ABSTRACT
Studies on techniques of reducing aggression have typically examined passive, matching, and punitive strategies of counteraggression and have been remarkably inconsistent in their findings. This research was designed to resolve the contradictory results by reconceptuallzing the strategies in terms of counteraggression/aggression (cA/A) ratios. We predicted that the norm of reciprocity and the tendency to exploit weakness would make a cA/A ratio of less than but close to 1.0 (matching) most effective in reducing aggression. Ten cA/A ratios were used. One hundred male subjects set punishment level set by their opponent (a confederate) on 25 trials, and, on 13 losing trials, received punishment. The most effective cA/A ratios for reducing aggression were the lowest ones. Lower cA/A ratios reduced aggression and ratios greater than 1.0 increased aggresion. Contrary to the results of previous studies, the matching strategy was ineffective in reducing aggresion.
