Journal of Personality Assessment
ISSN: 0022-3891 (Print) 1532-7752 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hjpa20
Perception of Aggression and Overt Aggressive Behavior I. Louis Young To cite this article: I. Louis Young (1975) Perception of Aggression and Overt Aggressive Behavior, Journal of Personality Assessment, 39:3, 299-304, DOI: 10.1207/ s15327752jpa3903_13 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa3903_13
Published online: 10 Jun 2010.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 3
View related articles
Citing articles: 4 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=hjpa20 Download by: [Central Michigan University]
Date: 06 November 2015, At: 17:17
Journal of Personality Assessment, 1975,39, 3
Perception of Aggression and Overt Aggressive Behavior I. LOUIS YOUNG University of Massachusetts
Summary: Investigated the relationship between thresholds for perception of aggressive cues and overt aggressive behavior in 86 male undergraduate students. Overt aggressive behavior was measured by the amount of shock the subject attempted to inflict on his presumed opponent. It was found that individuals with low thresholds for aggressive cues expressed less overt aggressive behavior while individuals with high thresholds for aggression expressed more overt aggression. Thus an inverse relationship was found with respect to perceptual recognition thresholds for aggressive stimuli and overt aggressive behavior. The implications of these findings for projective techniques and their relevance to perception as it relates t o overt behavior were discussed.
Downloaded by [Central Michigan University] at 17:17 06 November 2015
0
A number of experiments have demonstrated that an individual's need-state influences his perception, A general finding has been that a lowering of recognition thresholds often, but not always, occurs to need-related stimuli. Ways in which psychological defenses ,and non-need variables influence perceptual thresholds have been discussed by among others Bruner and Postman (1947a, 1947b). They have labeled two patterns of perceptual adaptation as sensitization and defense. Generally perceptual sensitization represents the lowering of recognition thresholds for anxiety-laden cues in an effort by the individual to defend himself against threat while perceptual defense or repression reduces discomfort by avoiding the recognition of a source of threat. The present study was designed to investigate these phenomena but in the limited sense of defining threat as the perception of aggressive cues, as opposed t o neutral cues. It sought to discover any relationship which might exist between perceptual sensitization or repression of visually presented aggressive cues and actual overt aggressive behavior. This has particular relevance to clinical work where measures of perception are frequently used t o make highly general inferences about nonperceptual behavior (overt behavior) in real life situations. An
added difficullty arises when projective techniques, for example, are assumed to be measures of perception when obviously more than perception is involved in the response to such instruments (Haskell, 1961; Kagan, 119.56; Pittluck, 1950). In this experiment, perceptual responses were measured by an individual's perceptual recognition threshold to aggressive versus neutral cues in a TAT-like presentation. Overt aggressive behavior was measured in a laboratory situation involving provocation and subsequent expression of aggression.
Method Subjects Eighty-six male undergraduate students at the ZJniversity of Massachusetts were used. From this group of 86, three extreme groups of 18 subjects each were selected and labeled Repressors, Sensitizers and Coniirols. Each group was selected on the baslls of their perceptual recognition threshold (PRT) for aggressive cues. Measures and Apparatus The perceptual recognition task. This consisted of 1 7 black and white scenes with five levels of clarity for each. The level of clarity for each scene was determined by the extent t o which wavy black lines were present in the picture. The five levels of clarity of each scene were comCondensed version of a dissertation submitparable for the 17 scenes. The first picted in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the PhD. ture of a , scene was completely unclear Now at Taylor Manor Hospital, Ellicott City, and each successive picture was slightly Md. 21043. more clear. The final picture was clearly
Downloaded by [Central Michigan University] at 17:17 06 November 2015
300
Perception o f Aggression and Overt Aggressive Behavior
recognizable by most subjects. There were four aggressive, ten neutral, and three practice scenes and were similar to those employed in a study by Epstein and Mello (Note 1). There were two medium and two strong scenes for the content area of aggression, which was portrayed by either human figures or animals. The remaining ten scenes portrayed humans or animals in neutral situations. The scenes were presented such that no two strong or medium relevant scenes were adjacent. The 17 scenes were projected on a 9' x 9' screen to students by means of an opaque projection lantern. Each picture of the 17 scenes was presented for five seconds at each of its five levels of clarity, with an interstimulus interval of ten seconds during which the student wrote his response. The aggression task. The apparatus consisted of subject's task board and examiner's monitoring board. The apparatus is described in detail and a photograph presented in Taylor (1965). Briefly, the subject's board consisted of an electric telegraph key, a small amber light, and a five-position switch. The panel had five small red lights consecutively numbered from 1 to 5 and one clear bulb positioned at the top left (Set) and right (Press) sides of the panel. The examiner's console was identical to the subject's except for the addition of a timer to measure subject's reaction times and to record shock setting, an amber light, a five-position switch, and a single-pole knife switch. An individual's reaction time and shock setting was recorded and the shock and feedback were delivered via this apparatus.
