Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The relationship between intent to harm, attributions and cues in the perception of aggression Kyle, Neil John 1976

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Notice for Google Chrome users:
If you are having trouble viewing or searching the PDF with Google Chrome, please download it here instead.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1976_A8 K94.pdf [ 4.89MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0093787.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0093787-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0093787-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0093787-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0093787-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0093787-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0093787-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0093787-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0093787.ris

Full Text

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN INTENT TO HARM, ATTRIBUTIONS AND CUES IN THE PERCEPTION OF AGGRESSION by NEIL JOHN KYLE B.A., Simon Fraser U n i v e r s i t y , 1971 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS i n THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES Department of Psychology We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA August, 1976 @ N e i l John Kyle, 1976 In presenting th i s thes i s in pa r t i a l fu l f i lment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the Univers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the L ibrary shal l make it f ree ly ava i lab le for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of th is thes is for scho lar ly purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by his representat ives. It is understood that copying or pub l i ca t ion of th is thes is fo r f inanc ia l gain sha l l not be allowed without my writ ten permission. The Univers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia 2075 Wesbrook Place Vancouver, Canada V.6T 1W5 Date i Abstract This research dealt with attributions of intent to harm, responsibility, ju s t i f i c a t i o n and affect made by subjects observing role-acted aggres-sive behaviour toward a victim. The primary question concerned the rela-tionship between the types of attributions made (dependent variables) and the types of cues displayed by the protagonist (independent variables). The independent variables were systematically manipulated by depicting them, in ten different videotaped scenes. One hundred, male, undergraduate psychology students at the University of British Columbia were volunteer subjects. The results were analyzed by grouping the independent variables on two bases: (1) by a p r i o r i c r i t e r i a , and (2) according to the subjects' perceptions. The f i r s t analysis used a three-way 2x2x2 ANOVA, where the three f u l l y crossed factors were the presence or absence of implicit or explicit verbal cues, or nonverbal cues. Simple main effects analyses were conducted on significant interactions. Trend analyses established the effects of increasing the number of cues displayed. The second analy-sis used an eight group one-way ANOVA plus trend analyses. The protagonists' use of nonverbal cues or an increase in the number of cues displayed was found to decrease attributions of responsibility to the victim, increase the victim's l i k e a b i l i t y , decrease the just i f i c a t i o n of the protagonist and decrease his l i k e a b i l i t y . When the protagonist became very aggressive these effects were reversed. Implications for pacificism of this back-lash effect against the victim were discussed. Table of Contents i x Page Abstract L i s t of Tables L i s t of Figures Acknowledgement Introduction A t t r i b u t i o n of Intent A t t r i b u t i o n of R e s p o n s i b i l i t y and J u s t i f i c a t i o n Cues of Intent to Harm Hypotheses Method Subj ects Preliminary Preparations Procedure Rationale for Analyses Results and Discussion Analysis Procedures Results: Phase 1 - A P r i o r i Grouping of Independent Variables Dicussion: Phase 1 - A P r i o r i Grouping of Independent Variables Results: Phase 2 - Empirical Grouping of Independent Variables Discussion: Phase 2 - Empirical Grouping of Independent Variables Concluding Discussion References Appendix 1 Acting Instructions Appendix 2 S c r i p t Improvisation by Actors Appendix 3 Filming C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s for Experimental and Natural Videotape Scenes v v i 1 3 5 8 16 21 21 21 23 25 28 28 30 53 57 74 78 85 94 98 103 I l l Table of Contents (continued) Appendix 4 Instructions to Subjects Page 104 Appendix 5 Questionnaire Given to Subjects Viewing the Eight Acted Scenes 105 Appendix 6 Questionnaire Given to Subjects Viewing the Natural Control Scene (For Determining Questionnaire E f f e c t s ) 110 Appendix 7 Questionnaire Given to Subjects Viewing the Natural Control Scene (For Determining Acting E f f e c t s ) 112 Appendix 8 Explanation of Differences i n Trend Analyses Sum of Squares 117 Appendix 9 Post-hoc Comparisons f o r Demand C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s 118 L i s t of Tables i v Table 1. Frequencies i n Subject Groups According to A P r i o r i or Empirical C l a s s i f i c a t i o n of Indepen-dent Variables Table 2. Summary of Dependent Variables Table 3. Summary ' Table f o r E f f e c t s of I m p l i c i t , Ex-p l i c i t and Nonverbal Cues on Eight Dependent Variables Table 4. Simple Main E f f e c t s f o r the E x p l i c i t Verbal Cues and Nonverbal Cues Interaction (BC) Table 5. Mean Scores for Eight Groups Table 6. One-Way ANOVA and Contrasts f o r Sign i f i c a n c e of Combinations of Cues Table 7. ANOVA Summary for Trend Analyses Table 8. Mean Scores for Groups Table 9. One-Way ANOVA,. Pairwise and Complex Contrasts for S i g n i f i c a n c e of Cues and Combinations Table 10. ANOVA Summary for Trend Analyses Page 26 27 32 39 42 43 47 59 60 66 V L i s t of Figures Page Figure 1. Graph of Interaction E f f e c t s Between E x p l i c i t Verbal Cues and Nonverbal Cues on the A t t r i b u -t i o n of R e s p o n s i b i l i t y to the Protagonist (DV5) 35 Figure 2. Graph of Interaction E f f e c t s Between E x p l i c i t Verbal Cues and Nonverbal Cues on the A t t r i b u -t i o n of R e s p o n s i b i l i t y to the Victim (DV6) 36 Figure 3. Graph of Interaction E f f e c t s Between E x p l i c i t Verbal Cues and Nonverbal Cues on the Degree of J u s t i f i c a t i o n for the Protagonist's Behaviour (DV7) 37 Figure 4. Graph of Interaction E f f e c t s Between E x p l i c i t Verbal Cues and Nonverbal Cues on the Degree of P o s i t i v e A f f e c t f o r the Protagonist (DV8) 38 Figure 5. Trend Analysis f o r DV1 - A t t r i b u t i o n of Intent to Harm 48 Figure 6. Trend Analysis f o r DV6 - The A t t r i b u t i o n of Re s p o n s i b i l i t y to the Victim 49 Figure 7. Trend Analysis f o r DV7 - The Degree of J u s t i -f i c a t i o n for the Protagonist's Behaviour 50 Figure 8. Trend Analysis f o r DV8 - The Degree of P o s i t i v e A f f e c t for the Protagonist 51 Figure 9. Trend Analysis f o r DV6 - The A t t r i b u t i o n of R e s p o n s i b i l i t y to the Victim 68 Figure 10. Trend Analysis f o r DV7 - The Degree of J u s t i -f i c a t i o n f o r the Protagonist's Behaviour 69 Figure 11. Trend Analysis f o r DV8 - The Degree of P o s i t i v e A f f e c t for the Protagonist 70 Figure 12. Trend Analysis f o r DV9 A f f e c t for the Victim - The Degree of P o s i t i v e 71 v i Acknowledgement My sincere appreciation goes to the many individuals without whose help this thesis would have been impossible. Foremost throughout the entire project, the love and support of my wife, Mary Lou, has made the effort worthwhile and the task feasible. My deepest gratitude i s for her presence. I am greatly indebted to my advisors, Merle Zabrack, Robert Knox, and Ralph Hakstian. They have provided the encouragement and advice necessary to guide these fledgling ideas through many d i f f i c u l t i e s to fruition in a thesis. Their presence has made the process a learning experience of great value to me. I am also indebted to the many friends who gave freely of their time to help me in the development of the videotape films. Without the generous assistance of Ralph Drew, Jim Yates, Bob Boutilier, Tim McTiernan and Keith Humphrey, the task would indeed have been nearly insurmountable. Finally, I would like to extend my warmest thanks to the many people who participated as subjects in this research. Their contribution w i l l be of value in providing for more than simply the in i t i a t i o n rites of yet another graduate student. 1 Aggression has been defined i n many d i f f e r e n t ways during the past h a l f century of i t s study by the s o c i a l sciences. For example, a number of authors have defined aggression as an i n s t i n c t (Linn, 1973; Lorenz, 1967; McDougall, 1933). In general, the i n s t i c t i v i s t p o s i t i o n i s found most commonly i n the areas of ethology and psychiatry, however, there are exceptions to t h i s stance among some a u t h o r i t i e s a c t i v e l y i n -volved or interested i n these f i e l d s (e.g., Barnett, 1969; Carthy and Ebling, 1964; Delgado, 1969; H a l l , 1964; Russell and R u s s e l l , 1968; Vernon, 1969; Washburn and Hamburg, 1968). Another approach has been the attempt to define aggression i n terms of the p h y s i o l o g i c a l c o rrelates of the behaviour. E l e f t h e r i o u and Scott (1971), Kermani (1969), Moyer (1968a, 1968b, 1971a, 1971b, 1973) and Scott (1958) have reviewed and integrated the findings i n t h i s area. Other authors have employed broad d e f i n i t i o n s of aggression which include a s s e r t i v e , competitive types of behaviour as well as harming behaviour, thus making aggression both p o s i t i v e and negative i n value (Ardrey, 1970; E i b l - E i b e s f e l t , 1970; I l f e l d , 1969, Robinson, 1971; S o l n i t , 1973; Storr, 1968). This approach has been widely c r i t i c i z e d as being misleading and bound to lead to a great deal of confusion since such all-embracing d e f i n i t i o n s encompass so many d i f f e r e n t psychological functions (Cairns, 1972; Gianutsos, 1974; Johnson, 1972; Karczmar and Scudder, 1969; Klineberg, 1954). Many writers have avoided or f a i l e d to use the -concept of intent i n defining aggression. To achieve t h i s exclusion of i n t e n t , some have defined aggression as aversive stimulation (Buss, 1961; Patterson and Cobb, 1973; U l r i c h and Symannek, 1969), others have equated aggression 2 with h o s t i l i t y (Berkowitz, 1962; De Monchaux, 1964; Klineberg, 1954), and s t i l l others have replaced the words aggression and aggressive behaviour with the recently coined phrase "agonistic behaviour" (Bigelow, 1972; Johnson, 1972). Kaufmann (1970) and Knutson (1973) s p e c i f i c a l l y avoid using intent i n defining aggression, re s p e c t i v e l y p r e f e r r i n g , instead, concepts r e l a t e d to expectations of i n f l i c t i n g harm or the c o m p a t i b i l i t y of the behaviour to n a t u r a l l y occurring instances of aggression. F i n a l l y , Olweus (1972) includes i n t e n t i o n a l i n j u r y as aggression, but f o r an un-s p e c i f i e d reason c l e a r l y negates the e f f e c t of t h i s p o s i t i o n by s t a t i n g that accidental i n j u r y i s not excluded from the d e f i n i t i o n . In contrast to these p o s i t i o n s , there may be a great deal to be gained by including the use of 'intent-to harm-or i n j u r e ' as a c e n t r a l concept i n defining aggression. Kahn and Kirk (1968) have suggested that the use of intent i n defining aggression avoids dependence upon res-ponses, r e s u l t s or the perceptions of the receiver of the act. At the same time t h i s approach also makes the c r u c i a l d i s t i n c t i o n between a c c i -dental and i n t e n t i o n a l i n j u r y . I f accidental i n j u r y were to be included as aggression then the harm caused would be, i n part, a random event, thus making the d e f i n i t i o n of aggression of l i t t l e value. C e r t a i n l y the a c c i d e n t a l - i n t e n t i o n a l d i s t i n c t i o n must acquire some v a l i d i t y when viewed i n the l i g h t of our law processes where there i s the need to e s t a b l i s h the intent of the act i n order to determine the degree of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for the act (cf. Fishbein and Ajzen, 1973). In t h i s respect, i t i s of i n t e r e s t that several authors have im-p l i e d intent i n t h e i r d e f i n i t i o n s of aggression (e.g., Carthy and Ebling, 1964; Dollard, Doob, M i l l e r , Mowrer and Sears, 1939; Staub, 1971) and two 3 prominent s o c i a l psychological researchers (Berkowitz, 1965, 1970; Buss, 1971) have changed t h e i r positions such that they accept intent as a necessary concept i n f u l l y understanding aggressive behaviour. It would appear that there i s a general trend f o r researchers studying the area of human aggression to accept and use intent-to-harm as a c e n t r a l concept defining aggression (Bandura, 1973; Bandura, Ross, and Ross, 1963; Berkowitz, 1965, 1970; Buss, 1971; Feshbach, 1964, 1970; Kahn and Kirk; 1968; Sears, Maccoby and Levin, 1957). Thus, the present author would conclude that the concept of intent-to-harm constitutes a v i t a l element i n the d e f i n i t i o n of aggression. It i s now of i n t e r e s t to consider the a t t r i b u t i o n of intent and the r e l a t e d a t t r i b u t i o n s of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y and j u s t i f i c a t i o n , i n the per-ception of aggression. A t t r i b u t i o n of Intent A t t r i b u t i o n s of intent i n aggression may stem from two e s s e n t i a l l y d i f f e r e n t but complementary bases. The f i r s t p o s i t i o n , c a l l e d the l o g i -c a l i n f e r e n t i a l model, has been o u t l i n e d by Heider (1958). Heider views a t t r i b u t i o n s as l o g i c a l derivations of the actions and circumstances sur-rounding the event. The second p o s i t i o n , c a l l e d the personal knowledge model (De Charms, 1968) views a t t r i b u t i o n s as being i n f e r r e d through the knowledge and experience of r e l a t i n g one's intentions to s p e c i f i c be-haviours and s i t u a t i o n s . De Charms (1968), Heider (1958) and M a s e l l i and A l t r o c h i (1969) have a l l contributed to the t h e o r e t i c a l discussion of i n t e n t i o n i n psychology. (For more s t r i c t l y t h e o r e t i c a l views, see Boden (1973) and Daveney (1974); Gutkin also discusses intent but h i s categorization of 4 i n t e n t i o n i s b a s i c a l l y the same as the three middle l e v e l s of Heider's (1958) categorization, which w i l l be o u t l i n e d l a t e r . ) The views of the f i r s t four authors are summarized below under the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of motivational aspects, behavioural aspects, outcomes produced and s i t u -a t i o n a l v a r i a b l e s . Motivation, as indicated by exertion, i s t i e d to i n t e n t i o n by suggesting the degree of desire for an outcome. S i m i l a r l y , behaviour that i s extreme and d i r e c t e d towards the perceiver rather than another person may increase the l i k e l i h o o d of intent being a t t r i b u t e d to the be-haviour. Likewise, as there i s an increase i n the number or complexity of the behaviours leading to a s p e c i f i c end, the intentions become clearer. This aspect of i n t e n t i o n , explained as the taking of multiple means or paths to reach an invariant end, has been c a l l e d e q u i f i n a l i t y by Heider (1958). In considering outcomes, a t t r i b u t i o n s of intent are l i k e l y to increase i f the e f f e c t s upon the perpetrator or receiver are e i t h e r p o s i t i v e or negative (as opposed to n e u t r a l ) , or there are outcomes that would not have occurred had the perpetrator acted d i f f e r e n t l y . In t h i s fashion, i f a number of ends are brought about by an a c t i o n , the end of greatest value to the perpetrator i s l i k e l y to be considered by others as being the desired goal or intended outcome. S i t u a t i o n a l v a r i a b l e s also mediate a t t r i b u t i o n s of intent. A greater knowledge of another person, or being i n a p o s i t i o n of l e s s power to others may increase the l i k e l i h o o d of a t t r i b u t i o n s of intent. More commonly, intentions may be i n f e r r e d through a consideration of the normal behaviour and usual motives of a person i n that s i t u a t i o n , or 5 i n f e r r e d through the observation that the outcome reached i s common to that type of s i t u a t i o n — as catching f i s h i s r e l a t e d to s i t t i n g i n a boat with a f i s h i n g l i n e . L a s t l y , intentions may be derived from s e l f reports. Epstein and Taylor (1967), Greenwell and Dengerink (1973), Nickel (1974), and S h o r t e l l , Epstein and Taylor (1970) have contributed empiri-c a l findings to the understanding of intention. They obtained comparable findings i n d i c a t i n g that the protagonists' motivation was more important to the v i c t i m than the nature of the actual outcome that occurred. In e l i c i t i n g aggressive responses from the v i c t i m , the perception of the opponents' aggressive intent was more important than p h y s i c a l attack or being defeated. S i m i l a r l y , independent of the degree of harm received, i n d i v i d u a l s became more angry and r e t a i l i a t e d more strongly when they perceived a greater degree of intent to harm behind the aggressive be-haviour. A t t r i b u t i o n of R e s p o n s i b i l i t y and J u s t i f i c a t i o n In one of the e a r l i e s t attempts to o u t l i n e the r e l a t i o n s h i p s between r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , j u s t i f i c a t i o n , and intentions, Heider (1958) distinguished between the following f i v e l e v e l s of the a t t r i b u t i o n of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y : (1) R e s p o n s i b i l i t y for an e f f e c t that i s i n any way associated or connected with the i n d i v i d u a l ; (2) R e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r the unforseeable e f f e c t s of an action; (3) R e s p o n s i b i l i t y for forseeable e f f e c t s which were not part of the goal and i n t h i s sense were not i n -tended; (4) R e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r an intended e f f e c t ; (5) R e s p o n s i b i l i t y for an intended e f f e c t j u s t i f i e d i n part by external circumstances. The f i r s t three categories constitute impersonal c a u s a l i t y , where some outcomes 6 may be the unintended r e s u l t of personal actions. The l a s t two categories constitute personal c a u s a l i t y , where the outcomes i n question are the i n -tended r e s u l t of personal actions, with r e s p o n s i b i l i t y being shared by the person and the environment at the f i f t h l e v e l . Fishbein and Ajzen (1973) note that not only can acts be c l a s s i f i e d into Heider's (1958) f i v e categories but that the l e v e l of the "moral" development of i n d i v i -duals may also f i t into t h i s c l a s s i f i c a t i o n . Thus, the perceivers of an act may respond to i t at any one of the f i v e l e v e l s , based upon t h e i r own personal perspective on r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . De Charms (1968) has postulated that j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r a behaviour, as found i n Heider's f i f t h category, should decrease an observer's nega-t i v e reaction to the perpetrator. At the same time, he notes that other variabl e s , such as the personality c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the perpetrator, may i n some cases be more important than j u s t i f i c a t i o n i n increasing or decreasing an observer's negative reaction. Research by Sulzer and Burglass (1968) supports De Charms postulation concerning j u s t i f i c a t i o n . They found that the a t t r i b u t i o n of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to a f i c t i o n a l harm-doer increased when the harmdoer's actions were represented by the f i r s t to the fourth l e v e l s of Heider's categorization and then decreased when the harmdoer's actions were represented at the f i n a l l e v e l of j u s t i f i e d i n t e n t i o n a l behaviour. Results by Phares, Wilson and Klyver (1971), Phares and Wilson (1972) and Phares and Lamiell (1975) are also i n agreement with De Charms' (1968) view on the importance of personality v a r i a b l e s : These.findings indicated that i n d i v i d u a l s with i n t e r n a l l o c u s - o f - c o n t r o l a t t r i b u t e more r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to e i t h e r themselves or others for the outcome of non-7 aggressive events than do i n d i v i d u a l s with external l o c u s - o f - c o n t r o l , who a t t r i b u t e more r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to the environment or circumstances. Research by Aderman, Archer and Harris (1975) suggests that f o r both ac-cid e n t a l and i n t e n t i o n a l l y harmful acts, observer a t t r i b u t i o n of res-p o n s i b i l i t y to the perpetrator w i l l increase when there i s empathy f o r the v i c t i m and decrease when there i s empathy for the perpetrator. In l i n e with these r e s u l t s , M c K i l l i p and Posavac (1975) found that rater s i m i l a r i t y to the v i c t i m of an a c c i d e n t a l l y harmful event reduced the amount of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for the outcome a t t r i b u t e d to the victim. This l a t t e r r e s u l t may be explained i n several fashions, i n c l u d i n g cognitive expectations of a t t r a c t i o n to the vict i m , defensive a t t r i b u t i o n s of lessened r e s p o n s i b i l i t y because of rater s i m i l a r i t y to the vi c t i m , or empathy for the vict i m . Research by Medway and Lowe (1975) found an increase i n a t t r i b u -tions of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y when the severity of the outcome increased, f o r both p o s i t i v e and negative outcomes. The e f f e c t was more s a l i e n t for negative outcomes. At the same time, though, other research indicates that t h i s e f f e c t may be moderated by the va r i a b l e of personal a t t r a c -tiveness. Seligman, Paschall and Takata (1974) found an i n t e