Attributions and arousal as mediators of mitigation's effect on retaliation.

Abstract

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.

How attribution influences aggression: Answers to an old question by using an implicit measure of anger

“…In contrast, Berkowitz (1981) found that irrespective of attributions frustration increased arousal. In a similar vein, Kremer and Stephens (1983) showed that attribution to unintentionality increased physiological arousal, but reduced aggressive behavior, confirming the assumption that attribution merely increases control. However, although arousal is difficult to control and people may be unaware of the fact that a physiological indicator of anger is being measured, there are other problems with that measure.…”

“…In an attempt to measure uncontrolled anger and aggressive impulses, physiological arousal has been examined (Berkowitz, 1981;Johnson & Rule, 1986;Kremer & Stephens, 1983;Zillmann & Cantor, 1976). Zillmann and Cantor (1976) as well as Johnson and Rule (1986) report that attribution to unintentionality decreased physiological arousal, supporting the assumption of lowered aggressive impulses.…”

“…However, although arousal is difficult to control and people may be unaware of the fact that a physiological indicator of anger is being measured, there are other problems with that measure. In particular, Kremer and Stephens (1983) point out that physiological arousal may not only reflect anger but also the cognitive effort caused by making attributions or trying to empathize with the aggressor. As some authors manipulated attributions by inducing sympathy for the stressfull situation of the aggressor (e.g., Johnson & Rule, 1986;Kremer & Stephens, 1983;Zillmann & Cantor, 1976), such processes might have occurred.…”

“…To manipulate attributions, half of the frustrated participants learned that their partner had confused the end points of the rating scale and had actually intended the opposite evaluation. This manipulation has the advantage that it is less likely to induce empathy than previous manipulations that have varied mitigating circumstances (Burnstein & Worchel, 1962;Johnson & Rule, 1986;Kremer & Stephens, 1983;Zillmann & Cantor, 1976). Furthermore, this procedure implies that the partner has even had positive intentions, which allows for a stronger test of the hypotheses.…”

“…Because these differences are mainly due to differences in control of aggressive impulses (Campbell, 2006;Knight, Guthrie, Page, & Fabes, 2002) we would have expected complex interactions of gender, attribution, and type of measure. Second, most of previous studies on attribution and aggression that provided the basis for our study were conducted only on male participants (Epstein & Taylor, 1967;Johnson & Rule, 1986;Kremer & Stephens, 1983;Kulik & Brown, 1979;Nickel, 1974;Zillmann & Cantor, 1976). Up to three participants took part in the study at the same time.…”