Instigating and measuring interpersonal aggression and hostility: A methodological contribution

Abstract

Two experiments were conducted, employing a 2 × 2 factorial design, to assess both 1)a relatively controlled procedure for instigating aggressive inclinations and 2) a way of measuring interpersonal aggression that is much more subtle than most of the laboratory procedures now being used. In both of these experiments half of the subjects were provoked by exposing them to a self‐esteem‐threatening evaluation ostensibly from a peer. After this “treatment,” in experiment 1 all of the subjects had an opportunity to deliver electric shocks to the supposed other student, much as in many of the laboratory experiments in this area, and then rate that student. Shock intensity was not significantly correlated with the unfavorableness of these latter ratings, as if the subjects had reacted in different ways to the shocks they had delivered. In experiment 2, after the instigating treatment the subjects were allowed to withhold rewards from the other person whenever he made correct guesses on a supposed “ESP task.” In this procedure the behavioral hostility (withholding rewards) was positively correlated with the unfavorableness of the subsequent questionnaire ratings, apparently because the subjects were not fully aware of having expressed hostility.

Personality and aggressive behavior under provoking and neutral conditions: A meta-analytic review.

“…Emotional susceptibility is defined as a stable tendency to feel distressed, inadequate, and vulnerable to perceived threats (Caprara, 1982;Caprara et al, 1983;Caprara, Renzi, et al, 1986). Caprara (1982) hypothesized that emotional susceptibility reflects a propensity to experience negative affect and a tendency to become upset and defensive when confronted with personal attacks and insults.…”

When Praising Yourself Insults Others: Self-Superiority Claims Provoke Aggression

“…Although provocation may take many forms, ranging from minor frustrations to physical attacks, it is often verbal. Verbal provocation may in turn be overt, as in blatant personal insults, or can be veiled, as in disparagement humor (e.g., Caprara, Passerini, Pastorelli, Renzi, & Zelli, 1986; Janes & Olson, 2000; Zillmann, 1983). Yet, all hitherto studied forms of verbal provocation involve a communicator delivering an unpleasant message to and about others (“observers”).…”

The Impact of Individual Difference Factors on Men’s Competitive Intent Against a Female Confederate Following Social Stress

“…Although much of the research on the frustration–aggression hypothesis has occurred within the realm of video game competition/violence (Williams & Clippinger, 2002), it is argued that the basic premise of the frustration–aggression hypothesis may well inform the current design. Furthermore, Caprara, Passerini, Pastorelli, Renzi, and Zelli (1986) suggested that more subtle forms of aggression align more closely with participants’ negative ratings of a confederate following an insult than aggressive responding. Participants may also be more likely to exhibit subtle forms of aggression in the laboratory because these behaviors may be more socially acceptable, but still offer important information about aggressive intentions (Caprara et al, 1986).…”

“…Furthermore, Caprara, Passerini, Pastorelli, Renzi, and Zelli (1986) suggested that more subtle forms of aggression align more closely with participants’ negative ratings of a confederate following an insult than aggressive responding. Participants may also be more likely to exhibit subtle forms of aggression in the laboratory because these behaviors may be more socially acceptable, but still offer important information about aggressive intentions (Caprara et al, 1986). Therefore, measuring changes in competitive intent toward and attributions about a target when that target has instigated negative emotion by thwarting goal-directed behavior (i.e., criticizing his performance during a social task) may represent a subtle form of aggression.…”