University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Displaced aggression as a function of target power

(USC Thesis Other)

Displaced aggression as a function of target power

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content INFORMATION TO USERS
This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films
the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and
dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of
computer printer.
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the
copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations
and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper
alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized
copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by
sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing
from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps.
Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced
xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6" x 9” black and white
photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing
in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order.
ProQuest Information and Learning
300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 USA
800-521-0600
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
DISPLACED AGGRESSION AS A FUNCTION OF TARGET POWER
by
Lynn M. Urban
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
(PSYCHOLOGY)
December 2000
Copyright 2000 Lynn M. Urban
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
UMI Number: 3018139
_ _ _ _®
UMI
UMI Microform 3018139
Copyright 2001 by Bell & Howell Information and Learning Company.
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
Bell & Howell Information and Learning Company
300 North Zeeb Road
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY PARK
LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 90007
This dissertation, written by
................................Lynn.j&...Uchaa................................
under the direction of h. Dissertation
Committee, and approved by aU its members,
has been presented to and accepted by The
Graduate School, in partial fulfillm ent of re
quirements for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Dean o f Graduate Studies
Qdfg _
DISSERTATION COMMITTEE /
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Dedication
This dissertation is dedicated to the memory of John "Jay"
Struckhoff, family friend and fellow USC graduate student, whose life was
tragically cut short before he was able to complete his own dissertation.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
iii
Acknowledgments
Several people deserve recognition for their parts in helping me to
complete this project and my graduate studies as a whole. First, I would
like to thank my family. My parents (Herb and Patty Clark) have provided
numerous types of support for my academic endeavors. I would have
never had the strength or patience to reach this point if they had not given
me a great starting point. My parents-in-law (Robert and Marian Urban)
kept my spirits high with encouraging words over the past several years.
My children (Amanda, Austin, and Aiden) provided necessary comic relief
and a valuable perspective. Finally, my husband, Jeff, supported me
intellectually, financially, and emotionally throughout graduate school. He
gave countless shoulder rubs and dried many tears along the way. I
appreciate every sacrifice he has made and hope I can always be as
supportive to him.
I would also like to thank several others who have helped me to
reach this point in my career. My advisor, Dr. Norman Miller, invested an
enormous amount of time over these several years to share his advice,
knowledge, and encouragement. The value of what he has given is
immeasurable. I also thank the members of my dissertation committee
(Dr. Michael Cody, Dr. Shelley Duval, Dr. Stephen Madigan, and Dr.
Stephen Read) for their efforts and guidance throughout my qualifying
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
exam, this project, and any other projects on which I have had the good
fortune to work with them. Of course, I thank my fellow graduate students
for their assistance and friendship.
Finally, I would be remiss if I did not thank the Haynes Foundation,
which generously funded three of my graduate years through fellowships.
Thank you.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
V
Table of Contents
Contents Page Number
Dedication ii
Acknowledgments iii
List of Tables viii
List of Figures ix
Abstract x
Introduction 1
What is displacement? 3
Evidence of displaced aggression 6
The displacement process and triggers 8
The role of power 12
Power and triggering events 16
Individual differences in rumination and displaced
aggression 18
Individual differences in self-esteem and displaced
aggression 19
Overview of proposed study 20
Method 22
Design 22
Participants 22
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Apparatus 23
Procedure 23
Power manipulation 25
Provocation manipulation 27
Trigger manipulation 29
Dependent measure of aggression 30
Results 3 1
Manipulation Checks 3 1
Provocation 31
Trigger 33
Power 36
Aggression 36
Toward displacement target 36
Toward direct target 39
Toward experimenter 39
Rumination and aggression 40
Self-esteem and aggression 40
Interrelationships 44
Additional results 44
Discussion 4 4
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Endnotes 56
Bibliography 58
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Title
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
List of Tables
Page Number
1: Trimmed means for manipulation checks
of provocation 32
2: Trimmed means for manipulation checks
of trigger 35
3: Trimmed means of displaced aggression in
conditions of provocation and power 38
4: Winsorized correlations (rw ) between
aggression, self-esteem, and rumination 41
5: Separate intercorrelations of aggression
with self-esteem for low and high self-esteem
participants 43
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
List of Figures
Title Page Number
Figure 1: Pattern of Results of Triggered
Displaced Aggression from Pedersen (1998) 13
Figure 2: Diagram of "virtual instrument" slide
control used to measure amount of time
for cold-pressor task 28
Figure 3: Trimmed means of displaced aggression
in conditions of provocation, trigger, and power 37
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
X
Abstract
This study examined the effects of prior provocation, triggering actions
by target, and reward/retaliatory power of target on aggression. Displaced
aggression, or aggression directed against a target that was not the primary
provocateur, was observed only for displacement targets that did not hold
retaliatory power over the participant. No effect on aggression was found for
a relatively small triggering act by the target. Self-esteem of the participant
was negatively correlated with aggression overall, although among high self
esteem individuals, those highest in esteem were most aggressive, and
among low self-esteem individuals, those lowest in esteem were most
aggressive. In addition, tendency to ruminate over provocations was not
found to be related to aggression. Aggression was measured using a new
dependent variable: length of time participant chose to have target perform a
painful task.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1
INTRODUCTION
Aggression is an age-old topic of human interest, yet exciting
advancements in technology during the last few decades have continually
enabled us to add to our understanding of it. In the area of neuroscience,
new studies of criminals have pinpointed several biological abnormalities
in those who display aggressive behavior. For example, using advanced
imaging techniques, Volkow & Tancredi (1987) found frontal lobe
abnormalities in violent criminals. Other new evidence suggests that
dysfunction of the left hemisphere may lead to loss of control of impulsive
behavior, and therefore decrease inhibitions against violence (Nachshon,
1988). Yet another new theory suggests psychopaths may suffer from
reduced lateralization of the brain for linguistic functions, as is frequently
evident in their unusual speech patterning. Furthermore, additional
conditions have become suspect as to their association with violent
behavior including, cortical underarousai (Eysenck, 1977), vagotonia (low
resting heart rate) (Venables, 1988), and perinatal complications (Litt,
1971). Finally, and perhaps, most importantly, researchers may be
closing in on the source of aggressive behavior in the brain. Studies of
humans and animals have shown that damage to the left fronto-temporal
limbic region of the brain increases violent actions (Yeudal, 1978; Yeudal,
Fedora, Fedora, & Warded, 1981; both as cited in Raine & Scerbo, 1991).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
This region is home to the amygdala, the suspected source of aggressive
behavior.
In the face of these advances, it is humbling to realize there is still
a wealth of information to learn about aggression from "normal" people.
This paper is concerned with an aggression hypothesis that is decades
old and somewhat distant from the neuropsychology realm. This study
focuses on social aspects of aggression, particularly those associated
with displaced aggression. Raine and Scerbo (1991) wrote, "Biologically
oriented researchers tend to have ignored social influences on violence
almost as much as socially oriented researchers have ignored biological
influences." (p. 3). At this stage in the research on displaced aggression,
however, this narrow focus is an advantage. Only when we can
understand the processes and boundaries associated with this type of
aggression in normal individuals, can we then go on to compare to what
happens in special populations of subjects. Ultimately, the interaction of
the biological and social realms will produce the richest understanding of
aggressive behavior.
Displaced Aggression
Displaced aggression is aggression from a provoked person that is
directed toward one who was not the original provocateur. Consider, the
most widely given example: a man is angered by his boss, but instead of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
3
aggressing against his boss he goes home and attacks his wife. To
borrow terminology from Miller & Marcus-Newhall (1997), in this case the
man is considered to be the actor, his boss is the provocateur, and his
wife is the innocent displacement target, or simply target. Displaced
aggression was a topic of much study following publication of Frustration
and Aggression by Dollard, Doob, Miller, Mowrer, & Sears (1939). Since
that time, however, interest in the topic has waned (for analysis of the
history of displaced aggression, see Miller and Marcus-Newhall (1997)),
and many questions were left unanswered. This study was designed to
test an old unresolved idea regarding the role of retaliatory power in the
choice of displacement targets, as well as a somewhat newer idea
regarding triggering actions by targets. Before discussion of these
specific topics, a brief review of displaced aggression is warranted.
What is displacement?
Although the evidence for a displacement process in humans and
animals is of current interest, the idea of displacement is not new. This
notion can be found in Freud's early writings. He suggested that people
must face several basic drives and urges (e.g. sexual or aggressive). At
times these drives can not be acted upon due to unavailability of
opportunity or fear of social sanction. In fact, this thinking matches that of
Bailey (1987) who argues that people are drawn to act in more primitive,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
4
basic drive styles, but pressure from modem culture prevents them from
reverting back to these behaviors. Freud argues that when one does not
act on the original impulse, such as the desire to retaliate after a
provocation, one must deal with that urge through the use of defense
mechanisms (Freud, 1938 translated and edited by A. A. Brill). For
example, one may repress thoughts, rationalize, project the problem onto
another, or displace an urge, just to name a few possibilities. The last
one, displacement, has been defined "The transfer of ideas and impulses
from threatening or unsuitable objects to less threatening objects"
(Rathus, 1990). Freud relied upon a process very similar to this during his
therapeutic sessions. He encouraged transference, or the directing of
anger and other emotions toward the therapist as if he or she was the
person from the client's life who had caused the anger or pain (Zilboorg,
1951). Therefore, patients acted out toward the therapist instead of the
more daunting task of facing an abusive parent, unloving sibling, or other
who would be a threat to confront.
Although Freud did not test his ideas empirically, he did greatly
influence the theorizing and empirical work of Dollard and colleagues as
evident in their frustration-aggression hypothesis of aggression (Dollard et
al, 1939). They suggest that frustrations arise from everyday events and
that people must deal with these frustrations in some way - that
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
5
frustrations will not just disappear on their own. This is analogous to
