Two experiments were designed to test the hypothesis that moral evaluations of retaliatory harm are a direct function of the discrepancy between the observed retaliation severity and the appropriate retaliation severity (the Ought). Both severe and mild retaliation, then, would be evaluated more negatively than moderate retaliation. The first experiment manipulated the value of the Ought, and the second experiment allowed subjects to employ their own belief about it. The results of both experiments supported the hypothesis.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
1. Pepitone, A.Preliminary notes on the role of values in human aggression. Unpublished manuscript, University of Pennsylvania, 1976.
2.
Carpenter, D. , & Darley, J. M.A naive psychological analysis of counter-aggression. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 1978, 4, 68-72.
3.
Hamilton, V. L.Who is responsible? Toward a social psychology of responsibility attribution . Social Psychology, 1978, 41, 316-328.
4.
Harvey, M. D. , & Enzle, M. E.Effects of retaliation latency and provocation level on judged blameworthiness for retaliatory aggression. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 1978, 4, 579-582.
5.
Harvey, M. D. , & Rule, B. G.Moral evaluations and judgments of responsibility. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 1978, 4, 583-588.
6.
Kelly, H.Moral evaluation . American Psychologist, 1971, 26,293-300.
7.
Pepitone. A.Social psychological perspectives on crime and punishment . Journal of Social Issues, 1975, 31, 197-216.
8.
Rule, B. G. , & Duker, P.Effects of intentions and consequences on children's evaluations of aggressors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1973, 27, 184-189.
9.
Walster, E.Assignment of responsibility for an accident . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1966, 3, 73-79.
10.
Weiner, B. , & Peter, N.A cognitive-developmental analysis of achievement and moral judgments. Developmental Psychology, 1973, 9, 290-309.