Procedure Phase I: Selection of experimental groups. Three practice sets were first presented to familiarize subjects with the procedures involved. Fourteen scenes were then projected on a screen at five levels of increasing clarity. The pictures depicted scenes of aggression and scenes of a neutral nature and were presented in randomized order. The students were instructed to attempt to identify and
record each stimulus as soon as possible and to guess even if their response appeared to be foolish or unusual. The PRT was assigned as the trial number in which a correct identification of an aggressive or neutral scene was first made. The three groups selected consisted of 18 subjects who demonstrated the lowest PRT to aggressive scenes compared to neutral scenes (Sensitizers); those 18 subjects who demonstrated the highest PRT to aggressive as compared to neutral scenes (Repressors) and those 18 subjects whose PRT to aggressive and neutral a scenes were identical to each other (Controls), Phase 11: Evaluation of overt aggressive behaviors. Subjects were tested individually in random order. Each subject was seated at a task board with a shock electrode attached to the dorsal side of his left forearm. The experiment was designed so that the aggressive encounter was between the subject and a presumed opponent who was, in fact, examiner in the adjoining room. Prior to the actual experimental task, each subject's unpleasantness threshold for shock was determined by a modified method of limits. For each subject the shock level "5" was definitely unpleasant and "4", "3", "2" and "1" were 90%, 80%' 70%, and 60% of this level. Subject was then given taped instructions over an intercom concerning the nature of the task and what he was expected to do, i.e., that he was about to participate in a task designed to determine the effects of competition on the speed of reaction against a competitor in an adjoining room. He was told how to make shock settings for his opponent, how his reaction time would be determined, and how he could determine the amount of shock his competitorlopponent had set for him to receive whether he received the shock or not. All subjects received 25 trials, each trial consisting of four events (I) a signal to set a shock level for his opponent, (2) a ready signal to depress the key, (3) a signal to release the key as fast as possible, (4) feedback which consisted of a light indicating what shock level the
I. LOUlS YOUNG Provocation received by a l l group-
'Reactions o f :
-
-
S e n s i t i z e r s '' ' Repressors -**.-*'xControls ""'"
. *
Downloaded by [Central Michigan University] at 17:17 06 November 2015
. --_...-~----'
--. a
Trial 1
Block 1 Trials 2-7
Block 2 Trials 9-13
Block 3 Trials 14-19
Block 4 Trials 20-25
Trials
Figure 1. Mean aggression settings as a function of trials for three experimental groups. opponent had set for him and if subject lost, the corresponding shock. Timers controlled the onset and duration of the various stimuli. The frequency of wins and losses (50% wins, 50% losses) and the level of shock directed at subject (provocation), was controlled by examiner. Provocation was varied at four levels by increasing the average shock settings delivered to subject over blocks of trials. There were 25 trials in all, divided into four blocks of six trials each. The additional trial was given to account for the lack of feedback on the first trial, i.e., the first shock level setting was made prior to receiving feedback. Within each block of trials the two levels of shock were randomly varied for each subjecl . The trials which contained a shock for the student at feedback were also randomized within blocks. For the sake of credibility, exceptions to this rule
were made if subject had an extreme reaction time, to insure the proper 50% win/50% loss percentage within blocks and over trials. Results From the lbehavioral reactions of the subjects and their verbalizations (muttering under the breath, swearing) throughout Phase 11, the aggression task, it was apparent that real anger was provoked. Aggression was measured by the magnitude of shock the subject set for his opponent to receive. Scores consisted of the average setting for each block of six trials. Fig. 1 presents mean aggression settings on the first trial, which preceded provocation, and on the four blocks of trials which followed provocation in order of increasing provocation. It is interesting to note that both the Repressor and the Control group were
Downloaded by [Central Michigan University] at 17:17 06 November 2015
302