Freud's idea that urges must be dealt with through one of several paths.
Dollard et al (1939) hypothesized that frustrations will always lead to some
form of aggression; however, the aggression may be more or less direct
and more or less noticeable than simple direct physical retaliation. For
example, if one is forbidden from physically striking a supervisor who has
provoked him, the actor may instead give poor marks on a performance
evaluation of the supervisor. Furthermore, when the original provocateur
(the actor's preferred target of aggression) is unavailable or inappropriate
for retaliation, available, easier targets may be chosen. For example, in
this case of the man who was angered by his boss, the man probably felt
he could not aggress against the boss without losing his job; however, his
wife was an easier target because she was unlikely to retaliate. Thus, she
became the outlet for his aggression. It may also be the case sometimes
that the provocateur is simply not present for retaliation, resulting in
aggression against an available innocent target. Although the former (fear
of provocateur retaliation) is often suggested as the typical real-life form of
displaced aggression, the latter (unavailability of the initial aggressor) is
more commonly found in the empirical work on this topic (e.g. Pedersen,
1998).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
6
Evidence of displaced aggression
Although there have been a reasonable number of studies on the
topic of displaced aggression, the phenomenon has been largely ignored
in recent decades (Marcus-Newhall, Pedersen, Carlson, & Miller, 1999;
Miller & Marcus-Newhall, 1997). This is somewhat surprising since it has
been proposed as a contributing mechanism for such important problems
as spousal battering, child abuse, road rage, and various forms of
discrimination. Perhaps the inconsistent empirical results from the
literature discouraged researchers from pursuing the topic. Marcus-
Newhall et al (1999) wrote
Experimental studies of displaced aggression have produced
somewhat inconsistent results. Whereas some (e.g. Mosher &
Proenza, 1968; Worchel, Hardy, & Hurley, 1976) have shown
that provoked participants readily displace aggression on
innocent victims, others (e.g., Berkowitz & Knurek, 1969; White,
1979) report that provoked participants are less likely to aggress
as compared to non-provoked participants. Although these
opposing findings may reflect features specific to the
experimental designs, existing theory does not fully specify either
the conditions necessary for displaced aggression nor the factors
(e.g. qualities of the victim) that moderate its magnitude.
In an effort to bring some understanding to the literature, two recent
reviews of the literature, one qualitative and one quantitative, were
undertaken (Miller & Marcus-Newhall, 1997; Marcus-Newhall et al, 1999).
The latter one, a meta-analysis, provides the best evidence to date that
displaced aggression is a reliable phenomenon. Specifically, they found
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
that provoked individuals who were not able to retaliate directly against a
provocateur exhibited more aggression toward an innocent target by
comparison with those who were not provoked (effect size d+=.54, 95%
C.l. (.48, .61) = moderate size effect). The meta-analysis also started
the process of identifying moderators of the effect; however, the number
of variables they could examine was limited by the content of the studies
that make up this literature. The current study was designed to continue
the process of identifying the moderating conditions of displaced
aggression.
In a broader context, examination of the animal literature also gives
evidence for displaced aggression and shows that it may not be unique to
humans. Several researchers have reported behavior they call
"redirected aggression", which refers to attacks by the animal of interest
toward an innocent target after the former was attacked by a provoking
animal. For example, Japanese macaques (primates) who had been
attacked were then more likely to attack the former aggressor's kin than
when there was no initial attack. Consistent with the typical example of
human displaced aggression which includes a weak target, the chosen
victims for this redirection were typically younger than the initial aggressor
and subordinate to the actor (Aureli, Cozzolino, Cordischi, and Scucchi,
1992). Chase (1985) also reported some instances of redirected
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
8
aggressive behavior in hens; however, in comparison to other patterns of
pecking behavior, these occurrences were relatively rare. Furthermore,
the outcome of redirected aggression in animals may be quite different
from that in humans. There is some evidence that redirected aggression
in animals occurs as a means of inducing a provocateur to stop attacking
the actor (Struhsaker, 1965). After the aggression has been redirected,
often, both provocateur and actor will aggress against a weaker animal
together. The displaced aggression literature from human studies does
not discuss this type of event, partially due to the fact that in these studies
the original provocateur is usually absent at the time aggression is
displaced.
The displacement process and triggers
Although displaced aggression, the phenomenon, has been
established, the process behind it has not been. Early work by the
frustration-aggression theorists assumed that certain events, such as a
frustration or provocation, causes an aggressive drive to be created in a
person. In turn, this aggressive drive then instigates one to aggress. This
idea was largely criticized due to the fact that an aggressive drive can not
be observed or measured in any way. Others reformulated much of the
frustration-aggression idea into processes that included physical arousal
as opposed to aggressive drives (Berkowitz, 1965, 1969).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
9
Physical arousal that is associated with unpleasant events and
their causes may cause direct aggression toward those targets. People
search for explanations for their arousal and usually attribute it to the
perceived cause of arousal (provocateur in most cases) (Schacter &
Singer, 1962). Physical arousal that is incorrectly attributed to a different
target may cause displaced aggression to the targets (Zillman, 1978). For
example, if one arousing event is followed by a short break and then
another event, some of the arousal that is leftover from the first event may
become associated with the second event and increase the perceived
arousal and emotional state associated with it (Excitation transfer theory,
Zillman, 1978). Therefore, if the emotional state is anger, it may be
attributed to a second person, particularly if the second person also
provides some low level of negative arousal that would facilitate the
misattribution. Alternatively, Berkowitz (1983) suggests that arousal and
anger may occur in parallel. In other words, a provoking event causes
certain bodily states (e.g. heart racing), simultaneously with anger-related
cognitions. These features spur additional anger-related thoughts and
feelings through an associative network. One of these may be an urge to
aggress, which would be particularly likely toward a target who was also
activated by the network (e.g. the cause of the reactions, a disliked other).
Depending on the exact associations made and the availability of various
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
10
targets, it would be possible to direct aggression stimulated this way
toward someone other than the provocateur. In support of this, Berkowitz
and colleagues have demonstrated how aggression can be displaced to
people with various negative characteristics that may be activated by
anger thoughts (Berkowitz & Frodi, 1979; Berkowitz & Geen, 1967;
Berkowitz & Green, 1962; Berkowitz & Holmes, 1959,1960; Geen &
Berkowitz, 1967).
These mechanisms for the process of displaced aggression fit with
the theoretical analyses of Buss (1961), Worchel (1966), and Miller and
Marcus-Newhall (1997). All suggest that provocation primes one, or gives
one the capacity for aggressive responding. The difference between
“instinct'' or "drive" and "capacity" is crucial. "Instinct demands an outlet.
A capacity is only latent - and may never be brought into play" (Allport,
1954, p.336). It suggests that aggression, although not guaranteed to
occur, will be particularly likely toward a target who is then psychologically
associated with the prime, perhaps by performing some type of triggering
event. A triggering event can facilitate the misattribution of arousal from
the provocateur to the target, and the arousal from both provocation and
trigger may be combined (possibly muitiplicatively). The new arousal level
may be interpreted as extreme provocation, thus, incorrectly justifying
severe retaliation on the part of the actor. Therefore, a highly provoking
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1 1
act, followed by a small trigger, may lead to an aggressive response that
is much greater than warranted by the small triggering act alone (Buss,
1961; Marcus-Newhall et al, 1999; Miller & Marcus-Newhall, 1997;
Worchel, 1966).
There is a small amount of evidence to support this hypothesized
role of triggering events or triggering characteristics. Berkowitz and
Knurek (1969) found that frustration resulted in greater subsequent
aggression to a name associated with negativity. In addition, Berkowitz
and Frodi (1979) showed that unattractive or stuttering target children
received a higher level of displaced aggression than children without
these negative characteristics. Similarly, Berkowitz and Green (1962)
found that disliked targets received more displaced aggression than
neutral targets. Finally, the displaced aggression meta-analysis (Marcus-
Newhall et al,1999) found that greater negativity of the interaction
between actor and target was associated with greater aggression directed
toward the target.
In fact, aggression following the provocation + trigger sequence of
events may be the most common form of displaced aggression since a
strong provocation followed by no triggering act often leads to a contrast
effect in which the target is liked much more than normal, as a result of
comparison to the nasty provocateur (Berkowitz & Knurek, 1969;
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
12
Gonzales, C ., 1999; Marcus-Newhall et al, 1999; Pedersen, 1998). In
fact, Marcus-Newhall et al (1999) found meta-analytic evidence showing
strength of provocation to be inversely related to the strength of displaced
aggression. The triggered displaced aggression effect and contrast effect
found by Pedersen (1998) and Gonzales (1999) are represented in Figure
1.
HYPOTHESIS 1: Thus, a two-way interaction was predicted
between provocation and trigger such that for triggered participants, prior
provocation would increase aggression to them, and for non-triggered
participants, prior provocation would decrease aggression toward them.
The Role of Power
However, the interaction predicted in Hypothesis 1 may only hold
for the situation in which the target for aggression is an "easy" target, or
one who lacks power in the situation. Much of the displaced aggression
literature assumes that the target of aggression will be weak relative to the
provocateur. For example, the Scapegoating Theory of Prejudice argues
that when Whites become frustrated with their situations and angered by
other Whites, they displace the aggression onto weaker, easier targets in
minorities (Miller & Bugeleski, 1948). Presumably, high power targets
arouse a fear of retaliation, and thus, they are avoided. Interestingly,
despite the assumption of its importance, the role of power in displaced
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
O )
w
H
O )
O
hm
Z
\
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
N o P r o v Prov
14
aggression has not been directly tested. Investigations into the
Scapegoating theory, as well as other studies of displaced aggression,
have routinely confounded low status and low retaliatory or reward power,
with minority membership.1 This project will begin examining the issue of
target characteristics in displaced aggression by examining the role of one
specific type of power: reward/retaliatory power.2
A great deal of the literature on direct aggression supports the idea
that people inhibit aggression toward those with reward or retaliatory
power over them. Baron (1977) reviewed the effect of threatened
retaliation in several aggression studies, and, in general reported that fear
of retaliation reduces aggressive responding. For example, Worchel
(1957) found that frustrated students aggressed verbally against fellow
students more than against faculty members. Similarly, McClelland and
Apicella (1945) found that there was greater aggression toward
undergraduate students than toward faculty or graduate students. In
another study, students who responded to questionnaires reported they
would behave more aggressively toward peers than to authority figures
(Cohen, 1955). Finally, Graham (1951) conducted a vignette study in
which the provocateurs varied. An attack was described and participants
were asked to fill in the details of the counterattack. Greatest intensity
