Attribution theorists propose that negative actions of others perceived as intended elicit anger, and anger then functions as a motivator of hostile behavior. We examined the understanding of these attribution-affect-action linkages among young ethnic minority adolescents. Forty-four Latino and African-American middle-school children labeled as aggressive and a matched group of nonaggressives read causally ambiguous scenarios describing negative outcomes initiated by a hypothetical peer. They then made judgments about the peer's intentions, their own feelings of anger, and the likelihood that they would behave aggressively toward that peer. Concerning the relations between these variables, the data supported a mediational model of emotion as postulated by attribution theory. The implications of these findings for attributional change were discussed. This article was written while Sandra Graham was a Fellow at the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences, Stanford, California, with support from the Spencer Foundation and the Ford Foundation Postdoctoral Fellowship for Minorities. We thank Ms. Willis Charles and the students of Washington Middle School for their patience and cooperation. Appreciation also is extended to Kaori Karasawa for her help with data analysis and to Bernard Weiner for his comments on an earlier version of this article.

Principles from attribution theory were used to analyze public reactions to the health status of Magic Johnson. An experimental study containing two distinct samples (college students and African‐American adults) together with supplemental reports from local and national media confirm the value of this approach. The findings show that inferences about causal responsibility are related to affective reactions of sympathy and anger toward Magic Johnson. Implications for attribution theory, as well as for future attitudes toward Magic Johnson, are discussed.

No abstract