| Abstract: | To determine whether the reduction of retaliatory behavior by knowledge of mitigating circumstances is due to less motivation to retaliate or to an inhibition of motivated retaliation, subjects were provoked by a rude experimenter and informed of mitigating conditions (a) before provocation, (b) after provocation, or (c) not at all. Physiological data revealed that prior knowledge of mitigation prevented pronounced excitatory responses to prococation. In contrast, when mitigating conditions were not known, excitatory responses to provocation were intense. In addition, when mitigating information was supplied after provocation, excitatory responses decayed more rapidly than when no such information was supplied. Retaliatory behavior, as measured in complaints about the rude experimenter, was substantially lower in the condition in which mitigation preceded provocation than in the other two conditions. The retaliatory behavior of subjects who were informed of mitigation after being provoked did not differ significantly from that of subjects who were not informed of mitigation. The findings were interpreted as incompatible with the assumption that under mitigating conditions retaliation is motivated but inhibited and as generally supportive of the proposal that mitigation attenuates the response to provocation. In order to explain the failure of the reception of mitigating information after provocation to reduce retaliatory behavior in spite of the observed facilitation of excitatory decay, it was suggested that when subjects were experiencing high levels of anger, they formed a behavioral disposition to retaliate, which outlasted the state of elevated arousal. |
