It is shown that the notions of aggressive behavior as 'intentional emission of noxiow stimulation' (Buss, 1961(Buss, , 1963(Buss, , 1966(Buss, , 1971 and that of 'injuriating goal response ' (Dolknd, Doob, Miller, Mower and Sears, 1939) are identical. The usefulness of these theories to predict S's reaction to the reception of a given noxious stimulation is questioned. I t is suggested that S's reactions to noxious stimulation may or may not be aggressive, depending on whether the noxious stimulation S receives is interpreted as being a behavior justified by the n o m in the situation, or as reflecting an aggressive intent of 0. I t is hypothesized that the norms established in the situation depend on (i) victim's perception of the noxious stimulation received as being instrumental for 0 s goal attainment, (ii) victim's perception of the value of 0 s goal, and (iii) the value of victim's own goal. The establishment of norms regulating the exchange of noxious stimulation between Ss is operationalized in two experiments. Aggression, defined as an infringement of these norms, is measured. In Experiment I, participate 56 female students, and in Experiment 2, 80 male students. Subject is alternately victim (he performs a sensori-motor task and receives an electric shock) and aggressor (he shocks the other S ) . In Experiment I it is found that Ss counteraggress faster and more frequently if they interpret the shock received from the partner as an infringement of the norm. In Experiment 2, Ss do not counteraggress more * In preparing this paper we were greatly assistance in execution of the experiments, helped by the fruitful discussions with we are indebted to Miss FranfoisaMarie members of the staff from the Labratoire F&al and Miss May Veldhuis.de Psychologie Sociale in Paris, especially +* Experiment 2 was designed and con-Robert Pages, and members of the Depart-ducted while the author was a student in ment of Social Psychology in Nijmegen,

The automatic skeletal motor responses of 20 male and 20 female student subjects (aged 20–36) receiving a painful stimulation (electric shock) were studied by examining voluntary concomitant extensions and flexions of the arm. These movements were either of long duration, allowing for an on‐line control of their execution or, of short duration, requiring extensive pre‐programming. Subjects were instructed either to push or to pull a lever upon receipt of an acoustic signal, which was paired or unpaired with an electric shock. Latencies for long duration movements (regardless of direction) were reduced by reception of painful stimulation. Latencies of short duration extensions and flexions were respectively reduced and increased by painful stimulation. Latencies of short duration movements were larger for females than males, regardless of movement direction. These data suggest that painful stimulation elicits automatic movements which affect programming of the termination of simultaneous voluntary movements. Implications of these findings for the study of aggressive behavior are discussed. © 1994 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.

The effect of presenting images of firearms on the speed of clenching of the fist of human subjects simultaneously receiving an aversive stimulation was studied. It was thought that, whereas the classic interpersonal experimental situation confounds the effects of the stimulus presented and several interpersonal processes, speed of fist clenching in a noninterpersonal setting could constitute a valid measure of the subject's readiness to fight. liventyfour male and 24 female students (ages > 20 and <36 years) were instructed to press with their right hand a device commanding the projection of slides upon reception of an acoustic signal. Speed of clenching of the hand was recorded in the four conditions generated by the combination of two levels of acoustic signal (aversive and nonaversive) and two modalities of slides (firearms or tools). The results show that the reception of aversive sound accelerates fist clenching. Simultaneous presentation of slides of firearms and reception of aversive noise increases the speed of clenching of the fist. The slides' main effect was not significant. More irritable subjects tend to execute this movement faster than their less irritable counterparts, and more emotionally susceptible subjects tend to be slower than less susceptible ones. Male subjects were faster than females. This pattern of results is discussed in relation to the hypothesis formulated by the authors.