ABSTRACT
Female undergraduates (N = 40) received four counteraggression strategies (0%, 10%, 50%, and 150% retaliation) in response to their aggression in a complex reaction time task. They either were or were not offered a monetary incentive to beat their opponent and were divided into those low and high in their initial predisposition to aggression. Four major findings resulted: 1) escalation of aggression to 150% retaliation supported reciprocity over contingent punishment theory. 2) Ss low in aggression were unaffected by strategies, rather than being most responsive to pacifism, as predicted. 3) Ss high in aggression reduced their aggression most to the intermediate 10% and 50% retaliation strategies. 4) An external (monetary) incentive for beating the opponent did not parallel the aggressiveness personality factor as expected. The external incentive reduced the difference between low and high aggression participants and resulted in a linear relationship between retaliation strategy and aggression reduction. This is the first study showing minimum (10%) retaliation to be more effective than pacifism (0% retaliation), but the effect occurred only among the 25% most aggressive Ss when there was no monetary incentive.
