Conceptions of Aggression

Abstract

According to attributional approaches, the amount of harm perpetrated, norm violation, and intent are criteria for defining aggression and evoking an observer's evaluation of the act. The major purpose of this study was to examine whether these criteria are used to define hostile, prosocial, and accidental aggression in terms of classical defining features or a prototypic view of the concept. Participants made judgments of typicality, blameworthiness, and aggressiveness about acts in stories portraying the three types of aggression. The results supported a classical view, showing that harmful acts characterized by malevolent intent and norm violations were judged as more typical, more aggressive, and more blameworthy than harmful acts lacking either or both of these criteria. Moreover, avoidability and motive acceptability were significant predictors of evaluations (blame) of the aggression. These results have implications for attributional analyses of aggression and suggest the need for a reorientation of emphasis in moral judgment research.