The judgement of behaviour as aggressive and sanctionable

Abstract

In addition, an analysis of how the scenarios representing the experimental conditions were subjectively interpreted by the subjects was carried out. This showed that all combinations of the three definition criteria are psychologically meaningfil. However, preferences were observed for specific interpretation patterns.

Evaluation of aggressive interactions in interpersonal and intergroup contexts

“…Contrary to our hypotheses and although reaction times correctly reflected our operationalization, lay epistemic motivation had no impact on the perspective-or context-specific inappropriateness ratings. One possible explanation for this may be that the aggressive episodes presented in the given study were not sufficiently ambiguous: it was easy to identify the "true" initial actor and recipient and the actor's behavior clearly met the defining criteria of aggressive acts (i.e., norm deviation, harmful consequences, and intention to harm; according to Loschper et al [1984]). One may ask whether such clearly outlined, unambiguous events-besides the typical perspective-specific divergence-provide the possibility of several alternative interpretations whose consideration and weight could be determined by different motivational conditions.…”

Perspective‐specific differences in the segmentation and evaluation of aggressive interaction sequences

“…The evaluations were obtained on seven-point bipolar rating scales. The five variables are closely related to the factors norm deviation, intention, harm, which are supposed to be decisive criteria for the definition of aggressive behaviour (Loschper, Mummendey, Linneweber and Bornewasser, 1984).…”

On the Experience of Injustice

“…Averill, 1983;Weiner, 1985Weiner, , 1987) and aggression (e.g. Gergen, 1984;Loschper, Mummendey, Linneweber & Bornewasser, 1984;Rule & Ferguson, 1984). This should not come as a surprise if one considers the partial overlap of these research topics.…”