Perception o f Aggression and Overt Aggressive Behavior
more aggressive than the Sensitizer group, even before provocation. A simple analysis of variance of the single aggression settings on the first trial indicates that the groups differed significantly on the first trial ( F = 6.35, d f = 2/51 p < .0001). Mean aggression settings on the first trial for Controls, Repressors and Sensitizers were 2.61, 2.88 and 1.72, respectively. The groups means were 3.01 for the Controls, 3.04 for the Repressors and 1.95 for the Sensitizers. Note the degree of similarity in settings for the Repressor and Control group. Differences in aggression among the three groups were also significant ( F = 12.79, d f = 2/51, p < .001) with Sensitizers being the least aggressive and Repressors the most aggressive. The increase in aggression as a function of increasing provocation over all groups (see Fig. 1) is also significant (F= 62.87, df = 31153, p < .011). (The question may be raised as to whether the increase in aggression is due to a practice effect independent of increasing provocation. Previous work [Epstein & Taylor, 19671 indicates that there is no increase in aggression in t h ~ stask as a result of repeated trials in the absence of high provocation. This undoubtedly is because subject must consider retaliation from his opponent should subject increase his aggression settings.) Mean aggression settings for groups over blocks one through four were 2.16, 2.42, 2.78, and 3.32, respectively. The significant block effect, not surprisingly, is produced by an increase in aggression associated with the increasing levels of provocation in the successive blocks. The dotted line in Fig. 1 represents the degree of aggression that the subject perceived as directed toward him by his opponent. The mean aggression settings varied among groups for the first two blocks as compared to provocation over the last two blocks of trials. Apparently when shock levels are at a more painful or intense level all groups follow a strategy of increasing their aggression at a less rapid rate than their opponent, possibly to induce him to decrease his high level of aggression. All
groups, however, display increasing curves over trials. Analysis of the reaction times for the groups produced no significant findings ( F = 3 4 , df = 2/51, p > .05) although differences in reaction time on the first trial did approach significance ( F = 3.09, df = 2/51, p < .06) with Sensitizers having the fastest reaction time. Mean reaction times on the first trial for Sensitizers, Repressors, and Controls were .2 1, .28, and .34 seconds, respectively.
Discussion An inverse relationship was found with Sensitizers expressing significantly less overt aggression than Repressors. These results have several implications, one of which being for the clinician who, in his daily use of projective assessment instruments, is called upon to predict overt behavior on the basis of his interpretations of the patient's perceptions of visually presented stimuli. The present experimental results, although delimited to perception of aggression and subsequent overt aggressive behavior, may shed some light on the more general problem posed by the presentation of multi-dimensional perceptual stimuli and trying then, to predict specific overt behavior. It is suggested that it may not be what the patientlclient does in fact perceive on projective instruments that helps to predict his subsequent overt behavior, but rather, what he has difficulty perceiving. Furthermore, the present findings may suggest future avenues of exploration for clinicians via the presentation of less amorphous, more unidimensional perceptive stimuli relating to the specific overt behavior to which they are seeking to predict. Secondly, although this study was not designed to explain the dynamics of perceptual sensitization and repression processes, per se, the data may have a bearing on theories which have attempted to do so, (see for example Blum, 1955; Bruner, 1957; Dulany, 1957; Eriksen, 1951; Janis, 1962; McReynolds, 1958). Perhaps processes of perceptual sensitization and repression to aggressive stimuli develop from the effects of past learning experi-
Downloaded by [Central Michigan University] at 17:17 06 November 2015
