Power imbalance,its legitimacy,and aggression

Sixty Japanese female students were asked to exchange shocks in electric roulette games with female opponents. The subjects were assigned to either the 80%, 50%, or 20% win conditions. Half of them were then led to judge that the power unbalance was legitimate by being informed that the assignment was based on a prior performance contest, with the good performer being assigned to the advantageous position. The other subjects were led to perceive the power imbalance as illegitimate by being informed that the assignment was randomly decided. The opponents always severely attacked them. The retaliation by the subjects was analyzed by a two-way ANOVA with Power Imbalance and Legitimacy. It was found that the subjects both in the 20% and 50% win conditions set more intense shocks to their opponents than those in the 80% win condition. This is not consistent with the fear of retaliation hypothesis which had predicted that the subjects would refrain from intensely aggressing against the opponent who had a greater aggressive capacity. It was also found that in the 80% win condition, the subjects set more intense shocks when the unbalance had been determined by their performance than when determined by luck, whereas in the 20% win condition, they set more intense shocks when the imbalance had been determined by luck than when determined by their performance. These suggest that retaliation depended upon perceived justifiability of aggression which was predicated on the legitimacy of the power imbalance. Finding in the 50% win condition that the shock settings were higher when the power imbalance had been determined by their performance than when determined by luck was interpreted in terms of their heightened competitiveness.     

The reduction of attack instigated aggression

Thirty subjects competed with an opponent in a reaction time task to avoid receiving shock. The opponent initially set only the highest possible intensity shock for the subjects. The opponent then adopted one of three strategies to reduce the intensity of shocks set by the subjects. In one condition the opponent set shock intensities which matched those set by the subject. In a second condition the opponent set shocks which were not contingent upon those set by the subject but which were identical to those set by the opponent who matched the subject's settings. The opponent in the third condition suddenly reduced the intensity of his settings and chose only the least intense possible shock for the subject. All three conditions resulted in reduced aggression. This decrement was greatest and most rapid among those subjects who were exposed to a precipitous decrease in the intensity of attack.     

Attack,inhibition and target of aggression

Predictions concerning aggression displacement, derived from Miller's conflict model, were investigated under conditions in which subjects' inhibitions about aggressing against an attacker were manipulated. Half of the high-attacked subjects were placed in a high-inhibition situation, designed so that strong inhibitory tendencies competed with strong aggressive tendencies; the remaining high-attacked subjects were placed in a low-inhibition situation, designed so that weak inhibitory tendencies competed with strong aggressive tendencies. Low-attacked control subjects also received the inhibition treatment. High- and low-attacked subjects were then confronted with one of four target persons, varying in similarity, toward whom they could aggress with electric shock. As expected, under high inhibition, the target most similar to the attacker received more shocks from high-attacked subjects than did either the attacker or two less similar targets. Contrary to expectation, the attacker did not receive the most shocks under low inhibition; personality evaluations of the attacker suggested that high-attacked subjects in substitute target conditions may have been unintentionally angered further by being denied the opportunity for direct retaliation.     

The use of strategies and messages to alter aggressive interactions

Male and female college students were instigated to aggression by a confederate's shocks during a preliminary task. The confederate informed half of the treatment subjects of the response strategy which he intended to adopt. The other half received an irrelevant message. All subjects then competed against the confederate, who employed one of the following five response consequence strategies: a) set a maximum shock on all trials; b) set a minimum shock on all trials; c) set shocks identical to the subject's response on the preceding trial; d) set shocks two settings below the subject's response; or e) set shocks two settings above the subject's. The subject's latency to setting a shock, the intensities of the shocks set, the durations of the shock settings, and the subject's reaction times were recorded. When an irrelevant message was delivered, passive responses, well below those of the opponent, resulted in the lowest level of retaliation. In the presence of a relevant message, the match-same strategy emerged as an effective deterrent to aggressive behavior. The results were found to be consistent with predictions derived from an application of the norm of reciprocity and research demonstrating the enhancing effects achieved through the communication of existing contingencies.     

Instigation to aggression as a function of degree of defeat and the capacity for massive retaliation

Forty-eight subjects, half of whom were assigned to a condition of massive retaliation (MR) and half of whom were not (NMR), competed against a presumed opponent The loser on each trial received a shock of intensity level selected by the winner at the beginning of a trial and, simultaneously, feedback on the opponent's shock setting The winner received only feedback on the opponent's shock setting Defeat and feedback of aggressive intent (opponent's shock setting) were varied independently In the MR condition, an extreme level of shock could be selected Although its use was avoided, its psychological presence influenced perception of the opponent, aggressive behavior, and physiological arousal Consistent with previous findings, primary frustration was found to be a relatively inconsequential instigator to aggression compared to learned social attitudes     

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.     

