Aggression as a function of the intensity and pattern of attack

Forty Ss competed with an opponent in a reaction time task to avoid receiving shock. The opponent provided either consistently high intensity attack, increasing, decreasing, or consistently low attack. The S's shock settings for the opponent on each trial and ratings of the opponent after the task served as dependent measures. High intensity attack resulted in high intensity counterattack and negative ratings of the opponent. Low intensity attack resulted in low intensity counterattack and relatively positive ratings for the opponent. Decreasing attack resulted in decreasing counterattack and positive ratings of the opponent. Increasing attack resulted in increasing counterattack and comparatively high aggression ratings of the opponent.     

The victim's reaction to an attack as a function of his perception of the attacker following a verbal insult

This study investigated the role of perception in the victim's behaviour following a verbal attack. It was expected that the victim's counterattack and evaluation of attacker would be influenced by: (a) the victim's level of aggressiveness; (b) the attacker's perceived level of aggressiveness; (c) the attacker's status (prestige in the classroom); and (d) retaliation threat for counterattack. High and low aggressive subjects (victim's) were randomly assigned to one of four conditions differing in the attacker's attributed level of aggression and status. Half of the subjects in each condition received a retaliation threat treatment. The victims were interacting with an assumed partner (attacker) in a guessing game during which they were insulted. After each insult the victim could counterattack by withholding a monetary reward from the attacker. At the end, the victim rated his attacker on aggressiveness, potency and social desirability. The results indicated that there were significant main effects of the victims level of aggressiveness, the attacker's status and retaliation threat. There was also a significant interaction between victim's and attacker's aggressiveness, for the two dependent variables. In addition, victim's behaviour was influenced by the interaction between attacker's status and his aggressiveness.     

Effects of status of attacker and intensity of attack on the intensity of counter-aggression1

Male college students were exposed to a Same, Lower, or Higher status confederate, and to a small or large number of electric shocks from the stooge. Subjects in the Same and High status conditions were more counter-aggressive, both in terms of mean intensity and number of shocks, than subjects exposed to a Low status confederate. These results are in contradiction to the related human and animal data, which have generally indicated that more aggression is directed toward low rather than high status persons The major implications of the present data for other research in this area are (1) the importance of varying status of the attacked as well as status of the attacker, (2) the necessity for systematically varying the different dimensions of “status,” e g, functional (i e, powerful) vs. nonfunctional aspects of status, (3) the importance of looking at different kinds of aggression, e g, physical as well as verbal, (4) the importance of systematically assessing the subject's perceptions of the attacker and the subject's own emotions–arousal, anxiety, guilt, etc at the time of the attack, and (5) the potential for studying variables that determine aggressive and altruistic behavior within the same experimental context.     

Third party instigation of aggression as a function of attack and vulnerability

Subjects serving as advisors instructed a confederate which shock intensity to deliver to an opponent in a reaction-time competition; subjects could also directly aggress by setting shock for the opponent's partner. Vulnerable subjects (shock electrode on) both instigated less aggression, i.e., suggested that less intense shocks be set, and directly aggressed less frequently than nonvulnerable subjects (no shock electrode). Attacked subjects, those for whom the opponents set shock, both instigated more aggression and more frequently set shock than did nonattacked subjects. The relationship between vulnerability and attack was additive for instigative aggression and multiplicative for direct aggression. Both modes of aggression were significantly influenced by the intensity of provocation from the opponents.     

Third party instigated aggression as a function of attack pattern and a nonaggressive response option

In the present study, subjects suggested what shock intensity a confederate should set for her opponent in a reaction time competition. Opponents displayed one of three attack patterns: increasing, decreasing, or minimal provocation. Also, for half the subjects a “no shock” option was available. A control group who had the nonaggressive option and for whom the opponent was nonaggressive (always chose “no shock”) was included. Results revealed that subjects' responses were governed by the norm of reciprocity; also the option reduced instigative aggression for subjects encountering increasing and decreasing provocation, while elevating aggressive response when the opponent was minimally provocative. Results are discussed in terms of attribution and locus of control.     

Frequency of attack in shock-elicited aggression as a function of the performance of individual rats

Fighting rates between paired rats were investigated as a function of the probability of attack by a single animal. Animals from stable high-fighting and low-fighting frequency pairs were intermatched to detect individual high-fighting and low-fighting rats. Pairs of high-fighting animals then received saline or different chlorpromazine dosages during successive sessions. Finally, single high-fighting members of each pair also received the different drug dosages. The chief findings were that: (a) rats showing high fighting rates when matched against each other revealed low fighting rates when matched against one, but not the other member of a low-fighting pair; and (b) high-fighting rats decreased their fighting rates as their own or their opponent's chlorpromazine dosage increased. These results indicated that a low rate of fighting on the part of one rat results in a low fighting rate on the part of its opponent.     