I. LOUIS YOUNG ences, and directly influence the way an individual responds on an overt behavioral level. In other words, an individual's conditionin~ghistory affects both his perceptual and behavioral responding, modifying each in such a way that they become characteristic learned adaptive responses to threatening stimuli or situations. Perceptual sensitization or repression, however, could be only one way in whch an individual responds defensively to stress and could be closely related to other modes of response used to cope with various other types of stimuli or situations. "Defensively" is used here in terms of a1 learned or conditioned approach or avoidance response to anxietyprovoking or physically threatening stimuli. This is similar to Dulany's (1957) suggestion that conditioning determines which defensive style is chosen in a given situation. The individual's way of adaptively responding to the situation may involve such factors as whether the response is effective, whether it is in conflict with his need to behave in a reasonable manner, or whether it is foolhardy. To say that it is adaptive does not necessarily mean that the adaptation provides an accurate translation of reality - it only means that adaptation provides a "workable fit" inasmuch as the most accurate grasp of reality is not necessarily the most effective one. Hence adaptation involves individually varying standards of adequacy within given situations and involves perception, cognition and motor activities. In this experiment the perceptual recognition phase posed various stimuli having a threatening quality for some of the individuals which were dealt with t h r o u g h perceptual sensitization or repression. However, the behavioral aggression task posed a different, physically threatening situation. Some individuals may have felt they could not deal with this situation through mere perceptual sensitization or repression, e.g., a repressor's inattention to the threat would not make it disappear. Therefore a different adaptive maneuver was necessary to deal with the threat; assuming that there is great elasticity in human
adaptiveness there are usually several alternative means of mastering any given situation. It was found that those individuals whose adaptation involved perceptual sensitization or an approach response to anxiety-provoking stimuli but not actually physically-threatening stimuli used behavioral avoidance to physical threat. Those whose adaptation involved perceptual repression, or an avoidance response to anxiety-provoking stimuli, made behavioral approach responses in the physically threatening situation. It is interesting to note that a behavioral approach response to physical threat may well be a more common way of dealing with direct aggression, more common in the sense that'both Repressors and Controls responded in a highly similar fashion. One coulld speculate that expressing aggression in this fashion is viewed as a justified means of defense based on the strategy of "I'll quit if you do." Additional exploration of this notion appears warranted. References Blum, G. D. Perceptual defense revisited. Journal of Abnomal end Social Psychology, 1955, 51,24-29. Bruner, J. S. On perceptual readiness. Psychological Review, 1957,64, 123-152. Bruner, J. S., & Postman, L. Tension and tension release as organizing factors in perception. Joumal of Personality, 1947, 15, 300-308. (a) Bruner, J. S., & Postman, L. Emotional selectivity in perception and reaction. Journal of Personality, 1947,16, 69-77. ( b ) Dulany, D. E., Jr. Avoidance learning of perceptual defense and vigilance. Journal ofAbnorma1 and Social Psychology, 1957, 55, 333-338. Epstein, S., & T'aylor, S. P. Behavioral aggression and physiological arousal as a Function of provocation and defeat. Journal' of Personality, 1967, 35, 265-289. Eriksen, G. W. Perceptual defense as a function of unacceptable needs. Joumal of Abnormal and Sociel Psychology, 1951, 46, 557-564. Haskell, R. J. Relationships between aggressive behavior and psychological tests. Journal of Projective Techniques, 1961, 25, 431-440. Janis, I. L. Psyclnological effects of warnings. In G. W. Baker and D. W. Chapman (Eds.), Man and society in disaster. New York: Basic Books, 1962.
304
Perception of Aggression and Overt Aggressive Behavior
Downloaded by [Central Michigan University] at 17:17 06 November 2015
Kagan, J. The measurement of overt aggression from fantasy. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1956, 52, 390-393. McReynolds, P. Anxiety as related to incongruency between values and feelings. Psychological Record, 1958,8, 57-66. Pittluck, P. The relationship between aggressive - fantasy and overt behavior. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Yale University, 1950. Taylor, S. P. The relationship of expressed and inhibited hostility to physiological activation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, 1965.
