In three studies the amount of shock directed towards an opponent was assessed as a function of the subject's role, aggressor or advisor. Subjects when serving as aggressors (directly set shock for the target) directed less intense shock toward a nonprovocative target than when they were serving as advisors (instructed another individual to set the shock), whether vulnerable or invulnerable to attack. When the target was provocative there was no significant difference in the intensity of aggression as a function of the role change. Results were discussed in terms of vulnerability, potency of provocation, and role demands and expectations.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Gaebelein, J. W.Third party instigation of aggression: An experimental approach . Journal of Personality of Social Psychology, 1973, 27, 389-395.
2.
Gaebelein, J. W. & Hay, W. M.Third party instigation of aggression as a function of attack and vulnerability. Journal of Research in Personality, 1974, 7, 324-333.
3.
Hemphill, J. K.Why people attempt to lead. In Petrullo, L., and Bass, B. M. (Eds.), Leadership and interpersonal behavior. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, Inc., 1961.
4.
Hoffman, L. R. & Maier, N. R. F.Valence in the adoption of solution by problemsolving groups: II. Quality and acceptance as goals of leaders and members. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1967, 6, 175-182.
5.
Kilham, W. & Mann, L.Level of destructive obedience as a function of transmitter and executant roles in the Milgram obedience paradigm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1974, 29, 696-702.
6.
Taylor, S. P.Aggressive behavior and psychological arousal as a function of provocation and the tendency to inhibit aggression . Journal of Personality, 1967, 35, 297-310.
7.
Tilker, H.Socially responsible behavior as a function of observer responsibility and victim feedback . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1970, 14, 95-100.
