Aggression in dyadic interaction

Abstract

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,

Justification of interpersonal aggression in Japanese, American, and Spanish students

“…These normative beliefs would also moderate the escalation of aggression, justifying and instigating a proportionate retaliation to unjustified norm violations [also see Da Gloria and De Ridder, 1977;Lee and Tedeschi, 1996]. In the three of them, to a certain extent their justification would correspond to rules based on common sense: mild acts, such as verbal aggression, would be more acceptable than stronger ones involving physical aggression; gross provocation would permit greater approval than unprovoked aggression; and people would be more likely to approve acts motivated by altruism than by selfishness.…”

Priming aggressive thoughts: The effect of the anticipation of a violent movie upon the aggressive behaviour of the spectators

“…A few weeks later, all ' Details about the interaction aggressometer used in this study are available from the authors. The apparatus was adapted from the one used by da Gloria and de Ridder (1977Ridder ( ,1979. Whereas this high number of suspicious suspects does not threaten the internal validity of the experiment, it questions its external validity.…”

The judgement of behaviour as aggressive and sanctionable

“…among others Lagerspetz and Westman, 1980). Empirical investigations show that actors who are labelled aggressive are disapproved and avoided (Kane, Joseph and Tedeschi, 1976) and have aversive reactions inflicted upon them (DaGloria and DeRidder, 1977), whereas redefinitions of the critical behaviour, or justifications and excuses expressed by the actor, lessen or prevent retaliation or subsequent sanctions (Mallick and McCandless, 1966;Greenwell and Dengerink, 1973;Schwartz, Kane, Joseph and Tedeschi, 1978;Dedrick, 1978).…”

“…The influence of each single definition criterion on the labelling of behaviour as aggressive, and above all on the resulting selection of reactions, is often studied: injury (Shaw and Reitan, 1969;Nesdale, Rule and McAra, 1975), intent (Nickel, 1974;Epstein and Taylor, 1967), and norm deviation (DaGloria and DeRidder, 1977;Ferguson and Rule, 1983;Brown and Tedeschi, 1976;Stapleton, Joseph and Tedeschi, 1978). As far as we know, their combined effect has not yet been systematically tested.…”