Reference Note 1. Epstein, S., & Mello, N. Perceptual thresholds and GSR reactions as a finction of dependency and heterosexuality. Unpublished honors thesis. University of Massachusetts, 1964. I. Louis Young, PhD Taylor Manor Hospital Ellicott City, Maryland 21043 Received: January 7, 1974 Revised: March 12. 1974
ISSN: 0022-3891 (Print) 1532-7752 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hjpa20
Perception of Aggression and Overt Aggressive Behavior I. Louis Young To cite this article: I. Louis Young (1975) Perception of Aggression and Overt Aggressive Behavior, Journal of Personality Assessment, 39:3, 299-304, DOI: 10.1207/ s15327752jpa3903_13 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa3903_13
Published online: 10 Jun 2010.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 3
View related articles
Citing articles: 4 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=hjpa20 Download by: [Central Michigan University]
Date: 06 November 2015, At: 17:17
Journal of Personality Assessment, 1975,39, 3
Perception of Aggression and Overt Aggressive Behavior I. LOUIS YOUNG University of Massachusetts
Summary: Investigated the relationship between thresholds for perception of aggressive cues and overt aggressive behavior in 86 male undergraduate students. Overt aggressive behavior was measured by the amount of shock the subject attempted to inflict on his presumed opponent. It was found that individuals with low thresholds for aggressive cues expressed less overt aggressive behavior while individuals with high thresholds for aggression expressed more overt aggression. Thus an inverse relationship was found with respect to perceptual recognition thresholds for aggressive stimuli and overt aggressive behavior. The implications of these findings for projective techniques and their relevance to perception as it relates t o overt behavior were discussed.
Downloaded by [Central Michigan University] at 17:17 06 November 2015
0
A number of experiments have demonstrated that an individual's need-state influences his perception, A general finding has been that a lowering of recognition thresholds often, but not always, occurs to need-related stimuli. Ways in which psychological defenses ,and non-need variables influence perceptual thresholds have been discussed by among others Bruner and Postman (1947a, 1947b). They have labeled two patterns of perceptual adaptation as sensitization and defense. Generally perceptual sensitization represents the lowering of recognition thresholds for anxiety-laden cues in an effort by the individual to defend himself against threat while perceptual defense or repression reduces discomfort by avoiding the recognition of a source of threat. The present study was designed to investigate these phenomena but in the limited sense of defining threat as the perception of aggressive cues, as opposed t o neutral cues. It sought to discover any relationship which might exist between perceptual sensitization or repression of visually presented aggressive cues and actual overt aggressive behavior. This has particular relevance to clinical work where measures of perception are frequently used t o make highly general inferences about nonperceptual behavior (overt behavior) in real life situations. An
added difficullty arises when projective techniques, for example, are assumed to be measures of perception when obviously more than perception is involved in the response to such instruments (Haskell, 1961; Kagan, 119.56; Pittluck, 1950). In this experiment, perceptual responses were measured by an individual's perceptual recognition threshold to aggressive versus neutral cues in a TAT-like presentation. Overt aggressive behavior was measured in a laboratory situation involving provocation and subsequent expression of aggression.
Method Subjects Eighty-six male undergraduate students at the ZJniversity of Massachusetts were used. From this group of 86, three extreme groups of 18 subjects each were selected and labeled Repressors, Sensitizers and Coniirols. Each group was selected on the baslls of their perceptual recognition threshold (PRT) for aggressive cues. Measures and Apparatus The perceptual recognition task. This consisted of 1 7 black and white scenes with five levels of clarity for each. The level of clarity for each scene was determined by the extent t o which wavy black lines were present in the picture. The five levels of clarity of each scene were comCondensed version of a dissertation submitparable for the 17 scenes. The first picted in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the PhD. ture of a , scene was completely unclear Now at Taylor Manor Hospital, Ellicott City, and each successive picture was slightly Md. 21043. more clear. The final picture was clearly
Downloaded by [Central Michigan University] at 17:17 06 November 2015
300
Perception o f Aggression and Overt Aggressive Behavior
recognizable by most subjects. There were four aggressive, ten neutral, and three practice scenes and were similar to those employed in a study by Epstein and Mello (Note 1). There were two medium and two strong scenes for the content area of aggression, which was portrayed by either human figures or animals. The remaining ten scenes portrayed humans or animals in neutral situations. The scenes were presented such that no two strong or medium relevant scenes were adjacent. The 17 scenes were projected on a 9' x 9' screen to students by means of an opaque projection lantern. Each picture of the 17 scenes was presented for five seconds at each of its five levels of clarity, with an interstimulus interval of ten seconds during which the student wrote his response. The aggression task. The apparatus consisted of subject's task board and examiner's monitoring board. The apparatus is described in detail and a photograph presented in Taylor (1965). Briefly, the subject's board consisted of an electric telegraph key, a small amber light, and a five-position switch. The panel had five small red lights consecutively numbered from 1 to 5 and one clear bulb positioned at the top left (Set) and right (Press) sides of the panel. The examiner's console was identical to the subject's except for the addition of a timer to measure subject's reaction times and to record shock setting, an amber light, a five-position switch, and a single-pole knife switch. An individual's reaction time and shock setting was recorded and the shock and feedback were delivered via this apparatus.
