Social-consensual conceptions concerning the progress of aggressive interactions

The present study investigated social consensual conceptions concerning the appropriateness relation between an initiative aggressive action and the reaction to it. To this end subjects were asked to choose between four configurations of mediatory information between B's initial act and A's reaction (i.e. ‘A's offence at B's behaviour’, ‘inappropriateness of B's behaviour’, ‘A's personal standards’, ‘A's fear of negative consequences’), so as to combine identical initial acts with incompatible reactions (i.e. ‘escalation’, ‘breaking’ of, and ‘compensation’) into meaningful episodes. The statistical procedure used, configural frequency analysis, shows that as compared with the number of theoretically possible configurations, very few were selected by subjects (with a high degree of unanimaty) as being specific to a particular type of reaction. Apparently subjects have definite and uniform conceptions about the appropriateness of incompatible reactions to certain aggressive actions in interpersonal conflicts.