No abstract

A provocative but little studied hypothesis in research on aggression is the notion that Assummg equal hahit strength for both fli^t and fight, and assummg that tiie attacker and the victim are of equal status, the tendency to coimter-attack should vary curvihnearly with the mtensity of attack Tins relationship is especially apparent when the attack consists of physical aggression. (Buss, 1961, P 29) Buss explains that if physical attack is very mild, it serves as a weak stimulus for counter aggression. Fighting back, however, becomes more probable and mtense as the attack stimulus increases in mtensity until the "upper levels of intensity" are reached, at which pomt flight responses should begm to predommate over agonistic counter responses.The above notion, however, must be classified as a common sense idea rather than as a prmciple of behavior, for as Buss (1961) has pomted out, there are few systematically acquired data that bear on the proposition. Taylor and colleagues (e.g., Epstem & Taylor, 1967;) had a confederate gradually mcrease shock levels m his exchanges with subjects and found that subjects' counter shock responses tended to mcrease m mtensity. A linear rather than a curvilinear relationship m mtensity of attack and counterattack was thus observed. In diese studies, however, the subject had to shock, i.e., on each trial he had to set a TOunter shock for the "otiier subject" at one of Bve mtensity

Adolescent males, both delinquent and nondelinquent, were used in the development of a task in which two Ss first make separate decisions, then a joint decision regarding a number of paired photos of girls' faces. The task was developed in order to facilitate and encourage controlled experimentation in the study ofinterpersonaldominance.

A large number of animal species, lncludmg all primates, create dommance or status hierarchies among themselves (eg, Shner, Harlow, and Stollmtz, 1965) Studies which have looked at aggressive behavior withm these species have reported that, m general, physical aggression is inhibited toward high status animals while low status animals are often the target of assaults (Lorenz, 1963, Kawamura, 1967 While it might be expected that the above findings would have stimulated research on the role of status m human aggression, actually little has been done Everyday observation would suggest that the flow of physical aggression within human populations may often be predicted on status hierarchies as well More aggression seems to be directed "downward" toward lower-status mdividuals (parents to children, majority members to minority group members, etc ) than "upward" toward higher-status persons However, only casual reflection on these examples suggests that there are many exceptions to the above proposition The fact IS that very little is known about the role of status as an mhibitor and/or facilitator of aggression among humansThe few systematic investigations which have been concerned with the relationship between status and aggression have suggested that subjects direct relatively less aggression towards high-than towards low-status individuals