Procedure Phase I: Selection of experimental groups. Three practice sets were first presented to familiarize subjects with the procedures involved. Fourteen scenes were then projected on a screen at five levels of increasing clarity. The pictures depicted scenes of aggression and scenes of a neutral nature and were presented in randomized order. The students were instructed to attempt to identify and
record each stimulus as soon as possible and to guess even if their response appeared to be foolish or unusual. The PRT was assigned as the trial number in which a correct identification of an aggressive or neutral scene was first made. The three groups selected consisted of 18 subjects who demonstrated the lowest PRT to aggressive scenes compared to neutral scenes (Sensitizers); those 18 subjects who demonstrated the highest PRT to aggressive as compared to neutral scenes (Repressors) and those 18 subjects whose PRT to aggressive and neutral a scenes were identical to each other (Controls), Phase 11: Evaluation of overt aggressive behaviors. Subjects were tested individually in random order. Each subject was seated at a task board with a shock electrode attached to the dorsal side of his left forearm. The experiment was designed so that the aggressive encounter was between the subject and a presumed opponent who was, in fact, examiner in the adjoining room. Prior to the actual experimental task, each subject's unpleasantness threshold for shock was determined by a modified method of limits. For each subject the shock level "5" was definitely unpleasant and "4", "3", "2" and "1" were 90%, 80%' 70%, and 60% of this level. Subject was then given taped instructions over an intercom concerning the nature of the task and what he was expected to do, i.e., that he was about to participate in a task designed to determine the effects of competition on the speed of reaction against a competitor in an adjoining room. He was told how to make shock settings for his opponent, how his reaction time would be determined, and how he could determine the amount of shock his competitorlopponent had set for him to receive whether he received the shock or not. All subjects received 25 trials, each trial consisting of four events (I) a signal to set a shock level for his opponent, (2) a ready signal to depress the key, (3) a signal to release the key as fast as possible, (4) feedback which consisted of a light indicating what shock level the
I. LOUlS YOUNG Provocation received by a l l group-
'Reactions o f :
-
-
S e n s i t i z e r s '' ' Repressors -**.-*'xControls ""'"
. *
Downloaded by [Central Michigan University] at 17:17 06 November 2015
. --_...-~----'
--. a
Trial 1
Block 1 Trials 2-7
Block 2 Trials 9-13
Block 3 Trials 14-19
Block 4 Trials 20-25
Trials
Figure 1. Mean aggression settings as a function of trials for three experimental groups. opponent had set for him and if subject lost, the corresponding shock. Timers controlled the onset and duration of the various stimuli. The frequency of wins and losses (50% wins, 50% losses) and the level of shock directed at subject (provocation), was controlled by examiner. Provocation was varied at four levels by increasing the average shock settings delivered to subject over blocks of trials. There were 25 trials in all, divided into four blocks of six trials each. The additional trial was given to account for the lack of feedback on the first trial, i.e., the first shock level setting was made prior to receiving feedback. Within each block of trials the two levels of shock were randomly varied for each subjecl . The trials which contained a shock for the student at feedback were also randomized within blocks. For the sake of credibility, exceptions to this rule
were made if subject had an extreme reaction time, to insure the proper 50% win/50% loss percentage within blocks and over trials. Results From the lbehavioral reactions of the subjects and their verbalizations (muttering under the breath, swearing) throughout Phase 11, the aggression task, it was apparent that real anger was provoked. Aggression was measured by the magnitude of shock the subject set for his opponent to receive. Scores consisted of the average setting for each block of six trials. Fig. 1 presents mean aggression settings on the first trial, which preceded provocation, and on the four blocks of trials which followed provocation in order of increasing provocation. It is interesting to note that both the Repressor and the Control group were
Downloaded by [Central Michigan University] at 17:17 06 November 2015
302
Perception o f Aggression and Overt Aggressive Behavior