r a c t i o n be-tween the attractiveness of women and the degree of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y a t -t r i b u t e d to them for outcomes. A t t r a c t i v e women were found to be more responsible than unattractive women f o r p o s i t i v e outcomes, whereas the converse held true for negative outcomes. Apart from the e f f e c t of person-variables, Phares and Wilson (1972) indica t e that s i t u a t i o n a l variables also need to be considered i n the a t t r i b u t i o n of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . They found that the greatest amount of 8 r e s p o n s i b i l i t y was a t t r i b u t e d to the perpetrator of an act when si t u a t i o n s were c l e a r (structured) and the outcome severe. However, l i t t l e respon-.. s i b i l i t y was a t t r i b u t e d when the s i t u a t i o n s were ambiguous with severe out-comes. Thus the a t t r i b u t i o n of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y was mediated by the factor of s i t u a t i o n a l ambiguity versus structure. In extending t h i s discussion beyond the a t t r i b u t i o n s of i n t e n t , res-p o n s i b i l i t y and j u s t i f i c a t i o n , i t i s of value to also consider the s p e c i f i c cues which are used to i n f e r aggressive intent i n others. Cues of Intent to Harm In a dyadic s i t u a t i o n with an outside observer, ony may look to the perpetrator, the v i c t i m , the observer, or the s i t u a t i o n for variables which could a f f e c t a t t r i b u t i o n s of intent-to-harm. For example, with respect to s i t u a t i o n a l v a r i a b l e s , several studies have indicated that under condi-tions of fear and h o s t i l i t y arousal an i n d i v i d u a l ' s judgement may be d i s -torted towards perceiving h o s t i l i t y or fear i n others (Feshbach and Feshbach, 1963; Feshbach and Singer, 1957; Feshbach, Singer and Feshbach, 1963,; Murray, 1933). There may also be personality c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s i n the per-ceiver such,.as empathy or punitiveness (Sulzer and Burglass, 1968), h o s t i l e , suspicious, or mistrusting a t t i t u d e s (Staub, 1971), i n t e r n a l vs. external locus of control q u a l i t i e s (Maselli and A l t r o c c h i , 1969; Phares and Wilson, 1972), or the holding of perceptual sets (Zadney and Gerard, 1974) that w i l l influence intent to harm judgements. S i m i l a r l y , the possession by the perpetrator of p o s i t i v e q u a l i t i e s or achievements may influence intent to harm judgements (Maselli and A l t r o c c h i , 1969). However, the focus of the present study i s upon those cues that are displayed by the perpetrator of the aggressive acts. To f a c i l i t a t e discussion and a n a l y s i s , the cues associated with 9 the perpetrator have been divided into the following categories: explicit verbal, implicit verbal, explicit nonverbal, and implicit nonverbal. Explicit cues are those that directly indicate intent to harm or con-sist of actions necessary to or leading up to the i n f l i c t i o n of harm. In contrast, the display of implicit cues by an individual only implies a situation in which there may be intent to harm. Explicit verbal cues consist of such behaviours as a direct state-ment of intent to harm through the use of threats or threatening words, such as " I ' l l k i l l you" or "How would you like your teeth smashed in?" Implicit verbal cues consist of events such as the following: (a) A statement accusing another person of wrongdoing, maliciousness, bad intentions, i l l e g a l actions, or similar negative attributes; (2) The use of derogatory or insulting statements; (3) A change in the choice of language used; that i s , a choice of more emphatic words (such as, perhaps, swear words) and the more frequent than normal usage of such words; (4) A change in voice intensity, with a rise in intensity implying a more excited state and a lowering in voice intensity implying a calmer state; (5) A change in the rapidity of speech, with an increase in speed implying a more excited state and a decrease in speed implying a clamer state. The explicit verbal cues and the f i r s t three implicit verbal cues are derived from the observations of the present author. However, there is some research that supports the inclusion of voice intensity and voice rate as implicit verbal cues. Davitz and Davitz (1961) presented findings indicating that the four speech characteristics of loudness, pitch, timbre, and rate were correlated between 0.59 and 0.88 with the activity level of expressed emotions. Thus, feelings such as anger or 10 joy, s u b j e c t i v e l y rated by judges as a c t i v e , were expressed with r e l a -t i v e l y loud voice, high p i t c h , b l a r i n g timbre and f a s t rate. This was i n contrast to passive f e e l i n g s , such as despair and boredom, which were expressed with a r e l a t i v e l y quiet voice, low p i t c h , resonant timbre and slow rate. Since joy and anger are seen..in a s i m i l a r fashion, these features of speech may only be i n d i c a t i v e of a change i n emotional state rather than being d i r e c t l y i n d i c a t i v e of intent to harm. The nonverbal indices of intent to harm are communicated l a r g e l y through body postures, movements, preparatory acts and f a c i a l features. The bulk of the following c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s were found through the analysis of cartoons and p i c t u r e s , observation, i n t r o s p e c t i o n and the works of E i b l - E i b e s f e l t (1970, 1971), Ekman (1971), Ekman, Friesen and Ellsworth (1972), and Scheflen (1972). The types of nonverbal behaviour that were considered are generally c l a s s i f i e d as i l l u s t r a t o r s and a f f e c t displays (Ekman and Friesen, 1969). These terms r e f e r to actions that i l l u s t r a t e ongoing behaviour or communicate information about the type and degree of emotion. E x p l i c i t nonverbal cues consist e s s e n t i a l l y of body movements leading up to but not including the actual i n f l i c t i o n of harm. Thus, such a c t i v i t i e s as the clenching of f i s t s , threatening gestures with weapons, hands or fe e t , baring of teeth i n animals, the display of species s p e c i f i c aggressive behaviour, and unsuccessful attack movements would a l l be included as part of a repertoire showing intent to harm. For example, Argyle (1974), Chevalier-Skolnikoff (1973) and Hess (1962) l a b e l the s i t u a l i z e d symbolic threat movements of some animals as " i n -tention movements" since they ind i c a t e what the animal i s about to do. 11 I m p l i c i t nonverbal cues include movements as well as body and f a c i a l postures. Freedman, Blass, R i f k i n and Quitkin (1973) found that hand gestures l e d up to periods of strong verbal expression of h o s t i l i t y , but often stopped during the intense period, to pick up again following the outburst. The timing and type of hand gestures were interpreted as mediating a buildup to the verbal expression or as m o l l i f y i n g the impact of the expression. These movements appear to f a l l i n the category de-signated as ' i l l u s t r a t o r s ' of verbal speech by Ekman and Friesen (1969). Cohen and Harrison (1973) obtained r e s u l t s supporting the contention that i l l u s t r a t o r s are used i n t e n t i o n a l l y to f a c i l i t a t e communication. S i m i l a r l y , Melbin (1974) comments that with respect to multichannel communication, using more than one modality ( i . e . , verbal and nonverbal) increases the r e l i a b i l i t y of the message, making i t c l e a r e r , and heightens the force of the message, giving i t more impact. Of i n t e r e s t i n t h i s respect are the early r e s u l t s of Ekman (1965) which suggest that head cues p r i m a r i l y carry information about the type of emotion shown whereas body cues r e f -l e c t the i n t e n s i t y of the emotion. Included i n the present c l a s s i f i c a t i o n as i m p l i c i t nonverbal cues are movements toward another organism, e s p e c i a l l y rapid movement or stealthy, f u r t i v e movement. Also included are movements, usually of the en t i r e body, that to an incomfortable degree intrude into the personal space of another person. Fast, vigorous movements l i k e jabbing or poin-t i n g with a finger, not ne c e s s a r i l y directed toward the other organism, are often used i n cartoons to e f f e c t i v e l y denote anger. Other movements that may be considered as i m p l i c i t nonverbal cues include shaking or trembling i n anger or rage and behaviour r e s u l t i n g from redirected or 12 s l i g h t l y suppressed aggressive behaviour, i . e . , throwing objects down or slamming doors, etc. Stamping of feet as an aggressive display i s found e s p e c i a l l y i n c h i l d r e n and also i n some adults ( E i b l - E i b e s f e l t , 1970, pp. 420-423, 457). Body postures associated with communication of intent to harm (obtained through the analysis of cartoons) include rigidness of body, a leaning forward posture — e s p e c i a l l y noticeable from the waist up; the head i s sometimes pushed a s s e r t i v e l y forward with the jaw r i g i d l y set and sometimes thrust out. The back may become s t i f f e n e d and the shoulders squared. E i b l - E i b e s f e l t (1971) indicates that when humans threaten they may rotate the arms s l i g h t l y inward and r a i s e the shoulders, along with the tensing of the small muscles i n the back, neck, shoulders and arms which cause the h a i r to be erected. This functions to empha-si z e the shoulder regions and i s very s i m i l a r to threat behaviour i n our closest anthropoid r e l a t i v e , the chimpanzee. E i b l - E i b e s f e l t (1971) notes that i n many d i f f e r e n t cultures today male cl o t h i n g emphasizes the shoulders. The intent to harm also becomes more evident as hands, which may be i n i t i a l l y encumbered by being rested on the hips i n an arms akimbo p o s i t i o n or with thumbs hooked into the b e l t , are positioned f r e e l y and tensed for action. F i n a l l y , f a c i a l configurations are associated with i m p l i c i t non-verbal communications of intent to harm. Ekman (1971), Ekman (1973), Ekman, Friesen and Ellsworth (1972) and Ekman, Sorenson and Friesen (1969) present what they f e e l to be conclusive evidence i n d i c a t i n g that there are u n i v e r s a l l y recognized f a c i a l displays of emotions such as anger. E i b l - E i b e s f e l t (1970, pp.410, 420;1971,pp.19,173) has s i m i l a r l y indicated that there i s wide agreement i n the expression of rage among people and i t i s shown by the baring of the teeth at the corners of the mouth. In Ekman's work (1971), the d e s c r i p t i o n of the appearance of the face f o r the emotion of anger i s c i t e d to be: "brows p u l l e d down and inward, appear to be thrust forward; strong v e r t i c a l , sometimes curved forehead wrinkles centered above the eyes. No schlera shows i n eyes; upper l i d s appear lowered, tense and squared; lower l i d s also tensed and r a i s e d , may produce an arched appearance under eye; l i d tightening may be suf-f i c i e n t to appear squinting. E i t h e r the l i p s t i g h t l y pressed together or an open, squared mouth with l i p s r a i s e d and/or forward; teeth may or may not show" (p. 251). Chevalier-Skolnikoff (1973) uses e s s e n t i a l l y the same desc r i p t i o n of f a c i a l anger as Ekman (1971), and considers these features to be s i m i l a r to ape expressions of dominance, anger and fear-anger. .Other f a c i a l features to be noted include intense s t a r i n g , with eye to eye contact which may accompany the narrowing of the eyes. As w e l l , the n o s t r i l s are l i k e l y to be d i l a t e d as opposed to being pinched. The face may become very red or flushed as i n a rage or may drain of blood and become very pale as i n fear-anger. Veins may stand out on the forehead or i n the neck region and possibly pulsate. Since i t can be seen that there may be a number of d i f f e r e n t cues or configurations associated with each area of the face, the pos-s i b l e confusion can be c l a r i f i e d by noting that the cues or sets of cues can be divided along a continuum of the degree of anger shown. Some responses such as firmed mouth or l i p s may change dramatically as the anger increases, becoming, for example, an open y e l l i n g mouth with teeth 14 showing. The more cues and the more extreme or emphatic the cues, the greater indication of intent to harm. As a general interpretation of the information presented thus far, intent to harm may often be communi-cated and inferred simply from the display of body and f a c i a l cues for anger that are directed toward another individual. It should be mentioned that most of the previous writing has referred to cues in the context of direct communication of information. There are, as well, metacommunications which are communications giving information about the context or meaning of other signals (Ruesch and Kees, 1956, pp. 7, 64, 72; Scheflen, 1972, pp. 70-74; also discussed as "communicative contexts", Poyatos, 1975). For example, i f a raised f i s t i s followed by a smile or laugh, the laugh^becomes-a metacommunica-tion relating to the raised f i s t signal, and indicates that i t was done in fun or jest. The metacommunication may occur through explicit com-municative behaviour (as in the last example) or through implicit com-munication via: "(1) roles or (2) institutionalized instructions ... inherent in the structure of social situations or (3) the rules governing the flow of messages" (Ruesch and Kees, 1956, pp. 7, 64, 72). In summary, there i s growing consensus on the necessity to include the concept of intent in the study of human aggression. There i s , as well, a set of theoretical and empirical data available on the attributions of intent, responsibility and j u s t i f i c a t i o n . Information has also been outlined concerning the numerous cues of intent to harm that are related to aggression. However, there appears to be no research relating the type or strength of an attribution to the type of cues perceived. 15 The present study was therefore designed to inve s t i g a t e the r e l a -tionship between a t t r i b u t i o n s made by an observer and the types of cues emanating from the perpetrator of an aggressive act. The types of cues considered were those previously c l a s s i f i e d as i m p l i c i t and e x p l i c i t , verbal and nonverbal. To a i d i n the study of t h i s problem, the i m p l i c i t and e x p l i c i t nonverbal cues were dealt with as a sin g l e nonverbal cate-gory. Thus the independent variables consisted of the following types of cues: (a) i m p l i c i t verbal cues — consisting of an accusation of wrongdoing, an increase i n voice l e v e l , and an increase i n emphatic vocabulary; (b) e x p l i c i t verbal cues — cons i s t i n g of three d i r e c t verbal threats of harm, and (c) nonverbal cues — co n s i s t i n g of f a c i a l anger, movement towards the v i c t i m , and a phys i c a l threat of harm to the v i c t i m . These i n d i v i d u a l cues were chosen as being representative of each of the three major categories of cues. The problem that was considered concerned the r e a l t i o n s h i p be-tween these three categories of cues and the following: (1) the a t t r i -bution of intent to harm; (2) the degree of confidence placed upon judge-ments of intent to harm; (3) the judgement of the l i k e l i h o o d that harm would occur; (4) the a t t r i b u t i o n of i n t e n t i o n a l harm (as opposed to accid e n t a l harm) i f harm occurred; (5&6) the a t t r i b u t i o n of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to the protagonist or the v i c t i m i f harm occurred; (7) the degree of j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r the behaviour exhibited; (8&9) the degree of f e e l i n g of p o s i t i v e a f f e c t f o r the protagonist and the v i c t i m ; (10) the degree of realism of the scene. These ten items constituted the dependent v a r i a b l e s . The nature of the r e l a t i o n s h i p between cues, perceptions and at-t r i b u t i o n s was investigated by creating a mini-drama and videotaping i t . 16 In a c t u a l i t y , eight scenes were taped, varying only i n the degree of aggressiveness shown by the protagonist (ranging from no aggressiveness to extremely aggressive). The s i t u a t i o n concerned a l o s t wallet and a suspected t h i e f . The owner of the wallet became upset and in c r e a s i n g l y b e l l i g e r e n t i n h i s ' e f f o r t s t . o h a v e the " t h i e f " return the wallet. This increase i n aggressiveness provided the oppor-tunit y f o r the experimenter to con t r o l the type and extent of the cues displayed by the protagonist. Each subject was randomly shown one of the videotaped scenes and asked to make judgements about the p a r t i c i -pants. Predictions concerning the types of judgements or a t t r i b u t i o n s made by the subjects are out l i n e d i n the following set of hypotheses. Hypotheses 1 & 2. I t was hypothesized that the three major categories of cues and combinations of these categories would be used by people to i n f e r intent to harm i n others, to i n f e r the l i k e l i h o o d that harm w i l l occur, to d i s t i n g u i s h between accidental and i n t e n t i o n a l harm, to a t t r i b u t e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y and j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r actions and as a basis for developing an a f f e c t i v e response towards the i n d i v i d u a l expressing the cues. Therefore, i t was hypothesized that the use of the three types of cues: (1) e i t h e r separately or (2) i n combinations, would y i e l d s i g -n i f i c a n t increases, i n comparison to the control group''', i n the following a t t r i b u t i o n s : an increase i n intent to harm (DV.1); an increase i n the l i k e l i h o o d that harm would occur (DV.3); an increase i n judgements of the harm being i n t e n t i o n a l i f i t occurred (DV.4); an increase i n a t t r i b u t i o n s The control group consisted of subjects shown the standard scene up to the point at which cues of intent to harm were introduced. 17 of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to the protagonist i f harm occurred (DV.5); an increase i n the degree of p o s i t i v e a f f e c t for the v i c t i m (DV.9). On the other hand, use of the same three types of cues should s i g n i f i c a n t l y decrease the following a t t r i b u t i o n s : v i c t i m r e s p o n s i b i l i t y (DV.6); the degree of j u s t i f i c a t i o n for the behaviour exhibited by the protagonist (DV.7); and the degree of p o s i t i v e a f f e c t for the protagonist (DV.8). Hypothesis 3. The cues for anger, directed against another per-son, were considered by the author as l i k e l y to constitute the main cues used by observers to i n f e r intent to harm and the associated a t t r i b u t i o n s of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , etc. Furthermore, on the basis of the previous l i t e r a -ture review, nonverbal cues of anger would probably be the most i n f l u -e n t i a l cues i n terms of a f f e c t i n g the various a t t r i b u t i o n s made by sub-j e c t s . Therefore, i t was hypothesized that the observation of nonverbal cues of intent to harm would cause subjects to make stronger a t t r i b u t i o n s than the observation of verbal cues of intent to harm. This reasoning l e d to the hypothesis that for each of the dependent variables (except DV.2 and 10, the degree of confidence i n intent to harm judgements and the degree of realism i n the scene), the strength of the a t t r i b u t i o n s would be as follows: (1) the weakest a t t r i b u t i o n s would be made by the control group; (2) the observation of i m p l i c i t verbal cues or e x p l i c i t verbal cues would y i e l d a t t r i b u t i o n s of approximately equal strength, but these a t t r i b u t i o n s would be s i g n i f i c a n t l y stronger than those made by the control group; (3) the observation of nonverbal cues or the com-bined set of i m p l i c i t plus e x p l i c i t verbal cues would y i e l d a t t r i b u t i o n s s i g n i f i c a n t l y stronger than those of the i m p l i c i t or e x p l i c i t verbal cues taken alone, but not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from each other; (4) f i n a l l y , 18 the observation of nonverbal cues paired with either i m p l i c i t or ex-p l i c i t verbal cues, or the observation of a l l three types of cues com-bined together would y i e l d the strongest a t t r i b u t i o n s of a l l , a t t r i b u -tions that would not be s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from each other but would be s i g n i f i c a n t l y stronger than any of the previous types of cues taken alone or i n combinations. In b r i e f , i t was hypothesized that there would be s i g n i f i c a n t differences between but not within the above four categories. Hypothesis 4. I t was predicted that the h o s t i l e intentions of the protagonist would become cl e a r e r as the number of cues displayed by him increased. This increase i n the c l a r i t y of h i s intentions should lead to increasingly strong a t t r i b u t i o n s being made by obervsers of h i s behaviour. Therefore i t was hypothesized that a l i n e a r increase i n the number of cues displayed would be matched by s i g n i f i c a n t l y increasing l i n e a r trends i n the following a t t r i b u t i o n s : an increase i n intent to harm (DV.l); an increase i n the l i k e l i h o o d that harm would occur (DV.3); an increase i n judgements of the harm being i n t e n t i o n a l , i f harm occurred (DV.4); an increase i n the a t t r i b u t i o n of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to the prota-gonist i f harm occurred (DV.5); and an increase i n p o s i t i v e a f f e c t f o r the v i c t i m (DV.9). The same l i n e a r increase i n cues should be p a r a l l e l e d by the following s i g n i f i c a n t l y decreasing l i n e a r trends: a decrease i n a t t r i b u t i o n s of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to the v i c t i m (DV.6); a decrease i n the degree of j u s t i f i c a t i o n for the behaviour exhibited by the prota-gonist (DV.7); and a decrease i n p o s i t i v e a f f e c t for the protagonist (DV.8). Hypothesis 5. The author considered that the following ...... 