and frequency of aggressive responses were directed toward attackers
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
15
who were friends or siblings, as opposed to parents, teachers, and other
authority figures.
It may be the case that aggressing against a high power target is
not simply aversive in terms of actual retaliation, but there may also be
negative psychological side effects. It seems that simply aggressing
against a high status target causes arousal to increase (Hokanson &
Shetler, 1961). This is in stark contrast to the finding that aggression
against a low status target led to a decrease in arousal (Hokanson &
Shetler, 1961). Anticipation of seemingly imminent retaliation may cause
the actor's aggression against the high status target to be inherently
aversive to the actor himself.
There have been some instances, however, in which people did
show willingness to aggress against a high power target. Baron (1974)
found that fear of retaliation did not affect aggression when the
aggression was seen as highly instrumental. In addition, Mosher &
Proenza (1968) found that boys would attack other powerful boys who
were not particularly aggressive. Furthermore, Ohbuci & Saito (1986)
showed that participants would retaliate with more aggression toward
other participants assigned high power than those assigned low power
when the participant believed the power assignments were based on luck.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
16
Therefore, it is not always the case that fear of retaliation or assumed
status will reduce aggression.
This project adds to the knowledge of displaced aggression by
testing an old assumption for the first time: the reward/retaliatory power of
displacement target over the actor was manipulated to be either high or
low. Power was not confounded with either status or minority group
membership, so that its unique effects could be examined.
HYPOTHESIS 2: A main effect was predicted such that
displacement targets who lack reward or retaliatory power would receive
more aggression than those who have high power.
Power and Triggering Events
As mentioned previously, a triggering act by the target may be
necessary to elicit displaced aggression. This prediction assumes a low
power target. What might happen in the case of a high power triggering
target?3 One possibility is that high power targets who perform triggering
actions may not be treated with increased aggression compared to a non
triggering target. According to this point of view, fear of retaliation would
inhibit aggression directed toward a high power target even when he does
something to trigger a negative response.
An alternate prediction is that a provocation followed by a triggering
action may be sufficient to produce aggression toward a high power
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
17
target. The small triggering action may provide a rare justification for
transgression on the part of the actor. Therefore, aggression would be
inhibited toward high power targets relative to those of low power when
trigger is absent. However, power may be ignored in the presence of a
provocation + trigger sequence, and the observed level of aggression
would be the same for high and low power targets (Baron, 1973; Miller &
Marcus-Newhall, 1997).
Little empirical data exists to weigh these two possibilities. In
Worchel (1966) student participants did displace aggression onto a
professor, although there was no low power target for comparison.
Wilson and Rogers (1975) state that people with sufficient level of self
esteem will attack impulsively when instigated regardless of perceived
retaliatory threat, although their data found mixed results regarding this
point.
HYPOTHESIS 3: There will be a three-way interaction between
provocation, trigger, and power such that the two-way interaction of power
and trigger outlined in Hypothesis 2 will only occur in the case of low
power targets. In the case of high power targets, aggression toward
targets will be equivalently inhibited across conditions, except for the
provocation condition with no trigger, in which it will be inhibited the most.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
18
Individual differences in rumination and displaced aggression.
A cognitive mediator of the displaced aggression process may be
the tendency to ruminate about the provocation event. Negative events,
trauma, or strong emotional arousal can lead to rumination about the
event or arousal (Martin & Tesser, 1989; Rime, Phillippot, Boca, &
Mesquita, 1992). Rumination lengthens the amount of time one
experiences negative affect, which is a potential influence on later
judgments (Blagden & Craske, 1996; Lyubomirsky & Nolen-Hoeksema,
1995). Thus, when an opportunity to aggress occurs, provoked people
who tend to ruminate should have greater negative affect or arousal
remaining than those who do not ruminate. In fact, there is some
evidence that rumination may actually increase the negativity of a mood
over time, rather than simply slowing the rate of mood dissipation (Nolen-
Hoeksema & Morrow, 1993). Therefore, one would expect the
"ruminators" to show a greater amount of aggression than the "non-
ruminators" after being provoked. Caprara (1986) shows that this is the
case for direct aggression after provocation. However, an alternative
prediction can be made in the case of displaced aggression. If a
participant tends to ruminate a lot, that rumination may keep him focused
on the real cause of his anger (the provocateur), thus making it less likely
he or she will misattribute negative arousal to an innocent target or trigger.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
19
In order to investigate the role of rumination, a scale designed to measure
ruminative tendency after provocation (Caprara, 1986) was included in the
study.
HYPOTHESIS 4: A negative correlation between rumination and
displaced aggression was expected for provoked participants in this study.
Individual differences in self-esteem and displaced aggression
One potential moderator of aggression that will be examined in this
project is self-esteem. Although it has long been considered a "truism"
that people of low self-esteem are more aggressive than those with higher
levels of self-esteem, the opposite may in fact be the case (Baumeister,
Smart, & Boden,1996). People high in self-esteem are more aggressive
in response to provocations due to the threat to egotism these people
experience (Baumeister et al,1996). Baumeister et al (1996) argue that
this is particularly likely when a person's self-worth is artificially inflated,
and thus unstable and at risk of being discontinued by ego threats. To
examine the basic idea, that in the face of provocations, high self-esteem
individuals will aggress more than low self-esteem individuals,
Rosenberg's (1965) measure of self-esteem was collected from
participants in this study.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2 0
HYPOTHESIS 5: According to the threatened egotism hypothesis,
for provoked individuals, there should be a positive correlation between
level of self-esteem and aggression.
Overview of proposed study
These hypotheses were tested in a laboratory study in which
participants' interactions with others may or may not have included a
provocation, may or may not have included a triggering event, and
included an opportunity to aggress against either a high or low power
target. The experimental session was divided into three main parts:
provocation phase, trigger phase, and aggression phase (dependent
measure). Although the participant was led to believe he was interacting
via computer and camera in each of the three phases, in fact, the
interactions were controlled by the experimenter. In this way, the critical
manipulations seemed genuine and spontaneous, when, in fact, they
were identical within-condition.
In the provocation phase, participants worked on a puzzle-solving
task while another participant (confederate) tried to distract him from the
task (e.g. Mosher & Proenza, 1968). A neutral or unusually harsh
distraction from the bogus participant served as the "no provocation" and
"provocation" conditions respectively.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
21
In the subsequent trigger phase, participants saw yet another
bogus participant who either followed directions properly or failed to follow
directions. The failure to follow directions impeded the progress of all in
the experiment. Following or not following directions served as the
manipulation of "trigger”. It was designed such that participants might feel
ambivalent about a triggering target who did not follow directions. The
computer program was said to have a glitch, but participants were warned
to avoid the glitch. In this way, either the target or the program (or even
experimenter) could be blamed for the failure to follow directions. It was
hypothesized that a prior provocation would lead one to see the triggering
target as more responsible for the delay.
In the aggression phase, participants chose the amount of
discomfort another participant (from the trigger phase) had to endure.
This was the primary dependent measure of aggression. The target of
aggression differed in the amount of reward power he held over the real
participant. Assignment of power to reward money for good performance
was determined by an ostensibly random drawing at the start of the
experiment.
Finally, additional paper and pencil measures were collected from
participants to determine their levels of self-esteem and rumination
tendencies and judgments of others in the experimental session.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2 2
This new multi-phase laboratory simulated interaction paradigm
allowed believable interaction experiences for the participant, and
appropriate control for the experimenter.
Method
Design.
This study employed a 2 (Provocation: Yes/No) X 2 (Trigger:
Yes/No) X 2 (Reward Power of Target: Yes/No) between-subjects design.
Participants.
Seventy-six undergraduate males were recruited either from the
Introductory Psychology course at the University of Southern California or
from those who responded to a newspaper advertisement in the Daily
Trojan. Participants received course credit or small honorariums. The
reported results are based on data from 53 participants. From the original
76 participants, the data of 23 had to be dropped from the analyses. One
participant was too upset by the provocation to complete the experiment4 ;
7 participants failed to follow directions completely; 4 did not understand
or notice the trigger event; and 1 1 reported sufficient suspicion to warrant
dropping their data from analyses. All participants were treated in
accordance with the "Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of
Conduct" (American Psychological Association, 1992).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
23
Apparatus.
The primary interface for participants in this study included a
14-inch computer monitor, keyboard, and mouse connected to a Power
Macintosh computer located in an adjacent control room. Also located in
the participant's room was an intercom, hidden surveillance camera,
digital video camera, microphone, speaker, and a small button response
box.
Procedure.
Participants were recruited for a study titled "Annoyances" which
was described as an investigation into task performance under several
types of distraction. Volunteers participated individually in an
experimental session with a length of approximately one hour.
Participants arrived individually at the experiment room where a
posted sign directed three participants to separate rooms (two of the
participants were bogus). The real participant (who will be referred to as
the "actor" from this point on to avoid confusion) was directed to stay in
the original room and was soon met by the experimenter. After
preliminary greetings, a brief description of the study was given.
The actor was told that the study was concerned with how people
perform tasks while others are purposely trying to distract them. He was
also told that there were two other participants in other rooms going
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
through the experiment at the same time (the actor was always labeled
participant #2). In fact, there were no other participants. He was also told
that there would be three parts to the experiment. During the first part, he
would be performing a task while participant #1 tried to distract him.
During the second part, he was to distract participant #3 who would be
performing a task. The third part was said to include only the other two
participants. Announcing the tasks in advance insured that the actor
would not expect additional tasks after his opportunity to aggress;
therefore, he should not have expected any retaliation (other than that
manipulated in the power conditions to be described).
In order to make the presence of other participants more
believable, the actor's computer monitor had two small pictures at the top
of the screen, ostensibly showing a surveillance camera view of each of
the other participants. The actor was told these pictures were to be
updated once per minute. In fact, the pictures were identical for every