more aggressive than the Sensitizer group, even before provocation. A simple analysis of variance of the single aggression settings on the first trial indicates that the groups differed significantly on the first trial ( F = 6.35, d f = 2/51 p < .0001). Mean aggression settings on the first trial for Controls, Repressors and Sensitizers were 2.61, 2.88 and 1.72, respectively. The groups means were 3.01 for the Controls, 3.04 for the Repressors and 1.95 for the Sensitizers. Note the degree of similarity in settings for the Repressor and Control group. Differences in aggression among the three groups were also significant ( F = 12.79, d f = 2/51, p < .001) with Sensitizers being the least aggressive and Repressors the most aggressive. The increase in aggression as a function of increasing provocation over all groups (see Fig. 1) is also significant (F= 62.87, df = 31153, p < .011). (The question may be raised as to whether the increase in aggression is due to a practice effect independent of increasing provocation. Previous work [Epstein & Taylor, 19671 indicates that there is no increase in aggression in t h ~ stask as a result of repeated trials in the absence of high provocation. This undoubtedly is because subject must consider retaliation from his opponent should subject increase his aggression settings.) Mean aggression settings for groups over blocks one through four were 2.16, 2.42, 2.78, and 3.32, respectively. The significant block effect, not surprisingly, is produced by an increase in aggression associated with the increasing levels of provocation in the successive blocks. The dotted line in Fig. 1 represents the degree of aggression that the subject perceived as directed toward him by his opponent. The mean aggression settings varied among groups for the first two blocks as compared to provocation over the last two blocks of trials. Apparently when shock levels are at a more painful or intense level all groups follow a strategy of increasing their aggression at a less rapid rate than their opponent, possibly to induce him to decrease his high level of aggression. All
groups, however, display increasing curves over trials. Analysis of the reaction times for the groups produced no significant findings ( F = 3 4 , df = 2/51, p > .05) although differences in reaction time on the first trial did approach significance ( F = 3.09, df = 2/51, p < .06) with Sensitizers having the fastest reaction time. Mean reaction times on the first trial for Sensitizers, Repressors, and Controls were .2 1, .28, and .34 seconds, respectively.
Discussion An inverse relationship was found with Sensitizers expressing significantly less overt aggression than Repressors. These results have several implications, one of which being for the clinician who, in his daily use of projective assessment instruments, is called upon to predict overt behavior on the basis of his interpretations of the patient's perceptions of visually presented stimuli. The present experimental results, although delimited to perception of aggression and subsequent overt aggressive behavior, may shed some light on the more general problem posed by the presentation of multi-dimensional perceptual stimuli and trying then, to predict specific overt behavior. It is suggested that it may not be what the patientlclient does in fact perceive on projective instruments that helps to predict his subsequent overt behavior, but rather, what he has difficulty perceiving. Furthermore, the present findings may suggest future avenues of exploration for clinicians via the presentation of less amorphous, more unidimensional perceptive stimuli relating to the specific overt behavior to which they are seeking to predict. Secondly, although this study was not designed to explain the dynamics of perceptual sensitization and repression processes, per se, the data may have a bearing on theories which have attempted to do so, (see for example Blum, 1955; Bruner, 1957; Dulany, 1957; Eriksen, 1951; Janis, 1962; McReynolds, 1958). Perhaps processes of perceptual sensitization and repression to aggressive stimuli develop from the effects of past learning experi-
Downloaded by [Central Michigan University] at 17:17 06 November 2015
