for power. (Any connection with the combative dominance syndrome? ). What we most readily perceive, and especially what we perceive that others do not, indicates our basic concerns. Normal people differ to some degree in what they perceive but their differences are usually within the bounds of reality.

There are perhaps greater differences between normal people in the meanings they attribute to what they perceive rather than with the perceptions per se. Such differences in interpretation result from differences in beliefs and values (e.g., conservatives may see a reduction of welfare funds as good, wise, and courageous whereas liberals may see it as a lack of compassion and bad for political stability). As desires for combative dominance and fears of inadequacy increase, there is a corresponding increase in perceptual selectiveness, distortion, and interpretation that further implements combative dominance.

Males commit the preponderance of violent acts (see Ludwig ref., p.1). This raises a question concerning PIT data. Averages for all three PIT dimension weights are approximately the same for males and females and this holds true whether subjects rate male or female facial expressions. The equal perceptual emphasis on the combative dimension (dimension weight) by men and women appears to be inconsistent with the near monopoly on violent crime by males. However, emotional and behavioral reactions can vary independently from perception. Two people can have the same perception of a situation but have quite different behavioral and emotional reactions. The perception of a child crying may elicit irritation and punishment from one person and sympathy and consolation from another. Differences in male and female combative behavior may be due to genetic and/or social factors Most cultures condition males more than females for combative action (see "Raising Cane" by Kindlon and Thompson).

Specific Versus General Perceptual Sets

The deer hunter and the botanist mentioned above are operating under specific conscious situational sets while in the woods. In different situations (in their office or home), they will have different specific sets that cause them to look for and perceive different stimuli. Pathological perceptual sets (such as the combative dominance syndrome) are chronic, general in terms of place and time, and usually operate at unconscious or subconscious levels. Those with a chronic combative dominance syndrome are conditioned to automatically respond to any and all opportunities where they can gain material power and control over others. These desires are a basic and automated part of their personality. This general set is analogous to the normal general perceptual set to avoid harm. Normal people do not constantly and consciously check for danger but they have a general automated harm avoidance set that is readily activated when there is danger.

Culture and the Combative Dominance Syndrome

The majority of cultures promote the combative dominance syndrome though they may also promote countervailing beliefs and values (e.g., " rugged individualism" versus "do unto others as you would have them do unto you"). Some cultures have been known to change their implicit dominant ontology (beliefs in the nature of what is real). Unfortunately, such changes can be for the worse. Adolph Hitler capitalized on German feelings of humiliation and persecution after World War I to manipulatively promote the combative dominance syndrome among the embittered German public using Jews as his primary scapegoats. Now Jews and Palestinians battle for possession and control of Israel. The governments of the United States and Great Britain threaten preemptive strikes against those they (selectively) believe to be threatening - and the list goes on.

General Efforts to Improve Societies

Those who established the major religions and social philosophies (Jesus, Muhammad, Buddha, Confucius, Gandhi) called for peace on earth but their successors have often sought to combatively dominate and exploit followers and destroy rivals (e.g., the crusades and the Israeli – Palestinian conflict). From a long term perspective there have been some positive attempts to reduce combative dominance and to civilize nations and societies (e.g., democratic constitutions and the United Nations). Unfortunately, these efforts are counterbalanced by increased destructive ability.

Social Combative Dominance Syndrome Modification

The most desirable approach to societal change is through general education. If the general public could be taught awareness of the strength and breadth of the combative dominance syndrome it is possible that the syndrome could be controlled and modified. The resistance to any movement that threatens prevailing values, however, makes such change difficult. Those with the combative dominance syndrome are among the least likely to engage in self-exploration. In the meantime, motivated individuals can make personal changes for their own benefit (to be discussed below). Hopefully, if a significant number of individuals were to develop perceptual awareness of the combative dominance syndrome, they might have some beneficial influence on society. (Editor’s note: Be careful about buying stock in any enterprise that proposes to sell such a program.)

Individual Modification of the Combative Dominance Syndrome

Positive ontological changes in individuals have been initiated by soul wrenching experiences, genuine religious conversions, effective counseling and psychotherapy, or highly motivated self education (or a combination of the above). All such changes involve a redefining of the individual’s understanding of the basic purpose and meaning of life. Profound ontological change creates a change in perceptual attention and preoccupation (the reverse may also be true). Perceptual attention changes could cause a switch from a combative dominance syndrome to benevolent personal-social activities and/or constructive competitive perceptual orientation.

As previously noted, when the combative dominance syndrome controls a person’s beliefs, values, and perception, the person is unconsciously preoccupied with opportunities to (1) acquire wealth and material goods, (2) dominate and control others, and (3) ward off threats to their status from rivals. Opportunities for positive personal-social interactions and competitive improvement of skills and knowledge are overridden and go unnoticed.

The first step for an individual wishing to modify this syndrome (or any undesirable perceptual set or behavioral habit) is to consciously conceptualize the set (see previous paragraph). This step is necessary but not sufficient. Ability to verbally define the syndrome can modify the syndrome only if awareness is used to persistently check and change the behavior associated with the syndrome until the habit or set is replaced. Mental sets do not disappear so much as they become lowered in priority.

Summary of Steps to Modify a Combative Dominance Syndrome

1) Repetitive self-questioning: ("Am I looking for opportunities for material gain and control over others in this situation?")

2) "If so, are these motives appropriate in this situation?"

3) "If the answer is no, I will reject my impulse to seek power and assert control in this situation."

4) "What are other possibilities in this situation?"

a) "Can I switch to the personal-social dimension and express friendliness, have

fun, or help someone with problems?"

b) "Can I switch to the competitive dimension and improve my knowledge and

skills?"

The Picture Identification Test (PIT) is a psychological instrument based on the Murray need system. The PIT uses multidimensional scaling to provide an analysis of needs (motives). It indicates needs that are being met or expressed ineffectively. The PIT can be administered to subjects ages twelve and older.

• Motivation Analysis - Theory developed from Picture Identification Test research and from the general systems point of view.
• Essays - Observations and thoughts about motivation, beliefs, values, purpose and meaning.
• Needs (Motives) - Discussion of 22 Murray based needs as they relate to three major motivation dimensions.

For further information about the Picture Identification Test contact
Jay L. Chambers, PhD: ibis@kalexres.kendal.org
160 Kendal Drive Apartment #205
Lexington, Virginia 24450
Phone: 540.462.3874

The Motivation Analysis web site has three sections:

Motivation Analysis: General Systems Point of View | Combative Dimension | Personal Social Dimension | Competitve Dimension | PIT Scores | PIT Publications | PIT Dissertations | Motivation System Target Model | Target Model Reliability | GPA Predications | Need & Cluster Definitions | Links

Essays: Combative Dominance Syndrome (new) | Political Motivation | Mental Sets | Symbolic Thinking, Values, Motivation & Religion | Needs, Values, Philosophy & Religion

Needs (Motives): Abasement | Achievement | Affiliation | Aggression | Autonomy | Blame Avoidance | Counteraction | Defendance | Deference | Dominance | Exhibition | Gratitude | Harm Avoidance | Inferiority Avoidance | Nurturance | Order | Play | Rejection | Sentience | Sex | Succorance | Understanding

URL: http://www.overbooked.org/motivation/essays/combativedominance.html

Hosted by Overbooked (Book Links) on Central Virginia's Community Online.
Overbooked is a volunteer project undertaken by Ann Chambers Theis,
Collection Management Administrator, Chesterfield County (VA) Public Library
P.O. Box 297, Chesterfield, VA, 23832. Phone: 804.748.1760.