Aggression of police officers as a function of temperature: An experiment with the fire arms training system

The impact of temperature on police officers' tension, perception, and behaviour in police—offender interactions was investigated. It was hypothesized that increased temperature results in: (1) increased tension; (2) a negative impression of the offender; and (3) aggressive behaviour. The findings confirmed these hypotheses. Finally, some implications of the results are discussed.     

Aggression as a reinforcer: operant behavior in the mouse-killing rat

Two experiments examined mouse killing as a reinforcer of key pressing by rats that killed mice. In Experiment I, mouse-killing rats performed the key-pressing response when each press was reinforced with presentation of a mouse. Offered a choice between a key that yielded presentation of mice and one that did not, the rats preferred the key that yielded mice. When the contingency was reversed, the rats preferred the other key and continued to kill mice. In Experiment II, mouse-killing rats that did not kill rat pups performed a key-pressing response reinforced with presentation of mice on a variable-interval schedule. In tests for responding reinforced on that schedule with presentation of normal mice, anesthetized mice, dead mice, or rat pups, these rats that killed mice but not rat pups exhibited a decline in response rate when rat pups were the reinforcer. Altering the condition of the mice did not significantly affect performance.     

Perception of Injustice as a Predictor of Support for Workplace Aggression

In order to determine the relationship between perceptions of injustice and support for workplace aggression, 139 subjects were presented with four scenarios representing different levels and types of injustice. Subjects then responded to an eight-item aggression scale. Support for aggressive behavior across the scenarios generally corresponded to the amount and type of perceived injustice; a procedural injustice scenario was perceived as the most unjust and led to the most support for aggression. Although the interpersonal and distributive injustice scenarios were seen as virtually identical in terms of injustice, there was significantly more support for aggression with interpersonal injustice. The strongest predictor of support for aggression in the justice scenarios, however, was simply the degree of support for aggression in a neutral, or control, scenario. It is suggested that employers need to be concerned both about fair and courteous relations with employees and also with identifying generally aggressive employees.     

Judgments Regarding Sexual Aggression as a Function of Sex of Aggressor and Victim

The effects of sex of aggressor and victim (male/female, female/male, male/male, female/female) on judgments regarding sexual aggression on a date were studied. Participants were 415 female and 279 male community college students (M age = 23.0 years; 47.3% European American, 18.6% Latin American, 7.5% African American, 7.8% South East Asian American, 3.7% Asian American, and 15.1% other) who read one of four vignettes describing a date in which forced intercourse occurred. Participants rated degree of disapproval of the aggressor's behavior from their own viewpoint (Participant Rating), the victim's viewpoint (Victim Rating), and the aggressor's viewpoint (Aggressor Rating). Results of 4 × 2 (Vignette × Participant Gender) ANOVAs of Participant Rating and Victim Rating indicated similar disapproval of the aggressor for all couple types except for female aggressor/male victim, for whom disapproval was significantly lower. The aggressor's overall behavior was rated as date/acquaintance rape by 46.6–55.4% of participants for all vignettes except the female aggressor/male victim vignette (18.7%).     

Ambiguous Communication of Sexual Intentions as a Risk Marker of Sexual Aggression

Three studies are reported that explored the role of ambiguous communication of sexual intentions as a risk factor for sexual aggression and victimization. Two main forms of ambiguous communication were distinguished: token resistance (saying no when you mean yes) and compliance (saying yes when you mean no). Two samples of heterosexual men and women and a sample of homosexual men with a total N of 1284 completed a measure of sexual victimization or aggression and indicated whether or not they had ever shown token resistance or compliance in a sexual encounter. Moreover, the heterosexual male respondents indicated whether they had ever perceived token resistance or compliance in a female partner. Logistic regression analyses revealed that the risk of experiencing sexual victimization was significantly increased as a function of token resistance. Two of the three studies also showed compliance to be a risk factor for sexual victimization. For the male respondents, token resistance was consistently linked to a higher likelihood of perpetrating sexually aggressive acts in the three studies. Perceived compliance was also found to increase the risk of sexual aggression in three of four analyses. Support for a link between perceived token resistance and sexual aggression was found in the first study only. Overall, the findings suggest that the use of ambiguous communication in negotiating sexual encounters is associated with an increased risk of sexual victimization as well as perpetration of sexually aggressive acts in both heterosexual and homosexual contacts. The implications of the findings are discussed with respect to the issue of rape prevention.     