I. LOUIS YOUNG ences, and directly influence the way an individual responds on an overt behavioral level. In other words, an individual's conditionin~ghistory affects both his perceptual and behavioral responding, modifying each in such a way that they become characteristic learned adaptive responses to threatening stimuli or situations. Perceptual sensitization or repression, however, could be only one way in whch an individual responds defensively to stress and could be closely related to other modes of response used to cope with various other types of stimuli or situations. "Defensively" is used here in terms of a1 learned or conditioned approach or avoidance response to anxietyprovoking or physically threatening stimuli. This is similar to Dulany's (1957) suggestion that conditioning determines which defensive style is chosen in a given situation. The individual's way of adaptively responding to the situation may involve such factors as whether the response is effective, whether it is in conflict with his need to behave in a reasonable manner, or whether it is foolhardy. To say that it is adaptive does not necessarily mean that the adaptation provides an accurate translation of reality - it only means that adaptation provides a "workable fit" inasmuch as the most accurate grasp of reality is not necessarily the most effective one. Hence adaptation involves individually varying standards of adequacy within given situations and involves perception, cognition and motor activities. In this experiment the perceptual recognition phase posed various stimuli having a threatening quality for some of the individuals which were dealt with t h r o u g h perceptual sensitization or repression. However, the behavioral aggression task posed a different, physically threatening situation. Some individuals may have felt they could not deal with this situation through mere perceptual sensitization or repression, e.g., a repressor's inattention to the threat would not make it disappear. Therefore a different adaptive maneuver was necessary to deal with the threat; assuming that there is great elasticity in human
adaptiveness there are usually several alternative means of mastering any given situation. It was found that those individuals whose adaptation involved perceptual sensitization or an approach response to anxiety-provoking stimuli but not actually physically-threatening stimuli used behavioral avoidance to physical threat. Those whose adaptation involved perceptual repression, or an avoidance response to anxiety-provoking stimuli, made behavioral approach responses in the physically threatening situation. It is interesting to note that a behavioral approach response to physical threat may well be a more common way of dealing with direct aggression, more common in the sense that'both Repressors and Controls responded in a highly similar fashion. One coulld speculate that expressing aggression in this fashion is viewed as a justified means of defense based on the strategy of "I'll quit if you do." Additional exploration of this notion appears warranted. References Blum, G. D. Perceptual defense revisited. Journal of Abnomal end Social Psychology, 1955, 51,24-29. Bruner, J. S. On perceptual readiness. Psychological Review, 1957,64, 123-152. Bruner, J. S., & Postman, L. Tension and tension release as organizing factors in perception. Joumal of Personality, 1947, 15, 300-308. (a) Bruner, J. S., & Postman, L. Emotional selectivity in perception and reaction. Journal of Personality, 1947,16, 69-77. ( b ) Dulany, D. E., Jr. Avoidance learning of perceptual defense and vigilance. Journal ofAbnorma1 and Social Psychology, 1957, 55, 333-338. Epstein, S., & T'aylor, S. P. Behavioral aggression and physiological arousal as a Function of provocation and defeat. Journal' of Personality, 1967, 35, 265-289. Eriksen, G. W. Perceptual defense as a function of unacceptable needs. Joumal of Abnormal and Sociel Psychology, 1951, 46, 557-564. Haskell, R. J. Relationships between aggressive behavior and psychological tests. Journal of Projective Techniques, 1961, 25, 431-440. Janis, I. L. Psyclnological effects of warnings. In G. W. Baker and D. W. Chapman (Eds.), Man and society in disaster. New York: Basic Books, 1962.
304
Perception of Aggression and Overt Aggressive Behavior
Downloaded by [Central Michigan University] at 17:17 06 November 2015
Kagan, J. The measurement of overt aggression from fantasy. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1956, 52, 390-393. McReynolds, P. Anxiety as related to incongruency between values and feelings. Psychological Record, 1958,8, 57-66. Pittluck, P. The relationship between aggressive - fantasy and overt behavior. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Yale University, 1950. Taylor, S. P. The relationship of expressed and inhibited hostility to physiological activation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, 1965.
Reference Note 1. Epstein, S., & Mello, N. Perceptual thresholds and GSR reactions as a finction of dependency and heterosexuality. Unpublished honors thesis. University of Massachusetts, 1964. I. Louis Young, PhD Taylor Manor Hospital Ellicott City, Maryland 21043 Received: January 7, 1974 Revised: March 12. 1974