Physical aggression: Effects of ethnicity of target and directionality of aggression

Physical aggression of members of a powerful majority ethnic group against an opponent either from a powerless and discriminated against minority or from their own group was tested as a function of aggression directionality and aggressor's attitudes. It was hypothesized that under bidirectional aggression where the opponent could aggress as well, members of the powerful majority group would adjust their aggressive responses to that of their opponent's regardless of his ethnic origin and regardless of aggressor's attitudes. However. under unidirectional aggression where the opponent was powerless, it was expected that those subjects who held unfavourable attitudes toward members of the minority group would be more aggressive against an opponent of that group than against an opponent of his own ethnic group. Subjects who had neutral attitudes would be equally aggressive toward all opponents. Ninety-six 11th grade vocational high school male students of Western origin, were given the opportunity to administer electric shocks to an opponent who was either of Western or Oriental origin in a competitive situation, Subjects were selected according to their attitudes toward Oriental Jews. Half expressed negative attitudes, the other half neutral attitudes. Half of the subjects expected their opponent to reciprocate shocks, the others did not. Contrary to expectations it was found that the attitudes of subjects of Western origin towards Orientals did not effect their aggressive behaviour. When aggression could not be reciprocated, all subjects were more aggressive toward an opponent of Oriental than of Western origin. The findings showed that when aggression was bidirectional, all subjects adjusted their aggressive behaviour, to their opponents'. However, they were less aggressive towards an opponent of Oriental than of Western origin.     

Intellectual ability and aggressive behavior in nonclinical-nonforensic males

The purpose of this study was to test the relationship between IQ and physical aggression in a nonclinical-nonforensic male sample in a laboratory setting. Thirty males completed an abbreviated version of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale—Revised. Aggression was measured using a modified version of the Taylor reaction-time (RT) aggression paradigm in which subjects competed on a RT task and both received and delivered shocks to a fictitious opponent in provoking and nonprovoking conditions. Provocation conditions (High and Low) were defined by the intensity of shocks the subjects received. Results demonstrated strong inverse correlations between IQ and aggressive behavior under both High and Low Provocation conditions.     

Withdrawal,matching, withdrawal-matching,and variable-matching strategies in reducing attack-instigated aggression

Several studies have investigated strategies that a participant in dyadic aggression may use to reduce the aggression of the other participant. In one set of these studies the subject is instigated to aggression by an opponent who sets maximum shocks for the subject to receive during the first block of six trials. Following attack-instigation, opponents shift to withdrawal and matching strategies for 18 trials. The withdrawal strategy is an abrupt shift to the lowest levels of shock possible. The matching strategy is the exact matching by an opponent of the shock set by the subject on the previous trial. With these procedures the withdrawal strategy has been the most effective method to reduce aggression. These results led to the suggestion that the effectiveness of the withdrawal strategy may be due to immediate, unambiguous communication by the opponent of his willingness to reduce attack. This hypothesis was tested in the present study by creating a matching condition modified to include immediate, unambiguous communication of willingness to reduce attack. In this withdrawal-matching condition the opponent followed attack with two trials of the lowest levels of shock before shifting to a matching strategy. Although the withdrawal-matching strategy did not lead to shock settings that were significantly lower than the matching strategy, there was evidence that subjects interacting with withdrawal-matching opponents did reduce their shock settings from block 1 to block 4 more rapidly than subjects interacting with matching opponents. A variable matching strategy was also used to provide a more realistic analogy of matching in the mundane world. While subjects with variable-matching opponents also did not set shock levels during blocks 2, 3, and 4 that were significantly lower than the matching strategy, there was evidence that subjects in this condition reduced their shock levels more rapidly than subjects with matching opponents. Although the effects were not as strong as expected, the results do provide some support for the interpretation that the effectiveness of the withdrawal strategy may be due to unambiguous communication of willingness by the opponent to reduce his or her aggression. The effectiveness of the variable-matching strategy was attributed to interrupting the tendency of the subject and his or her opponent to match each other's responses. Consistent with earlier attack-instigated aggression studies, the withdrawal strategy in the present study led to a rapid reduction in aggression.     

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.     

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.     

Individual differences in aggressive responses to attack: Internal-external locus of control and field dependence-independence

Two experiments assessed the effect of individual differences on aggression. In both studies subjects were exposed to opponents in the competitive reaction time task who decreased the intensity of their attack from high to low, remained constantly moderate in their attack, or increased the intensity of their attack from low to high. In the first experiment Internal Locus of Control subjects consistently set high intensity shocks in response to high intensity attack and low shocks in response to mild attack. External subjects showed relatively minor variations in their aggressive responses to varying intensities of attack. In the second experiment field-independent subjects set more intense shocks than field-dependent subjects only in the Decreasing attack condition.     

The consequences of noncooperation for the target of third party instigated aggression

Consequences for a new target as a function of noncooperation was investigated in the instigative aggression paradigm. Subjects instigated partners to aggress against an opponent by suggesting what shock intensity to deliver. The partner was either cooperative (i.e., complied with the suggestion) or noncooperative (i.e., refused to set high shocks). Subsequently, subjects were given the opportunity to be directly aggressive by actually setting the shocks themselves. During this phase a new target who was nonprovocative was introduced. Subjects aggressed alone, in the presence of their partner, or in the presence of a new person. Results revealed that noncooperation reduced the level of instigative aggression and carried over to the second phase of the experiment. Subjects who had had cooperative partners were more aggressive toward the new target than were subjects who had had noncooperative partners. The presence or absence of the partner was not significant.     