subject and were simply accessed from a file of digital photos stored on
disk. In addition, a digital camera in the actor's room was pointed out to
him and he was told that the other participants were receiving his picture
as well.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
25
Power manipulation:
In order to manipulate the retaliatory/reward power of the target
(bogus participant #3), the actor was told that a sum of $40 was going to
be divided at the end of the study based on participants' performance and
effort during the experiment. The experimenter explained that one
participant would be randomly chosen to distribute the money as he saw
fit at the end of the session. The experimenter looked on a bogus
randomized table and determined that either participant #1 or #3 would be
the money distributor. Since participant #3 was the target of displaced
aggression in the experiment, when he was chosen as money distributor
he was considered a "high power" target because the actor believed
participant #3 would be determining the size of the actor's share of the
money. Conversely, when participant #1 was chosen as money
distributor, participant #3 was considered a "low power" target. The words
"Money Distributor" appeared on the monitor under the appropriate picture
as a reminder to the actor of whom held the power in the session.
Next, the experimenter described the first task. The actor was told
that he would be trying to solve 20 anagrams that would appear on the
screen on at a time. Each anagram was to be presented for 15 seconds,
with a 5 second break between anagrams. He was instructed to say the
correct answer aloud, or to say "I don't know." He was also told that the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
26
average score on this task was 10 anagrams correct. In fact, very few
participants were able to obtain a score this high, making the task mildly
frustrating.
The provocation manipulation was a part of the "distraction" the
actor received while solving the anagrams. The experimenter explained
that participant #1 was going to be talking into a microphone to be played
over a speaker in the actor's room. Participant #1 's job ostensibly was to
try to distract the actor from solving the anagrams5 . The experimenter
played an audio tape of a (bogus) previous session to show what the
distraction might be like. This sample distraction was neutral in its tone
with no personally offensive statements. By giving a neutral example, the
distraction in the provocation condition was expected to be more
provoking by comparison.
After any questions regarding the first task were answered, the
experimenter went on to describe the second task. By explaining all of
the tasks at the outset, the experimenter was able to remain blind to the
provocation and trigger conditions until the very start of the first task.
Since all procedures were automated from that point on, there was no risk
of the experimenter subtly influencing the participant's behavior. The
experimenter explained that during the second task, participant #3 would
be solving some anagrams on a piece of paper while holding one hand in
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
27
a cooler of extremely cold water. The actor was asked to place his own
hand in the cooler of water for 15 seconds to experience what the task
would be like. This task, known as the "cold-pressor" task is moderately
to extremely painful and has been shown to induce such reactions as
discomfort and anger (Berkowitz, Cochran, & Embree, 1981; Kenworthy,
Urban, Canales, and Miller, 1999). The experimenter explained that
although participant #3 would be working on the anagrams for 5 minutes,
the amount of time he must keep his hand in the water needed to be
randomly determined and kept secret from the experimenter. Therefore,
the actor was told he would need to pick any time period between 1
minute and 5 minutes long at the start of the second task. The
experimenter explained how to select the time using the computer mouse
to move a bar on the screen to the correct time (See Figure 2).
The experimenter also mentioned that there would be a brief
survey for participants to answer on the computer between the first two
tasks.
Provocation manipulation:
The experimenter then exited the room and went to the control
room. At this point, the actor was randomly assigned to provocation and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
28
Figure 2
"Virtual Instrument" on Participant's Computer Screen used to Measure
Cold-pressor Time Assignment Dependent Measure of Aggression.
trigger conditions. After a few minutes, a signal was given for the
participant to start working. (From this point on, all experimenter
instructions were played over an intercom from recorded tapes, so as to
be identical for all actors). A tape of the (bogus) participant #1 was played
over the speaker into the subject room. In the No Provocation condition,
participant #1 said things and made noises to distract the participant, but
all of the comments were somewhat neutral in nature (e.g. "Bet you can't
get at least 101"). In the Provocation condition, participant #1
(provocateur) was quite personal and used profanity (e.g. "You solve
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
m m
29
these like you have your head up your ass!") (similar to Mosher &
Proenza, 1968). This manipulation was chosen, in part, because personal
insult has been found to be a more powerful provocation than simple task
failure, or task failure caused by another (Geen, 1968).
After the 5 minutes passed, the experimenter spoke over the
intercom to announce the next part of the experiment. She mentioned
that she must deliver the water cooler to participant #3, so during this time
they should answer a short questionnaire on the computer by pressing
response buttons on the keyboard. The actor (and bogus participants)
was warned not to use a blue response box that was in each room
because there was a computer glitch and pressing that box would cause
the survey to reset and they would have to answer the questions again.
Additionally, she mentioned that if they needed to communicate with each
other, there was a chat box at the bottom of the screen. The
experimenter mentioned that the chat box was going to be used during
the third task, but may be used sooner if they had problems and wanted
to ask each other questions while she was gone.
Trigger Manipulation:
When the experimenter stopped speaking, questions began to
appear one at a time on the monitor. The questions followed the cover
story and asked about distractions in daily life (e.g. Which of the following
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
30
best describes the environment you prefer for studying? A) silent B) quiet
music C) loud music D) people talking). In the trigger condition, after the
5th question, the screen reset back to question #1 and a message from
participant #3 appeared on the screen. "Oops. Did I do that? I didn't
really pay attention. I guess we have to start over." The participant
answered the questions again and after 3 questions, it reset again. A
message from Participant #3 read "I hit that box again. I'm just trying to
finish my homework here" Then, the actor repeated the survey until all
questions were answered with no interruptions. In the No Trigger
condition, the actor completed the survey with no interruptions. In the
trigger condition, very few actors attempted to chat back, and those who
did gave up after receiving no replies.
Dependent Measure of Aggression:
The experimenter returned to the intercom and announced the start
of the second task. The actor was instructed to chose the cold-pressor
task time limit for participant #3 and then to begin filling out a packet of
papers containing several dependent measures. The actor chose a time
between 1 minute long and 5 minutes long on the computer as instructed
previously by the experimenter. Amount of time chosen (cold-pressor
time assignment) was the primary aggression dependent measure. The
longer the chosen time, the more aggression toward the target.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
31
After the actor chose the time limit for the water task, he filled out a
few pages of a paper-and-pencil questionnaire that assessed perceptions
of all participants, the experimenter, and his own performance. Also
included in the packet were mood manipulation check items, a 10-item
self-esteem scale (Rosenberg, 1965), a 20-item scale that measured
tendency to ruminate over provocations (Caprara, 1986), and a request
for ethnicity information.
Finally, the actor was probed for suspicion and was fully and
sensitively debriefed through funnel debriefing.
Results
Manipulation checks
Provocation. Four questions from the dependent measures packet
given at the end of the experiment were chosen a priori as manipulation
checks of provocation. These items, measured on 6-point scales,
included (1) a rating of participant #1's courtesy, (2) the rudeness of the
comments made during the anagram task, (3) the actor's level of anger
immediately after the anagram task, and (4) the actor's level of happiness
after the anagram task. Table 1 contains the trimmed means, Winsorized
variance, and 95% confidence intervals computed with the Percentile t
Bootstrap method of testing differences between trimmed means (Wilcox,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 1
Trimmed means for manipulation checks of Provocation
32
Condition
Item
No Provocation
(n=27)
Provocation
(n=26) 95% C.l.
Courtesy M, 4.60 1.47 (2.50, 3.74)
§w2
(0.66) (0.26)
Rudeness
M,
1.00 5.00 (-6.59,-3.08)
§w2
(0.01) (2.81)
Anger M, 2.35 2.81 (-1.78,0.67)
§w2
(1.56) (1.50)
Happiness M, 3.53 3.31 (-0.66,1.07)
§w2
(1.18) (0.64)
Composite
M,
2.65 3.91 (-1.82,-0.76)
§w2
(0.30) (0.33)
Note. M, is the trimmed mean with 20% trimming; s„2 is the Winsorized sample
variance; 95% confidence interval is from the Percentile t Bootstrap procedure for
testing differences between trimmed means.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
33
1997)6 . As one can see from the table, the significance of the differences
between provocation and no provocation conditions for these four items
was mixed, although all the data were in the expected direction. Most
likely, the variables of happiness and anger, which carry connotations of
strong emotion, are simply less sensitive at picking up laboratory
provocation, since few people want to report they are angry or not happy.
In order to conduct an overall test of the provocation manipulation,
a composite variable was formed. The "courtesy" and "happiness" data
were reverse coded and the composite was created such that higher
values reflect greater provocation. A Percentile t Bootstrap test was
conducted to test the difference of this composite for trimmed means in
the provocation and no provocation conditions. The test revealed that the
95% confidence interval for the difference in the means did not contain
zero, meaning actors1 perceptions of the no provocation and provocation
conditions differed significantly in the expected direction.
Trigger. Five questions from the dependent measures packet were
chosen a priori to assess the perceptions and consequences of the trigger
manipulation. The items, scored on a 6-point scale, included the following
judgments: (1) intelligence level of participant #3, (2) courtesy of
participant #3, (3) participant #3's ability to follow directions, (4) actor's
happiness following the survey task, and, (5) actor's anger following the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
34
survey task. The trimmed means for these individual items, as well as the
95% confidence intervals from the Percentile t Bootstrap procedure for
testing the difference between no trigger and trigger condition are found in
Table 2. Although all were in the expected direction, none of these
differences were significant.
Again a composite variable was computed to conduct an overall
test of the trigger manipulation. The first four of these items were reverse
coded to compute the composite such that higher values reflect stronger
triggering actions. A Percentile t Bootstrap test was performed to test for
the difference between trimmed means in the trigger and no trigger
conditions. This test revealed a significant, although small, difference
between the no trigger and trigger conditions since the 95% confidence
interval did not contain zero.
Additionally, during the debriefing, it was verified that all actors in
the trigger condition noticed the survey reset incident and correctly
attributed the reset to the triggering target (bogus participant #3). As
noted previously, four actors' data were dropped prior to analyses due to
a failure to notice or understand the triggering event.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
35
Table 2
Trimmed means for manipulation checks of Trigger
Condition
Item
No Trigger
(n=26)
Trigger
(n=27) 95% C.l.
Intelligence M, 4.17 3.73 (-0.19,0.80)
s 2
2w
(0.21) (0.24)
Courtesy M, 4.25 4.07 (-0.49,0.75)
Sw2
(0.24) (0.59)
Follows
M,
4.69 4.53 (-0.75,1.02)
Directions
§w2
(0.62) (1.17)
Anger M, 1.13 1.47 (-0.88,0.38)
Sw2
(0.21) (0.77)
Happiness
M,
3.53 3.24 (-0.65,1.14)
Sw2
(1.26) (0.82)
Composite
M,
2.55 3.01 (-0.90,-0.80)
§W 2
(0.25) (0.11)
Note. Mt is the trimmed mean with 20% trimming; sw 2 is the Winsorized sample
