Perceptual and Motor Skillr, 1976,42, 485-486. @ Perceptual and Motor Skills 1976
COMPETITIVE BEHAVIOR A N D PERCEIVED AGGRESSION ALBA N. RIVERA AND JAMES T. TEDESCHI State Univerrity of New York at Albany Summary.-In groups of 39 male and 39 female undergraduates played a reaction-time game in which descriptions of a player's shock settings were conscant or consistently below or above another player's; wins were varied. Ratings of aggression, offensiveness, posirivity on semantic scales showed naive subjects considered the offensive or defensive nature of observed behavior in making ratings.
Epstein and Taylor (1) invented a reaction-time paradigm to study aggressive behavior. A subject and a confederate compete to see who has the fastest reaction time in pushing a button when a light illuminates. The loser receives a shock of an intensity pre-set (from low to high on a scale of 1 to 5 ) by the other player prior to the beginning of the trial. The winner is given feedback about the intensity level pre-set by the loser. Findings typically show that as the confederate escalates shock settings over trials, subjects escalate shock settings also, but at a slower rate. The subject is usually labeled as aggressive by the experimenter, and the confederate is referred to as the victim. Tedeschi, Smith, and Brown ( 2 ) argued that naive observers take into account the social context of behavior and do not label self-defense or reciprocity as aggressive. Experimenters in contrast do not distinguish between attack and retaliation in labeling behavior as aggressive. The present study was designed to assess how behavior is labeled in the reaction-time game by naive observers. In mass testing sessions the 39 male and 39 female college students were asked to read one of four scenarios. The reaction-time game was described and a table summarized the mean shock settings and the number of losses by each player over trials. These means served as the independent variables. Whereas Player B's shock settings were the same in all conditions, ranging from 1.33 in the first block of six trials to 3.67 on the fourth and last block, A's settings were either consistently below (1.16 to 2.83) or above (1.50 to 4.50) B's, and both escalated over trials. In addition, either B won four out of every six trials or else A did. Subjects then rated both players on a series of semantic scales, including aggressive ( +3)-nonaggressive ( -3), offensive (+3 )-defensive ( -3), and four items measuring positive ( 12)-negative (-12) evaluations. Main effects of settings were found on the aggressive, offensive, and evaluative ratings of both players (all ps < .001). When Player A set high intensities, he was rated as aggressive ( M = 1.9), offensive ( M = 1.0), and negative (M = -2.6) but when he set lower intensities, he was rated as nonaggressive ( M = -1.2), defensive ( M = -0.7), and positive ( M = 4.3).
+
486
A. N. RIVERA & J. T. TEDESCHI
Despite the fact that B's settings were constant across conditions, he was rated as aggressive ( M = 2.1), offensive ( M = 1.1), and negative ( M = -3.5) when his were relatively higher than A's, and as nonaggressive ( M = -0.3), defensive ( M = -0.5) and positive ( M = 2.8) when they were lower. Trials won produced effects on the aggressive and offensive ratings of Player B (ps < .03). B was rated as aggressive ( M = 1.2) and offensive ( M = 0.8) when he won more often than A but was rated as less aggressive ( M = 0.G) and as defensive ( M = -0.2) when he lost more trials. An interaction ( p < .05) showed that when B's settings were higher than A's, trials won did not affect perceived aggressiveness (both Ms = 2 . 1 ) ; when B set lower intensities and won more trials he was perceived as slightly aggressive ( M = 0.3), but when B ser low intensities and won fewer trials, he was perceived as nonaggressive ( M = -0.9). These results show that naive observers take into account the offensive or defensive nature of behavior before labeling actors as aggressive and suggests that future research on aggression should be careful to distinguish between antinormative and justifiable harm-doing. REFERENCES 1. EPSTEIN,S., & TAYLOR, S. P. Instigation to aggression as a function of degree of defeat and perceived aggressive intent of opponent. Journal of Personality. 1967, 35, 265-289. 2. TEDESCHI, ]. T., SMITH, R. B., 111, & BROWN, R. C., JR. A reinterpretation of research on aggression. Psychological Bulktin, 1974, 89, 540-563. Accepted February 4, 1976.