Aggressive disposition,alcohol, and aggression

This study investigated the effect of aggressive disposition on intoxicated and non-intoxicated aggressive behavior. Prior aggressiveness was measured with a structured questionnaire. Based on a bipartite split of scores, 28 subjects were assigned to the high aggressor group, and 29 to the low aggressor group. Subjects in both disposition groups were then randomly assigned to either a drunk or sober condition, and participated in a competitive reaction time task involving the administering and receiving of electric shocks to/from a fictitious opponent under conditions of high and low provocation. Aggression was defined as shock level intensity delivered to the sham opponent. When highly provoked, sober high aggressors were significantly more aggressive than low aggressors, thus validating the measure of aggressive disposition. When intoxicated, highly provoked individuals in both the high and low aggressive disposition groups attained equal levels of aggression. It was low aggressors who responded to escalated provocation with a significant increase in aggression responding when intoxicated. These results lend support to the notion that a pharmacological effect of alcohol can increase aggressive behaviour. Aggr. Behav. 23:11–18, 1997. © 1997 Wiley-Liss, Inc.     

Cognitive performance,monetary incentive,and aggression

Individuals with impaired cognitive abilities associated with frontal lobe function have recently been shown to manifest increased aggression. This study investigated the effect of contingent money to inhibit aggression in these individuals. One hundred and forty males, aged 18–40, were ranked according to their performance on the Spatial Conditional Associative-Learning task. Forty-eight males (24 with scores in each of the upper and lower performance quartiles) participated in the full study. Half of the subjects competed in a Taylor aggression task where they received a monetary incentive for choosing lower shocks; the remainder competed without any monetary contingency. Aggression was defined as shock intensity delivered to a sham opponent. Shock intensity significantly increased as a main effect of lower cognitive performance, absence of monetary incentive, and provocation. In addition, provocation interacted significantly with test performance. Finally, individuals in the upper cognitive performance quartile showed significantly greater reductions of unprovoked aggression in response to monetary incentive. The results are discussed in terms of impairments in the ability to associate inhibitory influences in the formulation of behavioral strategies under aggressive conditions. © 1996 Wiley-Liss, Inc.     

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.     

The effects of alcohol and extreme provocation on the use of a highly noxious electric shock

Intoxicated and nonintoxicated subjects were given the opportunity to administer a potentially injurious level of shock to an opponent who behaved in either a provocative or an extremely provocative manner. The provocative opponent attempted to administer high-intensity shocks to the subject. The extremely provocative opponent attempted to administer high-intensity shocks and the potentially injurious level of shock. The intoxicated subjects in the extreme provocation condition evidenced the greatest increase in the use of the potentially injurious shock. It was concluded that aggression is a function of the interaction of alcohol consumption and level of provocation.     

Beyond negotiated outcomes: The hidden costs of anger expression in dyadic negotiation

This paper focuses on the hidden costs of expressing anger in negotiations. Two experimental studies show that an opponent’s expression of anger can elicit both concessionary and retaliatory responses by focal negotiators. In the first study, equal-power negotiators exhibited overt concessionary behaviors when their opponents expressed anger, but also sabotaged their opponents covertly. Feelings of mistreatment mediated the relationship between opponents’ anger expression and focal negotiators’ covert retaliation. In the second study, low-power negotiators made larger concessions when high-power opponents expressed anger, but they retaliated covertly against high-power negotiators. High-power negotiators were overtly demanding (and not concessionary) regardless of whether or not the opponent expressed anger, but also retaliated covertly against low-power opponents who expressed anger. The two studies suggest that the value-claiming advantages of expressed anger need to be weighed against the costs of eliciting (covert) retaliation. We discuss implications of the findings and provide recommendations for future research.     

Retaliation to personalistic attack

Jones and Davis's [1965. Advances in experimental social psychology. Academic Press] notion of “personalism” was experimentally tested in a situation in which behavior had negative hedonic relevance for the recipient. It was hypothesized that (1) if a person is attacked by another person, this victim will react more negatively than when no attack occurs and that (2) a victim who is singled out for attack will react more negatively compared with victims of an undistinctive attack (i.e., when the actor behaves similarly toward the victim and a third person). A 2 × 2 design was employed with “Victim of attack” as the first factor (no attack vs. attack) and “Behaviour toward a third person” as the second factor (no attack vs. attack). The main dependent variable was the number of attacks by the victim toward the attacker (retaliation). Thirty‐two students took part in the experiment. Victims of attack retaliated more against the attacker than those who suffered from no attack. Victims of a personalistic attack retaliated more than victims of an undistinctive attack. The results, confirming both hypotheses, support an attributional view on harm‐doing and contradict the notion of retaliation as pure behavioral reciprocity. Aggr. Behav. 25:91–96, 1999. © 1999 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.