variance; 95% confidence interval is from the Percentile t Bootstrap procedure for
testing differences between trimmed means.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
36
Power. As a manipulation check of power, all actors were asked to
recall the money distributor for their session. 100% of actors correctly
recalled this information. A small sample of actors were also asked if they
believed participant #3 was aware of the amount of time they had chosen
for him to do the cold-pressor task. All of the responses were affirmative.
Aggression
Toward displacement target. A three-way analysis of trimmed
means (see Wilcox (1997) for details) was performed on the cold-pressor
time assignment data. No main effects were found. The two-way
interaction between provocation and power was significant, Q=7.52
(critical value = 4.44, gc.05). The predicted three-way interaction
between provocation, trigger and power was not significant, as is evident
in Figure 3. Post hoc pairwise comparisons of trimmed means for the four
cells in the two-way interaction revealed that the interaction was primarily
caused by the long times given to targets in the provocation/low power
target cell (see Table 3). The cold-pressor time assignment dependent
variable was the primary measure of aggression in this study, and may
hereafter simply be referred to as "aggression1 1 .
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
37
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
38
Table 3
Trimmed Means of Displaced Aggression in Conditions of Provocation
and Power
Target
Low Power High Power
No Provocation M, 169.4, sec 194.7,0 sec
(1391) (2703)
n 13 14
Provocation M, 226.7bsec 166.2, sec
§ w 2 (233) (2118)
n 13 13
Note. M , is the trimmed mean with 20% trimming; sw 2 is the Winsorized sample
variance. Means sharing the same subscript letter do not differ at q<.05.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
39
Paper and pencil evaluations of the participant #3 (Four questions
forming a composite: kind, inconsiderate, rude, helpful) were not able to
be analyzed due to a substantial amount of missing data. Apparently, as
determined during debriefing, actors felt they could not make these
judgments about participant #3 since they had no true interactions with
him. This reluctance to respond to these questions continued even after
instructions were added that encouraged actors to guess.
Toward direct target. One question from the final questionnaire
can be viewed as an opportunity for direct aggression against the
provocateur. This item was a judgment of participant #1's level of
intelligence. This variable served as the dependent measure in a
three-way analysis of trimmed means. The results showed no effects of
the independent variables on ratings of provocateur's intelligence.
Toward experimenter. Some of the questions in the final packet
assessed impressions of the experimenter. This data could also be
considered for evidence of displaced aggression. The specific items
included judgments of experimenter: (1) competence, (2) courtesy, (3)
speech clarity, and (4) organization. These items were combined into a
composite variable that was included in a three-way analysis of trimmed
means. The results showed no main effects or interactions of the
independent variables. This was due to a ceiling effect as the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
40
experimenter was consistently given high ratings. The grand trimmed
mean for the composite variable of experimenter evaluation was 5.83 (sw 2
= 0.1) on a 6-point scale.
Rumination and aggression
The relationship between aggression (amount of time chosen for
water task) and tendency to ruminate over a provocation (assessed by
Caprara's (1986) scale), was calculated as a Winsorized correlation, rw .
The rw was small and insignificant, indicating no relationship between the
two variables (see Table 4).
Self-esteem and aggression
The relationship between self-esteem (as assessed by
Rosenberg's (1965) scale) and aggression (amount of time chosen) was
also examined with Winsorized correlation. A marginally significant
negative relationship was found (see Table 4), indicating that lower self
esteem was associated with more aggression. This result was also
confirmed by an additional test. A median split was performed on the
self-esteem scores, and trimmed means for aggression were calculated
for the high (Mt= 170.3, sw 2 = 1282) and low self-esteem (Mt = 215.3, sw 2 =
1566) groups. The difference between the trimmed means was tested
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
41
Table 4
Winsorized Correlations (r.^ between Aggression. Self-Esteem, and
Rumination
N=53
Aggression Self-esteem Rumination
Aggression 1.00
Seif-esteem -.23* 1.00
Rumination .16 -.31* 1.00
Note. rw computed with 20% trimming. *p=.10; *e<.05. Higher values for
aggression reflect more aggressive behavior. Higher values for self
esteem reflect higher self-esteem.
with a Percentile t Bootstrap test, where the 95% confidence interval did
not contain zero (C.l. = -87.7, -10.1), indicating that those in the high
self-esteem group were less aggressive than actors in the low self-esteem
group. This relationship was essentially the same for both provocation
and no provocation conditions.
A richer picture emerged, however, when the high and low
self-esteem groups were analyzed separately for associations with
aggression. Winsorized correlation coefficients for esteem scores and
aggression for the two types of subjects are shown in Table 5. The rw for
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
42
the relationship between esteem and aggression for low self-esteem
actors echoes the results that were found for the entire group, a fairly
small, negative correlation (not significant). The results for the high
self-esteem individuals show the opposite effect: a significant positive
correlation of medium magnitude. Within this group, the higher the
esteem scores, the higher the levels of aggression.
Baumeister et al (1996) predicted that high self-esteem individuals
would be particularly aggressive if their esteem was inflated or unstable,
in which case they would be particularly sensitive to ego threats. To
investigate this hypothesis in a post hoc manner, a score was calculated
for each actor to reflect the variability in his self-esteem scale responses
as an indirect way of assessing instability. From the ten responses to
items on the Rosenberg (1965) scale, one variance score was calculated
for each actor. It was reasoned that if a person was extremely sure of his
esteem, then he would respond with similar values to items in the scale
since the items were all designed to measure one latent variable:
self-esteem. Thus, those with high variance scores may have greater
instability in their perceptions of their esteem, and those with low variance
scores may feel more certain about their levels of esteem. Table 5 shows
the Winsorized correlations of instability with the aggression and esteem
scores. For low-esteem individuals, the insignificant direction of effect is
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
43
Table 5
Separate Intercorrelations of Aggression with Self-esteem for Low and
High Self-esteem Participants
Low Self-esteem Group (n=23)
Aggression Self-esteem Instability
1.00
-.17 1.00
.02 -.20 1.00
High Self-esteem Group (n=30)
Aggression Self-esteem Instability
Aggression 1.00
Self-esteem .45* 1.00
Instability -.40* -.52** 1.00
Note. rw computed with 20% trimming. *p<.05, **p<.01. Higher values for
aggression reflect more aggressive behavior. Higher values for self
esteem reflect higher self-esteem.
Aggression
Self-esteem
Instability
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
44
that greater instability is associated with greater aggression. For high-
esteem individuals, it appears that greater instability was associated with
less aggression. In addition, higher esteem was associated with less
instability (more stability) throughout all of the data.
Interrelationships
As a purely exploratory analysis, the Winsorized correlation
between tendency to ruminate and self-esteem was calculated. The rw
value was of small magnitude, yet significant (see Table 4). Greater
tendency to ruminate was associated with lower self-esteem.
Additional results
There was no difference in the actual number of anagrams actors
answered correctly between provocation conditions. The grand trimmed
mean was 4.7 correct out of a possible 20. Number of anagrams
answered correctly was not significantly correlated with aggression (rw (25)
= .18, c s .4).
Discussion
This study examined the roles of provocation, trigger, and target
retaliatory power in displaced aggression, as well as the moderating and
mediating roles of rumination and self-esteem in this context. Five
hypotheses were tested. The first three of these dealt with the effects of
provocation, trigger, and power on displaced aggression. Although the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
45
predicted three-way interaction and the main effect of power were not
found, an interesting interaction between provocation and power was
revealed. Specifically, for the cold-pressor assignment dependent
measure, high and low power targets were given the same moderate time
assignment when there was no prior provocation. Likewise, after a
provocation, high power displacement targets received a level of
aggression equivalent to that in the no provocation conditions. By
contrast, a significantly longer time period, interpreted as greater
aggression, was found for low power targets after a prior provocation.
The increase in aggression corresponds to predictions made by the
Scapegoating theory (e.g. Miller & Bugeleski, 1948) and several
psychologists' assumptions regarding displaced aggression, in which
aggression is only displaced when a low power, or weak, target is
available.
Although the finding that retaliatory power inhibits aggression is not
particularly surprising, it is interesting that high and low power targets
were given essentially the same time assignment in the absence of prior
provocation. It was only after a provocation that participants distinguished
between high and low power targets. Some aspect of being provoked
(e.g. increased arousal, negative mood, or other factor) led to heightened
sensitivity regarding power issues. Other studies of threatened retaliation
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
46
may not have found this interaction since it is common practice to provoke
all participants in a study.
In addition, this is the first study to manipulate reward power in
displaced aggression without confounding it with the various forms of
status, expert power, dislike, or minority group membership. Reward
power is a potent variable as evidenced by the perfect recall of all
participants for power assignment. It will be informative to isolate and
manipulate the above characteristics independently in a similar paradigm
to see if there is heightened discrimination after provocation for these
dimensions as well.
There are some who would suggest that displaced aggression
results such as those obtained in this paradigm are due to impression
management processes (Melberg and Tedeschi, 1989). They claim
that when a participant fails at a task, he wants to make the other people
look bad to experimenter, thus he gives harsh treatment to a fellow
participant. This argument can not explain the results of this study since
ail participants performed poorly on the difficult anagram task, and there
were no significant differences in performances between conditions.
Additionally, it can not explain the interaction between provocation and
power.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
47
Although interesting results were found for provocation and power,
this was not the case for the trigger manipulation. This study failed to find
a synergistic effect for the combination of provocation and trigger when
target power was low, such that actors in this condition would show a
significantly higher level of aggression than in other conditions. This was
not surprising considering that the manipulation checks of trigger showed
weak effects, indicating perhaps that the nature of the manipulation did
not fit with the criteria for labeling a person, object or event as 'triggering",
or the manipulation simply was not strong enough to show effects on the
dependent measures.
First, one must consider what makes a person, object, or event a
trigger, and how these characteristics compare to the current
manipulation. At first thought, one may assume that a trigger should be
able to elicit aggression on its own, or in the absence or a prior
provocation. Although aggression is more likely to occur in this instance,
it is not the only characteristic that can qualify something to be a trigger.
Evidence from past empirical work suggests objects or events that are not
associated with aggression by themselves can facilitate displaced
aggression when combined with a provoking situation. For example,
Berkowitz and Frodi (1979) found increased aggression toward
unattractive children after an unrelated provocation; however, the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
48
unattractive children did not elicit much aggression in the absence of