Aggression as One Response to Conflict1

This paper presents two studies that explore the link between self-reported conflict management strategies and aggression. It was predicted that conflict strategies involving concern for the needs of the other would be inconsistent with aggressive behavior. On the other hand, conflict strategies that involve coercion and domination were predicted to be positively related to aggressive behavior. Studies using self-report and behavioral measures of aggression provide support for these predictions.     

Gender of Subject and Target as Mediators of Aggression1

The effects of gender of the subject and the target of aggression were studied by examining responses of 414 undergraduates to four anger-inducing scenarios. As predicted, in the three scenarios not involving dating, males tended to be more aggressive and to expect more approval of aggression from their friends than did females; more aggression was directed against a male, and friends approved more of aggression against a male than a female target. Also as predicted, in the scenario involving a romantic partner, females were more aggressive than males and expected more approval for aggression from friends; males were more likely than females to feel guilty, apologize, and speak politely to their dates. The results suggest that the relationship between gender and aggression is influenced by situational context, friends' anticipated reactions, feelings of guilt, and expectancies of successful outcomes.     

Popularity and Resource Control Goals as Predictors of Adolescent Indirect Aggression

Resource Control Theory conceptualizes aggression as a behavior that allows access to, and control of, limited resources (P. H. Hawley, 1999 Hawley, P.H. (1999). The ontogenesis of social dominance: A strategy-based evolutionary perspective. Developmental Review, 19, 97–132.[Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]). This study investigated the associations of adolescents' indirect aggression with their resource control goals, or goals related to controlling social resources such as dating opportunities and peer status, and with their levels of popularity and social intelligence. Participants were 109 seventh-graders (52% girls) who completed a resource control goals measure, the Tromsø Social Intelligence Scale, and peer nominations of popularity and indirect aggression. Results indicated positive associations between resource control goals and peer-nominated indirect aggression, with popularity further moderating these associations. These findings suggest that the resource control goals of adolescents can be a motivating force to engage in hurtful behaviors. They provide a context from which peer relations researchers can improve their understanding and prevention of adolescents' indirect aggression.     

Executive function as a function of sub-clinical psychopathy

Some aspects of executive function are thought to be dysfunctional in psychopathic individuals. We administered a small battery of neuropsychological tests (spatial alternation task, object alternation task, and Porteus Maze) to two samples of college students and obtained a measure of psychopathy via a self-report questionnaire. Psychopathic traits were related to the tests of object alternation and Porteus Maze but not to the spatial alternation task. Our results support the hypothesis of orbitofrontal cortex (OFC) dysfunction with sparing of dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) in psychopathy and provide a downward extension of this theory to sub-clinical levels of psychopathy.     

Microaggressions Are a Form of Aggression

Most efforts to understand microaggressions have examined affected group members, but little work has been done to understand the motivations and characteristics of offenders. The purpose of this study was to determine whether microaggressions are best conceptualized as a form of aggression, as per common definitions advanced in social psychology, by examining correlations between propensity to commit microaggressions and aggressive tendencies. This cross-sectional study was conducted using MTurk Prime to survey a sample of White and Black adults across the United States (N = 610). Measures administered included the Cultural Cognitions and Actions Scale (CCAS) to assess the likelihood of committing microaggressions, Buss–Perry Aggression Questionnaire (BPAQ), Inventory of Hostility and Suspicious Thinking (IHS), Overt–Covert Aggression Inventory (OCAI), and the Positive and Negative Affectivity Schedule (PANAS). The CCAS was found to be highly and significantly positively correlated with all three measures of aggression. There was a significant negative correlation between Black participants’ ratings of microaggressive interactions being racist and White participants’ likelihood of engaging in those same interactions. There was a significant positive correlation between negative affectivity and the propensity of White participants to commit microaggressions. In a regression predicting microaggressive propensity from aggressive tendencies, the BPAQ was highly significant, whereas negative affectivity was not. Findings indicate that microaggressions represent aggression and hostility on the part of offenders and a form of aggressive behavior that is generally socially unacceptable. Future research should explore the relationship between the many forms of microaggressions and aggression among different groups.