19 relationships were lik e l y to exist between the strength of an attribution made, the degree of confidence in i t and the number of cues upon which i t was based: As the number of cues displayed increased, i t was pre-dicted that the intentions would become clearer, thus resulting in an increased degree of confidence in the attributions made. At the same time, i t was predicted that as the attribution made became stronger, the attributor would become less sure of the correctness of making such a strong judgement, thus resulting in a decrease in confidence in the attribution. Therefore, i t was predicted than an increase in the number of cues displayed by the protagonist would result in a significant increase in either the strength of the attributions made by the observer or the degree of confidence in the attributions made, but would not re-sult in a significant increase in both simultaneously. Specifically, i t was hypothesized that i f the level of attribution of intent to harm (DV.l) increased when there was an increase in the number of types of cues (i.e., the linear trend was significant for DV.l) then there would be no significant increase in the degree of confidence placed on the attribution (DV.2). (As a sequela, i t was therefore also hypothesized that i f the level of attribution of intent to harm [DV.l] remained the same as the number of types of cues increased, then there would be a significant increase in the degree of confidence placed on the attribu-b tion [DV.2]). Subsidiary hypotheses regarding methodology. These f i n a l hypo-theses were considered as the result of the many -problems encountered in developing acted scenes that would appear to be r e a l i s t i c . Since i t seemed lik e l y that acted scenes would appear to be less r e a l i s t i c than 20 non-acted scenes, a videotape was produced of a non-acted scene which paralleled as closely as possible the acted control scene. To do this, two naive volunteers were candidly videotaped while interacting in a classroom situation highly analogous to that used in the acted scenes. It was hypothesized that the non-acted control scene would be judged-more r e a l i s t i c than the i n i t i a l l y acted control scene. At the same time, i t was considered l i k e l y that a non-aggressive scene followed by questions concerning aggression might lead one to be-lieve that something was missing from the scene, and therefore judge i t to be less r e a l i s t i c than the same scene followed by questions not con-cerning aggression. Therefore, two groups of subjects viewed the non-acted control scene. Following this, one group was asked to f i l l out a questionnaire containing aggression questions while the second group f i l l e d out a questionnaire containing non-aggression questions. It was hypothesized that the non-aggressive scene followed by non-aggression questions would be judged more r e a l i s t i c than the same scene followed by aggression questions. 21 Method Subjects One hundred male undergraduate psychology students attending the 1975-76 session at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia volunteered to par-t i c i p a t e i n t h i s study. Ten subjects were assigned at random to each of the following conditions: (1) i n i t i a l c o n t r o l group; (2) i m p l i c i t verbal cues exhibited; (3) e x p l i c i t verbal cues exhibited; (4) nonverbal cues exhibited; (5) i m p l i c i t verbal cues plus nonverbal cues exhibited; (6) i m p l i c i t plus e x p l i c i t verbal cues exhibited; (7) e x p l i c i t verbal cues plus nonverbal cues exhibited; (8) i m p l i c i t plus e x p l i c i t verbal cues plus nonverbal cues exhibited; (9) natural..control group (questionnaire e f f e c t s ) ; (10) natural control group (acting e f f e c t s ) . Preliminary Preparations Production of the videotape stimulus materials. Two, non-profes-s i o n a l male actors were videotaped while r o l e playing an aggressive scene eight times. The protagonist displayed a d i f f e r e n t set of cues of intent to harm for each scene. Under the d i r e c t i o n of the experimenter (see Appendix 1) the actors portrayed the scenes and cues on the basis of a s c r i p t which they had improvised (see Appendix 2). B r i e f l y , each scene was videotaped i n a classroom i n which two tables were placed end to end with chairs arranged around them. Some books and papers were placed on one of the tables. The v i c t i m was seated i n the room when the protagonist entered, looking for h i s l o s t wallet. The protagonist, a f t e r b r i e f l y searching the room, asked the v i c t i m i f he had found the wallet. The v i c t i m denied f i n d i n g i t . The protagonist then appeared convinced that the v i c t i m had the wallet and portrayed the d i f f e r e n t cues of intent-to-harm 22 toward the vict i m , i n an attempt to have the wallet returned. To cont r o l for possible counfounding e f f e c t s because of subjects viewing actors f o r d i f f e r e n t lengths of time, the length of each of the eight scenes was standardized at-40-50 seconds. As each scene was filmed i t was reviewed by the actors and the ex-perimenter and, i f necessary, was refilmed u n t i l there was agreement that the scene had been acceptably portrayed. Problems were encountered i n es t a b l i s h i n g the " p u r i t y " of the scenes; that i s , that each scene had a l l the cues i n i t which were designed to be included. To achieve t h i s " purity", seven complete filmings of the eight scenes were made and feed-back was s o l i c i t e d from f i f t y - s i x subjects i n two p i l o t studies. The seventh f i l m i n g achieved a su i t a b l e degree of realism and " p u r i t y " (as judged by actors, experimenter and advisors). A "natural" control scene was added to a i d i n i n t e r p r e t i n g sub-? j e c t s ' responses to the degree of realism i n the scenes (DV.10). This a d d i t i o n a l scene was also useful i n determining the presence or absence of demand c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s contained i n the questionnaire given to the sub-j e c t s . The natural c o n t r o l scene was a candid videotape of two male volun-teers i n t e r a c t i n g i n a classroom arranged i n a fashion s i m i l a r to the one used i n the previous experimental scenes. The two volunteers were t o l d that they would be i n a videotaped study of interpersonal behaviour i n small discussion groups. They were seated and while they waited for a t h i r d member of the group they were asked to decide between themselves which of several topics they would l i k e to choose for the discussion. As they waited, t h e i r natural behaviour i n t h i s s i t u a t i o n was filmed. They were then debriefed. The p a r t i c i p a n t s did not suspect that they were being 22 filmed or observed, nor did they react negatively to the procedure, i n -cluding the use of the f i l m as a part of the research study. Appendix 3 contains technical information relevant to the videotaping of a l l scenes. Procedure Subjects p a r t i c i p a t e d one at a time i n the experiment and were randomly assigned to conditions. The i n s t r u c t i o n s portraying the experi-ment as one i n person perception were read to the subjects by the experi-menter (see Appendix 4). Subjects were t o l d that they would watch a very short videotape of a scene of two people i n t e r a c t i n g i n a classroom and then answer a b r i e f questionnaire. The videotape scene was shown to each subject while he was seated at a table i n a small o f f i c e - s i z e d room. The distance from the subject to the 19' (.48m) T.V. monitor was 3% to 4 feet (1.07 to 1.42 meters). A f t e r viewing the scene, the subjects were given one of three questionnaires to complete. The f i r s t questionnaire (see Appendix 5) was given to the 80 subjects who watched the eight acted scenes. The ten questions on the questionnaire concerned the subjects' perceptions of intent-to-harm i n the s i t u a t i o n , h i s confidence i n h i s judgement, his perceptions of the l i k e l i h o o d of i n j u r y i n the s i t u a t i o n or, i f the i n j u r y did occur, whether i t would be accidental or i n t e n t i o n a l , h i s judgements concerning the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of the protagonist and v i c t i m i f harm did occur, and h i s f e e l i n g s toward them, along with h i s reaction concerning the degree to which the protagonist was j u s t i f i e d and the degree to which the scene was r e a l i s t i c . These items provided the measure for each of the ten dependent vari a b l e s . Each question was followed by a l i n e 10 cm. long, anchored at each end by a short d e s c r i p t i v e phrase. Subjects responded 24 by drawing a l i n e crossing the scale l i n e at the point which corresponded to t h e i r judgement on the question. Their responses were l a t e r coded by measuring the distance i n centimeters from the l e f t end of the scale to the point at which t h e i r l i n e crossed the scale l i n e . The second part of the questionnaire requested the subjects to complete a behaviour c h e c k l i s t . This c h e c k l i s t was used to a s c e r t a i n the subjects' perception of the behaviours displayed by the protagonist and the victim. In addition to the 80 subjects who watched the acted scenes, 20 subjects were shown the natural c o n t r o l scene. Each of the two remaining questionnaires were given to one-half of these l a t t e r 20 subjects. The f i r s t questionnaire (see Appendix 6) contained one question r e l a t e d to the degree of realism of the scene along with four f i l l e r questions re-l a t i n g to other non-aggressive aspects of the scene. Thus, the f i r s t group of subjects saw a non-aggressive scene and answered questions of a non-aggressive nature. With minor changes i n wording, the second ques-tionnaire (see Appendix 7) p a r a l l e l e d the e a r l i e r questionnaire given to the 80 subjects who watched the acted scenes. Thus, the second group of subjects saw the same non-aggressive scene but answered questions concerned with events of an aggressive nature. The r e s u l t s from the f i r s t questionnaire were compared to the r e s u l t s from the second questionnaire,the purpose of which was to deter-mine whether the perceived realism of scenes varied as a function of asking appression-related questions following a non-aggressive s i t u a t i o n . The r e s u l t s from the second questionnaire (based on a non-acted, non-aggressive scene) were also contrasted to the r e s u l t s from the i n i t i a l 25 control scene (an acted, non-aggressive scene). This comparison was used to determine whether the perceived realism of scenes varied as a function of the scenes being acted or spontaneous. These two questionnaires given to the a d d i t i o n a l 20 subjects were coded i n the same fashion as the f i r s t questionnaire given to the o r i g i n a l 80 subjects. At the end of each session subjects were debriefed. Rationale for Analyses Phase 1 - a p r i o r i grouping of independent v a r i a b l e s . The data were analyzed i n i t i a l l y upon the basis of the eight o r i g i n a l groupings of the independent variables (see Table 1). Phase 2 - empirical grouping of independent var i a b l e s . In con-s i d e r i n g factors which could a f f e c t the types of a t t r i b u t i o n s being made by subjects, i t became apparent that the subjects' perceptions of the cues involved i n any p a r t i c u l a r scene would be important. Conceivably, t h e i r perceptions of the cues that were i n a scene could be d i f f e r e n t from the cues that were intended and judged to be i n the scene by the experimenter, the actors, and the advisors. Therefore, the data were also analyzed from the standpoint of the subjects' perceptions (see Table 1). A summary of the ten ^ .dependent variables used i n the study i s pre-sented i n Table 2. Table 1 Frequencies i n Subject Groups According to A P r i o r i or Empirical C l a s s i f i c a t i o n of Independent Variables No I m p l i c i t Verbal Cues No E x p l i c i t Verbal E x p l i c i t Verbal No E x p l i c i t Verbal E x p l i c i t Verbal Cues Cues Cues Cues no no no no nonverbal nonverbal nonverbal nonverbal nonverbal nonverbal nonverbal nonverbal cues cues cues cues cues cues cues cues Group Labels Control C B BC A AC AB ABC Subjects; Phase 1 A P r i o r i Grouping of Independent 10 10 Variables 10 10 10 10 10 10 Subjects; Phase 2 Empirical Grouping of Independent 12 24 Variables 2 4 6 11 Implicit Verbal Cues a For example, i n t h i s group only two subjects perceived the scene that they viewed as being one i n which there were no cues of intent to harm displayed. 27 Table 2 Summary of Dependent Variables DV 1 : the a t t r i b u t i o n of intent to harm. DV 2 : the degree of confidence i n intent to harm judgements . DV 3 : the judgement of the l i k e l i h o o d that harm would occur. DV 4 : the a t t r i b u t i o n of i n t e n t i o n a l harm (as opposed to acci d e n t a l harm) i f harm occurred. DV 5 : the a t t r i b u t i o n of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to the protagonist, i f harm occurred. DV 6 : the a t t r i b u t i o n of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to the v i c t i m , i f harm occurred. DV 7 : the degree of j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r the behaviour exhibited by the protagonist. DV 8 : the degree of f e e l i n g of p o s i t i v e a f f e c t f o r the protagonist. DV 9 : the degree of f e e l i n g of p o s i t i v e a f f e c t f o r the vic t i m . DV 10: the degree of realism of the scene. 28 Results and Discussion Analysis Procedures Phase 1 - a p r i o r i grouping of independent v a r i a b l e s . In Phase 1 a three-way analysis of variance was performed on eight of the dependent variables (excluding DV2, the degree of confidence i n intent to harm judgements, and DV10, the degree of realism of the scene). When s i g -n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n s were found, analyses of simple main e f f e c t s were conducted. This type of analysis f i x e s the value of one independent var i a b l e as being e i t h e r present or absent and at that value, an F-test i s performed on the second independent v a r i a b l e . The value of the f i r s t independent va r i a b l e i s then changed to the a l t e r n a t i v e l e v e l ( i . e . , i f the v a r i a b l e was i n i t i a l l y present i t i s changed to being absent) and again an F-test i s performed on the second independent v a r i a b l e . The v a r i a b l e which i s f i x e d at the two a l t e r n a t i v e l e v e l s i s usually chosen on the basis of i t s t h e o r e t i c a l importance over the second v a r i a b l e . This analysis allows the s i g n i f i c a n c e of the e f f e c t to be compared when the important va r i a b l e i s e i t h e r present or absent. Subsequent Phase 1 data analyses were used to determine the e f f e c t of combinations of cues and the r e l a t i v e importance of the various combinations. In addition, the types of trends i n a t t r i b u t i o n s produced by an increase i n the number of cues displayed were analyzed. To do t h i s , two one-way analyses of variance were performed by " s t r i n -ging-out" or recombining the c e l l s of the e a r l i e r f a c t o r i a l design. Multiple comparisons were made between c e l l s and i n the case of the re-combined data, when main e f f e c t s were s i g n i f i c a n t , trend analyses were conducted. F i n a l l y , a consideration of possible methodological problems 29 warranted the conducting of several _t-tests between the i n i t i a l c o ntrol group and the two groups shown the natural control scene. Phase 2 - empirical grouping of independent v a r i a b l e s . The f i r s t step i n Phase 2 required a regrouping of the data. As noted e a r l i e r , each of the three basic cue types ( e x p l i c i t , i m p l i c i t and nonverbal) was represented by three i n d i v i d u a l cues (e.g., nonverbal cues consisted of f a c i a l anger, movement close to another person, and a threatening gesture). An examination of the behaviour c h e c k l i s t s determined the types of cues that each subject f e l t were portrayed i n the scene. In any given scene, subjects might have perceived e i t h e r greater or fewer cues than were i n -tended by the consensus of experimenter, actors, and advisors. Complete agreement was often l a c k i n g between the "consensual" perception and the subjects' perception of w h i o h o f the representative cues were contained i n any p a r t i c u l a r scene. However, the degree of disagreement over a scene was usually a matter of only one or two cues. It was there-fore decided to adjust the c r i t e r i a which formed the basis f o r the three basic cue types. The new c r i t e r i a were as follows. A basic cue type ( i m p l i c i t , e x p l i c i t , or nonverbal) was considered to be represented i f e i t h e r of the following two conditions held: (a) the subject reported, a minimum of two out of the three i n d i v i d u a l cues o r i g i n a l l y intended to be representative of that.basic cue type or (2) the subject reported a maximum of four i n d i v i d u a l cues, three of which were o r i g i n a l l y intended to be representative of that.basic cue type. Thus, a l l the data i n each of the new subject groups (see Table 1) f e l l w ithin the bounds of plus or minus one i n d i v i d u a l cue of the number of i n d i v i d u a l cues o r i g i n a l l y intended f o r that group. For example, one new subject group, l a b e l l e d the 30 i m p l i c i t verbal cues group (group A; see Table 1), consisted of s i x subjects, two subjects who reported the three i n d i v i d u a l cues o r i g i n a l l y intended to be representative of group A, one subject who missed one of the i n d i v i d u a l cues, and three subjects who reported one a d d i t i o n a l cue. Twenty-one subjects who did not f a l l within the bounds of plus or minus one i n d i v i d u a l cue,were discarded i n t h i s phase of the ana l y s i s . In turn, because of. the lack of correspondence between subjects' reported perceptions and the intended manipulations, the o r i g i n a l eight groups were reduced to s i x groups (see Table 1 ) . Employing the same dependent v a r i a b l e s as i n Phase 1 (see Table 2), the data i n the s i x groups under Phase 2 were analyzed with respect to the o r i g i n a l hypotheses. In view of the missing c e l l s and the unequal c e l l s i z e s , a three-way ANOVA could not be employed. Instead, a six-group one-way ANOVA was performed,.followed by Scheffe-type multiple comparisons administered f o r a l l pairwise comparisons. Trend analyses were also per-formed. Results:. • Phase I -• A P r i o r i Grouping of • Independent Variables Hypothesis 1. The f i r s t hypothesis predicted that i n d i v i d u a l l y , the three major categories of cues would each produce s i g n i f i c a n t increases, i n comparison to the control group, i n the following dependent v a r i a b l e s : an increase i n the a t t r i b u t i o n of intent to harm (DV1); an increase i n the l i k e l i h o o d that harm would occur (DV3); an increase i n the a t t r i b u t i o n of in t e n t i o n a l harm, i f harm occurred (DV4); an increase i n the a t t r i b u t i o n of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to the protagonist, i f harm occurred (DV5); and, an increase i n the degree of p o s i t i v e a f f e c t f o r the v i c t i m (DV9). At the same time, i t was predicted that s i g n i f i c a n t decreases would occur i n the 31 following dependent v a r i a b l e s : a decrease i n the a t t r i b u t i o n of res-p o n s i b i l i t y to the v i c t i m , i f harm occurred (DV6); a decrease i n the degree of j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r the behaviour exhibited by the protagonist (DV7); and a decrease i n the degree of p o s i t i v e a f f e c t for the protagonist (DV8). To test t h i s hypothesis, eight three-way ANOVA's were performed using a f u l l y crossed 2x2x2 f a c t o r i a l design. The three f u l l y crossed factors were: (Factor A) i m p l i c i t verbal cues (present or absent), (Factor B), e x p l i c i t verbal cues (present or absent), (Factor C) non-verbal cues (present or absent). The ANOVA's are presented i n Table 3. The r e s u l t of any F_-test was considered s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i -cant only i f i t reached the .01 l e v e l . This more rigorous c r i t e r i o n was established because of the large number of F_-tests conducted and the consequent increase i n experiment-wise Type I error. The one relaxa-t i o n of t h i s standard was to use the .05 s i g n i f i c a n c e l e v e l f o r the i n t e r a c t i o n of e x p l i c i t verbal cues with nonverbal cues (BC).on depen-dent v a r i a b l e 5, the degree of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of the protagonist. This exception was made since t h i s r e s u l t f i t the pattern of s i g n i f i c a n t e x p l i c i t verbal by nonverbal cues (BC) i n t e r a c t i o n s obtained for DV's 6, 7, and 8. There was a s i g n i f i c a n t main e f f e c t f or e x p l i c i t verbal cues (B) on the a t t r i b u t i o n of intent to harm. Subjects a t t r i b u t e d more intent to harm to the protagonist when e x p l i c i t verbal cues were present (mean = 6.56) than when they were absent (mean = 5.16). On the whole, however, the r e s u l t s of Table 3 i n d i c a t e a lack of support for the f i r s t hypothesis. The s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t s found between e x p l i c i t verbal Table 3 Summary Table f o r E f f e c t s of I m p l i c i t , E x p l i c i t and Nonverbal Cues on Eight Dependent Variables Source V a r i a b l f MSwb A C p d B C £ d C C p_d AB° p d AC C £ d BC C £ d ABC C p C 1 a t t r i b u t i o n of intent 5.33 1.02 n.s. 7.36 <.Q1 1.59 n.s. 0.38 n.s. 1.35 n.s. 0.17 n.s. 0.00 n.s. 3 l i k e l i h o o d of harm occurring 6.42 0.27 n.s. 0.71 n.s. 0.39 n.s. 0.87 n.s. 0.06 n.s. 0.21 n.s. 0.01 n.s. 4 judged i n t e n -t i o n a l i f harm occurs 0.24 0.00 n.s. 0.84 n.s. 0.84 n.s. 0.84 n.s. 0.84 n.s. 0.00 n.s. 0.84 n.s. 5 r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of protagonist 3.29 0.00 n.s. 0.02 n.s. 0.00 n.s. 0.84 n.s. 0.98 n.s. 4.26 <.Q5 0.01 n.s. 6 r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of v i c t i m 5.48 0.08 n.s. 1.63 n.s. 4.31 <.05 0.01 n.s. 0.34 n.s. 7.12 <.Q1 0.08 n.s. 7 j u s t i f i c a t i o n of protagonist 3.58 0.45 n.s. 0.21 n.s. 3.25 n.s. 3.04 n.s. 0.75 n.s. 11.46 =.001 0.08 n.s. 8 p o s i t i v e a f