provocation. The current trigger, a bogus participant causing the actor to
answer survey questions more than once, is highly unlikely to elicit strong
aggression on its own in normal individuals. Thus, it does not qualify as a
strong trigger, but it is still a possible trigger.
So, if a trigger need not elicit aggression on its own, what is a
necessary characteristic? A trigger must be aversive to the actor. In all of
the theorized processes described in the introduction (e.g. excitation
transfer, lower thresholds, connectionist ideas) an aversive characteristic
of the target or the target's behavior facilitates the transfer of aggression
to that target. One of the unique aspects of aversive events that occur
after provocations is that they may only be perceived as aversive after the
provocation has occurred. In other words, the perceiver has been
affected by the provocation to the point that he or she may now see
aversiveness in places where he or she would not have seen it previously
(Miller & Marcus-Newhall, 1997). For example, in Pedersen (1998), the
trigger insult from a bogus participant who criticized the work of a
"freshman" was only seen as aversive after the provocation insuit made
by the experimenter regarding poor work from freshmen.
An attempt was made in the current study to also have a trigger
that would only be seen as aversive after a prior provocation. It seems
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
49
that the intended design of the trigger in this study failed such that the
current trigger was not aversive, or aversive enough, to actors in this
study to facilitate displaced aggression. Although there were a few
individuals who spontaneously revealed their annoyance with the trigger
during the debriefing, it is likely that most individuals experienced little or
no discomfort or harm by answering a few short questions more than
once. By contrast, if they had been required to answer one hundred
questions more than once, and there had been a salient time limit that
they were motivated to meet, then it is likely this trigger would have been
more universally aversive, and likely to show more effects on the
dependent measures.
Additionally, another reason why this and other triggers are
somewhat difficult to design a priori is that there are individual differences
in how people react to small provocations (e.g. Cohen, Nisbett, Bowdle, &
Schwarz, 1996). The factors that cause a minor act to be interpreted as a
trigger are likely to be numerous. By contrast, one would expect less
variability in reactions to severe provocations. It would be helpful to make
the trigger more consistent across participants perhaps by increasing the
aversiveness of the event.
Finally, it may be possible to increase the consistency of a
triggering event by providing a psychological link to the provocation. For
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
50
example, the Pedersen (1998) study repeated the class membership of
the actor (“freshman" or "sophomore", etc.) in the wording of both the
provocation and the trigger insults. The repetition of the same aversive
stimulus (the freshman insult) probably reinforced the aversiveness felt by
the actor at the time of the trigger. This type of link was absent in the
current study.
This study also failed to find a contrast effect for aggression toward
targets in the two provocation conditions for untriggered actors, such that
provoked actors would show less aggression than unprovoked actors.
This result differs from that of Berkowitz & Knurek, (1969), Gonzales
(1999), Marcus-Newhall et al (1999), and Pedersen (1998). Rather, in the
case of a low power target, aggression always increased after provocation
relative to the no provocation condition. One might suspect that the
source of the outcome differences lies in the various measures of
aggression used between studies, since each of the four comparison
studies used paper-and-pencil person evaluations. By contrast, this study
used an arguably less reactive measure of time choice. In the author's
experience, participants tend to be reluctant to evaluate another's
personality or likability, particularly if they have little or no contact with that
person. That reluctance may have caused other participants in the study
to pause long enough to become aware of their urge to aggress
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
51
inappropriately and then to overreact in the positive direction (Berkowitz &
Troccoli, 1990). In the present study, participants were asked to
anonymously select any time period "to help insure a wide sample of time
periods." This measure allows participants to rationalize their aggression
as simple "random choice", therefore, their original urge to aggress after
provocation is expressed without interference.
One more point should be considered regarding the main design of
this study. The cover story used here necessitated a feature that would
best be eliminated in future studies to achieve good convergent validity.
Specifically, in conditions where an actor faced a low power target, he
also encountered a high power provocateur. Likewise, actors who faced
high power targets always faced low power provocateurs. It is unclear
how these assignments may have affected the group dynamics in the
sessions to bring about the 2-way interaction; however, the power of the
provocateur would best be left constant in future work to insure a
confound does not cloud results.
The fourth hypothesis dealt with the mediating role of an individual
difference measure, tendency to ruminate over provocations (Caprara,
1986). This measure showed no relationship to aggression in either
provocation conditions. This result suggests that cognitive rumination
over a negative event is not a likely mediator for displaced aggression, at
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
52
least for displaced aggression that occurs after short time delays. If
participants were going to ruminate over the provocation, there may have
been floor effects in the amount of rumination possible since the time
between provocation and aggression was only a few minutes. The
original evidence for rumination effects was found by Caprara (1986) with
a delay of approximately 24 hours between provocation and aggression.
An additional limitation of this measure is that for logistical purposes the
rumination scale was collected after the main dependent measure of
aggression. Ideally it would have been collected prior to any
manipulations.
The fifth hypothesis dealt with the relationship between self-esteem
and aggression. At first look it appeared that the present findings
contradicted the hypothesis of Baumeister et al (1996), who proposed that
individuals high in self-esteem would be most aggressive. This study
found that those participants below the median level of self-esteem gave
longer cold-pressor times, hence showed greater aggression, than those
above the median for self-esteem. This was also different from the
Bushman and Baumeister (1998) data in which no relationship was found
between esteem and aggression. The Baumeister et al (1996) hypothesis
was partially confirmed, however, when the high and low esteem groups
were analyzed separately. Then, in agreement with Baumeister and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
53
colleagues, the correlation between aggression and self-esteem for the
higher esteem group was positive, indicating that those highest in esteem
were most aggressive within this group . However, the correlation for the
low esteem group was weakly negative, indicating those with lowest
esteem were most aggressive within this group . These data suggest that
the original Baumeister et al (1996) hypothesis may have been too simple.
The relationship between self-esteem and aggression may be more
curvilinear than linear.
Some exploratory analyses into the role of esteem stability raised
more questions than they answered. Baumeister et al (1996)
hypothesized that stability of the esteem appraisal would moderate the
relationship between esteem and aggression such that those with
unstable high esteem would be most likely to aggress. Using a post hoc
measure of stability, the current study failed to confirm this. Specifically,
among high esteem actors, stability was associated with greater esteem
as well as greater aggression. Although this positive correlation between
high esteem and high stability is exists in ether data (Baumgardner, 1990;
Campbell, 1990; Hamid & Cheng, 1995; Pelham & Swann, 1989), it is
questionable here due to the nature of the stability variable. Rather than
asking actors how certain they felt about their esteem responses as other
researchers have done, a variance score was computed across the 10
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
54
items on the scale. Low variance was labeled "stable" and high variance
was labeled "unstable". The meaning of giving consistent versus
inconsistent responses on the Rosenberg (1965) esteem scale can be
debated. First, it is important to note that the Rosenberg scale is quite
obvious in its measurement of self-esteem, therefore, much of the stable
responding for high esteem could in fact be socially desirable responding.
In future studies a social desirability scale could be included to assess the
relationship between the two.
A second alternate interpretation is that it could be a case of
defensive enhancement as described by Swann (1990). In other words,
defensive people with slightly negative self-views may be seeking to
create positive feedback to bolster their self-images (Swann, 1990; Swann
& Read, 1981). In addition, those low in certainty may rely on "possible
selves" as a basis for reporting self-image (Swann & Schroeder, 1995).
These "possible selves" may include "ideal selves" in which case, a low
certainty self-esteem person may respond to the scale in such a way that
he or she appears to be consistently very high in self-esteem. If either of
these scenarios were true for the current data, Baumeister's prediction of
inflated, unstable esteem being positively related to greater aggression
would be confirmed. Unfortunately, in the current data, there is no way to
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
55
accurately assess certainty or which of several other motivations may be
driving behavior.
Additional investigation with a wide variety of self-esteem, stability,
social desirability, and aggression measures would be informative to
clarify the findings presented here. Along the same lines, the moderating
role of stability may be best investigated with a measure other than
variance, such as the recently suggested Narcissism scale (Bushman &
Baumeister, 1998). Finally, it should be noted that the self-esteem
measure had the same drawback as the rumination scale in that it was
collected after the main dependent measure of aggression, when ideally it
would have been collected prior to manipulations.
Finally, regarding methodology, in an area of little structured,
programmatic research, this study sought to develop a paradigm with
appropriate control conditions to examine displaced aggression and
various theoretically important variables such as differential power. The
new paradigm was successful in that it was believable to participants and
demonstrated displaced aggression on a new behavioral measure of
aggression.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
56
Endnotes
1 . French and Raven (1959) describe the differences in these and other
types of power.
2. Reward power is manipulated in this study. It is also most probable
that this power was seen as retaliatory power as well. Participants in the
study were told that $40 would be divided among three people, thus, they
probably expected the normal amount received to be approximately one-
third of the total. Any departure from this amount may have been seen as
reward (receiving more than one-third) or retaliation (receiving less than
one-third). The terms reward and retaliation will be interchanged in this
paper.
3. Of course, it would be possible for the strength of the trigger to be so
great as to overcome practically any inhibitions against aggression
(Baron, 1973). For this reason, the triggers that are of interest are
relatively small triggers. Ideally, a trigger is an event that may be
interpreted as either neutral or negative. It is the prior provocation
experienced by the actor that causes it to be interpreted as a negative,
triggering event.
Similarly, it would be possible for the power of the target (ability to
retaliate) to be so strong as to completely inhibit any desire to aggress.
For the purpose of this study, a high power target who has some
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
57
meaningful fate control over the actor within the immediate situation is
desired. A target with the propensity to do bodily harm, and/or to inflict
financial or emotional ruin would have too much power to elicit any
aggression in the experimental setting.
4. One participant chose to discontinue his participation during the
provocation task due to the nature of the taped provocation. Great care
was taken to assure him the insults were not actually directed at him and
to calm him. No other participants were so strongly affected by the
procedures.
