ABSTRACT
Researchers of aggression have classically focused on what has been previously called active aggression-the deliberate infliction of harm through the direct application of deleterious consequences. However, the counterpart to this, what was originally called passive aggression, has gone understudied, and its definition has mutated beyond its original conceptualization. The present two studies (N's 196 and 220, respectively) attempted to examine passive aggression as originally defined-the deliberate withholding of behavior to ensure that a target is harmed-and renaming it aggression by omission (ABO), in contrast to aggression by commission (ABC). These studies found that both fit within a similar nomological network of antagonism, Sadism, and trait aggression. Study 2 additionally found that both were equally affected by provocation and were considered equally harmful. These findings encourage further research into ABO to capture this construct concretely, especially in the context of common paradigms (e.g., the Taylor Aggression Paradigm, Hot Sauce, Point-Subtraction Aggression Paradigm), and trait aggression scales, which typically measure ABC.
Subject(s)
Aggression , Hostility , HumansABSTRACT
In two studies, victims differed from perpetrators as to whether they viewed a transgression as motivated by a desire for revenge. When participants wrote about autobiographical episodes in which they hurt others, they were somewhat likely to report that they were motivated by revenge; when the same participants wrote about episodes in which others hurt them, they were less likely to report that the perpetrators were motivated by revenge. This asymmetry could act as a barrier to reconciliation. This asymmetry may also facilitate a cycle of revenge in that those who view themselves as the targets of unprovoked aggression (as opposed to vengeance) may be especially likely to feel that they have a score to settle.