f e c t f o r protagonist 3.37 0.30 n.s. 1.57 n.s. 0.63 n.s. 4.97 <.05 0.11 n.s. 17.45 <.00Q1 4.65 <.05 9 p o s i t i v e a f f e c t f o r v i c t i m 4.75 0.37 n.s. 0.44 n.s. 0.42 n.s. 0.02 n.s. 0.09 n.s. 2.95 n.s. 0.54 n.s. 33 Table 3 (continued) Note. MS's for e f f e c t s reproducible by _F (for e f f e c t ) x MSw a E f f e c t s s i g n i f i c a n t at the .01 l e v e l or beyond are underscored (one exception, a r e s u l t at the .05 l e v e l , i s discussed i n t e x t ) . b fL^w = 72 f o r a l l dependent va r i a b l e s (DV's 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, & 9). df = 1 for a l l main and i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t s also indicates columns of F_-ratios. ^ n.s. indicates non-significant 34 cues and nonverbal cues (BC) on DV's 5, 6, 7, and 8 were not predicted. The i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t s are i l l u s t r a t e d i n Figures 1, 2, 3, and 4. The analyses of simple main e f f e c t s are out l i n e d i n Table 4. The r e s u l t s from Figure 1 indic a t e that when nonverbal cues were absent, subjects a t t r i b u t e d more r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to the protagonist f o r harmful outcomes, when e x p l i c i t verbal cues were present (mean = 8.74) than when they were absent (mean = 7.96). However, when nonverbal cues were present, the e f f e c t was reversed and subjects a t t r i b u t e d more res-p o n s i b i l i t y to the protagonist when e x p l i c i t verbal cues were absent (mean = 8.82) than when they were present (mean = 7.93). The simple main e f f e c t s analysis (see Table 4) demonstrates that neither of these two differences i n the a t t r i b u t i o n of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y reached s i g n i f i c a n c e . The graphs i n Figures 2, 3, and 4 are s i m i l a r i n appearance. They reveal that when nonverbal cues were absent, subjects a t t r i b u t e d greater r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to the v i c t i m f o r harmful outcomes, f e l t that the pro-tagonist's behaviour was more j u s t i f i e d , and f e l t a greater degree of p o s i t i v e a f f e c t f o r the protagonist, when e x p l i c i t verbal cues were ab-sent (means = 3.37, 3.55, 3.40, respectively) than when they were present (means = 1.31, 1.93, 1.17, r e s p e c t i v e l y ) . These differences i n responses a l l reached s i g n i f i c a n c e at the .01 or .001 l e v e l s (see Table 4). How-ever, a changeover i n e f f e c t occurred when nonverbal cues were present; subjects a t t r i b u t e d more r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to the v i c t i m , f e l t the prota-gonist to be more j u s t i f i e d , and f e l t a greater l i k i n g f o r the prota-gonist, when e x p l i c i t verbal cues were present (means = 1.62, 2.60, 2.56, respectively) than when they were absent (means = 0.89, 1.36, 1.36, re s p e c t i v e l y ) . The simple main e f f e c t s analysis (see Table 4) indicates 35 Figure 1 Graph of Interaction E f f e c t s Between E x p l i c i t Verbal Cues and Nonverbal Cues on the A t t r i b u t i o n of R e s p o n s i b i l i t y to the Protagonist (DV5) A t t r i b u t i o n of Res p o n s i b i l i t y to the Prota-gonist 10.00 1 9.00 8.95 8.90 8.85 8.80 8.75 8.70 8.65 8.60 8.55 8.50 8.45 8.40 8.35 8.30 8.25 8.20 8.15 8.10 8.05 8.00 95 90 85 80 75 (8.74) No E x p l i c i t Verbal Cues -> (7.96) (8.82) (7.93) Absent Present Nonverbal Cues F i g u r e 2 Graph o f I n t e r a c t i o n E f f e c t s Between E x p l i c i t V e r b a l Cues and N o n v e r b a l Cues on t h e A t t r i b u t i o n o f R e s p o n s i b i l i t y t o the V i c t i m (DV6) A t t r i b u t i o n o f Absent P r e s e n t N o n v e r b a l Cues Figure 3 Graph of Interaction E f f e c t s Between E x p l i c i t Verbal Cues and Nonverbal Cues on the Degree of J u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r the Protagonists' Behaviour (DV7) Degree of J u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r the Pro-tagonists' Behaviour 10.00 1 60 50 40 30 20 10 00 90 .80 2.70 60 50 40 30 20 10 2.00 1.90 1.80 1.70 1.60 1.50 1.40 1.30 •20 10 ,00 ,90 ,80 ,70 (3.55) No E x p l i c i t Verbal Cues E x p l i c i t Verbal Cues (1.93) (2.60) (1.36) Absent Present Nonverbal Cues 38 Figure 4 Graph of Interaction E f f e c t s Between E x p l i c i t Verbal Cues and Nonverbal Cues on the Degree of P o s i t i v e A f f e c t f o r the Protagonist (DV8) Degree of P o s i t i v e A f f e c t f o r the Protagonist 10.00 | 3.60 3,50 3.40 3.30 3.20 3.10 3.00 2.90 2.80 2.70 2.60 2.50 2.40 2.30 2.20 2.10 00 90 80 70 60 50 40 1.30 1.20 1.10 1.00 .90 .80 .70 (3.40) (^ •No E x p l i c i t Verbal Cues (1.17) (2.56) E x p l i c i t Verbal Cues (1.36) Absent Present Nonverbal Cues 39 Table 4. Simple Main E f f e c t s f o r the E x p l i c i t Verbal Cues and Nonverbal Cues Interaction (BC) Dependent Variable S o u r c e MS_wa B at Ci B at C 2 MS F C p d MS F C _p_d 5 R e s p o n s i b i l i t y of protagonist 3.29 6.08 1.85 n.s. 4.57 1.39 n.s. 6 R e s p o n s i b i l i t y of v i c t i m 5.48 42.44 7.74 <.01 5.83 1.06 n.s. 7 J u s t i f i c a t i o n of protagonist 3.58 26.25 7.33 <.01 15.37 4.29 <.05 8 P o s i t i v e A f f e c t f o r protagonist 3.37 49.73 14.76 <.001 14.40 4.27 <,05 a d f w = 72 for a l l dependent variables b 1 = cues absent; 2 = cues present °df = 1 for simple main e f f e c t s dn.s. indicates non-significant 40 that the f i r s t d i f f erence, with respect to the a t t r i b u t i o n of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to the v i c t i m , did not reach s i g n i f i c a n c e , but the l a t t e r two e f f e c t s con-cerning j u s t i f i c a t i o n and p o s i t i v e a f f e c t for the protagonist did reach s i g n i f i c a n c e at the .05 l e v e l . Hypotheses 2, and 3. The second hypothesis predicted that the three major categories of cues when used i n combinations would produce s i g n i -f i c a n t increases, i n comparison to the con t r o l group, i n the following dependent v a r i a b l e s : an increase i n the a t t r i b u t i o n of intent to harm (DV1); an increase i n the l i k e l i h o o d that harm would occur (DV3); an increase i n the a t t r i b u t i o n of i n t e n t i o n a l harm, i f harm occurred (DV4); an increase i n the a t t r i b u t i o n of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to the protagonist, i f harm occurred (DV5); and an increase i n the degree of p o s i t i v e a f f e c t for the v i c t i m (DV 9). At the same time, i t was predicted that s i g n i f i -cant decreases would occur i n the following dependent v a r i a b l e s : a decrease i n the a t t r i b u t i o n of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to the v i c t i m , i f harm oc-curred (DV6); a decrease i n the degree of j u s t i f i c a t i o n for the behaviour exhibited by the protagonist (DV7); and a decrease i n the degree of p o s i t i v e a f f e c t for the protagonist (DV8). The t h i r d hypothesis predicted that c e r t a i n combinations of the three major categories of cues would be more important than others, by causing stronger a t t r i b u t i o n s to be made by subjects on the dependent varia b l e s . S p e c i f i c a l l y , i t was predicted that: (1) the weakest a t-t r i b u t i o n would be made by the control group; (2) i m p l i c i t or e x p l i c i t verbal cues would y i e l d approximately equal a t t r i b u t i o n s , but ones which would be s i g n i f i c a n t l y stronger than the control group; (3) nonverbal cues or the combined set of i m p l i c i t plus e x p l i c i t verbal cues would 41 y i e l d approximately equal a t t r i b u t i o n s but ones which would be s i g n i f i -cantly stronger than those of the i m p l i c i t or e x p l i c i t verbal cues taken alone; (4) f i n a l l y , nonverbal cues paired with e i t h e r i m p l i c i t or ex-p l i c i t verbal cues, or a l l three types combined would y i e l d the strongest a t t r i b u t i o n s of a l l , ones which would not be s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from each other, but would be s i g n i f i c a n t l y stronger than any of the previous types of cues taken alone or i n combination. To test these two hypotheses, a one-way ANOVA was performed by "stringing-out" the eight c e l l s of the e a r l i e r 2x2x2 f a c t o r i a l design. This was followed by multiple comparisons among the eight means, both _ 2 pairwise and s p e c i f i e d complex comparisons, using Scheffe s method. The r e s u l t s of these comparisons are outl i n e d i n Table 5, where the means are presented, and i n Table 6 where the ANOVA and multiple comparison r e s u l t s are given. The one s i g n i f i c a n t f i n d i n g i n Tables 5 and 6 indicates that contrary to p r e d i c t i o n , the combination of e x p l i c i t and i m p l i c i t verbal cues plus nonverbal cues (mean = 3.64) was s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from the combination of i m p l i c i t verbal plus nonverbal cues (mean = 0.64) i n creating a f e e l i n g of p o s i t i v e a f f e c t f o r the protagonist i n subjects. It had been predicted that there would be no difference between these two combinations of cues. O v e r a l l , the one contrary s i g n i f i c a n t r e s u l t plus the general lack Due to the conservativeness of the Scheffe procedure and the p o s s i b i l i t y of making Type II errors, thus f a i l i n g to in t e r p r e t important information, i t was decided to accept for discussion a l l r e s u l t s which reached the .10 l e v e l of confidence. 42 Table 5 Mean Scores f or Eight Groups Dependent G r o u p Variable 1 a t t r i b u t i o n of intent -Con A B C AB AC . BC ABC 4.53 5.34 5.41 5.58 6.84 5.17 6.86 7.11 3 l i k e l i h o o d of harm occurring 4.21 3.78 3.85 4.11 4.58 4.07 4.37 5.28 4 judged inten-t i o n a l i f harm occurs 0.40 0.30 0.30 0.50 0.20 0.40 0.20 0.50 5 r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of protagonist -7.58 8.33 8.70 8.81 8.78 8.83 8.33 7.53 6 r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of v i c t i m 3.55 3.19 1.58 0.91 1.03 0.86 1.43 1.80 7 j u s t i f i c a t i o n of protagonist 4.02 3.08 1.54 1.34 2.31 1.37 1.96 3.23 8 p o s i t i v e a f f e c t for protagonist 3.37 3.43 1.11 2.08 1.23 0.64 1.48 3.64 9 p o s i t i v e a f f e c t f o r v i c t i m 6.73 6.29 6.96 7.67 7.09 7.66 6.94 6.07 Table 6 One-Way ANOVA and Contrasts for Significance of Combinations of Cues Dependent Variable A N O V A Hypothesis 2 F-ratios for contrasts 3 Hypothesis 3 F-ratios for contrasts 3 MSw Con. vs AB Con. vs AC Con. vs BC Con. vs ABC 1 a t t r i b u t i o n of intent 5.33 1.69 n.s. .716 .055 .728 .893 .689 .505 .128 325 187 .009 .505 .008 .383 .213 .001 3 l i k e l i h o o d of harm occurring 4 judged inten-t i o n a l i t harm occurs 6.42 0.35 n.s. .015 ..002 .003 -127 .022 .003 .023 .154 .063 .014 .163 .092 .010 .025 0.24 0.60 n.s. 5 r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of protagonist 3.29 0.87 n.s. 6 r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of v i c t i m .001 5.48 1.94 n.s. .120 .000 .120 .030 .005 .010 .040 .032 .015 .002 .030 .269 .120 .269 .000 .312 . 339 .122 . 001 .137 . 427 . 253 . 042 . 034 .166 . 366 .139 . 054 . 000 . 030 .827 .943 .586 .399 .934 1.156 .236 .326 .522 .048 .115 .018 .042 .002 .338 7 j u s t i f i c a t i o n of protagonist 3.58 2.75 =.01 .583 1.401 .846 .124 1.006 1.281 .778 .007 .094 .063 .690 .322 .069 .188 .473 8 positive a f f e c t a . "for protagonist 3.37 4.24 <.001 .970 1.579 .757 .015 .668 .831 .342 .062 .160 .036 1.907a .989 .149 .153 1.140 9 positive a f f e c t for v c i t i n 4.75 0.69 n.s. .019 .130 .007 .066 .006 .085 .002 .025 .171 .087 .380 .114 .078 .051 .068 Table 6 (continued) Note. MS's for e f f e c t s reproducible by F (for e f f e c t ) x MSw a A l l F-ratios non-significant with the exception of the ABC contrast on DV8 which reached s i g n i f i c a n c e at the .10 l e v e l k clf = 72 for a l l dependent variables c df = 7 for a l l dependent variables d n.s. indicates non-significant 45 of s i g n i f i c a n t findings seen i n Tables 5 and 6 indicates a lack of support for e i t h e r the hypothesis that combinations of the three types of cues would y i e l d s i g n i f i c a n t changes on eight of the ten dependent variables or the hypothesis that c e r t a i n combinations of cues were more important than others. Hypothesis 4.- The fourth hypothesis predicted that as the number of types of cues were increased there would be l i n e a r increases i n a t t r i -butions among the following dependent v a r i a b l e s : an increase i n the at-t r i b u t i o n of intent to harm (DV1); an increase i n the l i k e l i h o o d that harm would occur (DV3); an increase i n the a t t r i b u t i o n of i n t e n t i o n a l harm, i f harm occurred (DV4); an increase i n the a t t r i b u t i o n of respon-s i b i l i t y to the protagonist, i f harm occurred (DV5); and an increase i n the degree of p o s i t i v e a f f e c t f o r the v i c t i m (DV9). At the same time, i t was predicted that there would be s i g n i f i c a n t l i n e a r decreases i n at-t r i b u t i o n s among the following dependent v a r i a b l e s : a decrease i n the a t t r i b u t i o n of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to the v i c t i m , i f harm occurred (DV6); a decrease i n the degree of j u s t i f i c a t i o n for the behaviour exhibited by the protagonist (DV7); and a decrease i n the degree of p o s i t i v e a f f e c t for the protagonist (DV8). To test the hypothesis, the scores were regrouped into conditions containing no cues (control group), one cue ( i m p l i c i t verbal [A], e x p l i c i t verbal [B], and nonverbal [C]), two cues ( i m p l i c i t plus e x p l i c i t verbal [AB], i m p l i c i t plus nonverbal [AC], e x p l i c i t plus nonverbal [BC]), and three cues ( i m p l i c i t and e x p l i c i t verbal plus nonverbal cues [ABC]). A one-way ANOVA was performed on each of the eight dependent v a r i a b l e s . If the F_-ratio was s i g n i f i c a n t , a trend analysis was performed. The 46 ANOVA summary table i s presented i n Table 7 and the trend analyses are graphed i n Figures 5, 6, 7, and 8. The r e s u l t s outlined i n Table 7 and Figures 5, 6, 7, and 8 demon-stra t e mixed support for the fourth hypothesis. There was no support for the p r e d i c t i o n that as the number of cues increased, there would be increa-s i n g l y strong a t t r i b u t i o n s of: the l i k e l i h o o d that harm would occur (DV3), the judgement of the harm being i n t e n t i o n a l i f i t did occur (DV4), the deg-ree of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of the protagonist (DV5), and the degree of p o s i t i v e a f f e c t for the v i c t i m (DV9). However, support was found for the predic-tions that as the number of cues increased there would be an. increase i n the a t t r i b u t i o n of intent to harm (DV1), and a decrease i n the a t t r i b u t i o n of v i c t i m r e s p o n s i b i l i t y (DV6). Thus, i n a comparison of the subjects viewing the eight scenes, as the protagonist became more b e l l i g e r e n t to-ward the v i c t i m , subjects i n f e r r e d i n the protagonist an i n c r e a s i n g l y greater degree of intent to harm the v i c t i m . At the same time, they also a t t r i b u t e d increasingly l e s s r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to the v i c t i m i f harm should a c t u a l l y occur. On the other hand, there was only p a r t i a l support for the predic-tions that an increase .in the cues displayed by the protagonist would r e s u l t i n a decrease i n subjects' ratings of the j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r the protagonist's behaviour and a decrease i n p o s i t i v e a f f e c t for him. Again, by comparing the subjects who watched the eight d i f f e r e n t scenes, i t was found that up to a moderate point, as the protagonist became incr e a s i n g l y b e l l i g e r e n t toward the v i c t i m , subjects decreased t h e i r l i k i n g f o r the protagonist and f e l t h i s behaviour to be i n c r e a s i n g l y l e s s j u s t i f i e d . However, when the protagonist reached the f i n a l stage of belligerency, almost at the point of p h y s i c a l l y harming the passively responding 47 Table 7 ANOVA Summary, for Trend Analyses Dependent Variable F-•ratios f o r E f f e c t s MSwa c P_ Linear Quadratic J 4 ' 2. / 2 Cubic P 1 a t t r i b u t i o n of intent 5.30 2.77 <.05 10.44 <.01 <1 >.25 <1 >.25 3 l i k e l i h o o d of harm occurring 6.11 .77 n.s. 4 judged inten-t i o n a l i f harm occurs .23 .67 n. s. 5 r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of protagonist 3.16 1.83 n. s. 6 r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of v i c t i m 5.58 2.71 = .05 4.89 <-05 3.71 n.s. <1 n. s. 7 j u s t i f i c a t i o n of protagonist 3.69 4.17 <.01 1.25 n.s. 11.61 <.01 <1 n. S ; 8 p o s i t i v e a f f e e t for protagonist3.60 6.40 <.001 <1 n.s. 14.11 <.001 2.61 n. s. 9 p o s i t i v e a f f e c t . fo r v i c t i m 4.66 .75 n. s. Note. Differences occur between the summation of the sums of squares of the l i n e a r , quadratic and cubic components, and the sum of squares for the main e f f e c t , e.g., DV 1 - main e f f e c t SS_ = 44.07, E l i n e a r , quadratic and cubic SS = 55.37. The reason f o r the occurrence of these differences i s explained i n Appendix 8. a df =76 for a l l eight dependent va r i a b l e s b df = 3 and 76 for a l l eight dependent variables n.s. indicates non-significant d df = 1 f o r a l l eight dependent variables M.S.'s for e f f e c t s reproducable by F ( f o r e f f e c t ) x MSw Figure 5 Trend Analysis f o r DV 1 -A t t r i b u t i o n of Intent to Harm Average Score 10.00 | 7.50 7.40 7.30 7.20 7.10 7.00 6.90 6.80 6.70 6.60 6.50 6.40 6.30 6.20 6.10 6.00 5.90 5. 5. 5. 5. 5. 5. ,80 ,70 ,60 ,50 ,40 ,30 5.20 5.10 5.00 4.90 4.80 4.70 4.60 4.50 (7.11) (6.29) (5.44) (4.53) 0 (10) 1 (30) 2 (30) 3 (10) Number of types of cues Sample siz e i n parentheses -49 Figure 6 Trend Analysis f or DV6 -The A t t r i b u t i o n of R e s p o n s i b i l i t y to the Victim Average Score 10.00 4.00 3.90 3.80 3.70 60 50 40 30 20 10 00 2.90 2.80 2.70 60 50 40 30 20 10 00 1.90 80 70 60 50 1.40 1.30 1.20 1.10 1.00 (3.55) (1.80) (1.11) 0 (10) 1 (30) 2 (30) 3 (10) Number of types of cues Sample s i z e i n parentheses 50 Figure Trend Analysis The Degree of J u s t i f i c a t i o n 7 for DV7 -fo r the Protagonist's Behaviour Average Score 10.00 J _ 4. 3. 3. 3. 3. 00 90 80 70 60 3.50 40 30 20 10 00 ,90 2.80 70 60 50 40 30 20 2.10 2.00 1.90 1.80 1.70 60 50 ,40 .30 1.20 10 00 (4.02) (3.23) (1.99) (1.88) 0 (10) 1 (30) 2 (30) 3 (10) Number of types of cues Sample s i z e i n parentheses 51 Figure 8 Trend Analysis for DV8 -The Degree of P o s i t i v e A f f e c t f o r the Protagonist Average Score 10.00 1 4.00 90 80 70 .60 50 40 30 20 10 00 90 2.80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 00 1.90 1.80 1.70 1.60 1.50 1.40 1.30 1.20 10 00 (3.64) (1.12) 0 (10) 1 (30) 2 (30) 3 (10) Number of types of cues Sample s i z e i n parentheses 52 vic t i m , subjects viewing t h i s scene dramatically reversed the trend es-tablished by subjects viewing the l e s s aggressive scenes. In comparison to the e a r l i e r trend, subjects l i k e d the protagonist more and f e l t h i s behaviour to be more j u s t i f i e d . Thus, the display of no bell i g e r e n c y or a high degree of belligerency toward the passive v i c t i m resulted i n the protagonist being l i k e d more and being judged more j u s t i f i e d than when he displayed only a moderate degree of be l l i g e r e n c y toward the same v i c t i m . Hypothesis 5. It was hypothesized that the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the degree of confidence i n an a t t r i b u t i o n and the strength of the at-t r i b u t i o n made would be that i n d i v i d u a l l y , both would increase with an increase i n the number of cues displayed by the protagonist, but that t o -gether, an increase i n one would cause a lack of increase i n the other. This p r e d i c t i o n was supported by the s i g n i f i c a n t p o s i t i v e trend i n the a t t r i b u t i o n of intent to harm (DV1) (see Table 7 and Figure 5) with a corresponding lack of s i g n i f i c a n c e of change i n the degree of confidence placed on the a t t r i b u t i o n s made (DV2) , F(3,76) = 1.49, _p_ > .10. This r e s u l t i ndicates that as the protagonist increased h i s display of aggres-sive cues toward the v i c t i m , subjects a t t r i b u t e d to the protagonist i n -creasingly stronger intentions of harming the v i c t i m . At the same time however, the subjects' degree of confidence i n the a t t r i b u t i o n being made did not change as the display of cues of intent to harm increased. Subsidiary hypotheses regarding methodology. The f i n a l hypotheses predicted that non-acted scenes would be more r e a l i s t i c than acted scenes, and that non-aggressive scenes followed by non-aggression questions would be more r e a l i s t i c than the same scenes followed by questions concerning aggression. These hypotheses were explored by conducting t - t e s t s on the 53 differences i n the degree of realism of the scenes (DV10), found between the following groups: (1) i n i t i a l control group (acted, non-aggressive scene followed by aggression related questions); (9) natural control group (non-acted, non-aggressive scene followed by non-aggression related questions); and, (10) natural control group (non-acted, non-aggressive scene followed by aggression related questions). The f i r s t comparison of acted vs. non-acted scenes was_obtained by contrasting Groups 1 and 10, _t(18) = .39, p_ > .25. The second compari-son of aggression vs. non-aggression questions, following a non-aggres-sive scene, was obtained by contrasting Groups 9 and 10, _t(18) = .34, £ > .25. The f i n a l comparison combined the above effects i n an attempt to consider the largest difference possible, that of an acted scene f o l -lowed by aggression questions (Group 1) vs. a non-acted scene followed by non-aggression questions (Group 9), _t(18) = .70, p.