5. The actor was told that participant #1 would not be able to hear him
during the anagram task, thus no one attempted to communicate with him
during the task. This was inserted to insure no direct verbal retaliation to
the provocateur.
6. This method of comparing trimmed means was chosen over the
traditional Student's t-test of the difference in means because it is a more
robust method (Wilcox, 1997; Wilcox, 1998).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
58
Bibliography
Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Garden City, NY:
Doubleday.
American Psychological Association. (1992). Ethical principles of
psychologists and code of conduct. American Psychologist. 47.
1597-1611.
Aureli, F., Cozzolino, R., Cordischi, C., & Scucchi, S. (1992).
Kin-oriented redirection among Japanese macaques: An expression of a
revenge system? Animal Behavior. 44. 283-291.
Bailey, K. G. (1987). Human paleopsychology: Roots of
pathological aggression. In G. G. Neuman (Ed.), Origins of human
aggression (pp. 50-63). New York: Human Sciences Press.
Baron, R. A. (1973). Threatened retaliation from the victim as an
inhibitor of physical aggression. Journal of Research in Personality. 7.
103-115.
Baron, R. A. (1974). Threatened retaliation as an inhibitor of
human aggression: Mediating effects of the instrumental value of
aggression. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society. 3. 217-219.
Baron, R. A. (1977). Human aggression. New York: Plenum.
Baumeister, R. F., Smart, L., & Boden, J. M. (1996). Relation of
threatened egotism to violence and aggression: The dark side of
self-esteem. Psychological Review. 103. 5-33.
Baumgardner, A. H. (1990). To know oneself is to like oneself:
Self-certainty and self-affect. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology. 5 8 .1062-1072.
Berkowitz, L. (1965). The concept of aggressive drive: Some
additional considerations. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in
Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 301-329). New York:
Academic Press.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
59
Berkowitz, L. (1969). The frustration-aggression hypothesis
revisited. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Roots of aggression. New York: Atherton
Press.
Berkowitz, L. (1983). The experience of anger as a parallel
process in the display of impulsive "angry" aggression. In R. G. Geen and
G. Donnerstein (Eds.), Aggression: Theoretical and empirical reviews:
Theoretical and methodological issues (Vol. 1, pp. 103-33). New York:
Academic Press.
Berkowitz, L., Cochran, S., & Embree, M. (1981). Physical pain
and the goal of aversively stimulated aggression. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology. 40. 687-700.
Berkowitz, L., & Frodi, A. (1979). Reactions to a child's mistakes
as affected by his/her looks and speech. Social Psychology Quarterly. 42.
420-425.
Berkowitz, L., & Geen, R. G. (1967). Stimulus qualities of the
target of aggression: A further study. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology. 5. 364-368.
Berkowitz, L., & Green, J. A., (1962). The stimulus qualities of the
scapegoat. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 64. 293-301.
Berkowitz, L., & Holmes, D. S. (1959). The generalization of
hostility to disliked objects. Journal of Personality. 27. 565-577.
Berkowitz, L., & Holmes, D. S. (1960). A further investigation of
hostility generalization to disliked objects. Journal of Personality. 28. 427-
442.
Berkowitz, L. & Knurek, D. A. (1969). Label-mediated hostility
generalization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 13.
200-206.
Berkowitz, L., & Troccoli, B. T. (1990). Feelings, direction of
attention, and expressed evaluations of others. Cognition and Emotion. 4.
305-325.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
60
Blagden, J. C., & Craske, M. G. (1996). Effects of active and
passive rumination and distraction: A pilot replication with anxious mood.
Journal of Anxiety Disorders. 10. 243*252.
Bushman, B. J., & Baumeister, R. F. (1998). Threatened egotism,
narcissism, self-esteem, and direct and displaced aggression: Does self-
love or self-hate lead to violence? Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology. 75. 219-229.
Buss, A. H. (1961). The psychology of aggression. New York:
John Wiley and Sons.
Campbell, J. D. (1990). Self-esteem and clarity of the self-concept.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 59. 538-549.
Caprara, G. V. (1986). Indicators of aggression: The
dissipation-rumination scale. Personality and Individual Differences. 7.
763-769.
Chase, I. D. (1985). Sequential analysis of aggressive acts during
hierarchy formation: An application of the "jigsaw puzzle" approach.
Animal Behavior. 33. 86-100.
Cohen, A. R. (1955). Social norms, arbitrariness of frustration, and
status of the agent of frustration in the frustration-aggression hypothesis.
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 51. 222-226.
Cohen, D., Nisbett, R. E., Bowdle, B. F., & Schwarz, N. (1996).
Insult, aggression, and the southern culture of honor: An "experimental
ethnography". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 70. 945-
960.
Dollard, J., Doob, L. W., Miller, N. E., Mowrer, O. H., & Sears, R. R.
(1939). Frustration and aggression. New Haven, Connecticut.: Yale
University Press.
Eysenck, H. J. (1977). Crime and personality (3rd Ed.). St.
Albans: Palladin.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
61
French, J. R. P., & Raven, B. H. (1959). The bases of social
power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in social power. Ann Arbor, Ml.:
University of Michigan Press.
Freud, S. (1938). The basic writings of Sigmund Freud. (A.A. Brill,
Trans.). Random House: New York.
Geen, R. G. (1968). Effects of frustration, attack, and prior training
in aggressiveness upon aggressive behavior. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology. 9.316-321.
Geen, R. G., & Berkowitz, L. (1967). Some conditions facilitating
the occurrence of aggression after the observation of violence. Journal of
Personality. 35. 666-676.
Gonzales, C. L. (1999). [Triggered displaced aggression toward a
Minority target]. Unpublished raw data.
Graham, F. K., Charwat, W. A., Honig, A. S., & Weltz, P. C. (1951).
Aggression as a function of the attack and the attacker. Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology. 46. 512-520.
Hamid, P. N., & Cheng, C. (1995). Self-esteem and self-concept
clarity in Chinese students. Social Behavior and Personality. 23. 273-284.
Hokanson, J. E., Shetler, S. (1961). The effect of overt aggression
on physiological arousal level. Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology. 63. 446-448.
Kenworthy, J., Urban, L. M., Canales, C., & Miller, N. (1999).
Effects of negative mood on crossed categorization. University of
Southern California. Manuscript in preparation.
Litt, S. M. (1971). Perinatal complications and criminality.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan.
Lyubomirsky, S., & Nolen-Hoeksema, S. (1995). Effects of self
focused rumination on negative thinking and interpersonal problem
solving. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 69. 176-190.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
62
Marcus-Newhall, A., Pedersen, W. C., Carlson, M., & Miller, N.
(1999). Displaced aggression is alive and well: A meta-analysis.
Manuscript submitted for publication.
Martin, L. L., & Tesser, A. (1989). Toward a motivational and
structural theory of ruminative thought. In J. S. Uleman & J. A. Bargh
(Eds.), Unintended thought (pp.306-326). New York: Guilford Press.
McClelland, D. C., & Apicella, F. S. (1945). A functional
classification of verbal reactions to experimentally induced failure. Journal
of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 46. 376-390.
Melburg, V., & Tedeschi, J. T. (1989). Displaced aggression:
Frustration or impression management? European Journal of Social
Psychology. 19. 139-145.
Miller, N., & Marcus-Newhall, A. (1997). A conceptual analysis of
displaced aggression. In R. Ben-Ari & Y. Rich (Eds.), Understanding and
enhancing education in heterogeneous schools: Theory and application
(pp.69-108). Ramat-Gan (ISRAEL): Bar llan University Press.
Miller, N. E., & Bugeleski, R. (1948). Minor studies in aggression:
The influence of frustrations imposed by the in-group on attitudes
expressed by out-groups. Journal of Psychology. 25. 437-442.
Mosher, D. L., & Proenza, L. M. (1968). Intensity of attack,
displacement, and verbal aggression. Psvchonomic Science. 12.
359-360.
Nachson, I. (1988). Hemisphere function in violent offenders. In T.
E. Moffitt & S. A. Mednick (Eds.), Biological contributions to crime
causation (pp. 55-67). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff.
Nolen-Hoeksema, S., & Morrow, J. (1993). Effects of rumination
and distraction on naturally occurring depressed mood. Cognition and
Emotion. 7. 561-570.
Ohbuchi, K., & Saito, M. (1986). Power imbalance, its legitimacy,
and aggression. Aggressive Behavior. 12. 33-40.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
63
Pedersen, W. C. (1998). The moderating effect of trivial triggering
provocation on displaced aggression. Unpublished master's thesis,
University of Southern California, Los Angeles.
Pelham, B. W., & Swann, W. B., Jr. (1989). From self-conceptions
to self-worth: On the sources and structure of global self-esteem. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology. 57. 672-680.
Raine, A., & Scerbo, A. (1991). Biological theories of violence. In
J. S. Milner (Ed.), Neuropsychology of Aggression (pp. 1-25). Boston:
Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Rathus, S. A. (1990). Psychology (4th Ed.). Fort Worth, TX.: Holt,
Rinehart, and Winston.
Rime, B., Phillippot, P., Boca, S., & Mesquita, B. (1992).
Long-lasting cognitive and social consequences of emotion: Social
sharing and rumination. European Review of Social Psychology. 3.
225-258.
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-imaoe.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Schacter, S., & Singer, J. E. (1962). Cognitive, social, and
physiological determinants of emotional state. Psychological Review. 69.
379-399.
Struhsaker, T. T. (1965). Behavior of the vervet monkey
(Cercopithecus Aethioos). Unpubiished doctoral dissertation, University
of California, Berkeley.
Swann, W. B., Jr. (1990). To be adored or to be known? The
interplay of self-enhancement and self-verification. In E. T. Higgins & R.
M. Sorrentino (Eds.) Handbook of motivation and cognition: Foundations
of social behavior. (Vol. 2, pp. 408-488). New York: Guildford.
Swann, W. B., Jr., & Read, S. J. (1981). Self-verification
processes: How we sustain our self-conceptions. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology. 17. 351-372.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
64
Swann, W. B., Jr., & Schroeder, D. G. (1995). The search for
beauty and truth: A framework for understanding reactions to evaluations.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 21. 1307-1318.
Venables, P. H. (1988). Psychophysiology and Crime: Theory and
data. In T. E. Moffitt & S. A. Mednick (Eds.), Biological contributions to
crime causation (pp. 3-13). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff.
Volkow, N. D., & Tancredi, L. (1987). Neural substrates of violent
behavior: A preliminary study with positron emission tomography. British
Journal of Psychiatry. 151. 668-673.
White, L. (1979). Erotica and aggression: The influence of sexual
arousal, positive affect, and negative affect on aggressive behavior.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 37. 591-601.
Wilcox, R. R. (1997). Introduction to robust estimation and
hypothesis testing. San Diego: Academic Press.
Wilcox, R. R. (1998). How many discoveries have been lost by
ignoring modem statistical methods? American Psychologist. 53. 300-
314.
Wilson, L., & Rogers, R. W. (1975). The fire this time: Effects of
race of target, insult, and potential retaliation on black aggression.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 32. 857-864.
Worchel, P. (1957). Catharsis and the relief of hostility. Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology. 55. 238-243.
Worchel, P. (1966). Displacement and the summation of
frustration. Journal of Experimental Research in Personality. 1. 256-261.
Worchel, S., Hardy, T. W., & Hurley, R. (1976). The effects of
commercial interruption of violent and non-violent films on viewers'
subsequent aggression. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 12.
220-232.
Yeudal, L. T. (1978). The neuropsychology of aggression.
Clarence Hinks memorial lecture, University of Western Ontario.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
65
Yeudal, L. T., Fedora, O., Fedora, S., & Warded, D. (1981).
Australian Journal of Forensic Science 13(41:14(11.
Zilboorg, G. (1951). Siomund Freud: His exploration of the mind of
man. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons.
Zillman, D. (1978). Attribution and misattribution of excitatory
reactions. In J. H. Harvey, W. J. Ickes, and R. F. Kidd (Eds.), New
directions in attribution research (Vol. 2, pp. 335-368). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Alcohol's impact on triggered displaced aggression