COMPETITIVE BEHAVIOR A N D PERCEIVED AGGRESSION ALBA N. RIVERA AND JAMES T. TEDESCHI State Univerrity of New York at Albany Summary.-In groups of 39 male and 39 female undergraduates played a reaction-time game in which descriptions of a player's shock settings were conscant or consistently below or above another player's; wins were varied. Ratings of aggression, offensiveness, posirivity on semantic scales showed naive subjects considered the offensive or defensive nature of observed behavior in making ratings.
Epstein and Taylor (1) invented a reaction-time paradigm to study aggressive behavior. A subject and a confederate compete to see who has the fastest reaction time in pushing a button when a light illuminates. The loser receives a shock of an intensity pre-set (from low to high on a scale of 1 to 5 ) by the other player prior to the beginning of the trial. The winner is given feedback about the intensity level pre-set by the loser. Findings typically show that as the confederate escalates shock settings over trials, subjects escalate shock settings also, but at a slower rate. The subject is usually labeled as aggressive by the experimenter, and the confederate is referred to as the victim. Tedeschi, Smith, and Brown ( 2 ) argued that naive observers take into account the social context of behavior and do not label self-defense or reciprocity as aggressive. Experimenters in contrast do not distinguish between attack and retaliation in labeling behavior as aggressive. The present study was designed to assess how behavior is labeled in the reaction-time game by naive observers. In mass testing sessions the 39 male and 39 female college students were asked to read one of four scenarios. The reaction-time game was described and a table summarized the mean shock settings and the number of losses by each player over trials. These means served as the independent variables. Whereas Player B's shock settings were the same in all conditions, ranging from 1.33 in the first block of six trials to 3.67 on the fourth and last block, A's settings were either consistently below (1.16 to 2.83) or above (1.50 to 4.50) B's, and both escalated over trials. In addition, either B won four out of every six trials or else A did. Subjects then rated both players on a series of semantic scales, including aggressive ( +3)-nonaggressive ( -3), offensive (+3 )-defensive ( -3), and four items measuring positive ( 12)-negative (-12) evaluations. Main effects of settings were found on the aggressive, offensive, and evaluative ratings of both players (all ps < .001). When Player A set high intensities, he was rated as aggressive ( M = 1.9), offensive ( M = 1.0), and negative (M = -2.6) but when he set lower intensities, he was rated as nonaggressive ( M = -1.2), defensive ( M = -0.7), and positive ( M = 4.3).
+
486
A. N. RIVERA & J. T. TEDESCHI
Despite the fact that B's settings were constant across conditions, he was rated as aggressive ( M = 2.1), offensive ( M = 1.1), and negative ( M = -3.5) when his were relatively higher than A's, and as nonaggressive ( M = -0.3), defensive ( M = -0.5) and positive ( M = 2.8) when they were lower. Trials won produced effects on the aggressive and offensive ratings of Player B (ps < .03). B was rated as aggressive ( M = 1.2) and offensive ( M = 0.8) when he won more often than A but was rated as less aggressive ( M = 0.G) and as defensive ( M = -0.2) when he lost more trials. An interaction ( p < .05) showed that when B's settings were higher than A's, trials won did not affect perceived aggressiveness (both Ms = 2 . 1 ) ; when B set lower intensities and won more trials he was perceived as slightly aggressive ( M = 0.3), but when B ser low intensities and won fewer trials, he was perceived as nonaggressive ( M = -0.9). These results show that naive observers take into account the offensive or defensive nature of behavior before labeling actors as aggressive and suggests that future research on aggression should be careful to distinguish between antinormative and justifiable harm-doing. REFERENCES 1. EPSTEIN,S., & TAYLOR, S. P. Instigation to aggression as a function of degree of defeat and perceived aggressive intent of opponent. Journal of Personality. 1967, 35, 265-289. 2. TEDESCHI, ]. T., SMITH, R. B., 111, & BROWN, R. C., JR. A reinterpretation of research on aggression. Psychological Bulktin, 1974, 89, 540-563. Accepted February 4, 1976.