> .10. These results indicate that neither the effects of acting nor the effects of asking aggression questions following a non-aggressive scene are important enough to significantly alter the subjects' perceptions of the degree of realism of the scene. A l l three control scenes were viewed as being approximately equal in realism. Discussion: Phase 1 - A P r i o r i Grouping of Independent Variables The results obtained from Tables 3 and 6 demonstrated that overall, implicit verbal, explicit verbal, and nonverbal cues, when used ind i v i -dually or in combinations and compared to a control group, produced l i t t l e effect on judgements concerning harmful intentions, attributions of responsibility or just i f i c a t i o n , or the degree of liking for another individual. Similarly, the results reported i n Table 6 (hypothesis 3) 54 showed that grouping types of cues together according to t h e i r predicted importance also f a i l e d to produce s i g n i f i c a n t changes i n interpersonal judgements. As w e l l , grouping cues by predicted importance f a i l e d to e s t a b l i s h that some cues were more important than others i n t h e i r e f f e c t upon interpersonal judgements. The one exception to the above r e s u l t s was the f i n d i n g that subjects a t t r i b u t e d more intent to harm to the prota-gonist when e x p l i c i t verbal cues were present than when they were absent (see Table 3). In view of the t o t a l number of negative r e s u l t s and the f a i l u r e of t h i s one s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t to be demonstrated across more than one dependent v a r i a b l e , i t seems inappropriate to attach importance to the fin d i n g . Therefore, on the whole, the three types of cues, studied on the basis of t h e i r a p r i o r i grouping, appeared to have l i t t l e e f f e c t upon important interpersonal judgements i n an aggressive s i t u a t i o n . However, i n contrast to the above outcomes, a consideration of the i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t s found i n Figures 1, 2, 3, and 4, and Table 4 t o -gether with the trend analyses outlined i n Table 7 and graphed i n Figures 5,.6, 7, and 8, suggested that important and consistent influences on a t t r i b u t i o n s and judgements di d e x i s t . An increase i n the number of cues displayed by the protagonist resulted i n subjects a t t r i b u t i n g to the protagonist s i g n i f i c a n t l y more intent to harm the v i c t i m (see Figure 5 and Table 7). In view of the e a r l i e r mentioned findings i t i s i n t e r e s t i n g that the a t t r i b u t i o n of intent to harm appeared to depend more upon the number of aggressive cues displayed than the q u a l i t a t i v e aspect of the type of cues which were displayed. In addition, an increase-,, to a moderate point, i n the number of cues displayed by the protagonist r e s u l t e d i n a s i g n i f i c a n t decrease i n 55 the a t t r i b u t i o n of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to the v i c t i m i f a harmful outcome should occur (see Figures 2 and 5, and Tables 4 and 7). This e f f e c t was reversed i n both cases (see Figures 2 and 5) when the protagonist displayed a high number of cues of intent to harm the vic t i m . At t h i s second stage, subjects increased t h e i r a t t r i b u t i o n of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to the v i c t i m , but the increases did not a t t a i n s i g n i f i c a n c e (see Tables 4 and 7). (The re s u l t s depicted i n Figure 1, although not a t t a i n i n g s i g n i f i c a n c e , are i n accord with the rever s a l phenomenon.) These reversals are mentioned be-cause they are consistent with the findings f o r both the a t t r i b u t i o n of j u s t i f i c a t i o n for the protagonists' behaviour (DV7) and judgements con-cerning the degree of p o s i t i v e a f f e c t f o r the protagonist (DV8) (see Figures 3, 4, 7, and 8, and Tables 4 and 7). In both cases, the display of a moderate number of cues was seen by subjects to s i g n i f i c a n t l y de-crease the protagonists' j u s t i f i c a t i o n and to decrease t h e i r l i k i n g of him. However, the display of a high number of cues reversed t h i s trend and increased both the degree of j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r the protagonists' behaviour and the degree of the subjects' l i k i n g f o r the protagonist (the r e s u l t s producing t h i s r e v e r s a l reached s i g n i f i c a n c e i n Figures 3, 4 and 8 but not 7). Thus, c o n s i s t e n t l y across both the trend analyses and the i n t e r -a c t i o n e f f e c t s , when the protagonist increased the number of cues of i n -tent to harm displayed toward the v i c t i m from zero cues or a few cues to a moderate number of cues, subjects viewed the v i c t i m more favourably and the protagonist l e s s favourably. However, when the protagonist i n -creased the cues of intent to harm displayed toward the passively res-ponding v i c t i m , almost to the l e v e l of p h y s i c a l violence, subjects 56 viewing t h i s scene reversed the e a r l i e r trend and tended to see the v i c t i m l e s s favourably and the protagonist more favourable than had subjects viewing the previous more moderate scenes. These r e s u l t s suggest some type of backlash e f f e c t against the victim. I t may be the case that when a protagonist displays a high degree of intent to harm toward another person and yet the second person does not defend himself (as was the case here), observers may f e e l the v i c t i m to be l e s s innocent than: he would l i k e to appear. A l t e r n a t i v e l y , since the v i c t i m did not bother to defend himself, i f he was to get hurt i t may be judged to be p a r t l y h i s f a u l t . This backlash e f f e c t w i l l be discussed further, following the r e s u l t s of Phase 2. Two findings from Phase 1 remain to be discussed. The f i r s t r e s u l t was that the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the strength of the a t t r i b u t i o n made and the degree of confidence i n the a t t r i b u t i o n was such that-an i n -crease in.the number of cues displayed by the protagonist would increase ei t h e r the strength of the a t t r i b u t i o n or the confidence i n the a t t r i b u -t i o n , but not both at the same time (see Table 7 and Figure 5). Thus, i t appears that while an increase i n cues may increase the c l a r i t y of the s i t u a t i o n , r e s u l t i n g i n i n c r e a s i n g l y strong a t t r i b u t i o n s of intent to harm, the e f f e c t i s not mediated through an increase i n confidence on the part of the subjects making the a t t r i b u t i o n s . The f i n a l r e s u l t concerned the methodology and indicated that neither acting nor the type of questionnaire used af f e c t e d subjects' ratings of the degree of realism found i n the three c o n t r o l scenes; a l l were rated approximately equal. This, i n turn, established the f a c t that i f there were demand c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s operating between these c o n t r o l groups, they were not mediated by differences i n realism. 57 Results: Phase 2 - Empirical Grouping of Independent Variables Hypotheses 1, 2, and 3. The f i r s t two hypotheses predicted that the three major categories of cues taken e i t h e r i n d i v i d u a l l y (hypothesis 1) or i n combination (hypothesis 2) would each produce s i g n i f i c a n t i n -creases, i n comparison to the control group, i n the following dependent v a r i a b l e s : an increase i n the a t t r i b u t i o n of intent to harm (DV1); an increase i n the l i k e l i h o o d that harm would occur (DV3); an increase i n the a t t r i b u t i o n of i n t e n t i o n a l harm, i f harm occurred (DV4); an increase i n the a t t r i b u t i o n of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to the protagonist, i f harm occurred (DV5); and, an increase i n the degree of p o s i t i v e a f f e c t f o r the v i c t i m (DV9). At the same time, i t was predicted that s i g n i f i c a n t decreases would occur i n the following dependent v a r i a b l e s : a decrease i n the a t t r i b u t i o n of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to the vi c t i m , i f harm occurred (DV6); a decrease i n the degree of j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r the behaviour exhibited by the protagonist (DV7); and, a decrease i n the degree of p o s i t i v e a f f e c t f o r the protagonist (DV8) . The t h i r d hypothesis predicted that c e r t a i n combinations of the three major categories of cues would be more important than others by causing stronger a t t r i b u t i o n s to be made by subjects on the dependent va r i a b l e s . S p e c i f i c a l l y , i t was predicted that: (1) the weakest a t t r i b u -tions would be made by the cont r o l group; (2) i m p l i c i t or e x p l i c i t verbal cues would y i e l d approximately equal a t t r i b u t i o n s , but ones which would be s i g n i f i c a n t l y stronger than the cont r o l group; (3) nonverbal cues or the combined set of i m p l i c i t plus e x p l i c i t verbal cues would y i e l d approxi-mately equal a t t r i b u t i o n s but ones which would be s i g n i f i c a n t l y stronger than those of the i m p l i c i t or e x p l i c i t verbal cues taken alone; (4) f i n a l l y , 58 nonverbal cues paired with e i t h e r i m p l i c i t or e x p l i c i t verbal cues, or a l l three types of cues combined would y i e l d the strongest a t t r i b u t i o n s of a l l , ones which would not be s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from each other, but would be s i g n i f i c a n t l y stronger than any of the previous types of cues taken alone or i n combinations. The three hypotheses were tested by performing a one-way ANOVA on the s i x c e l l s o u t l i n e d under Phase 2 (subjects) i n Table 1. This was f o l -x 3 lowed by Scheffe type multiple comparisons , employed for a l l pairwise and a number of s p e c i f i e d complex comparisons. The r e s u l t s of these com-parisons are outlined i n Table 8, where the group means are presented, and i n Table 9 where the ANOVA and multiple comparison r e s u l t s are d i s -played. The r e s u l t s i n Table 9 in d i c a t e that when analyzed according to subjects' perceptions, the use of cues ei t h e r separately or i n com-binations do not y i e l d s i g n i f i c a n t changes i n the following dependent va r i a b l e s : the a t t r i b u t i o n of intent to harm (DV1); the l i k e l i h o o d that harm would occur (DV3); the a t t r i b u t i o n of i n t e n t i o n a l harm, i f harm occurred (DV4); or, the a t t r i b u t i o n of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to the protagonist, i f harm occurred (DV5). The r e s u l t s also show that with respect to these same four dependent variables there was no demonstration that some com-binations of cues were more important than others. However, the pattern of r e s u l t s changes when dealing with the following As mentioned e a r l i e r , due to the conservativeness of t h i s procedure and subsequent p o s s i b i l i t y of making Type II errors, i t was decided to accept for discussion a l l r e s u l t s which reached the .10 l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e . 59 Table 8 Mean Scores f or Groups Dependent Variable G r o u p Con A C AC AB ABC 1 a t t r i b u t i o n of intent 2.85 4.68 6.03 5.32 5.98 6.21 3 l i k e l i h o o d of . . . harm occurring 7.70 3.40 3.60 4.22 3.68 4.52 4 judged inten-t i o n a l i f harm occurred 0.50 0.33 0.50 0.45 0.17 0.33 5 r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of protagonist 8.10 7.88 8.65 8.91 9.29 8.18 6 r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of v i c t i m 7.75 4.22 0.55 0.96 1.33 1.63 7 j u s t i f i c a t i o n of protagonist 6.05 3.37 1.03 1.44 2.48 2.22 8 p o s i t i v e a f f e c t for protagonist 5.20 4.37 0.83 1.30 1.62 2.01 9 p o s i t i v e a f f e c t for v i c t i m 1.20 6.23 8.00 7.60 6.97 6.53 Table 9 One-Way ANOVA,..Pairwise and Complex Contrasts for Significance of Cues and Combinations 3 Dependent Variable A N O V A Hypothesis ). Hypothesis 2 F-ratios for contrasts F-ratios for contrasts Hypothesis 3 F-ratios for contrasts A vs No A B vs No B C vs No C Con. vs AB Con. Con. AC ABC 1 a t t r i b u t i o n of intent 5.11 3 l i k e l i h o o d of harm occurring 5.93 4 judged intent i o n a l i f harm occurs 0.24 5 r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of protagonist 6 r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of vi c t i m 7 " j u s t i f i c a t i o n of protagonist 8 p o s i t i v e a f f e c t for protagonist 9 positive a f f e c t for victim 1.24 n.s. .228 .785 .566 .655 .404 .817 .624 .666 .197 .229 .271 .019 .236 .000 .459 .143 .177 .937 .692 .629 .702 .954 .935 .159 .008 .155 .023 .001 n . s . .127 .347 .062 .161 .003 .043 .018 .040 .035 .016 .000 .027 .094 .281 1.20 n.s 0.56 2.62 1.11 A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A 3.29 3.06 4.35 013 .098 .014 .186 .085 .001 .028 .099 .005 847 657 4.42 5.57 <.0005 .957 1.713 4.122 3.194 3.527 3.130 3.535 3.596  3.06 <.05 .389 .248 2.803 1.327 2.192 1.651 2.036 1.925 <.005 .147 .856 2.87* 1.440 1.684 1.230 1.543 1.776 .068 .166 A 1.931 .722 A A 2.409 .361 .121 1.941 .633 2.590 A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A 3.62 4.37 <.005 1.303 ' .575 2.916 3.152 3^833 2.899 3.567 3.742 2.101 .191 .346 .049 .003 .105 .083 .310 .094 .151 .083 .279 .388 .248 .123 .478 .177 O N O 61 Table 9 (continued) Note: MS's for e f f e c t s reproducible by F_ (for e f f e c t s ) x MSw 3. E f f e c t s s i g n i f i c a n t at the .10 l e v e l or beyond are underscored. k dfw = 53 for a l l 8 dependent variables c df = 5 for a l l 8 dependent variables d n.s. indicates non-significant * p < . 10 ** jp < .05 *** £ < ..01 _p_ < .005 62 four dependent v a r i a b l e s : the a t t r i b u t i o n of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to the v i c -tim, i f harm occurred (DV6); the degree of j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r the prota-gonists' behaviour (DV7); and, the degree of p o s i t i v e a f f e c t for e i t h e r the protagonist (DV8) or the v i c t i m (DV9). In contrast to the display of i m p l i c i t or e x p l i c i t verbal cues, the display by the protagonist of nonverbal cues s i g n i f i c a n t l y reduced the following: the a t t r i b u t i o n of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to the v i c t i m (DV6), the a t t r i b u t i o n of j u s t i f i c a t i o n to the protagonist (DV7), and the amount of p o s i t i v e a f f e c t f o r the prota-gonist (DV8). At the same time, the use of nonverbal cues s i g n i f i c a n t l y increased the amount of p o s i t i v e a f f e c t f o r the v i c t i m (DV9). Thus, there was l i m i t e d support for the f i r s t hypothesis, since nonverbal cues pro-duced the predicted changes i n four dependent v a r i a b l e s . S p e c i f i c a l l y , when the protagonist displayed nonverbal cues of intent to harm against the v i c t i m , he was l i k e d l e s s and f e l t to be l e s s j u s t i f i e d , whereas the v i c t i m was l i k e d more and f e l t to be l e s s responsible i f harm should occur. The second hypothesis concerned the e f f e c t s of combinations of the three major types of cues. The a t t r i b u t i o n of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to the v i c -tim, i f a harmful outcome should occur, was reduced when any of the com-binations of i m p l i c i t plus e x p l i c i t verbal cues or i m p l i c i t plus nonverbal cues or i m p l i c i t plus e x p l i c i t plus nonverbal cues were present i n the s i t u a t i o n . On the other hand, the degree of j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r the beha--. viour of the protagonist was reduced only f o r the combination of i m p l i c i t verbal cues plus nonverbal cues. None of the three combinations of cues yi e l d e d a s i g n i f i c a n t change i n f e e l i n g for the protagonist, but a l l three did s i g n i f i c a n t l y increase the amount of p o s i t i v e a f f e c t for 63 the victim. Thus, when the protagonist displayed combinations of the i m p l i c i t , e x p l i c i t and nonverbal cues of intent to harm, the v i c t i m was l i k e d more and f e l t to be l e s s responsible i f harm should occur (and for one combination the behaviour of the protagonist was f e l t to be l e s s j u s t i f i e d ) . Therefore, with respect to a l i m i t e d set of dependent v a r i -ables there i s some support f o r the second hypothesis. The f i n a l r e s u l t s are relevant to the t h i r d set of predictions concerning differences i n importance between cues or combinations of cues. The cues were grouped i n accordance with the predictions outlined under the t h i r d hypothesis (see pp. 55-56 and Table 9). As such, the four groupings of cues, ranked from those predicted to cause the weakest a t t r i -butions to those predicted to cause the strongest a t t r i b u t i o n s , were as follows: (1) the co n t r o l group; (2) i m p l i c i t verbal cues, group A; (3) i m p l i c i t and e x p l i c i t verbal cues (AB) plus nonverbal cues (C); (4) i m p l i c i t , e x p l i c i t and nonverbal cues (ABC) plus i m p l i c i t verbal and non-verbal cues (AC). I m p l i c i t , e x p l i c i t and nonverbal cues (ABC) plus im-p l i c i t and nonverbal cues (AC), and i m p l i c i t and e x p l i c i t cues (AB) plus nonverbal cues (C) both produced s i g n i f i c a n t decreases i n a t t r i b u t i o n s of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to the v i c t i m compared to ei t h e r the control group or the i m p l i c i t verbal cues group (A). The same two groupings of cues as above, ABC plus AC, and AB plus C, also caused a s i g n i f i c a n t decrease i n p o s i t i v e a f f e c t for the protagonist over that of group A but not over that of the control group. (This outcome was unusual since the difference between the control group [mean = 5.20] and the combinations of cues [combined mean = 1.44] was l a r g e r than between group A [mean = 4.37] and the combina-tions of cues [combined mean = 1.44]. This anomaly was most l i k e l y due 64 to the small c e l l size of the control group, [two subjects] in comparison to the c e l l size of Group A [six subjects].) The grouping of implicit, explicit and nonverbal cues (ABC) with implicit and nonverbal cues (AC), also yielded a significant decrease in the justification of the protagonist when compared to the control group. Lastly, a l l the groups, implicit, explicit and nonverbal (ABC) plus im-p l i c i t and nonverbal (AC), and implicit and explicit (AB) plus nonverbal (C), and, implicit cues alone (A), yielded a significant increase in positive affect for the victim over that of the control group. (Also, as predicted, for a l l eight dependent variables, no significant differences were found between the groups of implicit, explicit and rionberval cues [ABC] compared to implicit and nonverbal cues [AC], nor between the groups of implicit and explicit cues [AB] compared to nonverbal cues alone [C].) In general, the few significant findings indicate that combina-tions of cues which include nonverbal cues may be more important than combinations which do not, or may be more important than nonverbal cues (or other cues) taken by themselves. The evidence for this interpreta-tion is weak and limited to attributions of responsibility to the victim (DV6), judgements concerning the jus t i f i c a t i o n of the protagonist (DV7), and judgements concerning the degree of positive affect for either the protagonist (DV8) or the victim (DV9). These results are in concurrence with the outcomes predicted under the third set of hypotheses. However, the significant results ob-tained constitute only a small number of verified outcomes in contrast to the large number of unverified predictions concerning the relative 65 importance of combinations of cues. As such, the r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e only l i m i t e d support for the t h i r d hypothesis. Hypothesis 4. The fourth hypothesis predicted that as the number of types of cues were increased there would be l i n e a r increases i n a t t r i -butions among the following dependent v a r i a b l e s : an increase i n the a t -t r i b u t i o n of intent to harm (DV1); an increase i n the l i k e l i h o o d than harm would occur (DV3); an increase i n the a t t r i b u t i o n of i n t e n t i o n a l harm, i f harm occurred (DV4); an increase i n the a t t r i b u t i o n of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to the protagonist, i f harm occurred (DV5); and an increase i n the degree of p o s i t i v e a f f e c t f o r the v i c t i m (DV9). At the same time, i t was pre-dicted that there would be s i g n i f i c a n t l i n e a r decreases i n a t t r i b u t i o n s among the following dependent v a r i a b l e s : a decrease i n the a t t r i b u t i o n of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to the v i c t i m , i f harm occurred (DV6); a decrease i n the degree of j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r the behaviour exhibited by the protagonist (DV7); and a decrease i n the degree of p o s i t i v e a f f e c t for the protagonist (DV8). To test t h i s hypothesis, the scores were regrouped into conditions containing no cues (control group); one cue ( i m p l i c i t verbal [A], e x p l i c i t verbal [B], and nonverbal cues [Cl); two cues ( i m p l i c i t plus e x p l i c i t verbal [AB], i m p l i c i t plus nonverbal [AC], e x p l i c i t plus nonverbal [BC]); and three cues ( i m p l i c i t and e x p l i c i t verbal plus nonverbal cues [ABC]). A one-way ANOVA was performed on each of the eight dependent v a r i a b l e s . If the F- r a t i o was s i g n i f i c a n t , a trend analysis was performed. The re s u l t s are presented i n Table 10, where the ANOVA summary table i s pre-sented, and Figures 9, 10, 11, and 12, where the trend analyses are graphed. The r e s u l t s o u t l i n e d i n Table 10 and Figures 9, 10, 11, and 12 Table 10 ANOVA Summary for Trend Analyses Dependent Variable MSwa F b F-ratios f o r E f f e c t s Linear £ Quadratic Cubic 1 a t t r i b u t i o n of intent 5.05 1.64 n.s. 3 l i k e l i h o o d of harm occurring 5.75 1.96 n._s. 4 judged i n t e n t i o n a l i f harm occurs 0.24 0.16 n.s. 5 r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of protagonist 2.57 1.59 n.s. 6 r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of v i c t i m 4.86 6.17 =.001 24.16 -x.001 9.08 <.01 <1 -n.s. 7 j u s t i f i c a t i o n of protagonist 3.52 2.91 <.05 11.95 <.005 6.24 <.05 <1 n.s. 8 p o s i t i v e a f f e c t f o r protagonist 3.50 3.41 <.05 10.29 <.005 3.28 n.s. <1 n.s. 9 p o s i t i v e a f f e c t for v i c t i m 3.66 6.30 <.001 21.47 <.0005 16.92 <.0005 1.51 n.s. ON 67 Table 10 (continued) Note: As i n Table 7, the summation of the sums of squares of the l i n e a r , quadratic, and cubic components do not match the sums of squares for the main e f f e c t . As before, t h i s d i f f e r e n c e i s due to using weighted means i n deriving the main e f f e c t s whereas a harmonic mean was used i n deriving the component sum of squares (see Appendix 8). df = 55 for a l l eight dependent vari a b l e s . b d|_ = 3 f o r a l l eight dependent variables ° n.s. indicates non-significant d df = 1 for a l l eight dependent variables M. S.' s for e f f e c t s reproducible by F_ (for e f f e c t s ) x MSw 68 Figure 9 Trend Analysis f or DV6 -The A t t r i b u t i o n of R e s p o n s i b i l i t y to the Victim Average Score 10.00 | 8.00 75 50 25 00 75 50 25 6.00 5.75 5.50 5.25 5.00 4.75 4.50 4. 4. 3. 3. 3. 25 00 75 50 25 3.00 2.75 2.50 2.25 2.00 1.75 1.50 1.25 1.00 (7.75) (1.63) 0 (2) 1 (10) (1.16) ~~2 (23) 3 (24) Number of types of cues Sample s i z e i n parentheses Figure 10 Trend Analysis for DV7 -The Degree of J u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r the Protagonist's Behaviour Average Score 10.00 1 7.00 6.80 6.60 6.40 6.20 6.00 5.80 5.60 5.40 5.20 5.00 4.80 4.60 4.40 4.20 4.00 3.80 3.60 3.40 3.20 00 80 60 40 20 2.00 1.80 1.60 1.40 1.20 1.00 ,(6.05) (2.22) 0 (2) 1 (10) 2 (23) 3 (24) Number of types of cues Sample size i n parentheses 70 Figure 11 Trend Analysis f o r DV8 -The Degree of P o s i t i v e A f f e c t for the Protagonist Average Score 10-00 \ 7.00 6.80 6.60 40 20 00 80 5.60 5.40 5.20 5. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 3. 3. 3. 3. 00 80 60 40 20 00 80 60 40 20 3.00 2.80 2.60 40 20 00 80 60 40 20 00 (5.20) ,01) (1.47) 0 (2) 1 (10) 2 (23) 3 (24) Number of types of cues Sample s i z e i n parentheses Figure 12 Trend Analysis f o r DV9 -The Degree of P o s i t i v e A f f e c t f o r the Victim Average Score 10.00 8. 00 7. 75 7. 50 7. 25 7. 00 6. 75 6. 50 6. 25 6. 00 5. 75 5. 50 5. 25 5. 00 4. 75 4. 50 4. 25 4. 00 3. 75 3. 50 3. 25 3. 00 2. 75 2. 50 2. 25 2. 00 1. 75 1. 50 1. 25 1. 00 1 (7.27) (6.94) (6.53) (1.20) 0 (2) 1 (10) 2 (23) 3 (24) Number of types of cues Sample s i z e i n parentheses 72 demonstrate mixed support for the fourth hypothesis. There was no sup-port for the p r e d i c t i o n that as the number of cues increased, there would be an increase i n the a t t r i b u t i o n of intent to harm (DV1), an increase i n the l i k e l i h o o d that harm would occur (DV3), an increase i n the judge-ment of the harm being i n t e n t i o n a l i f i t did occur (DV4), nor an increase i n the:, a t t r i b u t i o n of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to the protagonist (DV8). On the other hand, the p r e d i c t i o n of a decrease i n p o s i t i v e a f f e c t for the protagonist (DV8) as he displayed more aggressive cues, was sup-ported. As w e l l , there was p a r t i a l support for the p r e d i c t i o n that an increase i n the cues displayed by the protagonist would r e s u l t i n de-creases i n the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of the v i c t i m (DV6) and i n the degree of j u s t i f i c a t i o n for the protagonists' behaviour (DV7). P a r t i a l support was also found for the predicted increase i n p o s i t i v e a f f e c t f or the v i c t i m (DV9). In the case of the three l a t t e r dependent v a r i a b l e s , the support was only p a r t i a l because i n each case the predicted decrease or increase occurred, but was followed by a s i g n i f i c a n t and non-predicted r e v e r s a l i n e f f e c t . Thus, by comparing the subjects that watched the eight d i f f e r e n t scenes, i t was found that up to a moderate point, as the protagonist be-came incr e a s i n g l y b e l l i g e r e n t toward the v i c t i m , subjects decreased t h e i r l i k i n g f o r the protagonist and f e l t h i s behaviour to be l e s s j u s t i f i e d . At the same time, subjects increased t h e i r l i k i n g of the v i c t i m and f e l t him to be i n c r e a s i n g l y l e s s responsible i f a harmful outcome should occur. However, when the protagonist continued i n h i s aggressive manner to the point of nearly harming the passively responding v i c t i m , subjects viewing t h i s scene reversed the trend established by subjects viewing the l e s s aggressive scenes. In comparison to the e a r l i e r trend, subjects l i k e d the 73 victim less, and f e l t him to be more responsible for harmful outcomes and also f e l t the protagonist to be more j u s t i f i e d in his behaviour (subjects also increased their liking of the protagonist but .the increase did not reach significance). Hypothesis 5. It was hypothesized that the relationship between the degree of confidence in an attribution and the strength of the a t t r i -bution made was such that individually, both would increase with an i n -crease in the number of cues displayed by the protagonist, but that together, an increase in one would cause a lack of increase in the other. According to the predicted relationships, the obtained non-significant trend analy-sis for DV1 (the attribution of intent to harm) (see Table 10) should have been accompanied by a significant increase in the amount of confidence displayed in the attribution (DV2). The increase in confidence approached but did not attain significance, F_(3,55) = 2.22, _p_ < .10, and thus the predicted relationship was not supported by the results. Subsidiary hypotheses regarding methodology. The f i n a l hypothesis concerning realism effects was not reanalyzed under Phase Two. This decision was reached on the basis of two factors. The f i r s t reason was the fact that because of the experimental design, the natural control condition subjects (group 9) did not complete a behaviour checklist of the cues which they perceived to be in the scene (see Appendix 6). Thus, their data could not be reanalyzed on the basis of their perceptions. Secondly, following the restrictions placed on regrouping the data accor-ding to subjects' perceptions (outlined under Analysis Procedures, Phase Two, in the Results and Discussion section), the i n i t i a l control group (group 1) consisted of only two subjects and the natural control group 74 (group 10) consisted of nine subjects. Conducting _t-tests on such uneven c e l l sizes given a total sample of only eleven subjects appeared inappro-priate. Discussion: Phase 2 - Empirical Grouping of Independent Variables The Phase 2 results concerning the f i r s t hypothesis (see Table 9) contrast in part with the findings of Phase 1 (see Table 3). Under Phase 1, the one significant result indicated that the addition of explicit verbal cues to a scene would cause subjects to attribute significantly more intent to harm to the protagonist (DV1). This effect for explicit verbal cues was not maintained across the other dependent variables. When the results were reanalyzed according to the subjects' perceptions under Phase 2, there was no effect for explicit verbal cues on any of the de-pendent variables, including the attribution of intent to harm (DV1). However, there was an effect for nonverbal cues which was expressed con-sistently across four dependent variables. Specifically, when the pro-tagonist added nonverbal cues to the type of cues he was displaying toward the victim, subjects tended to like the victim more and feel him to be less responsible for any harmful outcome, and they tended to dislike the protagonist more and feel his behaviour to be less j u s t i f i e d . Thus, in contrast to the results of Phase 1, the results of Phase 2 indicated that of the three types of cues, implicit, explicit, and nonverbal, the nonverbal cues were the only ones to consistently demonstrate an effect upon interpersonal judgements in an aggressive situation. The second hypothesis stated that combinations of the three major types of cues, when displayed by the protagonist, would cause significant increases or decreases in the types of attributions and judgements being 75 made by the subjects. As w e l l , the t h i r d hypothesis predicted that some of these combinations of cues would be more important than others i n the sense of causing a stronger e f f e c t . Neither of these hypotheses were supported under Phase 1 (see Table 6). Under Phase 2 (see Table 9) there was some support for the general concept that combinations of cues may influence a t t r i b u t i o n s but there was no consistent e f f e c t f o r any s p e c i f i c combination across more than three of the eight dependent v a r i a b l e s . S i m i l a r l y , under Phase 2 (see Table 9) the small number of s i g n i f i c a n t findings concerning the t h i r d hypothesis gave only very t e n t a t i v e support to the underlying r a t i o n a l e f or the hypothesis, that i s , that nonverbal cues would be more important than verbal cues i n a f f e c t i n g the a t t r i b u t i o n s made i n an aggressive s i t u a t i o n . Even though these l a t t e r r e s u l t s do not provide strong support, they are consistent with e a r l i e r findings (see Phase 2, hypothesis 1), which also suggested the importance of nonverbal cues i n a f f e c t i n g interpersonal judgements. In the discussion of the Phase 1 r e s u l t s concerning the s i g n i f i -cant trend analysis for the a t t r i b u t i o n of intent to harm (DV1) (see Table 7 and Figure 5), i t appeared that t h i s a t t r i b u t i o n was more depen-dent upon the number of aggressive cues displayed than the type of cues which were displayed. In view of the f a i l u r e of t h i s s i g n i f i c a n t trend analysis to be demonstrated under the Phase 2 r e s u l t s , the above explana-t i o n i s tentative at best. The r e s u l t s that appear to be the most consistent across both Phases 1 and 2 were the judgements concerning r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , j u s t i f i c a -t i o n and a f f e c t f or the v i c t i m and protagonist when there was an increase i n the number of aggressive cues displayed by the protagonist. These 76 r e s u l t s are oultined i n Tables 7 and 10 and graphed i n Figures 6 through 12. In both cases the r e s u l t s produced approximately equivalent patterns which together can be described as follows: In Contrast to the scene i n which there were no cues of intent to harm, the display toward the v i c t i m , by the protagonist, of a moderate number of cues of intent to harm, resulted i n the protagonist being l i k e d l e s s and being considered l e s s j u s t i f i e d i n h i s behaviour, while the v i c t i m was l i k e d more and was considered l e s s responsible i f a harmful outcome should occur. However, i n both Phases 1 and 2 the majority of these r e s u l t s were reversed as the protagonist increased h i s aggressiveness. Thus, as the protagonist became almost p h y s i c a l l y abusive toward the passively responding v i c t i m , subjects viewing the scene, i n comparison to. subjects viewing more moderately aggressive scenes, tended to decrease t h e i r l i k i n g of the v i c t i m and f e e l him to be somewhat more responsible f o r harmful outcomes. At the same time, these subjects tended to increased t h e i r l i k i n g of the protagonist and consider h i s behaviour to be more j u s t i f i e d . These reversals i n e f f e c t s , while possibly i n d i c a t i n g some type of backlash against the victi m , need to be considered within the o v e r a l l context of the absolute values found i n Figures 6 through 12. In scenes where the protagonist displayed aggressive cues he was always l i k e d considerably l e s s than the victi m , the v i c t i m was rated as having very l i t t l e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r any harmful outcome and the protagonist's behaviour was always considered to be poorly j u s t i f i e d . The s i g n i f i c a n c e of t h i s apparently consistent rev e r s a l phenomenon and the r e s t r i c t i o n s which are placed upon i t by the absolute value of the reversals w i l l be expanded upon during the concluding discussion. 77 The f i n a l discussion in this section concerns the support found under Phase 1 for the f i f t h hypothesis. The results were interpreted as showing that an increase in the number of cues displayed by the protagonist would increase the clarity of the situation and result in increasingly strong attributions to the protagonist of intent to harm. At the same time, i t was suggested that the increase in the strength of the attribu-tions was not mediated by a corresponding increase in confidence in the attributions on the part of the subjects. The Phase 2 results, while demonstrating a trend toward the predicted relationship between the degree of confidence and the strength of the attribution made, did not attain significance. This lack of consistency across Phases 1 and 2 suggests that the i n i t i a l interpretation is at best tentative in nature. The alternative hypothesis that subjects make stronger attributions because they become more confident, remains plausible. 78 Concluding Discussion In this chapter the three observations that can be made on the basis of this study w i l l be discussed. Then, several d i f f i c u l t i e s affecting the study w i l l be outlined. Lastly, comments.will be made concerning possible future studies in this area. The f i r s t finding of note stems from the complementary results obtained under the f i r s t and third hypotheses of Phase 2. The f i r s t hypothesis showed that when significance was attained for single types of cues, i t was primarily for scenes containing nonverbal cues i n con-trast to scenes where nonverbal cues were absent. This evidence con-curred with the results from the third hypothesis, which provided some support for the underlying rationale that cues of anger directed toward another person are typically used to infer intent to harm and that non-verbal cues tend to be the most important anger cues. However, some may question whether nonverbal behaviour is more important than an explicit threat of harm. In response to this, the significant distinction l i e s in the cred i b i l i t y differences between talking and doing — verbal threats, without an indication of nonverbal anger, may not be as credible as non-verbal threats. The second observation of interest i s the concurrence of this study with the popular psychological belief that the prediction and under-standing of people depends more upon knowing their perception of reality than in knowing the reality perceived by others. In the present study, the number of significant changes in individuals' attributions and judge-ments was greater when the situation was analyzed according to the indi-viduals' perceptions (Phase 2), than when analyzed according to the 79 intended reality imposed by experimental design (Phase 1 ) . The importance of this can be seen in individual questionnaires wherein subjects i n d i -cated the presence of words or behaviours that did not occur in the par-ticular scene they had observed yet presumably made attributions and judgements on the basis of these perceptions. The last outcome worthy of note was the finding that as the protagonist became aggressive toward the victim, subjects viewing these scenes considered the protagonists' behaviour less j u s t i f i e d and liked him less than subjects viewing the scene where he had not been aggres-sive. Similarly, the victim was liked more and was considered less responsible i f anything harmful should happen. These results were hardly surprising but what was of interest were the findings in the situation where, by design, the victim remained passive even when the protagonist grabbed his shirt front and threatened to punch him out. In comparison to scenes where the protagonist displayed more moderately aggressive be-haviour, subjects viewing the latter scene liked the protagonist more and f e l t his behaviour to be more just i f i e d . At the same time, they liked the victim less and f e l t him to be more responsible i f something harm-ful should happen. It is possible that the reversals in these judgements may be a type of backlash against the victim. At least two different factors may be responsible for this "backlash" effect. The f i r s t factor may be that of "suspected guilt". In the post-experimental interview several subjects mentioned that the protagonist probably would not have acted so strongly i f he was not sure of his accusation. This, coupled with the lack of vigorous protesting of innocence on the part of the victim, may have led some observers to 80 conclude that the v i c t i m was l e s s than innocent. The second possible explanation for the backlash e f f e c t may stem from the lack of s e l f defense on the part of the v i c t i m . In t h i s case, the reaction to the v i c t i m could have resulted from the l o g i c that those who refuse to reasonably defend themselves are responsible, at l e a s t i n part, for any harm that b e f a l l s them. A considerat ion of the r e s u l t s for the t h i r d dependent v a r i a b l e indicated that subjects f e l t the l i k e -l i h ood that the aggressor would a c t u a l l y harm the v i c t i m was very low (see Tables 3, 6, 7, 9, and 10). From the debriefing i t became apparent than many subjects considered the aggressor to be b l u f f i n g ; threatening i n order to scare the v i c t i m into giving back the wallet i f he had i t , but not l i k e l y to carry out the threat. Thus, subjects may have reacted against the v i c t i m for not taking a more a s s e r t i v e posture against what they considered to be a non-serious threat. On the other hand, i n our culture of violence there may well be a reaction against those people who, i n a s i t u a t i o n of personal danger, openly display t h e i r own non-violent stance. The extent of t h i s reaction should vary with the degree to which there a c t u a l l y e x i s t s a culture of violence and the degree to which i n d i v i d u a l s are s o c i a l i z e d into accepting t h i s norm. If t h i s l i n e of reasoning i s v a l i d , p a c i f i c i s m as a technique for generating public support should be l e s s e f f e c t i v e when the " p u b l i c " i s part of a v i o l e n t subculture or among members of the public who con-sider v i o l e n t action to be an acceptable approach to problem solving. A word of caution needs to be inserted f o r a l l would-be aggressors who might decide that i n the i n t e r e s t s of good public r e l a t i o n s i t would be best to proceed to a very aggressive stance against p a c i f i c i s t s , rather 81 than taking a more moderate position. The findings here suggest that even though a very aggressive stance by the protagonist may result in some "backlash"- against the passive victim, the victim was always considered in a much more favourable fashion than was the protagonist. The display of aggressive behaviour in i t s e l f , rather than the type or extent of the aggressive behaviour, appears to be the principle factor in e l i c i t i n g negative reactions from observers. One further comment is necessary concerning the overall outcome of the study. A central purpose of the present research was the attempt to develop some type of classification scheme linking the three major types of cues (implicit, explicit and nonverbal) and their combinations, to attributions of intent to harm. In essence, i t was an attempt to operationalize the concept of intent which is commonly used in definitions of aggression. Apart from the suggestion that nonverbal cues may be the most important cues governing attributions in general, this goal was not achieved. The general absence of significant results with respect to the basis upon which subjects make "intent-to-harm" judgements is inconsistent with the fact that such judgements are a common occurrence in everyday l i f e . This lack of correspondence between the research and subjective observations of l i f e may be the result of an ineffective manipulation of the independent variables, the inappropriate grouping of independent variables, or demand characteristics operating to obscure true outcomes. These problems w i l l be considered in the following paragraphs. The f i r s t problem concerns the appropriateness of the independent variables and their classification, since their relevance is largely a 82 p r o d u c t o f the p r e s e n t a u t h o r . A v a l i d a t i o n o f t h e i r u s e f u l n e s s i s r e q u i r e d , p a r t i c u l a r l y o f the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n scheme. For example, i t i s p o s s i b l e t h a t some o f the cues used i n the p r e s e n t s t u d y , l i k e t h a t o f i n t r u s i o n i n t o a n o t h e r ' s p e r s o n a l space, may r a r e l y p l a y a major r o l e i n i n t e n t to harm judgements. More i m p o r t a n t l y , a c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f T a b l e 1 i l l u s t r a t e s t h a t from the s u b j e c t s ' p e r c e p t i o n , the p r e s e n c e o f e x p l i c i t v e r b a l cues always e n t a i l e d the p r e s e n c e o f i m p l i c i t v e r b a l cues, even when the l a t t e r were e x p e r i m e n t a l l y o m i t t e d . Thus, i t was p o s s i b l e to produce the p e r c e p t i o n o f i m p l i c i t v e r b a l cues a l o n e but not. o f e x p l i c i t v e r b a l cues a l o n e . The o r i g i n a l i m p l i c i t / e x p l i c i t d i s t i n c t i o n i s t h e r e -f o r e s u b j e c t t o l i m i t a t i o n s . A second problem c o n c e r n s the m a n i p u l a t i o n checks used i n the s t u d y . A major d i f f i c u l t y l a y i n p r o d u c i n g scenes t h a t c o n t a i n e d o n l y t h o s e independent v a r i a b l e s d e s i g n e d to be i n c l u d e d i n t h a t scene. P a r t of t h i s d i f f i c u l t y was s o l v e d by the a c t u a l n a t u r e o f t h e l i n e s used by th e a c t o r s o r by h a v i n g the p r o t a g o n i s t t u r n s l i g h t l y away from the camera so t h a t n o n v e r b a l cues were not d i s c e r n a b l e i n s p e c i f i c scenes. Other problems, such as r e q u i r i n g t h e p r o t a g o n i s t to speak i n a l o u d e r t h a n normal v o i c e , were more d i f f i c u l t t o r e s o l v e . The scenes were c o r -r e c t l y r a t e d by o b s e r v e r s to c o n t a i n l o u d e r t h a n normal speech, but when t e s t e d by a soundmeter, t h e r e was v e r y l i t t l e d i f f e r e n c e i n d e c i b e l l e v e l s between scenes. I t seemed t h a t th e p r o t a g o n i s t c o u l d speak i n a f o r c e f u l tone o f v o i c e which o b j e c t i v e l y was no l o u d e r t h a n average but p s y c h o l o g i c a l l y appeared to be l o u d e r . T h i s i l l u s t r a t e s the type o f d i f f i c u l t y i n v o l v e d i n c l e a r l y e s t a b l i s h i n g the s u c c e s s f u l n e s s o f t h e man i p u l a t i o n s. 83 As w e l l , caution i n i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i s warranted by the f a c t that some r e s u l t s i n Phase 2 may have reached s i g n i f i c a n c e l a r g e l y due to the e f f e c t of the differences between the control group and the remaining groups. Since the c o n t r o l group consisted of only two subjects i t may have introduced a substantial sampling error into the r e s u l t s . The f i n a l set of d i f f i c u l t i e s to be considered may also r e f l e c t upon the general lack of s i g n i f i c a n t findings. The r e s u l t s discussed i n Appendix nine are consistent with the hypothesis that there were demand c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s operating i n the i n i t i a l c o n t r o l scene. These demand c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s caused subjects to judge the scene as being more aggres-sive i n content than a s i m i l a r n a t u r a l l y occurring non-acted scene. Thus, the c o n t r o l scene for t h i s study may have been l e s s than optimally e f f e c -t i v e . (The r e s u l t s contained under the subsidiary hypothesis of Phase 1 indicated that these demand c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s were not mediated through a difference i n realism between the scenes.) In future research there may be several ways of avoiding the problems discussed here. One approach would be to present to a large number of subjects, films depicting the sequence of events leading up to but not including an aggressive event. Subjects could then rate the degree of intent to harm displayed i n the f i l m and i n d i c a t e the type of cues upon which t h e i r r a t i n g was based by f i l l i n g i n a behaviour c h e c k l i s t analogous to the one used i n t h i s study (see Appendix 5). Through the use of factor analysis or multiple regression analysis i t may be possible to e s t a b l i s h an e m p i r i c a l l y based c l a s s i f i c a t i o n scheme f o r cues of intent to harm. The second suggestion i s that i s may be possible to avoid the 84 problems which were found in the attempted manipulations of the independent variables (the cues of intent to harm). One approach would be to sub-stitute in place of the acted scenes, written and/or cartoon descriptions of the events. Thus i t would be possible to establish clearly that the intended manipulations in fact took place. However, problems may s t i l l occur with subjects misperceiving the cues contained in a scene, thus necessitating an analysis based on the subjects' point of view. There may also be d i f f i c u l t y in generalizing the results to real l i f e situations. A f i n a l suggestion for avoiding the "manipulation problem" and any problems concerning the reality of the scenes, would be to follow the design of the present research, but use professional actors, film makers, and script writers. This could be an expensive approach to solving the problem. In summation, the present research attempted to study the rela-tionship between verbal and nonverbal cues of intent to harm, as portrayed by a protagonist towards a victim, and attributions of intent to harm, responsibility, j u s t i f i c a t i o n and affect made by third party observers of the scene. Some significant relationships were found, primarily between nonverbal cues or an increase in the overall number of cues, and attribu-tions of responsibility to the victim or jus t i f i c a t i o n to the protagonist, or judgements of positive affect for either victim or protagonist. Limitations and d i f f i c u l t i e s in interpreting the results were discussed. 85 References Aderman, D., Archer, R.L., & Har r i s , J.L. E f f e c t of emotional empathy on a t t r i b u t i o n of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . Journal of Personality, 1975, 43, (1), 156-167. Ardrey, R. The s o c i a l contract. New York: Atheneum, 1970. Argyle, M. The syntaxes of bodily communication. International Journal  of P s y c h o l i n g u i s t i c s , 1973, 2_, 71-91. Bandura, A. S o c i a l learning theory of aggression. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Co., 1973. Bandura, A., Ross, D., and Ross, S.A. Imitation of film-mediated aggres-sive models. Journal of Abnormal and S o c i a l Psychology, 1963, 66, 3-11. Barnett, S.A. Grouping and dispersive behaviour among wild r a t s . In S. G a r a t t i n i , & E.E. Sigg (Eds.), Aggressive Behaviour. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1969. Berkowitz, L. Aggression: A s o c i a l psychological a n a l y s i s . New York: McGraw H i l l Book Co., 1962. Berkowitz, L. The concept of aggressive drive: Some a d d i t i o n a l considera-tio n s . In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances i n experimental and s o c i a l psychology. New York: Academic Press, 1965. Berkowitz, L. The contagion of violence: an S.-R. mediational analysis of some e f f e c t s of observed aggression. In W.J. Arinold, & M.M. Page (Eds.), Nebraska symposium on motivation . L i n c o l n : U n i v e r s i t y of Nebraska Press, 1970. Bigelow, R. The evolution of cooperation, aggression, and s e l f - c o n t r o l . In J.K. Cole, & D.D. Jensen (Eds.), Nebraska symposium on motivation. 86 L i n c o l n : University of Nebraska Press, 1972. Boden, M.A. The structure of intentions. Journal f o r the theory of s o c i a l behaviour, 1973, 3_» 23-46. Buss, A.H. The psychology of aggression. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1961. Buss, A.H. Aggression pays. In J.L. Singer (Ed.), The control of aggres- s i o n and violence: cognitive and p h y s i o l o g i c a l f a c t o r s . New York: Academic Press, 1971. Cairns, R.B. Fighting and punishment from a developmental perspective. In J.K. Cole and D.D. Jensen (Eds.), Nebraska symposium on motiva- t i o n . Loncoln: U n i v e r s i t y of Nebraska Press, 1972. Carthy, J.D., & Ebling, F.J. (Eds.) The natural h i s t o r y of aggression. New York: Academic Press, 1964. Chevalier-Skolnikoff, S. F a c i a l expression of emotion i n nonhuman p r i -mates. In P. Ekman (Ed.), Darwin and f a c i a l expression. Academic Press: New York, 1973. Cohen, A.A. & Harrison, R.P. I n t e n t i o n a l i t y i n the use of hand i l l u s t r a -tors i n face-to-face communication s i t u a t i o n s . Journal of Person- a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology, 1973, 28, 276-279. Daveney, T.K. Intentional behaviour. Journal f o r the theory of s o c i a l  behaviour, 1974, h, 111-129. Davitz, J.R., & Davitz, L.J. Nonverbal vocal communication of f e e l i n g . The Journal of Communication, 1961, 2_, 81-86. De Charms, R. Personal causation: The i n t e r n a l a f f e c t i v e determinants  of behaviour. New York: Academic Press, 1968. 8 7 Delgado, J.M.R. Offensive-defensive behaviour in free monkeys and chim-panzees induced by radio stimulation of the brain. In S. Garattini, & E.B. Sigg (Eds.), Aggressive behaviour. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1 9 6 9 . De Monchaux, C. Hostility in small groups. In J.D. Carthy, & F.J. Ebling (Eds.), The natural history of aggression. New York: Academic Press, 1 9 6 4 . Dollard, J., Doob, L., Miller, N., Mowrer, 0 . , & Sears, R. Frustration  and aggression. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1 9 3 9 . Eibl-Eibesfelt, I. Ethology: The biology of behaviour. Toronto: Holt, Rhinehart and Winston, Inc., 1 9 7 0 . Eibl-Eibesfelt, I. Love and hate: The natural history of behaviour pat- terns. NBW York: Holt, Rhinehart and Winston, 1 9 7 1 . Ekman, P. Differential communication of affect by head and body cues. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1 9 6 5 , 2 ,^ 7 2 6 - 7 3 5 . Ekman, P. Universals and cultural differences in fa c i a l expressions of emotion. In J.K. Cole (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation. Loncoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1 9 7 1 . Ekman, P. Cross-cultural studies of f a c i a l expression. In P. Ekman (Ed.), Darwin and f a c i a l expression. Academic Press: New York, 1 9 7 3 . Ekman, P., & Friesen, W.V. The repertoire of nonverbal behaviour: cate-gories, origins, useage, and coding. Semiotica, 1 9 6 9 , 1_, 4 9 - 9 8 . Ekman, P., Friesen, W.V., & Ellsworth, P. Emotion in the human face: Guidelines for research and an integration of findings. Toronto; Pergamon Press Inc., 1 9 7 2 . 88 Ekman, P., Sorenson, R.E., & Friesen, W.V. Pan-cultural elements i n f a c i a l displays of emotion. Science, 1969, 164, 86-88. E l e f t h e r i o u , B.E., & Scott, J.P. The physiology of aggression and defeat. New York: Plenum Press, 1971. Epstein, S., & Taylor, S.P. I n s t i g a t i o n to aggression as a function of degree of defeat and perceived aggressive intent of the opponent. Journal of Personality, 1967, 35, 265-289. Feshbach, S. The function of aggression and the regulation of the aggres-sive drive. Psychological Review, 1964, 7_1_, 257-272. Feshbach^ s. Aggression. In P.H. Mussen (Ed.), Carmichael's manual of c h i l d psychology. Toronto: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1970. Feshbach, S., & Feshbachj N. Influence of the stimulus object upon the complimentary and supplementary p r o j e c t i o n of fear. Journal of Abnormal and S o c i a l Psychology, 1963, 66, 498-502. Feshbach, S., & Singer, R.D. The e f f e c t s of fear arousal and suppression of fear upon s o c i a l perception. Journal of Abnormal and S o c i a l Psychology, 1957, 55, 283-288. Feshbach, S., Singer, R.D., & Feshbach, N. E f f e c t s of anger arousal and s i m i l a r i t y upon the a t t r i b u t i o n of h o s t i l i t y to p i c t o r i a l s t i m u l i . Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1963, 27_, 248-252. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. A t t r i b u t i o n of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y : A t h e o r e t i c a l note. Journal of Experimental S o c i a l Psychology,* 1973 148-153. Freedman, N., Blass, T., R i f k i n , A., & Quitkin, F. Body movements and the verbal encoding of aggressive a f f e c t . Journal of Personality and S o c i a l Psychology, 1973, 26, 72-85. 89 Gianutsos, J . Brain t r i g g e r s toward war? In E. Tobach, J . Gianutsos, H. Topoff, & C.G. Gross, The four horsemen: Racism, sexism, m i l i - tarism, and s o c i a l darwinism. New York: Behavioural Publ i c a t i o n s , 1974. Greenwell, J . , & Dengerink, H.A. The r o l e of perceived versus actual attack i n human ph y s i c a l aggression. Journal of Personality and  S o c i a l Psychology, 1973, 2_6, 66-71. Gutkin, D.C. An analysis of the concept of moral i n t e n t i o n a l i t y . Human  development, 1973, .16, 371-381. H a l l , K.R.L. Aggression i n monkey and ape s o c i e t i e s . In J.D. Carthy, & F.J. Ebling (Eds.), The natural h i s t o r y of aggression. New York: Academic Press, 1964. Heider, F. The psychology of interpersonal r e l a t i o n s . New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1958. Hess, E.H. Ethology: An approach toward the complete a n a l y s i s of behaviour. In R. Brown, E. Galanter, E. Hess, & G. Mandler, New d i r e c t i o n s i n  psychology 1. Toronto: Holt, Rhinehart, & Winston, 1962. I l f i e l d , F.W. Overview of the causes and prevention of violence. Arch- ives of General Psychiatry, 1969, 2_0, 675-689. Johnson, R.N. Aggression i n man and animals. Toronto: W.B. Saunders Co., 1972. Kahn, M.W., & Kirk, W.E. The concepts of aggression: A review and r e -formulation. Psychological Record, 1968, 1_8, 559-573. Karczmar, A.G., & Scudder, C L . Aggression and neurochemical changes i n d i f f e r e n t s t r a i n s and genera of mice. In S. G a r f i e l d and E.B. Sigg (Eds.), Aggressive behaviour. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 90 Inc., 1969. Kaufmann, H. Aggression and altruism. Toronto: Holt, Rhinehart & Win-ston, Inc., 1970. Keppel, G. Design and an a l y s i s : A researchers' handbook. Englewood C l i f f s , New Jersey: P r e n t i c e - H a l l , 1973. Kermani, E.J. Aggression - bi o p h y s i c a l aspects. Diseases of the Nervous System, 1969, 30, 407-414. Klineberg, 0. S o c i a l psychology. New York: Henry Holt & Co., 1954. Knutson, J.F. Aggression as manipulatable behaviour. In J.F. Knutson (Ed.), The con t r o l of aggression, Chicago: Aldine Publishing Co., 1973. Linn, L. Another view. In H.Z. Winnik, R. Moses, & M. Oston (Eds.), Psychological bases of war. New York: Quadrangle Books, Inc., 1973. Lorenz, K. On aggression, London:, Methuen & Co., Ltd., 1967. M a s e l l i , M.D., & A l t r o c c h i , J . A t t r i b u t i o n of intent. Psychological Bul- l e t i n , 1969, 71, 445-454. McDougall, W. An o u t l i n e of psychology. London: Methuen & Co.., Ltd., 1933. M c K i l l i p , J . , & Posavac, E.M. Judgements of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r an accident. Journal of Personality , 1975, 43(2), 248-265. Medway, F.J., & Lowe, C A . E f f e c t s of outcome valence and se v e r i t y on a t t r i b u t i o n of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . Psychological Reports, 1975, _36 (1), 239-246. Melbin, M. Some issues i n nonverbal communication. Semiotica, 1974, 10, 293-304. 91 Moyer, K.E. Internal impulses to aggression. Transactions New York  Academy of Sciences, 1968, _31, 104-114. (a) Moyer, K.E. Kinds of aggression and t h e i r physhiological basis. Com- munications i n Behavioural Biology, 1968, Part A, %, 65-87.(b) Moyer, K.E. The physiology of aggression and the implications f o r aggres-sion c o n t r o l . In J.L. Singer (Ed.), The control of aggression and  violence: cognitive and p h y s i o l o g i c a l f a c t o r s . New York: Academic Press, 1971.(a) Moyer, K.E. A preliminary p h y s i o l o g i c a l model of aggressive behaviour. In B.E. E l e f t h e r i o u , & J.P. Scott (Eds.), The physiology of aggres- sion and defeat. New York: Plenum Press, 1971<b) Moyer, K.E. The p h y s i o l o g i c a l i n h i b i t i o n of h o s t i l e behaviour. In J.F. Knutson (Ed.), The co n t r o l of aggression. Chicago: Aldine Pub-l i s h i n g Co., 1973. Murray, H.A. The e f f e c t of fear upon estimates of the mailiciousness of other p e r s o n a l i t i e s . Journal of S o c i a l Psychology , 1933, 4_, 310-329. Ni c k e l , T.W. The a t t r i b u t i o n of i n t e n t i o n as a c r i t i c a l f a c t o r i n the r e l a t i o n between f r u s t r a t i o n and aggression. Journal of Personality, 1974, 42, 482-492. Olweus, D. Personality and aggression. In J.K. Cole, & D.D. Jensen (Eds.), Nebraska symposium on motivation. Loncoln: U n i v e r s i t y of Nebraska Press, 1972. Patterson, G.R., & Cobb, J.A. Stimulus c o n t r o l f o r classes of noxious behaviours. In J.F. Knutson (Ed.), The control of aggression. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Co., 1973. Phares, E.J., & Lamiell, J.T. Internal-external c o n t r o l , interpersonal 92 judgements of others i n need, and a t t r i b u t i o n of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . Journal of Personality , 1975, 43(1), 23-28. Phares, E.J., & Wilson, K.G. R e s p o n s i b i l i t y a t t r i b u t i o n s : r o l e of out-come sev e r i t y , s i t u a t i o n a l ambiguity, and i n t e r n a l - e x t e r n a l c o n t r o l . Journal of Personality, 1972, 40, 392-406. Phares, E.J., Wilson, K.G., & Klyver, N.W. Internal-external c o n t r o l and the a t t r i b u t i o n of blame under neutral and d i s t r a c t i v e conditions. Journal of Personality and S o c i a l Psychology , 1971, LS_, 285-288. Poyatos, F. Gesture inventories.: Fieldwork methodology and problems. Semiotica, 1975, 13(2), 199-227. Robinson, B.W. Aggression: A summary and overview. In B.E. E l e f t h e r i o u , & J.P. Scott (Eds.), The physiology of aggression and defeat. New York: Plenum Press, 1971. Ruesch, J . , & Kees, W. Nonverbal communication. Los Angeles: U n i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a Press, 1956. Russell, C., & R u s s e l l , W.M.S. Violence, monkeys and man. Toronto: Mac-mi l l a n Co., Ltd., 1968. S c h e f l i n , A.E. Body language and the s o c i a l order. Englewood C l i f f s , N.J.: P r e n t i c e - H a l l Inc., 1972. Scott, J.P. Aggression. Chicago: Un i v e r s i t y of Chicago Press, 1958. Sears, R.R., Maccoby, E.E., & Levin, H. Patterns of c h i l d rearing. New York: Row, Peterson & Co., 1957. Seligman, C , Paschall, N. , & Takata, G. E f f e c t s of p h y s i c a l a t t r a c t i v e -ness on a t t r i b u t i o n of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . Canadian Journal of Be- havioural Science, 1974, 6_(3) , 290-296. 93 S h o r t e l l , J . , Epstein, S., & Taylor, S.P. I n s t i g a t i o n to aggression as a function of degree of defeat and the capacity for massive r e t a l i a -t i o n . Journal of Personality, 1970, 38, 313-328. S o l n i t , A.L. Some aspects of children's aggressive behaviour during states of i l l n e s s and recovery. In H.Z. Winnik, R. Moses, & M. Ostow (Eds.), Psychological bases of war. New York: Quadrangle Books, Inc., 1973. Staub, E. The learning and unlearning of aggression: The r o l e of anxiety, empathy, e f f i c a c y , and p r o s o c i a l values. In J.L. Singer (Ed.), The control of aggression and violence: cognitive and p h y s i o l o g i c a l  fa c t o r s . New York: Academic Press, 1971. Storr, A. Human aggression. Balitmore; Maryland: Penguin Books Inc., 1968. Sulzer, J.L., & Burglass, R.K. R e s p o n s i b i l i t y a t t r i b u t i o n , empathy, and punitiveness. Journal of Personality, 1968, 36_, 272-282. U l r i c h , R., & Symannek, B. Pain as a stimulus f o r aggression. In B. G a r a t t i n i , & E.B. Sigg (Eds.), Aggressive behaviour. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1969. Vernon, W.M. Animal aggression: Review of research. Genetic Psychology  Monographs, 1969, 80, 3-28. Washburn, S.L., & Hamburg, D.A. Aggressive behaviour i n o l d world monkeys and apes. In P.C. Jay (Ed.), Primates: Studies i n adaptation and  v a r i a b i l i t y . Toronto: Holt, Rhinehart and Winston, 1968. Zadney, J . , and Gerard, H.B. A t t r i b u t e d intentions and informational s e l -e c t i v i t y . Journal of Experimental S o c i a l Psychology, 1974, 10, 34-52. 94 APPENDIX 1 : ACTING INSTRUCTIONS Acting Instructions to Persons X and Y Person X w i l l be the person displaying the aggressive cues and w i l l be standing throughout the scene. Person Y w i l l be the person seated throughout the scene. It w i l l be explained to persons X and Y that I am studying the cues which people use to infer intent to harm (aggression) in others, and the related judgements concerning responsibility, j u s t i f i c a t i o n , etc. They w i l l then be told about the verbal and nonverbal cues and the fact that they w i l l need to act the same scene eight times with person X putting in different specific sets of cues each time. There w i l l be no actual aggres-sion taking place. Cues The following types of cues w i l l be used: Implicit verbal - accusation of wrong doing - increase in voice loudness - increase in emphatic vocabulary Explicit verbal - three direct threats of intent to harm Nonverbal - f a c i a l anger - movement toward and particularly close to another person - explicit physical ithreat- raised f i s t . 95 Scenes Control Scene The control scene w i l l also act as the standard introduction for. each of the seven experimental scenes. A l l scenes w i l l take place with person X walking into a small seminar room where person Y i s seated at a table. Person X had l e f t the room a short time ago and is very certain that he has accidently l e f t his wallet in the room. The wallet had a large amount of money in i t . Person X should look for his wallet and ask person Y i f he's seen i t or found i t . Person X and person Y are just ac-quaintances, they've seen each other before and were in the room together earlier. Person X i s not able to find his wallet nor the money. Restrictions: In this scene person Y must remain seated at a l l times. Person X must speak with his voice at a normal level and cannot use strong emphatic words like swear words. Person X i s simply looking an does not accuse person Y either verbally or through body language (which includes not moving too close to person Y). Scene A - Implicit Verbal Control scene plus an (one) accusation by person X that person Y probably took the wallet. The voice of person X should become loud (shouting) and he should use swear words. Restrictions: No explicit verbal nor nonverbal cues to be used. Person X cannot display fac i a l or body cues of anger, the face must be "bland" when shouting. 96 Scene B - Explicit Verbal Control scene plus three direct threats by person X that he w i l l harm person Y. Restrictions: Person X can use no implicit or nonverbal cues. This means no fa c i a l or body cues of anger and no increase in voice level when making the accusations. Scene C - Nonverbal Control scene plus person X says nothing but becomes very angry, moves very close to person Y and threatens him with a f i s t . Restrictions: person X does not speak after the control scene. Scene AB - Implicit and explicit verbal Control scene, then A, then B. In keeping with a normal situation when person X i s doing scene B the voice should remain loud. Restrictions: Person X should display no nonverbal cues such as fac i a l or body cues of anger. Scene AC - Implicit verbal and nonverbal Control scene, then A, then C. Facial anger cues can start during the time of scene A. Restrictions: no explicit verbal threats by person X. 97 Scene BC - Explicit verbal and nonverbal Control scene, then B, then C. Facial anger cues can start during the time of scene B. Restrictions: There can be no raise in the voice level of person X when making the verbal statements under part B. Scene ABC - Implicit, explicit verbal and nonverbal Control scene, then A, then B, then C. This scene w i l l be shot second (following the shooting of the control scene). It w i l l be used to define the normal actions and lines of the two actors. These same actions and lines w i l l then be used throughout the other scenes. It i s important that person Y respond in the same fashion to person X across a l l the scenes. The end of each scene w i l l be person Y's f i n a l denial of having the wallet. 98 APPENDIX 2 : SCRIPT IMPROVISATION BY ACTORS Script Improvisations by Persons X and Y Control Scene (X walks into the room, goes over to the table to the right of where Y is s i t t i n g and looks around the table for his wallet.) X: Excuse me, have you seen a wallet? Y: (Looks up) No, I haven't seen one. X: Are you sure? Y: Ya, I'm sure. X: (Walks aroung table to end by camera, looks around table, moves to edge of table 2 feet from Y.) Was there anyone else in the room? Y: No, j.ust me. X: (Very disappointed voice) Oh no! There was a lot of money in that wallet. (X's voice level, normal at a l l times, not raised. X's body movements rather placid'overall; avoid leaning forward for emphasis during last couple of lines.) (Y always reacts in a neutral fashion, not helpful, not antagonistic.) Scene ABC Implicit & Explicit Verbal & Nonverbal Control scene then: (Pause) X: (looks around table immediately in front of him, voice raising, may use body and faci a l cues of anger) Christ, you were the only 99 one in the room! Are you sure you haven't seen it? Y: I haven't seen i t . X: (loud voice, angry face) You fucking thief, you must have that goddamn wallet! Y: No, I don't have i t . X: (loud voice, angry face and body cues) If you've got i t , you're in trouble! I ' l l shove that stupid grin down your throat! Y: I haven't-., got i t . X: (steps very close to Y and grabs his shirt) If you're lying, I ' l l k i l l you! Y: I told you I haven't got i t . Scene AC Implicit Verbal & Nonverbal Control scene then: (Pause) X: (Looks around table immediately in front of him, voice raising, may use body and fa c i a l cues of anger) Christ, you were the only one in the room! Are you sure you haven't seen.it? Y: I haven't seen i t . X: (loud voice, angry face) You fucking thief, you must have that goddamn wallet! (X then steps very close to Y and grabs his shirt.) Y: I told you I haven't got i t . 100 Scene BC Explicit Verbal & Nonverbal Control scene then: (X looks around table immediately in front of him, not moving his position, standing upright, hands on hips, face gets angry but voice calm.) X: If you've got i t , you're in trouble! I ' l l shove that stupid grin down your throat! Y: I haven't got i t . X: If you're lying, I ' l l k i l l ya! (face angry, but voice calm; steps very close to Y and grabs his shirt). Y: I told you I haven't got i t . Scene C Nonverbal Control scene then: X says nothing, looks around the table some more (not moving his position), his face becomes angry, brows down, eyes narrowed, mouth clenched. Glances toward Y, then looks under some papers on the table becoming more.angry, looks back at Y, pauses then steps very close to Y and grabs his shirt. Y: I told you I haven't got i t . (The situation being protrayed i s one of threat, X i s threatening Y by moving very close and grabbing his shirt.) Scene A Implicit Verbal Control scene then: (Pause) (looks around table immediately in front of him) X: (standing upright, hands on hips, not moved from end of table, no 101 f a c i a l or body cues of anger, voice raising.) Christ, you were the only one in the room. Are you sure you haven't seen it? Y: I haven't seen i t . X: (standing as before, no f a c i a l or body cues, voice very loud) You fucking thief, you must have that goddamn wallet! Y: No, I don't have i t . Scene B Explicit Verbal Control scene then: (X looks around table immediately:in front of him, not moving his position, calm voice, no f a c i a l or body cues of anger, standing upright, hands on hips..) X: If you've got i t , you're in trouble! I ' l l shove that stupid grin down your throat! Y: I haven't got i t . X: (calm voice, no f a c i a l or body cues, etc.) If you're lying, I ' l l k i l l ya! Y: I told you, I haven't got i t . Scene AB Implicit & Explicit Verbal Control scene then: (Pause) X: .(standing upright, hands on hips, not moved from end of table, no f a c i a l or body cues of anger, voice raising, looks around table im-mediately in front of him.) Christ, you were the only-one. .in the 102 room.1 Are you sure you haven't seen it? Y: I haven't seen i t . X: (standing as before, no facia l or body cues, voice loud) You fucking thief, you must have that goddamn wallet. Y: No, I don't have i t . X: (loud voice, no fa c i a l or.body cues) If you've got i t , you're in trouble.' I ' l l shove that stupid grin down your throat! Y: I haven't got i t . X: ( s t i l l standing upright, avoid leaning forward,.hands s t i l l on hips, not moved from end of table, no faci a l or body cues of anger, loud voice) If you're lying, I ' l l k i l l ya! Y: I.told you I haven't got i t . Natural Control Scene Both individuals enter the room together, take.seats, read an instruction sheet, then chat small talk. Both when interviewed later were unaware of being videotaped nor suspected that they were being observed. APPENDIX 3 : FILMING CHARACTERISTICS FOR EXPERIMENTAL AND NATURAL VIDEOTAPE SCENES Filming C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s f o r Experimental and Natural Videotape Scenes C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s Experimental Scene Natural Scene 1. Camera f stop 4 1.8 2. Camera magnification 12.5 12.5 3. Camera focus 7 f t . 8 f t . (2.13 m.) (2.44 m.) 4. Camera distance to actors/ 6% f t . - 13^ f t . 10 f t . - 11 f t . candid subjects. (1.98 m. - 4.11 m.) (3.05 m. - 3.35 m.) 5. Distance between pickup mike and actors/candid 3 f t . - 9 f t . 7 f t . - 9 f t . subjects. (.91 m. - 2.74 m.). (2.13 m. - 2.74 m.) 6. Distance between protagonist and v i c t i m (before stepping closer) or between the two 2\ f t . 3 f t . candid subjects. (.76 m.) (.91 m.) 7. Protagonist — height and 5'8", 165 l b . approx. 6', 190 l b . weight (1.73m., 75kg) (1.83m., 86.4kg.) 8. Victim — height and weight 5'9", 142 l b . approx. 5'9", 160 l b . (1.75 m., 64.5 kg) (1.75 m. , 72.7kg.) 104 APPENDIX 4 : INSTRUCTIONS TO SUBJECTS Instructions I have been doing some research on person perception (which i s the way people see each other) and I am interested i n studying the perception of behaviours displayed between people i n a s o c i a l s i t u a t i o n . The present study i s very straight-forward and what I would l i k e you to do i s to watch t h i s very short (about 40-50 seconds long) video-tape scene of two persons i n t e r a c t i n g i n a classroom. In the s i t u a t i o n , one person i s standing and walks into the room and one person i s seated at a table i n the room. (For subjects observing the natural c o n t r o l scenes, i n place of the previous sentence i n s e r t the following: In the s i t u a t i o n , both people come into the room and then s i t down, one on the l e f t and the other on the r i g h t . ) I w i l l only play i t through once so watch i t very c a r e f u l l y please. Then I w i l l ask you to f i l l i n a short questionnaire at the end and that's a l l there i s to i t . 105 APPENDIX 5 : QUESTIONNAIRES GIVEN TO SUBJECTS VIEWING THE EIGHT ACTED SCENES Questionnaire Age: Marital Status: Education: Present Job: Part A In f i l l i n g out this questionnaire try to answer in the fashion that you would i f you had just seen the situation really taking place. For a l l questions, except #4, indicate your response by drawing a line crossing the scale line at the point which corresponds to your judgement of the degree of that item. Example: I like apples. DISAGREE AGREE This indicates a strong degree of agreement. ' Questions 1. Rate the degree to which you think the person standing in the scene may be indicating that he i s intending to harm the person sitting. NO INTENTION FULLY 2. Rate the degree of confidence which you have in making the judgement in question #1. AT ALL INTENTIONAL NO CONFIDENCE AT ALL TOTALLY CONFIDENT 106 3. In t h i s s i t u a t i o n , rate the l i k e l i h o o d that the person standing would harm the person seated. NO LIKELIHOOD COMPLETELY AT ALL LIKELY 4 . Remembering that sometimes people get hurt a c c i d e n t a l l y , i f the person seated was harmed by the person standing do you think that i t would be: (a) i n t e n t i o n a l or (b) accidental? 5. If harm to the person seated did occur at the end of the scene, indi c a t e the degree of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y that the person standing would have for the harm that occurred. NO RESPONSIBILITY TOTALLY AT ALL RESPONSIBLE 6. If harm to the person seated did occur at the end of that scene, i n -dicate the degree of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y that the person seated would have fo r the harm that occurred. NO RESPONSIBILITY TOTALLY AT ALL RESPONSIBLE 7. Indicate the degree to which you f e e l that the behaviour of the person standing was j u s t i f i e d i n t h i s s i t u a t i o n . NO JUSTIFICATION ' TOTALLY AT ALL JUSTIFIED 8. Indicate your f e e l i n g s toward the person standing. VERY NEGATIVE VERY POSITIVE 107 9. Indicate your feelings toward the person seated. VERY NEGATIVE VERY POSITIVE 10. How r e a l i s t i c was the scene? NOT REALISTIC AT ALL TOTALLY REALISTIC 108 Instructions for Behaviour Checklist (See following page) In t h i s second part of the questionnaire I would l i k e you to place a checkmark beside the behaviour or behaviours which you think that the person standing displayed i n t h i s s i t u a t i o n . A f t e r you have placed a checkmark i n the yes column beside a behaviour, please write i n the s p e c i f i c behaviour or behaviours that you saw or the words that you heard. For example, i f i n the videoscene the person standing accused the person seated of going through a red l i g h t , then you place a check mark i n the yes column beside #1. To the r i g h t of that you would write: "Accused him of going through a red l i g h t . " It i s important to note that e i t h e r none, some or a l l of the behaviours l i s t e d on the next page may be i n t h i s scene. Also you w i l l n otice that question #8 concerns the person seated. While we are p r i m a r i l y i n t e r e s t e d i n the person standing, i f you did observe the person seated using any of the behaviours please j o t t h e i r number down i n the appropriate place. If the person seated did not use any of the behaviours then j u s t place a checkmark i n the No column and leave the second part blank. 109 Part B Behaviour Checklist NO YES I f yes, s p e c i f i c behaviour seen/words heard 1. Person standing accuses person seated of doing something wrong or i l l e g a l . 2. Person standing r a i s e s h i s voice l e v e l above normal, shouts, or speaks i n a very f o r c e f u l tone of voice. 3. Person standing uses emphatic vocabulary, strong language or words. 4. Person standing v e r b a l l y threatens the person seated, uses threatening words or makes threats against the person seated. 5. Person standing shows f a c i a l anger. 6. Person standing moves extremely close to the person s i t t i n g , very much cl o s e r than normal t a l k i n g distance. 7. Person standing p h y s i c a l l y threatens the person seated, uses p h y s i c a l movements to ind i c a t e threat. 8. Did the person seated display any of the above behaviours? If yes, which behaviours? APPENDIX 6 : QUESTIONNAITE GIVEN TO SUBJECTS VIEWING THE NATURAL CONTROL SCENE ( For Determining Questionnaire Effects ) 110 Questionnaire Age: Marital Status: Education:, Present Job: In f i l l i n g out this questionnaire try to answer in the fashion that you would i f you had j.ust seen the situation really taking place. For a l l questions, indicate your response by drawing a line crossing the scale line at the point which corresponds to your judgement of the degree of that item. Example: I like apples. DISAGREE / AGREE + This indicates a strong degree of agreement. Questions 1. Rate the degree to which you feel that the two people know each other. Total Very Close Strangers Friends 2 . How r e a l i s t i c was the scene? Not Realistic Totally At a l l Realistic 3. In terms of personality, how would you rate the two individuals on the characteristics of responsibility and honesty or openness? (continued on next page) I l l 3. continued. The person seated on the l e f t : Very I r re spons ib le T o t a l l y . . Responsible Dishonest V e r y H o n e s t C o v e r s U P For thr igh t The person seated on the r i g h t : Very I r re spons ib le T o t a l l y Responsible Dishonest V e r y H o n e s t C o v e r s U P . For thr igh t 4. Indicate your f ee l ings toward the person seated on the l e f t . Very Negative V e r y P o s l t i v e 5. Indicate your f ee l ings towards the person seated on the r i g h t . Very Negative Very P o s i t i v e 112 APPENDIX 7 : QUESTIONNAIRE GIVEN TO SUBJECTS VIEWING THE NATURAL CONTROL SCENE ( For Determining Acting Effects ) Questionnaire Age: Marital Status: Education: Present Job: Part A In f i l l i n g out this questionnaire try to answer in the fashion that you would i f you had just seen the situation taking place. For a l l questions, except #4, indicate your response by drawing a line crossing the scale line at the point which corresponds to your judgement of the degree of that item. Example: I lik e apples. DISAGREE _ji ( AGREE This indicates a strong degree of agreement. Questions 1. Rate the degree to which you think the person seated on the l e f t may be indicating that he in intending to harm the person seated on the right. NO INTENTION FULLY AT ALL INTENTIONAL 2. Rate the degree of confidence which you have in making the judgement in question #1. NO CONFIDENCE TOTALLY AT ALL CONFIDENT In this situation, rate the likelihood that the person seated on the l e f t would harm the person seated on the right. NO LIKELIHOOD COMPLETELY AT ALL , LIKELY Remembering that sometimes people get hurt accidentally, i f the person on the right was harmed by the person on the l e f t do you think that i t would be: (a) intentional or (b) accidental? If harm to the person seated on the right did occur at the end of the scene, indicate the degree of responsibility that the person seated on the l e f t would have for the harm that occurred. NO RESPONSIBILITY TOTALLY AT ALL RESPONSIBLE If harm to the person on the right did occur at the end of that scene, indicate the degree of responsibility that the person on the right would have for the harm that occurred. NO RESPONSIBILITY TOTALLY AT ALL RESPONSIBLE Indicate the degree to which you feel that the behaviour of the person on the l e f t was j u s t i f i e d in this situation. NO JUSTIFICATION TOTALLY AT ALL JUSTIFIED Indicate your feelings toward the person on the left;:, VERY NEGATIVE VERY POSITIVE Inidcate your feelings toward the person on the right. VERY NEGATIVE ' VERY POSITIVE 114 How r e a l i s t i c was the scene? NOT REALISTIC AT ALL TOTALLY REALISTIC 115 Instructions f o r Behaviour Checklist (See following page) In t h i s second part of the questionnaire I would l i k e you to place a checkmark beside the behaviour or behaviours which you think that the person seated on the l e f t displayed i n t h i s s i t u a t i o n . A f t e r you have placed a checkmark i n the yes column beside a behaviour, please write i n the s p e c i f i c behaviour or behaviours that you saw or the words that you heard. For example, i f i n the videoscene the person on the l e f t accused the person on the r i g h t of going through a red l i g h t , then you would place a checkmark i n the yes column beside #1. To the r i g h t of that you would write: "accused him of going through a red l i g h t " . It i s important to note that e i t h e r none, some or a l l of the behavi-ours l i s t e d on :the next page may be i n t h i s scene. Also you w i l l n otice that question #8 concerns the person seated on the r i g h t . While we are p r i m a r i l y i n t e r e s t e d i n the person on the l e f t , i f you d i d observe the person on the right using any of the behaviours please j o t t h e i r number down.in the appropriate place. If the person on the r i g h t did not use any of the behaviours then j u s t place a checkmark i n the No column and leave the second part blank. 116 Part B Behaviour Checklist NO YES I f yes, s p e c i f i c behaviour(s) seen or words heard. 1. Person seated on the l e f t accuses person on the r i g h t of doing something wrong or i l l e g a l . , 2. Person on the l e f t r a i s e s h i s voice l e v e l above normal, shouts, or speaks i n a very f o r c e f u l tone of voice. 3. Person on the l e f t uses emphatic vocabulary, strong language or words. 4. Person seated on the l e f t v e r b a l l y threatens the person on the r i g h t , uses threatening words or makes threats against the person on the r i g h t . 5. Person on the l e f t shows f a c i a l anger. 6. Person on the l e f t moves extremely close to the person on the r i g h t , very much cl o s e r than normal t a l k i n g distance. 7. Person on the l e f t p h y s i c a l -l y threatens the person on the r i g h t , uses p h y s i c a l movements to i n d i c a t e threats. 8. Did the person seated on the r i g h t display any of the above behaviours? I f yes, which behaviours? 117 APPENDIX 8 .: EXPLANATION OF DIFFERENCES IN TREND ANALYSES SUM OF SQUARES In the trend analyses, differences occur between the summation of the sums of squares of the l i n e a r , quadratic and cubic components, and the sums of squares obtained f o r the main e f f e c t . For example, with respect to DV1, the a t t r i b u t i o n of intent to harm, the main e f f e c t sum of squares = 44.07, whereas the summation of the l i n e a r , quadratic and cubic sum of squares = 55.37. This difference i s due to the fa c t that the main e f f e c t was derived through the use of weighted means i n the ANOVA, whereas the components approach used a harmonic mean (unweighted means approach) i n c a l c u l a t i n g the sums of squares. The following i s a demonstration of the equivalence of the S.S. when using an harmonic mean.* DV1: Enj (X. - X " ) 2 = 44.07 ^ E ( l i n e a r , quadratic, & cubic S.S.) Substituting the harmonic mean n, where n = a E C U S . ) and a = number of groups and S^ = number of subjects/groups nE(X. - X - - ) 2 = 15 [(4.53 - 5.85) + (5.44 - 5.85) + (6.29 - 5.85) + (7.11 - 5.85)] 2 = 55.69 - E ( l i n . , quad., & Cubic S.S. - 55.37) The equations used f o r the trend analyses with unequal sample sizes were found i n Keppel (1973). data a v a i l a b l e from Figure 5. 118 APPENDIX 9 : POST-HOC COMPARISONS FOR DEMAND CHARACTERISTICS Comments made by the subjects during the study l e d the experimenter to believe that there were demand c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s operating i n the i n i t i a l c o n t r o l scene. These demand c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s may have caused subjects to rate the i n i t i a l c o n t r o l scene as being more aggressive i n content than a second n a t u r a l l y occurring control scene. This reasoning l e d to the hypo-thesis that i f the i n i t i a l c ontrol scene was viewed as being more aggres-sive th^n the natural control scene, then there should exist a consistent pattern of differences i n the a t t r i b u t i o n s and judgements made between subjects viewing the i n i t i a l control scene (group 1) and subjects viewing the natural control scene (group 10). S p e c i f i c a l l y , the group seeing the more aggressive scene (group 1) should make stronger a t t r i b u t i o n s than the second group (group 10) on the following dependent v a r i a b l e s : a stronger a t t r i b u t i o n to the protagonist of intent to harm (DV1); a stronger judge-ment concerning the l i k e l i h o o d of harm occurring (DV3); an increase i n the number of judgements of i n t e n t i o n a l harm, i f harm occurred (DV4).; an increase i n the a t t r i b u t i o n of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to the protagonist (DV5); and, an increase i n p o s i t i v e a f f e c t f o r the v i c t i m (DV9). At the same time, subjects seeing the more aggressive scene (group 1) should make weaker a t t r i b u t i o n s than subjects seeing the l e s s aggressive scene (group 10), on the following dependent v a r i a b l e s : l e s s a t t r i b u t i o n of responsi-b i l i t y to the vi c t i m , i f harm occurred (DV6); a judgement of the prota-gonist being l e s s j u s t i f i e d i n his behaviour (DV7); and, a lower degree of p o s i t i v e a f f e c t f o r the protagonist (DV8). These predictions were analyzed by conducting a s e r i e s of t - t e s t s be-tween groups 1 and 10 on the eight relevant dependent v a r i a b l e s . The r e s u l t s 119 are shown i n Table A. The r e s u l t s i n Table A confirm the predictions made f o r dependent va r i a b l e s 1, 5, 7, 8, and 9. Thus, the subjects i n group 1 who may have watched a more aggressive scene than the subjects i n group 10, a t t r i b u t e d more r e s p o n s i b i l i t y and more intent to harm to the protagonist and f e l t the protagonists' behaviour to be l e s s j u s t i f i e d . They also l i k e d the v i c -tim more and l i k e d the protagonist l e s s than did subjects i n group 10. The trends for dependent v a r i a b l e s 3 and 6, the l i k e l i h o o d of harm occurring and the a t t r i b u t i o n of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to the v i c t i m , were i n the predicted d i r e c t i o n but did not reach s i g n i f i c a n c e . In contrast, one r e s u l t was s i g n i f i c a n t and contrary to the p r e d i c t i o n . The subjects i n group 10, who may have viewed a l e s s aggressive scene than the subjects i n group 1, agreed more often with the statement that i f harm occurred i n the s i t u -a t i o n i t was l i k e l y to be i n t e n t i o n a l . With the exception of t h i s one contrary outcome, the o v e r a l l pattern of r e s u l t s supports the b e l i e f that there were demand c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s present i n the i n i t i a l c ontrol scene which caused i t to be viewed as more aggressive i n content than a com-parable natural c o n t r o l scene. 120 Table A t-tests for Demand Characteristics a a b e Dependent Group 1 Group 10 t.value £ Variable EX EX 2 EX EX 2 1 a t t r i b u t i o n of intent 45.3 250.43 14.2 64.28 3.11 <.005 3 l i k e l i h o o d of harm occurring 42.1 242.15 22.9 100.69 1.71. n.s. 4 judged inten-t i o n a l i f harm occurs 4 4 8 8 1.90 :<.05 5 r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of protagonist 75.8 633.04 20.6 85.16 5.21 <.0005 6 r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of v i c t i m 35.5 277.81 57.8 396.24 1.45 n.s. 7 j u s t i f i c a t i o n of protagonist 40.2 231.72 70.1 527.89 2.74 <.01 8 p o s i t i v e a f f e c t for protagonist 33.7 195.91 55.3 314.37 2.14 <.05 9 p o s i t i v e a f f e c t f o r v i c t i m 67.3 559.25 46.7 222.83 1.86 <.05 a. n = 10; X can be reproduced by EX (for each D.V.) + n b df = 18 n.s. indicates non-significant 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            data-media="{[{embed.selectedMedia}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0093787/manifest

Comment

Related Items