PDF

A context for timing, conditioning and modification of cerebellar function

PDF

Effect of affective reactions by an outgroup on preferences for crossed categorization discussion partners

PDF

An evaluation of a brief HIV /AIDS prevention intervention using normative feedback to promote risk reduction among sexually active college students

PDF

Atypicality: Benefit and bane. Provocation, trigger, typicality, and the expression of aggression and generalization

PDF

Aggression As A Function Of Arousal And Friendship Ties

PDF

Heterosexuals' attitudes toward lesbians and gay men and the attitude functions they serve: Correlates, stability and gender differences

PDF

Attachment, accommodation, and the outcomes of romantic relationships

PDF

Examining the differences in family functioning and meaning in life between Reform, Conservative, and Orthodox Jewish families

PDF

Ideological threat, social identity, and consensus estimation

PDF

Emotion regulation as a mediator between family-of-origin aggression and marital aggression

PDF

Consumer choice under budget constraint: Why consumers overspend

PDF

Evidence for spontaneous situational inferences

PDF

A two-dimensional model of cognitive empathy: An empirical study

PDF

Bad boy rebounds and rare air: Masculinity in televised sport media, young adult male audiences and the search for authenticity in postmodern America

PDF

Associations and mechanisms among attention deficit hyperactivity disorder symptoms, cognitive functioning, and drinking habits

PDF

Family functioning, intergenerational conflict, and psychological symptomology of Asian American college students

PDF

Development and validation of the Cooper Quality of Imagery Scale: A measure of vividness of sporting mental imagery

PDF

Integration of science and practice: A collective case study of scientist -practitioner programs in counseling psychology

PDF

Graduate student enrollment management: Toward a model that predicts student enrollment. A case study at Phillips Graduate Institute

Asset Metadata

Creator Urban, Lynn Michelle (author)

Core Title Displaced aggression as a function of target power

School Graduate School

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Psychology

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag OAI-PMH Harvest,psychology, social

Language English

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Advisor Miller, Norman (committee chair), Cody, Michael J. (committee member), Duval, Shelley (committee member), Madigan, Stephen (committee member), Read, Stephen (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c16-88635

Unique identifier UC11327443

Identifier 3018139.pdf (filename),usctheses-c16-88635 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 3018139.pdf

Dmrecord 88635

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Urban, Lynn Michelle

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA