Research has found that when mitigating information is presented prior to provocation, subsequent retaliation by the victim is reduced. However, the literature is equivocal regarding the effect of mitigation when it is presented after provocation. An examination of contradictory studies revealed the following differences among them: (a) Mitigating information was presented immediately after or several minutes after provocation and (b) victims were or were not permitted to observe additional provocations. In this study, 40 young men were randomly assigned to one of four conditions in which these two factors were varied. Early mitigation reduced retaliation when it was not followed by an additional provocation, and late mitigation did not reduce subsequent retaliation. Strength of retaliation was moderately linked to judgments of consensus (attribution theory). This result supports the suggestion from other studies that mitigation may influence retaliation through an attribution process. Physiological arousal was unrelated to retaliation in this study. These physiological data were integrated with those of previous studies based on Zajonc's (1980) suggestion that the affective and cognitive systems are semi-independent and that affective responses can precede cognitive ones.

No abstract